Hungary may still reject Sweden’s NATO membership: top Fidesz politician
Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership would have merited a wider social debate
By Laura Szalai | Mandiner | September 7, 2023
Sweden’s NATO membership is supposed to be imminent, but there are now signs that Hungary is balking at the possibility of Sweden in NATO, with the Hungarian speaker of the house, László Kövér, stating in an interview that his Fidesz party has a number of security concerns about Sweden and even Finland’s membership.
Kövér said that contrary to claims of the mainstream liberal media, Hungary is not waiting for Turkey in order to ratify Sweden’s NATO membership, and this will be a sovereign decision of the country.
“Fidesz-KDNP is a living political community, so its members may have different opinions. And many of us in the parliamentary group think it would be worth waiting for a decision. After all, a new member would be joining the military alliance with which we would need to have a fundamental relationship of trust if we are to entrust our defense to each other,” Kövér said during an interview with Mandiner while kicking off the autumn parliamentary season.
If Hungary steps back from approving Sweden’s membership, it could mark a major blow to Sweden’s NATO aspirations. Kövér said that while both the Hungarian government and Hungarian President Katalin Novak have made clear their support for Sweden’s yet-to-be-ratified NATO membership, many MPs in the ruling Fidesz coalition have reservations.
“There has been absolutely no basis for this trust in Swedish politics, especially on the left, in recent years. On the contrary, it has been in the vanguard when it comes to attacking Hungary, and I have not seen any gestures since then to show that, if they were to join NATO with our approval, they would indeed regard us as an equal ally and not as a lackey,” said the ruling party’s politician.
Kövér also said that the profound geopolitical impact of Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership should have merited a deeper debate.
“Two traditionally neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, are giving up their positions, the latter as a NATO hopeful, and stepping straight into Russia’s front line. This in itself is a development worthy of a wider, deeper debate in Hungary and in Europe. In my opinion, the accession of these two countries to the North Atlantic military alliance will in fact weaken, not strengthen, Europe’s security,” Kövér said.
Asked to expand on that thought, Kövér added:
“Because it increases the literal and metaphorical interface between Russia and NATO, which I think is not even in the interests of the Swedish and Finnish people. I would also point out that there was a referendum on accession in Hungary, whereas in Finland and Sweden, which are always trying to teach us about democracy, the people were not even consulted.
“There are subtle signs that the remaining neutral countries, Austria and even Switzerland, are under some diplomatic pressure from overseas and the EU center to rethink their position on the outside. It is therefore about something more than the security situation of two northern countries or even of Europe as a whole.”
NATO Baltic Drills: West Attempts to Show Russia it ‘Owns’ Region Despite Members’ Weakenesses
By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 07.09.2023
Saturday will see the start of NATO’s major naval drills in the Baltic Sea that are expected to involve some 30 ships and over 3,000 service members who will conduct the war games close to the Russian border. What’s the goal of these maneuvers and what signs do the drills send to Russia?
When and Where Will the Drills Take Place
As many as 14 NATO countries are due to take part in the Northern Coast 23 naval exercises that will be held on September 9-23 off Estonia and Latvia, as well as in the eastern and central areas of the Baltic Sea near the Russian border.
The drills will witness the participation of 3,000 personnel from the US, Italy, France, Finland, Estonia, Denmark, Canada, Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden.
Thirty ships and submarines, as well as up to 15 aircraft and various land units will be involved in the exercises, which have been held in the Baltics since 2007.
What’s the Main Message?
Germany’s navy chief, Vice-Admiral Jan Christian Kaack, said that during the drills, participants “will for the first time practice how to respond to a potential Russian assault in the region.”
He added that by launching the war games, NATO countries are “sending a clear message of vigilance to Russia: Not on our watch.” According to Kaack, “credible deterrence must include the ability to attack.”
“The idea of responding to a [possible] Russian attack here with a littoral (coastal waters) interoperability exercise seems to be aimed at morale building for NATO’s Baltic members, rather than the practice of an actual strategy of response to an expected Russian action somewhere in the Baltic Sea,” retired US Air Force Lt. Col and former Pentagon analyst Karen Kwiatkowski told Sputnik.
