Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Rushing Ukraine’s counteroffensive causes “unsustainable losses” – British think tank

By Ahmed Adel | September 7, 2023

A British think tank analysed the failures of Ukraine’s counteroffensive on September 4. According to the report, prepared by two analysts from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and cited by Newsweek, Ukrainian forces are facing enormous losses of equipment and the training provided by the West is not adapted to the type of battle they are fighting against Russia.

“Attempts at rapid breakthrough have resulted in an unsustainable rate of equipment loss,” the London-based think tank reported.

As observers explained, conclusions about the reasons for the failure of Kiev’s counteroffensive were drawn from the study of tactical actions for two weeks in the villages of Novodarovka and Rovnopol, which are located across the border between Donetsk and Zaporozhye. However, “this approach is slow” and the approximately 700–1,200 yards of progress every five days made by Ukrainian troops, was “allowing Russian forces to reset.”

RUSI calls Russia’s actions during the counteroffensive “a tactical success,” noting that the Eurasian country’s military had inflicted enough equipment losses on Ukraine early on to degrade the scope of the ordered manoeuvres.

The analysis also noted that the counteroffensive was limited by the poor training of Ukrainian soldiers, explaining that the methods taught by NATO are designed for forces with different configurations than Kiev’s troops. The report also highlights the adaptation capacity of Russian forces on the battlefield, pointing out this element as key to their success.

RUSI said that Ukraine’s counteroffensive requires fire dominance and that it was critical to ensure this advantage by properly resourcing ammunition production and spares whilst also making “preparations for winter fighting, and subsequent campaign seasons now, if [the] initiative is to be retained into 2024.”

This will obviously not come to fruition as Kiev has never had fire dominance at any point in 2023 and certainly will not now that their stocks are exhausted while Russia’s stock remains healthy.

Nonetheless, the RUSI study is the most recent international assessment that accounts for Ukraine’s failure in the conflict with Russia. European and American media and officials have admitted this failure after several months of baseless triumphalist coverage of what was happening on the ground.

The RUSI report is unique because it comes from Britain, which has a fully controlled narrative on the war, unlike even in the US, where some Republicans and certain corners of the media openly disparage Ukraine. This is one of the first major British information sources to openly and categorically acknowledge that Ukrainian forces are struggling and that Russia has achieved “tactical success.”

This disappointing result has caused Washington’s frustration with Kiev for what they consider a poor strategy on the battlefield.

It is recalled that Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky announced the replacement of Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov, who also resigned. Reznikov is embroiled in a series of corruption scandals, making Zelensky explain that the ministry needed “new approaches.”

At the same time, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu declared on September 5 that Ukrainian forces failed in all lines of operations during the three months of their counteroffensive.

“Despite the colossal losses, the Kiev regime has already been trying to carry out the so-called counteroffensive for three months. In none of the lines of operations have the Ukrainian Armed Forces achieved their objectives,” the minister said.

Ukrainian forces have lost more than 66,000 troops and 7,600 pieces of military equipment since the start of their counteroffensive, Shoigu reported. Russian air defence also shot down more than 1,000 Ukrainian drones over the last month. 159 Himars, multiple launch missiles, 13 cruise missiles, and 34 command posts of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were destroyed.

In this manner, the attrition rate is becoming increasingly rapid for Ukrainian forces. Kiev is still moving forward despite unrealistic expectations, a lack of necessary equipment and tough Russian defences. However, there are concerns that such expectations could mean Ukraine receives less support from Western countries in the future and thus put the final nail in the coffin for the counteroffensive.

This revelation comes as Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed in his recent meeting with his Turkish counterpart that he never rejected mediation proposals on Ukraine, adding that the progress of the Ukrainian counteroffensive was not a stalemate but “a failure.”

It is a widespread belief now that the counteroffensive has failed, with Kiev and London being the only strongholds contesting against this. However, as the RUSI report demonstrates, the gripping reality is slowly beginning to set in even in London.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

September 7, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Here’s why NATO isn’t able to help Ukraine win

By Ilya Kramnik | RT | September 6, 2023

More than 18 months into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, NATO military aid to Kiev remains a constituent part of the war. This factor seeps into public consciousness, influences the political perception of the conflict, and affects the situation on the battlefield, whichever side of the hostilities people find themselves on. All these aspects are important in their own right, and each will influence the course of the conflict and its eventual outcome. But how long will NATO be able to provide military assistance to Ukraine?

Gloomy prospects for Ukraine

NATO began providing assistance to Kiev as soon as the conflict started in 2022, and the volume of aid increased throughout the course of last year. This assistance largely influenced the attitude of ordinary Ukrainians toward the hostilities and reinforced the myth of a speedy and inevitable “victory” for Kiev, certain to happen because “the whole world supports us.”

The same attitude prevailed in the area of public policy – the aid provided by a particular country indicated whose side it was on: Ukraine’s “allies” in NATO (primarily the US) provided direct military assistance, while “neutral” countries offered only financial and organizational assistance, or no help at all.

On the battlefield, NATO aid is fully responsible for the combat capabilities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (UAF). If this aid is discontinued, the Ukrainian army will lose its combat capability within a few weeks, or as soon as the current ammunition stocks run out.

How likely is it that NATO assistance will continue? To answer this question, we need to understand the stocks of weapons and military equipment among members of the bloc – and it is important to note that many are lacking in this regard.

The US stands out for its available resources, and its weapons arsenal is larger than that of all other NATO countries. However, even though Washington has provided Kiev with large quantities of weapons and ammunition, it is still only supplying a relatively small share of what it has. Other countries with large weapons arsenals are Greece and Turkey. However, these stocks exist because of age-old tensions between the two countries, which limits their possible transfer to Ukraine.

In most other NATO countries, military stocks are relatively small and are intended mainly for export, particularly when the buyer is interested in used equipment which can be put to use in its existing condition or modernized.

These factors impose a limit on the volume of aid allocated to Ukraine, and are why military assistance to Kiev, which started in 2022 and peaked in early 2023, has begun to decline. It also means that unless the US starts handing over reserve military equipment, or, together with other allies, finds alternative suppliers, assistance will be cut further.

Why have things turned out this way?

NATO could have avoided this situation by increasing the production of weapons and military equipment back in 2022, and deploying additional production facilities. In this case, some progress would already have been visible by the winter of 2023-24.

However, the bloc did not have a unified vision regarding additional weapons production, which severely complicated the decision-making process. Not a single NATO politician was ready to guarantee arms manufacturing companies a steady, large-scale demand for weapons once the conflict in Ukraine ended. Moreover, even though the scale of the conflict is significant, it is in some cases insufficient to ensure the necessary demand for new weapons. Finally, it should be noted that a number of Western politicians and military leaders believed that the current military aid to Ukraine would suffice to meet the goals of 2023 – obviously, this was due to false conclusions made as a result of the battles in the Kharkov and Kherson regions in the summer-fall of 2022.

The result of these misguided conclusions has been twofold. On the one hand, Ukraine did not receive the necessary equipment and weapons to break through Russia’s well-prepared defensive lines. Indeed, we can posit that no army within NATO is currently prepared for this, and that perhaps this lack of practical and theoretical readiness prevented the bloc from realistically assessing the capabilities of Russian troops and their defensive positions.