She underscored that by deciding to conduct such massive maneuvers in the area, NATO signals to Russia that the alliance is allegedly a military force that now “owns” the Baltic Sea, “mainly because it has brought on new members Finland and, soon, Sweden, and [because] the prior Baltic members of NATO, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are enthusiastically anti-Russia.”
“Yet none of these countries really have large naval forces, and like everything in Europe, the economic legacy of Germany still sustains the rest of the region,” Kwiatkowski pointed out.
Why Germany Leads Drills
The Northern Coast 23 drills will be led by the German Maritime Forces Staff from its new headquarters in Rostock, which will, in fact, become NATO’s regional command center responsible for directing operations in the Baltic Sea.
The ex-Pentagon analyst said in this vein that “this particular exercise is traditionally led by the German Navy”. According to her, the drills are the “first since the German government purchased the MV Werften shipyard, with an aim at converting it from a private ship-building enterprise to a large naval arsenal and expanded HQ.”
“Part of the upgrade of the German Navy and justification for the unprecedented German state purchase of a commercial ship manufacturer that failed (with the collapse of the cruise ship industry during the government-demanded lockdowns), was the conflict in Ukraine,” Kwiatkowski added.
Dwelling on Germany’s push to expand its Baltic clout, she said that German government spending in this region, and the militarization thereof, “may also seem logical” since the US-led Western neoconservatives seek increased domestic political control in the future.
Northern Coast 23 Drills and Regional Security
Notably, the Northern Coast 23 exercises come several months after Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna called the Baltic Sea a “NATO lake” in connection with Finland entering the alliance in April. As he explained in an interview with Newsweek, this NATO expansion is “extremely important” and a strategic game changer.
Kwiatkowski suggested that “the Western and US messages that the ‘Baltic Sea is a NATO lake’ will continue to be sent – as it has been done for the Black Sea, the Straits of Taiwan, and the South China Sea – with much the same impact.”
“Western bullying, even as its financial and military empire wanes and weakens, tends to be poorly received by the targets of that bullying, and the threats may increasingly ring empty and thus not have the desired effect,” she pointed out.
When asked what impact the upcoming NATO naval maneuvers will have on the security system in the Baltic Sea region, the former Pentagon analyst made it clear all this will depend on the alliance’s next steps.
“More practice with interoperability, growing familiarity with the littoral region, and the various naval and communication capabilities of these NATO countries [which take part in the drills] will tend to lead to more exercises of this sort, and enthuse the smaller Baltic members to spend more of their own budget on such activities,” Kwiatkowski said.
She added that it’s safe to assume that “the neoconservative foreign policy advocates and their military-industrial backers in Washington have a strategy and believe that threats and tweaks in their alliances will produce a specific outcome or response in line with that strategy.”
“I suspect the main response intended is to increase military and surveillance spending by all NATO members, in order to better control their own populations and domestic threats to their elite rule, and to some extent this is working. However, because the neoconservatives do not accurately perceive the strategies and goals of their selected enemies – Russia, and China – their own actions to shape the behavior of those competitors are inappropriate, and ineffective,” the analyst noted.
Kwiatkowski suggested that in “any serious east-west rivalry that might take place in the Baltic anytime soon, littoral operations will be limited to those related to emergency and evacuation.”
Сould Russia Be Affected?
It’s worth recalling in this vein that Russia has its own Baltic Fleet, headquartered in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, with ships’ crews typically observing Western naval exercises in the area from a distance. Russia last staged its own Baltic naval drills in early August 2023.
As for the forthcoming NATO naval exercises, they come amid the West’s frustration over Kiev’s “slower than expected” counteroffensive against Russian troops in Ukraine, which was described by Russian President Vladimir Putin as “a failure, not a stalemate.”
When asked what consequences could arise from the possible provocations and tensions created by the Northern Coast 23 drills and what the risks for NATO conducting exercises close to Russia are, Kwiatkowski stressed that “Any military operation or exercise poses risks of accidents, mistakes, miscommunication, confusion, and internal hijack or errors.”