As a result, the Ukrainian counteroffensive was launched with a clear lack of artillery, tanks, and particularly engineering equipment, despite the fact that NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Christopher Cavoli declared that Ukrainian troops were fully equipped.

On the other hand, NATO made a number of decisions and signed contracts to equip Ukrainian troops on a long-term basis. This included the transfer of missile defense systems and other weapons which, due to insufficient production capacities, will not be available for several years. Like the decision to transfer fighter jets – which hasn’t yet been publicly finalized in terms of volume and timing – these contracts were assessed by numerous experts as “post-war,” i.e. intended to compensate after the conflict for the losses sustained.

However, the unsuccessful course of the Ukrainian counteroffensive launched in July makes the full-scale implementation of these contracts and intentions uncertain. Their prospects will be even more doubtful in the event of a successful Russian offensive in the coming fall or winter.

The upcoming US elections give rise to more doubts concerning NATO’s assistance to Ukraine in the coming year, considering that the subject of military aid will come under fire from the Republicans. There is no need to exaggerate the “pro-Russian” aspect of this criticism, since some Republican politicians treat Russia pragmatically at best – but little will prevent them from publically pointing out every mistake of the Biden administration, exclusively in their own interests.

What does it all mean?

Will NATO be able to significantly increase aid to Ukraine in the near future? No. Military production is an inertial industry, and even if the decision to considerably increase the production of weapons were made tomorrow, it would take up to two years to yield any results. Considering the unfavorable public image of Ukraine’s unsuccessful counteroffensive, it may take even longer.

Interestingly, Soviet-made military equipment, or Eastern European equipment produced under a Soviet license, has turned out to be the most effective for Ukraine’s army. Soviet tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other equipment that does not require special training, maintenance, infrastructure, and ammunition can be put into battle immediately, and its combat readiness level is higher compared to Western models that need to be incorporated into the new environment.

If, back in 2022, NATO had made use of Eastern European military-industrial cooperation, which allows the production of T-72 tanks, BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles, a number of 122-152 mm artillery systems, and some other types of weapons and military equipment, this decision could have had consequences for the course of the conflict. However, this never happened, and – given the fact that the Polish defense industry is now shifting to the licensed production of South Korean-designed equipment – will likely not happen in the future. This means that for Ukraine, issues such as the insufficient supply of military equipment, the vastly different types of weapons, the shortage of ammunition, and the resulting problems with the management of troops will all remain unsolved. In such circumstances, the success of a new counteroffensive is hardly possible.

Generally, the ball – or in other words, the military-technical initiative in the conflict – is now in Russia’s court, and it depends on Russia how well this opportunity is used. It is quite likely that the initiative to transfer Western fighter jets to Ukraine will be quietly abandoned, since the AFU will no longer be able to use them. Russia knows full well that this is the case. In theory, this state of affairs should increase the willingness of the US to negotiate, although the upcoming election season will greatly complicate any potential talks.

So, unless something extraordinary happens, the West will most likely continue to support the Ukrainian armed forces to the extent necessary to continue resistance. This means Ukraine will not have enough equipment and weapons to launch a large-scale new counteroffensive unless the US decides to share its weapons arsenals. Such a decision, however, would go against US practice in recent years as well as its strategic planning, which sees China as the main rival on which to focus its financial, military, and technological resources.

Ilya Kramnik is a military analyst, expert at the Russian International Affairs Council and researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences.

September 6, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Who’s Afraid of an Alternative for Germany?

By Conor Gallagher – naked capitalism – September 4, 2023

The media describes them as far-right, anti-European Union, anti-immigrant, fascist, etc. But what exactly are the positions of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party? Why is it steadily gaining in public opinion polls, and why is the German establishment so afraid of them?

Various AfD party members have made comments in recent years that, depending on your point of view, are offensive or were blown out of proportion by the media. I’m not going to review all those here but instead wanted to look at what policies are contained in the AfD platform. The party’s “Manifesto for Germany” is a 93-page document that covers just about everything, but I want to focus here on areas that the media most frequently focus on  – immigration, the EU, and nationalism, as well as the set of positions that I would argue is the real reason for hyperventilating over AfD’s rise: foreign policy.

On the EU:

We oppose the idea to transform the European Union into a centralised federal state. We are in favour of returning the European Union to an economic union based on shared interests, and consisting of sovereign, but loosely connected nation states.…

We believe in a sovereign Germany, which guarantees the freedom and security of its citizens, promotes economic welfare, and contributes to a peaceful and prosperous Europe.

Should we not succeed with our ideas of a fundamental reform within the present framework of the European Union, we shall seek Germany‘s exit, or a democratic disso- lution of the EU, followed by the founding of a new Euro- pean economic union.…

European politics are characterised by a creeping loss of democracy. The EU has become an undemocratic entity, whose policies are determined by bureaucrats who have no democratic accountability.

On the Euro currency:

We call for an end to the Euro experiment and its orderly dissolution. Should the German Federal Parliament not agree to this demand, Germany’s continued membership of the single currency area should be put to a popular vote. …

The Euro actually jeopardises the peaceful co-existence of those European nations who are forced into sharing a common destiny by the Eurocracy. The introduction of this currency has led to resentment and confrontation amongst countries in Europe. Countries incurring economic difficulties within the single currency area are forced to restore their competitiveness by such measures as internal devaluation and associated budgetary constraints (austerity policies), rather than exploiting the tool of currency adjustments. Tensions amongst European nation states can inherently be ascribed to the Euro.

AfD doesn’t just oppose the Euro for altruistic reasons. The party also objects to any form of financial equalization between the richer and poorer euro countries and claims Germany shoulders an unfair burden in propping up the weaker members of the eurozone.

The political programme provides very little on labor policy, but AfD does want to provide financial incentives for Germans to reproduce. Here is the party on low birth rates and immigration:

In order to fight the effects of this negative demographic development, political parties currently in government support mass immigration, mainly from Islamic states, without due consideration of the needs and qualifications of the German labour market. During the past few years it has become evident that Muslim immigrants to Germany,in particular, only attain below-average levels of education, training and employment. As the birth rate is more than 1.8 children amongst immigrants, which is much higher than that of Germans, it will hasten the ethnic-cultural changes in society.

The attempt to counteract these developments by increasing the rate of immigration will inevitably lead to the estab lishment of more parallel communities, particularly inlarge cities, where integration with the native population is already a problem. The spread of conflict-laden and multiple minority communities erodes social solidarity, mutual trust, and public safety, which all are elements of a stable commu- nity. The average level of education will continue to drop.

Greater political support for parental work, as well as education and family policies which are focused on the needs of families and young couples wanting to start a family, will once again lead to birth rates at a self-sustaining rate in the medium to long-term. We regard the closing of the gap between the actual number of children being born, and the desire of 90% of young Germans to have children, as a central element of our political platform.

The document goes on for many pages about protecting the nation’s culture and how Islam is not a good fit for Germany. What exactly  is that culture?