“The more complex and less habitual the exercise, the bigger the risk. Combined with the hostile political leadership and possible agendas among the NATO countries at the heart of this exercise, and the presence of Kaliningrad nearby, as well as unpredictable activity from increasingly demoralized and angry Kiev politicians and activists, makes this exercise one to watch closely,” the analyst underlined.
Separately, Kwiatkowski added without elaborating that “close active contact between military forces, with possible surveillance and disruption of communications from both sides, misunderstandings, and accidents have caused problems between the Russian, Chinese and Western governments”, something that she said should be “resolved diplomatically”.
She expressed hope that “all sides will be careful, but added that “any objective person looking at military readiness and capability of a military response in the region, recognizes that it is Russia, and then the United States, who will decide how military emergencies are handled in this region.”
“The US president is for the most part a vacant shell, and it is not clear how important, time-critical decisions are being made in Washington, and who is making them. This, and the increasing desperation of those who do not wish to see a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine war, is worrisome,” the analyst concluded.
Poland’s Top Military Official Accidentally Discredited NATO On Several Counts
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces General Rajmund Andrzejczak spoke at the Karpacz Economic Forum in southwestern Poland earlier this week about the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, during which time he shared some very interesting information that was reported on by The Guardian. The present piece will highlight the most important parts prior to explaining how they accidentally discredited NATO on several counts.
———-
* Poland speculates that China might tacitly approve North Korean arms shipments to Russia
– “I don’t believe North Korea is strong enough or so free to make such an offer, so maybe it is testing our determination, attention and political will, but what is even more important is what China says about this than the North Korean leadership.”
* Warsaw is worried that Moscow might meddle in the upcoming elections on 15 October
– “Andrzejczak also predicted that Russia would try to create a crisis in next month’s Polish election but gave no details in public. He warned that Russia was on a permanent war footing and was ‘very much active in Poland, looking for some gaps in the system, trying to interfere in the media’.”
* The NATO-Russian proxy war is viewed by Poland as part of a civilizational competition with China
– “Andrzejczak also warned that if Ukraine lost the war and Belarus went further into Russia’s orbit, Poland would find that limiting defence spending to 5% of its gross domestic product and a standing army of 300,000-strong would not be enough. ‘If we lose credibility as Nato, as a civilisation, China is watching, so this is a big game,’ he said.”
* Andrzejczak wants NATO to proactively engage in nuclear saber-rattling against Russia
– “Nato is a nuclear treaty organisation; it should be much more proactive and stronger to the Russians. In the 70s and 80s, 30% of B-52 bombers were flying permanently and had nuclear weapons with pilots ready to act. Today we have a challenge to say the word B61 [the primary US thermonuclear gravity bomb], so let us change narratives.”
* He’s also upset that the bloc ignored his government’s request to host US nuclear weapons
– “He said there had been complete silence since Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda, asked to join Nato’s nuclear sharing programme owing to the deployment of Russian nuclear missiles to Belarus.”
* Poland lacks confidence that NATO would react to a hypothetical attack from Wagner
– “He asked: ‘Who is the Wagner group today? Is it a national action by Russia or, as the Russian minister of defence says, just a private military company? Is it enough for Article 5?’”
———-
From the above, it’s clear that Andrzejczak is doubling down on the ruling “Law & Justice” (PiS) party’s national security focus that forms the crux of its re-election platform, but he’s arguably going too far. For example, reframing the NATO-Russian proxy war as part of a civilizational competition with China implies that Poland is indirectly fighting the People’s Republic via its military assistance to Kiev, which isn’t true. Spewing this false narrative, however, is likely an attempt to rally PiS’ conservative-nationalist base.
That party and its supporters believe that Poland has historically functioned as the West’s bulwark for protecting their shared civilization from what they depict as “Eastern barbarians”. PiS taps into that interpretation to justify its diehard opposition to everything Russia-related, but now the country’s top military official unexpectedly added an anti-Chinese twist to this shortly before the next elections. Andrzejczak’s hyperbole thus suggests that PiS doesn’t think Russophobia is enough to win re-election.