The AfD is committed to German as the predominant culture. This culture is derived from three sources: firstly, the religious traditions of Christianity; secondly, the scientific and humanistic heritage, whose ancient roots were renewed during the period of Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment; and thirdly, Roman law, upon which our constitutional state is founded.

Islam does not belong to Germany. Its expansion and the ever-increasing number of Muslims in the country are viewed by the AfD as a danger to our state, our society, and our values. An Islam which neither respects nor refrains from being in conflict with our legal system, or that even lays claim to power as the only true religion, is incompatible with our legal system and our culture. Many Muslims live as law-abiding and well-integrated citizens amongst us, and are accepted and valued members of our society. However, the AfD demands that an end is put to the formation and increased segregation by parallel Islamic societies relying on courts with shari’a laws.

Here is the AfD immigration policy in a nutshell:

Current German and European asylum and refugee policies cannot be continued as in the past. The ill-fitting term “refugee” used for all the people who enter Germany irregularly with the aim to stay here forever, is characteristic of this misguided policy. It is necessary to make a distinction between political refugees and people fleeing from war on the one hand, and irregular migrants on the other. It is the AfD’s view that true refugees should be granted shelter as long as there is war in the countries of origin. Irregular migrants, who are not persecuted, have no right to claim protection, contrary to refugees. Once the reasons for fleeing, such as an end to wars, or political and religious persecution, no longer applies, shall residence permits of refugees be terminated. These refugees need to leave Germany. Germany and its EU partner countries should provide incentives for those who have to leave. It is in the interest of domestic and foreign peace if refugees return to their home countries and contribute to the political, economic and social reconstruction of these countries.

We advocate moderate legal immigration based on qualitative criteria where there is irrefutable demand, which can neither be satisfied from domestic resources, nor by EU immigration. The interests of Germany as a social, economic and cultural nation are paramount.

On militarization,  foreign policy and the US:

Currently, the operational readiness of the German Armed Forces is severely compromised. Due to poor political decisions and mismanagement, our armed forces have been severely neglected for over three decades. The operational readiness has to be fully restored so that the armed forces will be able to perform all their responsibilities. This is an essential prerequisite for the acceptance of Germany as an equal partner by NATO, the EU and the international community.

Membership of NATO corresponds to Germany‘s interests with regard to foreign and security policy, as long as NATO’s role remains that of a defensive alliance. The AfD believes that predictability in meeting commitments towards NATO allies is an important goal of German foreign and security policy, so that Germany can develop more political weight to shape policies, and gain influence. We advocate that any engagement of NATO must be aligned to German interests, and has to correspond to a clearly defined strategy.

Wherever German Armed Forces, as part of NATO operations, are involved beyond the borders of its Alliance partners’ territory, shall, in principle, only be carried out under a UN mandate, and only if German security interests are taken into account.

On Germany’s occupation by allied troops (i.e., the US):

… 70 years after the end of World War II, and 25 years after the end of a divided Europe, the renegotiation of the status of Allied troops in Germany should be put up for discussion. The status of Allied troops needs to be adapted to Germany’s regained sovereignty. The AfD is committed to the withdrawal of all Allied troops stationed on German soil, and in particular of their nuclear weapons.

And on Russia:

The relationship with Russia is of prime importance, because European security cannot be attained without Russia’s involvement. Therefore, we strive for a peaceful solution of conflicts in Europe, whilst respecting the interests of all parties.

Why Is AfD Surging in Popularity?

AfD is a relatively new party – it was founded in 2013. It first began to gain a foothold among disenchanted voters in East Germany during the refugee crisis in 2017, but with the onset of the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis in Germany, their support has been growing and spreading. What originally made AfD so attractive in East Germany?

According to Manès Weisskircher who researches social movements, political parties, democracy, and the far right at the Institute of Political Science, TU Dresden, AfD’s support in the East can be primarily traced to three factors:

  1. The neoliberal ‘great transformation,’ which has massively changed the eastern German economy and continues to lead to emigration and anxiety over personal economic prospects.
  2. An ongoing sense of marginalization among East Germans who feel they have never been fully integrated since reunification and resent liberal immigration policies in this context.
  3. Deep dissatisfaction with the functioning of the political system and doubt in political participation.

Recent polling contains interesting findings with regards to the AfD. It shows that 44 percent of Germans supporting the party do not have far-right views, but they are more concerned with inflation (90 percent) and immigration (87 percent) than the general public (78 and 56 percent, respectively). A whopping 78 percent of those who said they would vote for AfD said they would do so to show they were unhappy with current policies.

The rise of the AfD is rooted in the crisis of German neoliberalism, and the current war in Ukraine that accompanies it. The idea that the West would cause Russia to collapse, divide it into pieces and plunder its natural resources has spectacularly backfired.

The German economy is instead the one in a freefall. In response, Berlin continues to liberalize immigration laws to attract more foreigners with the hope it will help the economy – this despite the fact that half of German citizens would like the country to take in fewer refugees than it currently does.

A record high of 71 percent of the German public are not satisfied with the work of the federal government, according to a recent Deutschlandtrend survey. The current government is unresponsive to the concerns of working class voters. Foreign minister Annalena Baerbock famously summed up that reality last year:

The AfD is the only party in Germany making the connection between Berlin’s bellicose policy towards Moscow (and increasingly Beijing as well) and the worsening economic conditions for Germans.

The Greens, rather than examine their own failings, are blaming voters for not fully understanding their policies. They’ve launched a “charm” offensive to better explain their wisdom while simultaneously escalating their charges against the AfD. Tobias Riegel writes at NachDenkSeiten [machine translation]:

The [Green] chairman of the Europe Committee in the Bundestag, [Anton] Hofreiter, is currently warning against the AfD and has accused it of treason. He also did not rule out a ban on the party, as reported by the media . Two sentences by Hofreiter are particularly striking. On the one hand:

“You have to be aware of the incredible danger that the AfD poses to democracy and the rule of law, as well as to the prosperity of many people; that has not yet arrived in all parts of society.”

And on the other hand:

“There is also insufficient awareness of the danger that the AfD poses to our country’s external security in this difficult situation with increasingly aggressive dictatorships such as Russia and China. The AfD is predominantly a group of traitors who act not in the interests of our country but in the interests of opposing powers.”

If you swap “AfD” for “Greens” and if you swap “Russia” for “USA”, you could almost think Hofreiter is talking about himself and his leading party friends in these quotes.

Meanwhile, the country’s Left Party, which is considered a direct descendant of the Socialist Unity Party that ruled East Germany until reunification, has completely collapsed after abandoning nearly all of its platform in an attempt to appear “ready to govern.” Much like the bourgeoisie Greens, the Left increasingly stands for neoliberal, pro-war and anti-Russia policies. Former Left voters have increasingly switched to the AfD in response.

As long as the AfD is the only party in Germany willing to connect the dots between US control over German foreign policy and the increasing toll that is taking on the citizens’ standard of living, it will likely continue to attract voters.

Why Is There Such an Outcry Over AfD?

For years now, the German establishment has been throwing the kitchen sink at the AfD. There are of course allegations of Russia connections. They hate the disabled. They are extremist and must be monitored.  A former AfD representative was also  allegedly part of a coup plan involving 25 geriatrics that were inspired by QAnon and were somehow going to take over the government. Stories on the coup plot almost always focus on the AfD link and warnings that they are getting “more extreme.”