He himself is also channeling that sentiment by fearmongering about an alleged Kremlin meddling plot sometime around the vote, most probably for the purpose of preemptively discrediting the opposition if they perform better than expected, but it’s clearly not sufficient as evidenced by his tacit Sinophobia. In an attempt to artificially manufacture a sense of utmost urgency, Andrzejczak crossed an informal red line in Polish politics by hinting that NATO isn’t reliable, nor is its American leader either by extension.
He did this by complaining about the bloc ignoring his country’s nuclear-sharing request and then publicly questioning the sacrosanctity of Article 5 in the hypothetical event of a Wagner attack. The first is attributable to NATO’s reluctance thus far to escalate its security dilemma with Russia to potentially uncontrollable proportions while the second is based on a scenario debunked by the New York Times. Andrzejczak knows the truth about both, yet he’s still shamelessly manipulating the public’s perceptions.
The preceding point reinforces suspicions that he exploited his authority as Poland’s top military official to informally campaign for the ruling party during his latest remarks about the NATO-Russian proxy war by hyping up security threats and therefore betrayed his oath to be purely apolitical. In his passion to help them win re-election, he went too far by implying that NATO isn’t doing enough to stop the Sino–Russo Entente and suggesting that Article 5 isn’t sacrosanct, thus likely angering its US leader.
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.
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.
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:
- The neoliberal ‘great transformation,’ which has massively changed the eastern German economy and continues to lead to emigration and anxiety over personal economic prospects.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Featured Video
HE SAVED LIVES. NOW HE FACES PRISON.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
NATO Sanctions and the Coming Global Diesel Fuel Disaster
By F. William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 11.04.2022
Amid the ongoing global inflation crisis, NATO heads of state and mainstream media repeat a mantra that high energy prices are a direct result of Putin’s actions in Ukraine since end of February. The reality is that it is the western sanctions that are responsible. Those sanctions including cutting SWIFT interbank access for key Russian banks and some of the most severe sanctions ever imposed, are hardly having an impact on the military actions in Ukraine. What many overlook is the fact that they are increasingly impacting the economies of the West, especially the EU and USA. A closer look at the state of the global supply of diesel fuel is alarming. But Western sanctions planners at the US Treasury and the EU know fully well what they are doing. And it bodes ill for the world economy.
While most of us rarely think about diesel fuel as anything other than a pollutant, in fact it is essential to the entire world economy in a way few energy sources are. The director general of Fuels Europe, part of the European Petroleum Refiners Association, stated recently, “… there is a clear link between diesel and GDP, because almost everything that goes into and out of a factory goes using diesel.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Trita Parsi: Middle East Unraveling — Are We on the Path to World War?
- Iran FM meets with US envoy on UN meeting’s sidelines at American side’s insistence: Report
- Qatar PM calls for Gulf security framework with Iran, says war must be ‘wake-up call’
- China condemns US extortion of Iranian airlines, rejects Washington’s ‘illegal’ sanctions threats
- Italy to move military personnel from Taif base after missile strike
- Finland’s Stubb tells European leaders to calm down
- Defeating Russia on battlefield impossible – Fico
- Finland’s Gender Clinic Reversal
- Massachusetts Wants Mental Health Visits, Why Does Government Use ‘Health’ to Enter Our Homes & Families?
- US lawmaker admits American people footing bill for Trump’s failed aggression against Iran
- If Americans Knew
- Sanctions are collective punishment: immoral and self-defeating
- Phosphorus Munitions Fired by Israel Burn Groves, Orchards in Southern Lebanon
- Israel Carries Out New Ceasefire Violations Across Gaza
- AI – Emphasis on the ‘I’: Israel Is Funding AI Chatbot Propaganda
- Israel Blocking Hundreds of Wheelchairs for Injured Children From Entering Gaza
- Israel Is Expanding and Upgrading Compounds for Palestinian Militias in Gaza
- The Palestinian-American Residents of This West Bank Town Are Wondering: Where Is Trump?
- Gaza desperately needs tents, wheelchairs, fuel… and everything else (Israel blocks it all) – Daily Update
- Israeli Attacks in Gaza Kill at Least Seven Palestinians Over Three Days, including Woman and Child
- Trump’s militarization of Washington DC as he pursues Israel’s war against Iran
- No Tricks Zone
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