Most of these scare stories about the AfD originate from Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), which last year won the right to surveil AfD members after judges allowed the party to be branded a “suspicious entity.”

German authorities are now able to monitor and intercept mail correspondence, phone calls and online conversations. It can also limit members’ ability to get employment in the public sector and make it more difficult to obtain licenses for weapons.

(In the past, the BfV investigated members of the Left Party suspecting them of intending to replace the existing economic, political and social order with a socialist or communist system.)

Much of this seems ripped straight out of the US playbook for dealing with Trump and unruly voters in general: ignore the voters, blame the voters, and then release spooks.

The media hysteria over the AfD is reminiscent over the constant ringing of alarm bells over the election of the Italian Prime Minister and her Brothers of Italy party last year. Fascism was on the march, they declared. Well, Meloni has turned out to be a pretty run-of-the-mill corporate stooge who toes the line on the EU and NATO. Even her anti-immigrant rhetoric gave way to ensuring the arrival of a certain number in order to maintain the supply of cheap labor for Italian businesses. And the freak out over Meloni died down as soon as she proved her devotion to the EU and NATO.

Let’s not pretend that any of the concern over the AfD is due to its proposed policies regarding German culture and immigrants. It is because the party is advocating for positions that are a direct threat to Brussels and Washington. If it went forward with efforts to get Germany off the euro or boot US troops out of the country, it would collapse the whole EU-NATO system.

Despite the media and intelligence agency pressure, the AfD only seems emboldened. Beyond the party platform, AfD members have since gone further in their criticisms of the US.

Here’s Member of the European Parliament Maximilian Krah:

“It is certain that the German government was informed of the sabotage beforehand by the Americans. This is the only explanation for Scholz’s awkward silence. With the addition of a woke and irresponsible warmonger like [Foreign Minister Annalena] Baerbock, who declares that Germany is at war with Russia, nothing surprises me.

The problem is that this is tearing the German economy to pieces and significantly impoverishes Germany. Moreover, the billions spent by Germany on this gas project, which ensured us cheap energy, are lost, but the coalition which governs Germany does not care. Officially, Scholz knows nothing. Apparently, we live in a democracy.”

The AfD is also increasingly critical of Berlin’s stance towards China, which it believes is being driven by US interests and Germany’s detriment. From  Deutsche Welle :

The AfD has positioned itself in opposition to the German government’s critical policy toward China. Berlin’s China Strategy, published in mid-July, for example, was denounced by Bystron, the AfD’s foreign policy spokesperson, as the “attempt to implement green-woke ideology and US geopolitical interests under the guise of a strategy for German foreign policy.”

The description of China in the strategy as a rival — as well as a partner and competitor — was for Bystron “the consequence of the US’ confrontational course toward China. This confrontation and division are not in the interests of Germany as an export nation,” he said.

For political scientist Wolfgang Schroeder from the University of Kassel, the AfD’s foreign policy positions demonstrate an attempt to set itself apart from the other German political parties. Geopolitically, said Schroeder, the AfD sees the traditional Western ties with the United States, which it regards as hegemonic, as having past their use-by date.

“The AfD considers Washington to be more part of the problem than part of the solution to the challenges facing Germany,” he told DW. “That’s because the AfD considers the US an imperial actor whose vested interests cannot be reconciled with those of Germany.”

The AfD is essentially calling for a return to the Angela Merkel foreign policy based on Wandel durch Handel (“transformation through trade”). It relied on cheap Russian gas imports and exports to its largest trading partner, China.

There is now a central disconnect to Germany’s foreign policy and domestic policy. As Berlin follows the wishes of the US, lives for the citizens of Germany will  continue to worsen. How can Germany reconcile this?

German Chacellor Olaf Scholz’s Zeitenwende was essentially a promise to the US that Germany will from now on take up its sword in defense of US hegemony and morally superior purposes (such as Baerbock’s feminist foreign policy that aligns neatly with Washington’s enemy list) against Russia, China, Iran, and whoever else threatens the “rules-based order.”

The AfD, whether you agree or disagree with its other positions, is for now the sole German party standing against such an arrangement.

The German state’s harassment of the Left Party appears to have worked in getting it to abandon its previously “radical” goals of empowering workers, dissolving NATO and getting US troops out of Germany. We’ll have to wait and see what path the AfD takes.

September 5, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Romania Debunked Kiev’s Latest Lie Aimed At Escalating The NATO-Russian Proxy War

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | SEPTEMBER 5, 2023

CNN reported on something immensely important during their online news stream on Monday that didn’t receive anywhere near the attention that it deserved, namely that Romania debunked Kiev’s latest lie aimed at escalating the NATO-Russian proxy war. This brief news blurb here noted that Romania’s condemnation of Russia’s latest Danube River strike clarified that this didn’t pose a threat to its territory despite Kiev claiming that some of Russia’s kamikaze drones fell and exploded in that NATO country.

If there was any truth to that allegation, then it could have led to a serious crisis, yet Bucharest debunked Kiev’s claim precisely because it was a bald-faced lie similar in spirit to the one that this regime dangerously spewed ten months ago in November 2022. Back then, a Ukrainian S-300 air defense missile misfired into Poland, but neither Washington nor Warsaw bit the bait that Kiev dangled before them as was explained here and here, thus averting a potentially apocalyptic scenario to their credit.

This latest provocation followed last week’s two drone attacks against Pskov that were also assessed here to have been aimed at escalating the conflict, albeit in that case by provoking Russia into attacking NATO out of self-defense instead of the inverse. Since it failed to achieve the desired response, Kiev decided to take a page from the last year’s Polish playbook by falsely alleging that Russia once again attacked NATO, but Romania also didn’t bite the bait this time around either.

Even though none of the past week’s three provocations tricked Russia and NATO into directly attacking one another, that doesn’t mean that everything might soon de-escalate once the rainy fall weather forces an end to the failing counteroffensive. Instead of seizing the opportunity to resume talks with Russia after President Putin made it abundantly clear earlier this summer that he’s interested in compromising, Kiev is arguably preparing to perpetuate the conflict into next year.

Three sequential developments in just as many days from Saturday through Monday provide evidence of this policy. They can respectively be read here, here, and here, but will be now be summarized for the reader’s convenience since they’re relevant to the present piece. The first event on Saturday concerned the arrest of Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoysky on corruption charges despite him having previously funded Zelensky’s rise to power, which consolidated US influence over him ahead of his re-election bid.

The second took place the day later and involved Zelensky firing his Defense Minister, thereby further consolidating the US’ influence after it complained via unnamed officials who spoke to two leading media outlets that Kiev’s counteroffensive was in trouble because it didn’t follow the Pentagon’s advice. That same day, the Ukrainian leader also removed a raft of mild medical issues that hitherto exempted citizens from the draft and ordered that all medical personnel (mostly women) register for service.

Finally, Monday saw leading Polish media report about the likely possibility that Ukraine will issue international arrest warrants for the tens of thousands of its draft-dodging males in that country and perhaps eventually all across Europe too, which is aimed at replenishing its depleted armed forces. Taken together, these sequential developments compellingly prove that Kiev intends to perpetuate the proxy war after failing to escalate it, though that doesn’t mean more such provocations won’t be attempted.

This insight suggests that Kiev is pursuing a two-track policy: 1) it attempts to provoke an escalation of the conflict; but 2) it’s also preparing to perpetuate the conflict into next year if the former fails. Last November’s precedent that was set by Poland and the US after they refused to bite the bait that Kiev dangled before them likely informed Romania’s response over the weekend, which hints that NATO doesn’t want to escalate the conflict, but that doesn’t mean that the bloc is against perpetuating it.

September 5, 2023 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , , | Leave a comment

NATO may collapse by 2025 – academic

RT | September 3, 2023

The return of Donald Trump to the White House could spell the end for US military aid to Ukraine, leaving a divided Europe to foot Kiev’s bills and ultimately ending the NATO pact, academic Phillips Payson O’Brien claimed in The Atlantic on Saturday.

Opposition to arming Ukraine is now the position of Trump’s supporter base, who O’Brien estimated account for three quarters of the Republican Party’s electorate. Trump has repeatedly vowed to use military aid as leverage to force Ukraine into peace talks with Russia “within 24 hours” of his inauguration, while his two nearest competitors for the GOP’s nomination – Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy – have also discussed restricting support for Kiev.

Of the three potential candidates, Ramaswamy has gone the furthest, suggesting that the US recognize Russia’s territorial claims in Ukraine in exchange for Moscow distancing itself from Beijing.

“If Trump or one of his imitators wins the presidency in November 2024, Europe could find itself faced with a new American administration that will halt all support for Ukraine,” O’Brien warned.

In this scenario, he continued, European nations would be unable to make up for the loss of US military aid, resulting in a military defeat for Ukraine. With the US out of the picture, Europe would be divided on the issue too, he added, with the Eastern and Baltic nations eager but unable to keep the arms flowing to Kiev, and Western nations like France and Germany more likely to seek peace with Russia.

“The result could be a legacy of bitterness and distrust at best, and a permanent fracturing of European cooperation at worst,” he stated.

A fervent supporter of Ukraine, O’Brien argued that European countries need to increase military production immediately to prepare for this possibility. However, with the Eurozone entering recession in the first three months of 2023 and industrial production down in Germany, European states are unlikely to be able to sustain the Ukrainian military on their own.

O’Brien’s predictions are based on the assumption that Ukraine will still be able to fight by 2025. According to Russian figures, Kiev lost 43,000 men in the first two months of its ongoing counteroffensive, without managing to penetrate the multiple layers of trenches and fortifications laid by Russia along the entire Kherson-Donetsk front line.

Before the operation began in early June, multiple Western media reports suggested that continued US and NATO military aid to Kiev depended on the success of the offensive. Now, almost three months in, the counteroffensive is widely regarded as a failure.

September 3, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Sanctions against Russia turning Germany into ‘kamikaze’ – MP

RT | September 2, 2023

Western sanctions have failed to destabilize Russia and are now backfiring on the countries that imposed them, including Germany, Sevim Dagdelen, a German MP from the Left Party (Die Linke) wrote in an op-ed for the Berliner Zeitung published on Friday.

According to the lawmaker, Russia’s economy has successfully weathered the restrictions and is steadily adjusting to the new economic realities.

“In order to ruin Russia, it was hoped that the punitive measures that violate international law will have a long-lasting effect. But the reality is different. Even the Russian auto industry is recovering. Chinese companies are stepping in for the German manufacturers who leave Russia,” Dagdelen wrote.

“Contrary to what was hoped, Russia has not been ruined. The consequences of the sanctions are evident, but on our side. While Germany’s economy collapsed by 0.3% in the last quarter and stagnation is also threatening the Eurozone, Russia is now forecast to grow by 2.5% this year. As is often the case, a merciless idealism characteristic of the German ruling party obscures the view of reality.”

According to the lawmaker, the sanctions are strengthening Russia while the German government “is ruining domestic economy with open eyes.”

“The federal government acts here like a kamikaze pilot, replacing politics with dubious morality and is happy about a friendly nod from Washington,” she stated, noting that double-digit inflation in Germany is the product of sanctions, as well as the “ever increasing military support for Ukraine.” Dagdelen also noted that the sanctions war has prompted the largest redistribution of capital in the country, with large corporations boosting profits while ordinary German consumers suffer from a drop in real wages and a cost-of-living crisis.

The lawmaker criticized the government that “wants nothing to do with diplomacy” and urged Berlin to distance itself from Washington and NATO. She suggested closer ties with BRICS, a G7 rival economic bloc of countries that includes Russia and that will represent nearly 40% of global GDP after it officially admits new members at the beginning of next year. According to Dagdelen, Germany should “react accordingly to the new multipolarity.”

“Germany and Europe need a sovereign foreign policy that is no longer subordinate to the US and NATO. Supporting the BRICS peace initiative would be a first step towards freeing ourselves from the socially and politically fatal paternalism of the US. It would represent a step towards democratic sovereignty. No war is our war, not even this one.”

September 2, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Vivek Ramaswamy’s Plan For Ending The NATO-Russian Proxy War In Ukraine Is Pragmatic

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 31, 2023

The NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine has been trending towards a stalemate since the beginning of the year after Moscow’s growing edge in the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” ensured that it won’t be defeated. NATO is unlikely to be defeated either, however, since it’ll probably intervene directly – whether as a whole or via a Polish–led mission that draws in the bloc via Article 5 – to freeze the Line of Contact in the event that Russia achieves a breakthrough and threatens to sweep through Ukraine.

The counteroffensive’s spectacular failure and the subsequently vicious blame game between the US and Ukraine strongly suggest that talks with Russia will resume by year’s end for freezing the conflict. Ahead of that happening, these wartime allies are frenziedly trying to convince their respective people that the other is responsible for this debacle simultaneously with formulating an attractive post-conflict vision of the future. The first is served by their vicious blame game while the second will now be discussed.

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who’s now polling third after winning last week’s debate and had earlier attracted enormous media attention for his outspokenness on sensitive issues, just published his “Viable Realism & Revival Doctrine” in an article for The American Conservative. Of relevance to this piece is his plan for ending the NATO-Russian proxy war. Liberal–globalist policymakers and their media allies responded with fury, and it’s not difficult to see why.

Ramaswamy describes the conflict as a “no-win war” that’s needlessly depleted Western stockpiles to China’s benefit. With a view towards more effectively containing the People’s Republic in the Asia-Pacific, he therefore suggests extricating the US from its proxy war with Russia as soon as possible. To that end, he proposes recognizing the new ground realities in Eastern Europe, ending NATO expansion, refusing to admit Ukraine to the bloc, lifting sanctions, and having Europe shoulder the burden for its own security.

The explicit goal is to “get Putin to dump Xi”, and that’s why he says that the quid pro quo is “Russia exiting its military alliance with China.” Ramaswamy is convinced that his plan will “elevate Russia as a strategic check on China’s designs in East Asia” if it’s implemented into practice, but the problem is that no such “military alliance” exists between those two. Moreover, it’s unrealistic to imagine that the US will “get Putin to dump Xi” since they’re good friends and their countries are strategic partners.

Having clarified that, this plan does have its merits. From the Russian side, it ensures that country’s objective national security interests and gives it the chance to rely on the EU for preemptively averting potentially disproportionate economic dependence on China upon the lifting of sanctions. On the home front, Ramaswamy’s plan appeals to the pragmatic policymaking faction whose influence is on the rise as proven by the success over the summer of their policy towards India that was detailed here.

The timing couldn’t have been better. The US is looking for a “face-saving” way to resume peace talks as previously explained, and the rising influence of pragmatic policymakers could lead to them overruling the liberal-globalists’ objections to this, though their rivals could still try to sabotage this. The enormous media attention that Ramaswamy has already generated, not to mention what he’s now receiving as a result of his proposal, could reshape the national discourse on the proxy war’s endgame.

Americans are becoming fatigued with this conflict but no one had yet articulated an attractive post-conflict vision of the future until now. Irrespective of Ramaswamy’s political future, his plan serves to spark a wider conversation at all levels about the pragmatism of compromising with Russia in order to free the US up for more effectively containing China in the Asia-Pacific. This can in turn facilitate the resumption of talks with Russia, especially if it emboldens pragmatic US policymakers.

The vicious blame game between the US and Ukraine over the counteroffensive’s failure leads to the inevitable one over who’s responsible for losing this proxy war, with all of this preceding America’s formulation of an attractive post-conflict vision of the future for its people and policymakers alike. The first dynamic is continually intensifying and making more headlines by the day, while the second is also presently unfolding but mostly in silence, and it’s this dynamic that Ramaswamy’s plan contributes to.

Accepting the impossibility of Russia abandoning its mutually beneficial cooperation with China and acknowledging that lifting the sanctions likely won’t happen either, the rest of his proposals could form the parameters of a potential Russian-American deal for ending their proxy war in Ukraine. That former Soviet Republic wouldn’t join NATO, nor would that bloc expand any further, and the West would de facto recognize the new ground realities in Eastern Europe while the EU bears the burden for its security.

Russia would obviously have to agree to some regional compromises too in that scenario, such as Ukraine’s privileged post-conflict relationship with NATO and the hard security guarantees that the Anglo-American Axis will likely provide, but these could be acceptable if its other interests are met. If there’s any movement in this direction, then it shouldn’t be maliciously spun as Russia conspiring to facilitating the US’ containment of China, but seen for what it truly is: Russia putting its interests first.

August 31, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

US desire for WW3 escalates as it mulls resumption of nuclear weapons testing

By Drago Bosnic | August 31, 2023

While the troubled Biden administration keeps parroting the same narrative about the CO2 emissions, even insisting that a ban on gas stoves would “help fight global warming”, it’s also actively working on the return of the ever so “climate-friendly” live nuclear weapons testing. The Russian Foreign Ministry has been warning about this for months, although this is usually decried as “Russian disinformation” by the mainstream propaganda machine. It’s important to note that thanks to the efforts of the United States, the CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty) never entered into force and its implementation is largely dependent on the goodwill of the signatories.

“The situation involving the CTBT is causing increasing concern. The responsibility for the situation in which the treaty has not entered into force over more than a quarter of a century of its existence lies squarely with the United States, which defiantly refused to ratify it and is now demonstrating its clear intention to resume testing,” Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned back in early March, adding: “We cannot afford to remain idle spectators to what is happening. If the United States nevertheless decides to take such a step and be the first to conduct nuclear tests, we will be forced to respond proportionately. No one should have dangerous illusions that global strategic parity can be upset.”

However, it seems that’s exactly what the US is trying to accomplish. Its intention to restart nuclear weapons testing isn’t subsiding in the slightest. Quite the contrary it would seem, as the belligerent thalassocracy is now actively working on restoring and improving its nuclear test sites. Andrey Belousov, Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN and International Organizations in Geneva, stated that the US is still engaged in covert activities in Nevada, which shows that it doesn’t intend to stop testing new nuclear warheads. Belousov warned that Washington DC is working to improve and maintain the nuclear test site in a state of full operational readiness.

“The United States does not hide the development of new types of nuclear warheads, the effectiveness of which will sooner or later have to be tested in practice,” Belousov stated.

What the high-ranking Russian diplomat is most likely referring to is the so-called “nuclear super-fuse” technology that the US has been testing for decades, particularly under the Obama administration (and ever since). Investigative historian Eric Zuesse wrote extensively on the topic, warning that the sole purpose of this controversial technology is to exponentially amplify the effectiveness of America’s first-strike capabilities, meaning that the belligerent thalassocracy is contemplating a direct attack on Russia. Zuesse’s warnings are not to be discarded or ignored, as he argues that Finland’s NATO accession is a crucial part of this sinister plan.

It’s estimated that the US is planning to trap Russia by positioning its nuclear missiles about 500 miles or 7 minutes of missile-flying distance from the Kremlin. The Pentagon believes this would be a “checkmate move” as it would allow a decapitation strike on Russia’s central command so that it doesn’t have enough time to launch retaliatory missiles. The goal is to demand Russia’s surrender on the assumption there would be no way for Moscow to assess the situation within only 7 minutes and respond accordingly. The plan was set in motion no later than 2006 when the relations between Russia and the US were cordial and years before there were major tensions between them.

Namely, at the time, America’s two most prestigious national security academic journals, Foreign Affairs and National Security, both recommended replacing the idea of mutually assured destruction (MAD) with the new strategy of so-called “nuclear Primacy” that involves America’s dominance in first-strike capabilities, all in order to win a nuclear war against Russia. Zuesse argues that positioning missiles in Ukraine was supposed to be the way to achieve “nuclear primacy”, but since that’s no longer a possibility, Finland is to take the central role in this plan. It should be noted that Moscow will certainly know if the deployment of American nuclear weapons in Finland ever takes place.

This is precisely the reason why Russia has rearmed half of its ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) with maneuvering hypersonic warheads and why it has the “Perimeter” system. Namely, this system allows the Russian military to respond even in the extremely unlikely case that the entire Russian leadership is killed in a decapitation strike that Washington DC is openly contemplating at this point. Apart from its second-to-none strategic arsenal, world-class SSBNs (ballistic missile submarines) and unrivaled strategic bombers/missile carriers, Moscow has also deployed a number of “Poseidon” nuclear-tipped underwater drones that are so destructive they can cause literal radioactive tsunamis.

In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that Moscow is in the late stages of developing weapons based on new physical principles. These have been in testing for several years now. Such Russian claims are usually discarded by the mainstream propaganda machine, as the political West still believes that Moscow is supposedly “incapable” of fielding such high-tech weapons. However, Russia has been proving this notion wrong for centuries now. For instance, when Putin announced that Moscow was developing hypersonic weapons back in 2004, this was met with ridicule in the West. However, nobody was laughing when Russia inducted its first hypersonic weapons several years later.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

August 31, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Swarm of drones attacks airport in Russian city near NATO state – governor

RT | August 29, 2023

The Russian city of Pskov, near the territory of NATO members Estonia and Latvia, has come under attack by a swarm of drones in the early hours of Wednesday. The regional governor confirmed the raid, while videos showing an explosion and air defenses lighting up the night sky made rounds on social media.

The Russian military is “repelling a drone attack” on the Pskov airport, regional head Mikhail Vedernikov said on Telegram, adding he was on site “since the start of the incident.”

“Initial information says there were no casualties. We’re working to assess property damage,” Vedernikov added.

Emergency services told TASS that four Il-76 transport planes were damaged on the ground. Russian authorities have closed the airspace in the region.

According to several Russian Telegram channels, over a dozen drones have targeted the Pskov airport and the air defenses were engaging additional UAVs. Social media footage showed what looked like an explosion, accompanied by the sound of small arms fire.

The Russian outlet Readovka claimed about 15 Ukrainian drones targeted the Pskov airport and were shot down, including with small arms fire. Something appeared to have crashed or exploded at the airport, and emergency services responded to the scene. There were no reports of casualties.

The Mash Telegram channel reported that one of the drones may have struck a fuel depot and set it on fire, causing “thick black smoke” to rise above the city.

Pskov is about 700 kilometers north of Ukraine, but only 30 kilometers from the Estonian border. Latvia is about 60 kilometers southwest. Both are NATO member states. To reach the city, drones launched from Ukraine would have to fly over eastern Belarus.

Ukraine has previously sent “drone swarms” at Crimea, where they were met with dense Russian air defenses. Groups of two to three UAVs also targeted the Moscow City trade center in the Russian capital, causing minor property damage and no casualties. The Kremlin has dismissed the attacks as a “nuisance” and an act of desperation, intended to distract from Kiev’s failure on the battlefield.

August 29, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Zelensky’s Latest TV Interview Shows How Much The Conflict’s Dynamics Have Shifted

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 29, 2023

The Kyiv Post reported on Zelensky’s latest TV interview here, the highlights of which will be shared below and then analyzed in the larger context of the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine:

* Zelensky is tacitly walking back his envisaged maximalist endgame by already declaring victory

– “It’s already clear that he [Putin] has not occupied us as he wanted. We did it, [we defended against his attack], this is already a great victory for the people.”

* He’s preparing the public for freezing the conflict along the lines of the Israeli-Palestinian one

– “We are ready to fight for a long time without losing people. It can be so. Minimize casualties following Israel’s example. You can live like that.”

* Ukraine believes that it’ll lose Western support if it invades Russia’s pre-2014 territory

– “There would be a big risk that we would be definitely left alone and on our own.”

* The “Israeli model” will likely characterize US-Ukrainian ties for the indefinite future

– “From the US, we probably have the Israeli model, where there are weapons, technologies, training, and financial aid.”

* Hard and soft security guarantees are actively being pursued

– “With the United States, it will be a more powerful bilateral treaty, with Britain – a strong one. There are states that simply do not have weapons, but they have finances, serious sanctions in case of repeated aggression.”

* An official NATO intervention could trigger World War III

– “We don’t need them, because it would be a NATO war, and that would mean the Third World War.”

* Ukraine might abandon military means for reconquering Crimea

– “I believe that it’s possible to politically push for the demilitarization of Russia on the territory of the Ukrainian Crimea. That would be better. Any combat would still have losses [casualties], wherever it is. Everything must be calculated.”

* Elections can be held next year if the West foots the bill and observers are sent to the trenches

– “If you [allies] are ready to give me 5 billion because I can’t just take 5 billion from the state budget. It seems to me that this is the amount needed to hold elections at a normal time. And in wartime, I don’t know what this amount is, that’s why I said – if the US and Europe give us financial support.

I’m sorry, I’m not asking for anything. I will not hold elections on credit. I will not take money from weapons and give it for elections either. The most important thing: let’s take risks together. The observers should then be in the trenches, they will need to be sent to the front line”

* Ukraine is now allegedly producing NATO weapon systems

– “We have domestic artillery on the battlefield today, using NATO-standard 155mm shells, which have never been seen before in Ukraine. We now have production and production of not one system, but several systems.”

These highlights show how drastically the conflict’s dynamics have shifted in the nearly three months since the counteroffensive began.

The first takeaway from Zelensky’s interview is that the counteroffensive failed, which is why he’s preparing the public for freezing the conflict. This is being achieved by already declaring victory, suggesting that Crimea can be reconquered through political means instead of military ones on the pretext of saving his soldiers’ lives, and referencing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a future model. Ahead of that scenario, he wants to reassure his people that the West will still ensure their security.

To that end, he brought up the “Israeli model” as the likely way forward for US-Ukrainian relations together with a mix of hard and soft security guarantees from other NATO countries. Zelensky also appears aware of the Western public’s growing concerns that he’s leading everyone to World War III, which might be why he explicitly ruled out invading Russia’s pre-2014 territory together with denying that he has any interest in NATO formally intervening in his side’s support.

About that, it’s already involved in this conflict via the arms, intelligence, logistics, mercenary, training, and other forms of support that it’s provided to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but this is still below the level of dispatching uniformed troops to kill Russian soldiers. It also can’t be discounted that he’s worried about Poland unilaterally intervening in Western Ukraine, which readers can learn more about here and here, and that could be another reason why he warned that NATO troops could lead to World War III.

As for holding the now-delayed parliamentary elections sometime next year and not delaying the upcoming presidential ones that are scheduled for spring, this is a direct result of the pressure that Senator Lindsey Graham exerted on Zelensky during their meeting in Kiev last week. It’s the latest evidence that the failed counteroffensive is widening preexisting differences between the US and Ukraine all across the board, in this case over superficial commitments to “democracy”.

Readers can learn more about the latest difficulties in their ties by reviewing the following analyses:

* “A Vicious Blame Game Is Breaking Out After The Counteroffensive Predictably Failed”

* “US Policymakers Are Caught In A Dilemma Of Their Own Making After The Failed Counteroffensive”

* “The NYT & WSJ’s Critical Articles About Kiev’s Counteroffensive Explain Why It Failed”

In sum, both sides know that the counteroffensive failed, but neither wants to take responsibility for this.

A ceasefire of some sort therefore appears inevitable. The problem, however, is that freezing the conflict entails considerable reputational damage to the American and Ukrainian leaderships. Neither has yet to feel comfortable enough that their people fully blame the other for this debacle, hence why they remain reluctant to take the first step in what might then become a fast-moving process. It’s for this reason why they continue blaming each other and will likely continue doing so for the next few months at least.

President Putin made it clear on three occasions in mid-June that he was still interested in politically resolving the proxy war, but Zelensky’s latest claim that Ukraine is allegedly producing NATO weapon systems means that his reputation might also be damaged if he agrees to a ceasefire. After all, the special operation was partly commenced to demilitarize Ukraine and specifically eliminate the threat that NATO’s clandestine expansion there posed to Russia’s objective national security interests.

With Ukraine now openly producing NATO weapons systems, President Putin either has to ensure that these facilities are destroyed before agreeing to a ceasefire or informally freezing the conflict otherwise he stands to “lose face” among his domestic audience by tolerating this latent military threat. It might also be the case that Zelensky is just bluffing and could have lied about this just to make his Russian counterpart look bad in the event of a ceasefire, however, though nobody can really say for sure.

In any case, the Ukrainian leader’s latest TV interview drove home the point that the conflict’s dynamics have drastically shifted. Zelensky is clearly preparing his people for a ceasefire, but he’s also talking about security guarantees from NATO and his country’s alleged production of its weapon systems, both of which will rankle Russia. The US’ recent elections pressure on him is for purely soft power purposes, but it still shows that their differences on a host of issues are growing after the failed counteroffensive.

Looking forward, observers can expect the aforesaid to widen, but not to the point of rupturing their relations. The US-Ukrainian blame game will intensify during this period too as each side prepares their people for the seemingly inevitable scenario of freezing the conflict. As this is happening, Russia might also begin preparing its own people for the same, which could move the conflict towards the Israeli-Palestinian model by sometime next year unless something serious happens to derail this trajectory.

August 29, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Rabid Russophobia now mandatory in the political West

By Drago Bosnic | August 28, 2023

From the “Ghost of Kiev” and “the last stand of the Snake Island defenders” to pickle jar air defenses and the “Goat of Kiev”, there have been many mindless anti-Russian tropes aiming to present the Russians as supposedly “inferior” or at the very least “incompetent”. And yet, such claims were just laughably obvious propaganda that serves as an IQ test of sorts. In terms of actual impact, it was all largely inconsequential. However, the real issue is when these tropes become anything but a laughing matter. For instance, on August 5, Michael John Cirillo (now pretending to be a “woman” named Sarah Ashton-Cirillo), an American-born spokesperson for the Neo-Nazi junta forces, boastfully proclaimed that the Russians are “most definitely not human”.

Ever since this glorified crossdresser characterized an entire nation as “subhuman” (although it’s unclear who exactly mandated “her” to issue such proclamations), it seems this has effectively become the state policy of some Western countries. It now seems that disagreeing with Cirillo’s racist rant is a “crime” of sorts and that the witch-hunt for the “perpetrator” is a must. Namely, Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier, one of the most prominent European directors, “dared” to publicly state that “Russian lives matter also!” in an Instagram post. However, he didn’t stop there. To add “insult to injury”, he also criticized the Danish government for the delivery of US-made F-16 fighter jets to the Kiev regime forces.

Von Trier made the post almost a week ago, on August 22, but the “backlash” persists. The mainstream propaganda machine is engaged in an unrelenting witch-hunt, while the Neo-Nazi junta is “demanding” a retraction of the statement and most likely an official “apology”. Von Trier addressed his post to “Mr Zelensky and Mr Putin, and not least Mrs Frederiksen (who yesterday, like someone head over heels in love, posed in the cockpit of one of the scariest killing machines of our time, grinning from ear to ear)”. Although F-16 fighter jets are hardly “one of the scariest killing machines of our time”, they certainly have killed a lot of people in countless US/NATO illegal invasions around the world, making Von Trier’s statement rather adequate.

Still, as the pressure isn’t subsiding in the slightest, Lars von Trier was forced to “clarify” his reasoning in a follow-up post, where he stated that he supports the Kiev regime “with every beat of [his] heart”. He further added that “[he] was just stating the obvious: that all lives in this world matter! A forgotten phrase it seems, from a time when pacifism was a virtue”. Von Trier obviously didn’t get the memo that pacifism is “only a virtue” when you’re fighting “humans”. And since Russians have been “disqualified” as such, hatred and hostility towards them is “perfectly fine”. Still, the Danish filmmaker stood his ground, so he’s now accused of “hatred” (!?) and for somehow being “sympathetic to the Russian side” in the Ukrainian conflict.

Von Trier’s example is very telling. Not only is it acceptable to spew poisonous hatred at an entire nation, but it’s even “desirable” at this point. Worse yet, any attempt to present the Russian people as human is simply unacceptable in the political West. According to this “logic”, the Russians are “disqualified from life” for the sole reason of being Russian. For well over a year and a half, both individual Russians and whole teams have been banned from various sports, including paralympic competitors. This mindless hatred also extends to Russian restaurants, tea rooms, churches, trees, cats, etc. In addition, Russia’s world-class culture (including its music, operas, literature, etc.) is still being banned in Western countries.

Von Trier should probably be sent to a reeducation camp, preferably run by former high-ranking NATO general and the current Czech President Petr Pavel. He’s (in)famous for his intention to place the Russians currently living in Western countries in “Japanese-style camps”. Had Von Trier stated something like that, he would’ve received no backlash. On the contrary, he would’ve been hailed as the “hero of pacifism”. The more absurd and hateful one is towards the Russian people, the more popular and “humane” he or she is in the political West. It’s the new “chic” that “should” be followed by everyone else. Unfortunately for the belligerent power pole, the (actual) world is doing exactly the opposite. Perhaps this is the main reason why Josep Borrell characterized it as “the jungle”.

It would seem the (actual) world simply doesn’t understand this highly peculiar form of “pacifism” that applies only to those who unequivocally adhere to the “rules-based world order“. The so-called “fence sitters” are just not “civilized enough” to understand it. However, fortunately for the rest of us who are “not blessed” with living in “the garden”, our “jungle” is expanding, so we get to live our “not human” lives together.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

August 28, 2023 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Conflict in Ukraine Reveals EU Leaders’ Subordination to Washington: Ex-Italian PM

Al-Manar | August 27, 2023

NATO’s strategy for the conflict in Ukraine, based on military supplies and the logic of escalation, has failed, while the crisis itself has exposed the EU’s inability to show leadership and underlined its subordination to the US. Giuseppe Conte, former Prime Minister of Italy, now the leader of the Five Star Movement opposition political party, expressed this opinion on Saturday.

“The strategy pursued so far in NATO, based on constant military supplies to Ukraine and the logic of escalation, did not lead to a military defeat for Russia: there was no defeat of the Russian army in Bakhmut, there was no collapse [of] its military units, there was no retreat during the Ukrainian counteroffensive. The economic and financial sanctions imposed on Russia did not lead to its bankruptcy and did not bring down its economy,” Conte wrote on his Facebook page.

“The isolation of Russia has by no means become a reality. On the contrary, the 15th summit of the BRICS group has just ended with a concrete prospect of its further expansion in 2024, which will cover 45% of the world’s population and 38.2% of world GDP,” Conte went on.

According to Conte, “the conflict in the heart of old Europe has revealed the inability of the European Union to develop an effective common strategy and show independent political and economic leadership, highlighting, on the contrary, the subordination of [European] rulers to the United States.” As the former Italian prime minister noted, his party has always “been convinced of the fallacy of the desire to inflict a military defeat on the Russian Federation.”

Conte has repeatedly called for the start of peace talks on Ukraine. In particular, he said that he was in favor of a “breakthrough in the negotiation process” with the participation of the Vatican and “all other players in the international community.” The former prime minister noted that he “would not leave” President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky “the right to decide how, when and under what conditions to sit down at the negotiating table.”

The Five Star Movement has long opposed sending weapons to Ukraine. This position indirectly caused it to leave the previous ruling coalition, which led to the fall of the previous government of Mario Draghi in the summer of 2022.

August 27, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »