Aletho News


Putin Takes 2 Doses in 2 Days, Fumbles the Story, and NOBODY Has Any Questions

By Edward Slavsquat | November 29, 2021

Your humble Moscow correspondent recently reported on Vladimir Putin’s mystifying tale about receiving an intranasal COVID vaccine as part of a clinical trial. As you might recall, Russia’s president claimed he inhaled some kind of virus-murdering powder via a syringe. But the drug he allegedly took is actually a liquid nasal spray. No powder was involved. We thought it was funny that Putin said something so insane and made jokes alluding to illicit drug usage.

It’s still funny; but after thinking more about it, and not just typing cocaine jokes, we came to the conclusion that this is a Real Story and if the lamestream media (including Russia’s completely castrated “opposition” press) weren’t such pathetic vax-peddling Big Pharma boot-lickers, it would probably be frontpage news everywhere. It would probably be called Powdergate and it would probably have its own Wikipedia page.

Please, allow us to explain our thought process. If you think we are overreacting, tell us in the Comments Section.

Hardcore double-dose makes Putin QUADRUPLE-VAXXED!

Putin’s nose-dose was allegedly administered just one day after he was injected with a Sputnik Light booster shot. The Russian prez was already fully vaxxed (he received his second dose in April, although at the time the Kremlin was mum on which vaccine was used), which means Putin has been given four doses of Sputnik in less than a year. FOUR! That’s a lot. Putin is almost as gigavaxxed as Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who claims he injected himself with six COVID serums.

Zhirinovsky is a bumbling lunatic—nobody would care if six COVID shots caused him to grow another arm. But Vladimir Putin is literally the president of the Russian Federation. He’s kind of a big deal! Why are Russian scientists using the most consequential person in Russia as a guinea pig? Even if you firmly believe Sputnik V is “safe and effective,” surely it is unwise to repeatedly inject your president with new doses of an experimental drug? It’s a very weird thing to do. Maybe this is part of Russia’s “hybrid warfare” doctrine?

Please remember, despite trying to convince you otherwise: there is zero long-term safety data for Sputnik V (unless you count “six months” as long-term?). Expedited Phase III trials for normal, two-dose Sputnik V haven’t even finished yet. Think about what that means.

Putin can’t wait for the science to catch up

But here’s Vladimir Putin, with four doses of Sputnik now running through his veins. Do people understand the issue here?

Isn’t this a bit… irresponsible? There are many incendiary adjectives we could use to describe Putin’s purported vaccination status, actually.

Why would you even need a fourth dose? Does the booster shot suck that bad?

Sputnik Light is the first component of Sputnik V. The nasal spray is the second componentTypically, you’re supposed to wait 21 days (minimum) between reloading on Sputnik V.

Putin went on a serious vax binge, guzzling down two doses in two days! Someone take away his car keys.

Powdergate: revisited

Do people fully appreciate how hilarious Putin’s “powder” story really is? It was so bizarre and nonsensical that RBC—quite a serious, straight-laced Russian news outlet—suggested Putin had not even been given the nasal spray, but rather a VIP mystery powder administered in the “same way” as the liquid drug he was supposed to be testing.

“Putin received the vaccine in the form of a powder… so far this drug is not widely used… The President explained that the preparation in powder form is taken in the same way as a nasal spray,” RBC reported on November 24, after Putin said the drug was a powder, while emphasizing it had not been administered in a liquid form.

A few hours later, RBC reported the clarification from Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov:

“The President meant that we are talking about a liquid. This is a nasal vaccine in which he took part in the trials,” said Peskov.

Can anyone make sense of this madness? How did Putin screw up the basic facts here so badly?

This is a Joe Biden-level brain malfunction. Which brings us to our next point…

Imagine if Joe Biden had been “corrected” after blabbering about magic vax powder

Thought experiment: replace Putin with Biden, Peskov with Psaki. This story would have been everywhere. It would have completely broken Twitter. The hashtags and memes alone would have been history-making.

95% of “indy media” would have basically imploded, shouting about how this was proof of a massive vax hoax. would be working overtime telling everyone how racist they were for suggesting there was anything fishy about Biden getting a fourth vaccine dose and referring to it as a powder.

Guys, just think about it. Let’s be honest here.

Total impunity for the Kremlin vax clowns?

We’re not claiming anything, by the way! We’re just making observations. The problem is that almost nobody is making observations.

The Kremlin could probably announce Putin undergoes daily Sputnik intravenous therapy (Sputnik IV, get it? ha-ha), and every single media outlet on earth would nod and clap. Only an apostate would dare to question whether it made any sense at all.

The vax is sacred. You do not question the vax or anyone who takes it or promotes it. The vax is life. The vax is love.

Israel Shamir touched on this very weird phenomenon in an article from July:

The Mandatory Vaxx Regime brings new conspirators (like Alexei Navalny, the Russian Guaido presently in jail for swindling) and old school Kremlin propagandists into a rare (and suspicious) agreement. Now they all excrete New York mainstream media.

No one is willing to ask even the most basic questions. It’s a total orgy of non-stop lying in Russia right now (just like it is everywhere else), and not a single media outlet is willing to step up to the plate and say: “just one moment, does any of this make sense?”

We can’t even rely on Russia’s so-called “Kremlin-hating, corruption fighting” western-funded “liberal” press. Meduza published a one-sentence bullet point about Powdergate, while the Moscow Times seemed entirely satisfied with Peskov’s non-explanation explanation. These people are truly pathetic. They are just horrible!

Shame! Shame! Shame!

So what’s the takeaway?

If you hope to survive the next few years—which will feature daily Powdergates, sometimes thousands of Powdergates, back to back, over the course of several hours—you will have to adopt a transcendental Zen-like state, like this monkey who has made peace with the world:

December 1, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 4 Comments

Arctic River Discharge Growing


By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | November 30, 2021

AMHERST, Mass. — A civil and environmental engineering researcher at the University of Massachusetts Amherst has, for the first time, assimilated satellite information into on-site river measurements and hydrologic models to calculate the past 35 years of river discharge in the entire pan-Arctic region. The research reveals, with unprecedented accuracy, that the acceleration of water pouring into the Arctic Ocean could be three times higher than previously thought.

The publicly available study, published recently in Nature Communications, is the result of three years of intensive work by research assistant professor Dongmei Feng, the first and corresponding author on the paper. The unprecedented research assimilates 9.18 million river discharge estimates made from 155,710 orbital satellite images into hydrologic model simulations of 486,493 Arctic river reaches from 1984-2018. The project and the paper are called RADR (Remotely-sensed Arctic Discharge Reanalysis) and was funded by NASA and National Science Foundation programs for early career researchers.

Figure 2

The key thing about this study is not that river flows are greater than previously estimated, but that they have increased over the period of the study, 1984-2018:

This is significant because it means the Arctic Ocean is gradually becoming fresher. Exactly the same phenomenon occurred during what was called The Great Salinity Anomaly, GSA, which began in the 1960s. As Dickson & Osterhus described in their study, One Hundred Years in the Norwegian Sea in 2007:

Though other factors were involved in the freshening of the Arctic Ocean, such as the NAO, the GSA marked a dramatic shift in the Arctic climate, putting an end to what is known as the Warming of the North between 1920 and 1960 and bringing a much colder era.

Part of the reason for this is the fact that freshwater freezes at higher temperatures than salty water, leading to an increase in sea ice. The GSA is also known to have slowed down the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC).

HH Lamb also wrote about it, particularly how the GSA was triggered by greater run off from rivers in Canada flowing into the Arctic:

HH Lamb: Climate, History & The Modern World

And a Russian study by Viktor Kuzin shows that 11% of the world’s river water flows into the Arctic, a considerable amount.


A milder Arctic tends to be a wetter one, but a wetter climate leads to freshening of the ocean and a return to colder conditions. In other words, it is cyclical.

All of this reinforces the likelihood that the Arctic will become much colder, with sea ice expanding again in the not too distant future.

November 30, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 2 Comments

Why Washington’s ‘Russian Invasion’ Scare is Cover for Kiev’s New Offensive Against Donbass

Reservists of the 130th battalion of the Ukrainian Territorial Defence Forces attend military exercises on outskirts of Kyiv, Ukraine April 10, 2021. - Sputnik International, 1920, 27.11.2021

By Ekaterina Blinova | Sputnik | November 27, 2021

Washington is bracing for an “imminent invasion” of Ukraine by Russia: former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul has released a series of tweets claiming that Ukrainian civilians will fight to the bitter end against Russian “occupiers”. For his part, Hollywood star Sean Penn arrived in Ukraine to film a documentary about “Russian aggression”, being photographed in combat gear and a helmet as he visited Ukrainian troops in the Donetsk region last week.

While peddling the “Ukraine invasion” story, the Western media nevertheless admit that they have no idea of Russia’s genuine intentions. Thus, Bloomberg claimed on 21 November that a 100,000-strong Russian contingent is preparing “a rapid, large-scale push into Ukraine from multiple locations”, adding below that “America and others are not saying a war is certain, or even that they know for sure Putin is serious about one”. Similarly, acknowledges that it’s unclear whether the troop concentration in Russia’s western regions really “heralds an imminent attack” against Ukraine. Moscow has consistently rejected the US allegations, with Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov denouncing them as “artificial hysteria”.

Why ‘Russian Invasion’ Hysteria Doesn’t Hold Water

“This is hardly the first such ‘Russian invasion’ scare in the Western media”, says Mark Sleboda, a US military veteran and international affairs and security analyst. “The last such one was back in March/April of this year, but similar scare-mongering has occurred on a regular basis for the last 6 years”.

The military veteran emphasises that there is no threat of an “imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine”. He explains that Ukraine is a country of some 40 million people with armed forces in excess of 250,000 strong, which means that “any substantial Russian military intervention in Ukraine would require an amassed force of some 300,000-500,000 troops just to start”. However, Western media reports are talking about a Russian buildup of forces “somewhere near Ukrainian borders (or at least closer to Ukrainian borders than to China’s borders) of some 90,000 Russian troops”.

“Careful observers will note that this is approximately the same number of Russian troops that have been in the vicinity of the Ukrainian border since the US-backed Maidan Putsch overthrew the democratically elected government in Kiev in 2014 and began a civil conflict to subjugate east Ukraine to that seizure of power”, the security analyst says.

Moreover, in the wake of the US media fuss, the Kiev regime’s military, state border service, and Sergei Nikiforov, the spokesman for President Zelenskiy, have denied any Russian military buildup on the country’s borders in the last month, Sleboda notes.

Meanwhile, EU participants of the Normandy Four, France and Germany, have not only failed to pressure the Ukrainian leadership to begin discussions with the breakaway Donbass republics under the Minsk Accords, but have repeated unsubstantiated claims of a potential Russian “invasion” of Ukraine and warned Moscow of “serious consequences”.

Sleboda notes that at the same time, the US and its NATO allies have recently stepped up the delivery of lethal arms to Kiev. The US and the UK are currently assisting Kiev in the construction of new military bases on the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, pledging to send more military “advisers” and special forces to the East European state. For its part, the Pentagon has revived discussions of Ukraine’s admission to NATO.

It’s hardly surprising that Moscow regards the actions by the US and its European NATO allies as an effort to destabilise the region, torpedo the Minsk Agreements, and turn Ukraine into a de facto NATO protectorate and forward military post against Russia, according to the US military veteran.

NATO Buildup in Ukraine May Lead to Undesired Results

NATO’s recent joint military games in close proximity to Russia’s borders as well as earlier instances of the alliance violating the county’s territorial waters in the Black Sea, are only adding to Moscow’s concerns.

Apart from this, 10 US strategic bombers rehearsed the option of using nuclear weapons against Russia almost simultaneously from the Western and Eastern directions during the Global Thunder drills, according to Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu. The defence minister highlighted on 23 November that the US planes had come within 20 km (12.4 miles) of the Russian border. In the course of the drills, US strategic aviation conducted 30 flights over the month, which is 2.5 times more than the same period last year, Shoigu said.

According to Sleboda, “the obvious intent of this malign and frankly insane ‘Dr Strangelove-esque’ sabre-rattling is to cow Russia into submission to US global military primacy and hegemony and to force the Kremlin to back down and give in to US demands in such geopolitical hotspots as Ukraine and Syria”.

Moreover, they are apparently trying to make the Russian government reconsider the strong and growing strategic partnership that Russia has with China, the security analyst notes. However, the continual abysmal state of “Russian expert” analysis in Washington “will of course only lead to the exact opposite reaction by the Russian state – ever more resolute defiance and alliance with China“, he suggests.

Thus, during a Tuesday video conversation, Russian Defence Minister Shoigu and his Chinese counterpart Wei Fenghe emphasised that the US’ provocative behaviour poses a military threat to both Moscow and Beijing and agreed to intensify joint strategic exercises and patrols.

Kiev’s Potential Offensive Against Donbass

The security analyst notes that this particularly includes “the Kiev regime troop buildup on the contact line”; “increased shelling of civilian areas and infrastructure in Donbass”; “the seizure of a settlement in the demilitarised zone between the two warring Ukrainian forces”; “and an air attack on Donetsk by the Kiev regime with a Turkish-built TB-2 Bayraktar combat drone.”

The circulation of the fake news about the “Russian invasion” of Ukraine in the US media is part of Washington’s plan to push Kiev to reinvigorate the military conflict in Donbass, according to Sergei Naryshkin, director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). Speaking to the Rossiya One broadcaster on 27 November, the Russian intelligence chief said that the US is intentionally feeding its allies with false information about Russia’s preparations for military action in Ukraine.

While the US is trying to fan the military standoff in Donbass, Sleboda doubts that the US-backed Kiev regime “truly believes that it can subjugate the Donbass in east Ukraine”:

“The goal of any Kiev regime military provocation in Donbass would be to spur lagging Western political, military, and economic support and to try once again to get the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline – which would deprive Kiev of billions of dollars of subsidisation by Russia every year in gas transit fees – killed by the new German government. Call it a tantrum and desperate cry for Western attention by a spoiled Kiev client state”, the security analyst suggests.

However, “considering the exploding political, energy, economic, and pandemic crises in the country, with Zelenskiy’s approval rating plummeting to 24%”, the Donbass offensive scenario is a “very realistic risk and possibility that could be launched by Kiev, despite the potential consequences”, Sleboda concludes.

November 27, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | 1 Comment

Space: The U.S. Has Questions for Russia, Which Has More for the U.S.

By Vladimir Kozin – Member, Russian Academy of Military Sciences, Moscow, November 22, 2021

On November 15, 2021, the Russian Ministry of Defense carried out the successful destruction of the discontinued and decommissioned national spacecraft named “Tselina-D”, which was put into orbit back in 1982. The head of the Russian Defense Ministry, Sergei Shoigu, confirmed that the Russian Aerospace Forces had indeed successfully destroyed this satellite with pinpoint accuracy.

The fragments formed after knocking down this spacecraft do not pose any threat to either orbital stations or other satellites, or generally speaking to the space activities of any state. This is well known to all space powers that have fairly effective national technical means of verification and control of outer space, including the USA.

After the destruction of the named satellite, its fragments moved along trajectories outside the orbits of other operating space vehicles, have been under constant observation and monitoring from the Russian side and are included in the main catalogue of the space activities.

Prediction of any possible dangerous situations calculated after each orbital movement over the Earth has been made in connection with the accompanied debris and newly discovered fragments after the destruction of the “Tselina-D” satellite with operating spacecraft and the International Space Station or ISS “Mir”. The Russian Ministry of Defense reported that the ISS orbit is 40-60 km below the fragments of the destroyed “Tselina-D” satellite and there is no threat to this station. According to the results of the calculation of any possible threats, there are no approaches to it in the near future.

Earlier, Anthony Blinken, the U.S. Secretary of State, said that Russia’s test of an anti-satellite system used in this case jeopardized the safety of space research.

Moscow corrected his untenable judgment. “This event was carried out in strict accordance with international law, including the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and was not directed against anyone,” the Russian Foreign Ministry official spokesperson said. Russian Foreign Ministry also repeated that the fragments formed as a result of the test do not pose a threat and do not interfere with the functioning of orbital stations, spacecraft, as well as the entire space activities in general.

Washington has clearly forgotten that Russia is not the first country to hold such actions. The United States, China, and India have the capabilities to destroy spacecraft in space, having previously successfully tested their own anti-satellite assets versus their own satellites.

Precedents of destruction

They were announced by the named states at the relevant time.

In January 2007, the PRC conducted a test of a ground-based anti-missile system, during which the old Chinese meteorological satellite “Fengyun” was destroyed. This test led to the formation of a large amount of space debris. It should be noted that on November 10 of this year, the ISS orbit was corrected in order to avoid the wreckage of this Chinese satellite.

In February 2008, with the interceptor missile of the United States sea-based missile defense system “Standard-3”, the American side destroyed its “USA-193” reconnaissance satellite that had lost control at an altitude of about 247 km. The launch of the interceptor missile was carried out from the Hawaiian Islands area from the U.S. Navy cruiser Lake Erie, equipped with the Aegis combat information and control system.

In March 2019, India also successfully tested an anti-satellite weapon. The defeat of the “Microsat” satellite was carried out by the upgraded “Pdv” interceptor.

Earlier, the USSR has called, and now Russia has been calling for space powers for decades to legally consolidate at the international level a ban on the militarization of outer space by preventing an arms race in it and refusing to deploy any strike weapons in it.

In 1977-1978, the Soviet Union held official negotiations with the United States on anti-satellite systems. But as soon as the American delegation heard about Moscow’s desire to identify potential types of hostile activities in space that should be banned, including similar systems in question, it initiatively interrupted them after the fourth round of talks and decided not to participate in such a negotiation process anymore.

A fundamentally important clarification: since that time, Washington has not held and does not intend to hold such negotiations with any state in the world.

Moreover, the updated draft of an international treaty on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space proposed by Moscow and Beijing is regularly blocked by Washington at the UN and at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Back in 2004, Russia unilaterally committed itself not to be the first to deploy weapons in space, and in 2005, a similar commitment was made by the Collective Security Treaty Organization member states involving a number of nations of the former USSR.

In total, since the beginning of the space age, which began with the launch of the first artificial satellite called “Sputnik” by the Soviet Union in October 1957, Moscow has jointly or independently put forward about 20 different initiatives in the international arena to prevent an arms race in outer space.

Alas, all of them were successfully blocked by the United States and its NATO partners. Anthony Blinken seems to have forgotten about it.

Washington also ignores the recognition of the American Center for Strategic and International Studies, located in the American capital, whose report in April 2018 recognized that “the United States remains a leader in the use of space for military purposes.”

Against this background, Russia is implementing a purposeful and adequate policy to strengthen the country’s defense capability, including in the space sphere, taking into account, among other things, many additional circumstances.

X-37B with specific tasks

What are they? Russia takes into account that the United States is taking concrete practical steps to steadily increase its combat strike space potential.

Work is actively underway to create a space-based missile defense network, develop and operate systems with ground-based, sea-based and air-based interceptor missiles, electronic warfare, directed energy weapons, including testing an unmanned reusable space shuttle X-37B, which has a spacious cargo compartment on board. It is claimed that such a platform is capable of carrying a payload of up to 900 kg.

It is currently carrying out its sixth long-duration orbital flight. His space brother, who made his fifth flight in space in 2017-2019, continuously flew in spacet for 780 days.

Officially, the United States claims that this unmanned spacecraft performs the tasks of running-in technologies of reusable space platforms. At the same time, initially, when the X-37B was first launched in 2010, it was indicated that its main function would be the delivery of certain “cargo” into orbit. Only it was not explained: what kind of cargo? However, all these messages are just a legend to cover up military tasks that this device has been performed in space.

On the basis of the existing military-strategic space doctrines, specific tasks are prescribed for the U.S. intelligence community and the Pentagon.

Among them are made as conducting operations in space, from space and through it to contain conflicts, and in case of failure of deterrence – to defeat any aggressor, as well as ensuring the protection and preservation of vital interests of the United States together with allies and partners. It is obvious that in order to carry out such operations, the Pentagon will need special reusable platforms in space, which indicates a promising process of its further militarization by the Pentagon without any restrictions.

According to some military experts, the plausible purpose of this device is to test technologies for a future space interception, which allows inspecting alien space objects and, if necessary, disabling them with anti-satellite systems with various functions, including with ‘hit-to-kill’ kinetic characteristics.

This is confirmed by the statement of the Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, Barbara Barrett, who in May 2020 told reporters that during the current sixth X-37B space mission, a number of experiments will be conducted to test the possibility of converting solar energy into radio frequency microwave radiation, which later can be transmitted to Earth in the form of electricity. It is very questionable explanation.

So, what has this device actually been doing and continues to do in space for so many years? Obviously, since this space platform was created by the Boeing Corporation with direct participation in its financing and development by the American Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA, and it is operated by the U.S. Air Force, the tasks of the X-37B are by no means related to the peaceful exploration of outer space.

Some experts believe that such devices can be used to deliver missile defense and anti-satellite systems. Yes, it is not excluded.

It is noteworthy that the operation of this American spacecraft for a long time has caused concern not only on the part of Russia and China, but also on the part of some U.S. allies in NATO regarding its possible role as a space weapon and a platform for delivering space strike weapons, including nuclear warheads to be housed in X-37B cargo compartment.

A special experiment

The X-37B can perform up to ten secret tasks.

One of them fulfilled recently should be mentioned in particular.

It is noteworthy that in the twenties of October 2021, the separation of a small spacecraft at high speed from the fuselage of this “shuttle”, which does not have the ability to conduct radar surveillance, was recorded from the X-37B that is currently moving in space, which indicates that the Pentagon is testing a new type of space-based weapon. It is obvious that this kind of activity of the United States is not compatible with the stated goals of the peaceful use of outer space.

The separation of the named space object was preceded by the maneuvering of the X-37 the day before.

From October 21 to 22, the separated space vehicle was located at a distance of less than 200 meters from the X-37B, which subsequently performed a maneuver to move away from the separated new spacecraft.

Based on the results of processing objective information, it was found that the spacecraft was stabilized, and no elements were found on its body characterizing the presence of antennas that could provide the possibility of conducting radar surveillance. At the same time, the facts of the approach of the separated new spacecraft with other space objects or the performance of orbital maneuvers have not been revealed.

Thus, according to the Russian side, the United States conducted an experiment to separate a small spacecraft with high speed from the X-37B, which indicates the testing of a new type of space-based weapon.

Such actions of the American side are assessed in Moscow as a threat to strategic stability and are incompatible with the stated goals of the peaceful use of outer space. Moreover, Washington intends to use outer space as an area for the potential deployment of space-to-space weapons against various objects in orbit, as well as in the form of space-to-surface weapons in the form of space-based strike weapons that can be used to attack from space various ground-based, air-air-based and sea-based targets located on the planet.

Current U.S. space policy

Since 1957, all American presidents, without exception, have been actively engaged in the militarization and weaponization of outer space. In recent years, the most notable breakthrough in this direction has been made by the ex-Republican President Donald Trump.

On March 23, 2018, he approved the updated National Space Strategy. On June 18 of the same year, he gave a specific instruction to the Pentagon to create a Space Force as a full-fledged sixth brunch of the country’s Armed Forces, while emphasizing the undesirability to have Russia and China as leading nations in space. On December 9, 2020, the White House additionally announced a new National Space Policy. On December 20, 2019, the beginning of the creation of the U.S. Space Force was announced.

In these military-strategic doctrines, three fundamental views of the American military-political leadership on the use of outer space for military purposes have been publicly announced.

First, it was proclaimed that the United States intended to single-handedly dominate in space.

Secondly, it was stated that they should maintain “peace from a position of strength” in outer space.

Thirdly, it was stated that space in Washington’s views is becoming a potential arena for military operations.

These military-strategic doctrines, according to Washington are as reactions to the “growing threat” in space stemming from Russia and China.

The Pentagon will develop four priority areas of space activities to achieve the stated goals while countering the identified threats, potentials and challenges: (1) ensuring integrated military dominance in space; (2) the integration of military space power into national, joint and combined combat operations; (3) the formation of a strategic environment in the interests of the United States, as well as (4) the development of cooperation in outer space with allies, partners, the military-industrial complex and other ministries and departments of the United States.

The space strategy and policy of the current American administration led by President Joseph Biden is not much different from the space line followed by President Donald Trump.

After Joseph Biden took office as president in January this year, the United States continued to develop several types of space strike weapons, including in accordance with twelve programs for the use of outer space for military purposes, when six of them provide for the creation of various types of such systems, and on the basis of six others that will control for the orbital space grouping on the ground.

The Pentagon’s intelligence and information assets in space continue to be updated in full, as well as the financing of military space programs. For the fiscal year 2021, allocations for these purposes are set at $15.5 billion.

Some pro-Western Russian experts are in favor of developing some compromise proposals with the U.S. side on military space issues on the grounds that the United States is not ready to negotiate on military space issues. Such ideas pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation, if accepted.

And here’s why.

Various actions carried out so far by Washington on the militarization and weaponization of outer space indicate that the current American military and political leadership does not consider space to be the universal heritage of mankind, for the regulation of activities in which, obviously, agreed international legal norms and rules of responsible behavior are to be adopted.

The United States has long seen a diametrically opposite perspective – the transformation of outer space into a zone of active hostilities.

In fact, the United States has already created an enlarged Space Force with ambitious offensive tasks.

At the same time, such force relies on the active-offensive doctrine of deterring any potential adversaries in outer space, borrowed from the American strategy of nuclear deterrence, which provides for the first preventive and preemptive nuclear strike.

If in 2012 Washington announced the creation of the “Chicago triad” – a combined combat mechanism in the form of a mix of nuclear missiles, anti-missile components and conventional strike weapons, then it is quite obvious that the United States is purposefully creating a multi-component “quattro” strike assets, when another essential military tool is added to the “Chicago triad” – that is space strike weapons.

It is obvious that during official consultations with the United States on the issues of strengthening strategic stability, it is impossible to ignore all factors and described circumstances that are related to outer space. It is necessary to avoid a selective, that is, a separate approach to solving the multifaceted problem of arms control – while downsizing one type of weapons, but giving a boost to the development  of other types of arms, that, at the initiative of the American side, is still in a deadlocked position.

November 26, 2021 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

Biden Mulls Sending Extra Weapons & Trainers To Ukraine Amid Dubious Reports Of “Russian Invasion”

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | November 24, 2021

Here we go again: the ratcheting tit-for-tat threats currently being unleashed between Moscow and Washington arguably hasn’t been this intense since the height of the Donbass conflict of years ago, and the Crimea crisis. It’s leading to the Biden administration mulling ramping up arms transfers to Kiev.

CNN on Tuesday is citing multiple defense sources to report “The Biden administration is weighing sending military advisers and new equipment including weaponry to Ukraine as Russia builds up forces near the border and US officials prepare allies for the possibility of another Russian invasion.

And yet as we’ve reviewed, there’s still as yet little to nothing in the way of hard evidence that Russia is setting in motion any kind of plans to “invade Ukraine” – as Bloomberg last week first reported based on anonymous US sources. Much of the speculation appears based on satellite images of Russian troop movements taking place significantly far from Ukraine’s border, with Moscow’s constant refrain to the West being that it can move its own troops within Russia’s sovereign borders wherever it wants to.

But this new US plan to not just send more military hardware – but also US military advisers – would mark a serious escalation, as the Kremlin has recently warned it would see any kind of NATO forces buildup inside Ukraine as violating its “red lines” which would require taking action.

According to the fresh CNN report, the proposed lethal aid package now under consideration by the White House could include stinger missiles – which Moscow would without doubt consider a severe escalation:

The discussions about the proposed lethal aid package are happening as Ukraine has begun to warn publicly that an invasion could happen as soon as January. The package could include new Javelin anti-tank and anti-armor missiles as well as mortars, the sources said.

Air defense systems, such as stinger missiles, are also under consideration, and the Defense Department has been pressing for some equipment that would have gone to Afghanistan — like Mi-17 helicopters — to instead be sent to Ukraine. The Mi-17 is a Russian helicopter that the US originally purchased to give to the Afghans. The Pentagon is now weighing what to do with them after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in August.

And in particular the Javelins are seen as deadly and effective against Russia’s T-80 tanks. Recently, Moscow has accused pro-Ukrainian forces of heightened attacks on pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine’s east over the past months, which has included multiple deaths from sporadic mortar fire.

The past year has seen NATO military exercises utilize closer Ukrainian army and naval participation…

Already in response to the rumors and reports of more US weapons and trainers sent to Ukraine, Russia is responding with threats of its own to send its weapons into eastern Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, “we shouldn’t rule out the possibility of sending military advisers and weapons to Ukraine, because this is already taking place. Military advisers are arriving there, weapons are supplied there — not only from the United States, but also from other NATO countries. And all this, of course, leads to a further aggravation of the situation on the border line.”

Previously on Monday the Kremlin vehemently denied the Western reports of any planned-for “invasion”, with government spokesman Peskov explaining that currently the Russian military is merely engaged in the “usual background level” of military maneuvers – similar to the training drills that ended up generating false reports last April and May of a “planned Ukraine invasion”. That prior situation, like the current one, involved Russian troops and weaponry being observed at least 60km from the actual Ukrainian border, and not along it.

During the statement, Peskov actually turned the charges back on NATO, saying, that in Ukraine “The number of provocations has increased significantly and these provocations are conducted using weapons delivered by NATO.” He blamed Kiev and its backers for the soaring tensions, calling its own military build-up “alarming” – thus each side appears to be ramping up troop readiness based on accusing the other of a “build-up” of forces.

November 25, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

NATO submarine caused Kursk sinking that killed 118 Russian sailors, ex-admiral claims

By Layla Guest | RT | November 22, 2021

The catastrophic sinking of the Russian nuclear-powered Kursk submarine more than two decades ago was the result of a collision with a stricken NATO vessel in the Barents Sea, a former high-ranking navy chief has insisted.

The ‘Kursk’ sank on August 12, 2000 at a depth of 108 meters, claiming the lives of all 118 crew members and sparking the first major international crisis of Vladimir Putin’s presidency. An official investigation commissioned by the Russian government ruled two years later that the incident was the result of a torpedo explosion, which then triggered the detonation of ammunition on board.

However, in an interview with RIA Novosti, aired on Monday, former Northern Fleet commander Vyacheslav Popov offered a theory on how the incident might have happened. According to him, a vessel operated by a NATO power got too close to Moscow’s vessel, colliding with its bow and damaging the torpedo tube, which was followed by an explosion. The compartment then flooded, sending the sub to the depths of the sea.

“The submarine that collided with ‘Kursk’ was following it, apparently, but failed to ensure safety in the sea’s environment and all other conditions, approached too close, or the Kursk maneuver led to a loss of contact,” he said.

Popov claimed he knew the name of the sub belonging to the US-military led bloc “with a 90% probability.” However, he admitted he did not have sufficient available evidence to make the case publicly at present.

According to the former naval chief, who served until 2001, the vessel was in the region where it collided with ‘Kursk’. He also noted that SOS signals were sent from special equipment that Russian boats were not equipped with, implying another submarine must have been present.

Viktor Kravchenko, a former chief of staff of the Russian Navy, later agreed with Popov’s theory, remarking he was “also inclined to believe this version” of the demise of the Kursk, based on circumstantial evidence.

Three NATO vessels, the British ‘Splendid’ and American subs ‘Toledo’ and ‘Memphis’, were reportedly in the vicinity of Russian military exercises in the Barents Sea at the time. Neither Washington nor London provided documents on the condition of their vessels after Moscow requested the information.

However, the Russian government maintains that the official investigation’s conclusion is the most likely, with many analysts pointing out the period was a challenging time for the Russian military. A combination of underfunding, aging Soviet hardware, and low morale could all have contributed to the incident.

Putin, then only months into his first term as president, took the brunt of much of the criticism for the Kursk tragedy, with the large-scale loss of young Russian sailors sparking sorrow and outrage. Failed rescue efforts caused anger and frustration both domestically and worldwide.

Popov’s claims come amid heightened concerns over NATO’s activity around Russia’s borders. On Friday, the bloc’s top official, Jens Stoltenberg, proposed deploying American nuclear warheads around Eastern Europe to counter a supposed threat posed by Moscow.

In response, the Kremlin said such a statement would mean that the Founding Act of Russia-NATO relations “no longer exists.” Under this document, inked in 1997, the two parties do not consider each other rivals. It guarantees no nuclear weapons will be deployed to new NATO members after this date.

November 22, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Theater of Absurd… Pentagon Demands Russia Explain Troops on Russian Soil

Strategic Culture Foundation | November 19, 2021

The United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin this week performed impressive, albeit pathetic, mental gymnastics. In a press conference, the Pentagon chief called on Russia to be more transparent about troop movements “on the border with Ukraine”. In others words, on Russian soil.

Meanwhile, the absurd hypocrisy sees U.S. and NATO forces brazenly escalating their offensive presence on Russia’s borders, especially in the Black Sea region.

Here’s an Associated Press clip on the Pentagon press conference: “American officials are unsure why Russian President Vladimir Putin is building up military forces near the border with eastern Ukraine but view it as another example of troubling military moves that demand Moscow’s explanation, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Wednesday.”

The report quotes Austin as saying: “We’ll continue to call on Russia to act responsibly and be more transparent on the buildup of the forces around on the border of Ukraine… We’re not sure exactly what Mr Putin is up to.”

This dubious talent for mind-bending mental gymnastics and double-think is shared with other members of the Biden administration. Last week, America’s top diplomat Antony Blinken claimed that Russia was about to invade Ukraine yet at the same time the U.S. Secretary of State confessed similar ignorance about what “Putin is up to”.

How is it possible to engage in meaningful dialogue with such vacuous people who are supposed to be government leaders – and leaders too of the self-declared world’s most powerful, most brilliant nation? No undue offense intended, but it would probably be more productive to engage in a dialogue with the bewildering characters from Samuel Beckett’s absurdist play Waiting for Godot.

Russia has repeatedly dismissed all claims about it threatening Ukraine or any other country with invasion. Moscow also disputes “unreliable” information touted by the Biden administration and Western media of troop buildup near Ukraine on its western flank. Western media reports have relied on dodgy commercial satellite data purporting to show Russian military maneuvers. It is contemptible that senior U.S. government figures are basing grave allegations against Russia on such ropy sources. That in itself speaks volumes about the deterioration in Washington’s diplomatic professionalism and political intelligence.

Secondly, the salient fact being missed in all the hullabaloo is this: Russian troops and equipment are on Russia’s sovereign territory. It is the height of absurdity for U.S. officials to demand that Russia “explain” and be “more transparent” about its own national defenses. That speaks of a hyper-arrogance among American politicians that are deforming their ability to think reasonably.

There is an analogy here with the outcry this week over Russia’s successful missile test against a Soviet-era satellite in orbit. The Biden administration condemned Russia for creating “space junk” and weaponizing space while ignoring the fact that the U.S. previously carried out the same kind of missile strike and, arguably has been trying to weaponize space since the Reagan administration’s “star wars” program during the 1980s.

In any case, the U.S. charges of Russia’s military buildup on its own territory are made all the more ridiculous when we consider the actual increase in NATO forces in Ukraine and the Black Sea region – right on Russia’s western doorstep.

In a major speech this week delivered at the Russian foreign ministry, President Putin noted again how Western powers have continually failed to register Moscow’s national security concerns over the expansion of NATO forces along Russia’s borders. He described this inability for cognition of what should be an obvious grievance as “very peculiar”.

The Kremlin has suggested that the increasing NATO offensive presence near Russia’s borders is not due to stupidity, but rather is aimed at provoking a conflict. Russia is strenuously resisting the danger of an armed confrontation, and yet the provocations continue.

Nearly two weeks ago, William Burns, the head of the CIA made a high-profile visit to Moscow during which he held discussions with senior Kremlin figures, including President Putin. We can safely assume that Burns was told in no uncertain terms that the buildup of U.S. and NATO forces near Russia’s territory is a red line that will presage a response from Russia.

But these red lines continue to be skirted by Washington and its NATO allies.

More perplexing, too, are the moves by the U.S.-backed Kiev regime to escalate the conflict in Ukraine against the ethnic Russian population in the separatist Donbas region. The ultranationalist regime has been waging a low-intensity war against the Donbas since the U.S.-backed coup in Kiev in 2014. The Americans and other NATO powers are increasing weapon supplies and military trainers to the regime, emboldening it to repudiate any peaceful settlement of the eight-year conflict.

Only last month, Pentagon chief Austin was in Kiev where he recklessly endorsed the joining of the NATO bloc by Ukraine. That is in spite of numerous warnings from Moscow that such a move would be an unacceptable destabilization.

The stepped-up war drills by NATO in the Black Sea region are inevitably leading the Kiev regime to resile from legally binding commitments to the Minsk Peace accord of 2015 – brokered by Russia, Germany and France. The release this week of diplomatic communications by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov clearly demonstrates that Germany and France are complicit in turning a blind eye to the Kiev regime’s systematic violation of the Minsk deal.

In this context, Russia is justifiably deeply wary of a confrontation exploding out of the tinderbox conditions in Ukraine and the Black Sea. Given the Russian nation’s tragic history of suffering from past military invasions, it is entirely understandable and indeed vitally prudent that the country’s formidable defenses are on high alert.

It is not for Russia to explain its troops. It is for the United States and its NATO partners to account for their wanton aggression and to desist.

There is something of the theater of absurd in American and European posturing. But it’s far from funny. It’s menacingly deranged.

November 21, 2021 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | 3 Comments

Russia, Syria say West funding terrorists, preventing return of refugees

Press TV – November 19, 2021

Syria and Russia say Western countries are aggressively investing in scenarios aimed at supporting Takfiri terrorist groups and wreaking havoc in the Arab country.

The Russian and Syrian Joint Coordination Committees on Repatriation of Syrian Refugees said in a joint statement on Thursday that the return of internally displaced people and refugees to their original places of residence remains a top priority for the Damascus government which is making its best efforts in this regard.

The statement said the Syrian government has been relentlessly working to restore security and stability across the country, and reconstruct critical infrastructure in order to facilitate the repatriation of the Syrian refugees.

However, the West funnels huge sums of money to terrorists, and actually prevents the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland, it said.

The policies of the Western countries amount to “sheer hypocrisy” in view of their unilateral sanctions and occupation of the Syrian territories, it added.

The statement also lambasted false news about the situation in Syria, stressing that the propaganda campaign is meant to intimidate Syrians and put off their repatriation.

Moscow and Damascus say Western sanctions against Syria and the military occupation of the Arab country are the main obstacle to the return of the displaced people and the country’s recovery from a decade-long campaign of foreign-backed militancy and destruction.

The United States and its European allies began to impose tough sanctions on Syria, after Takfiri terrorist groups failed in their bid to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

November 21, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 4 Comments

Can a space war be stopped?

By Paul Robinson | RT | November 18, 2021

News that Russia has tested an anti-satellite missile has sparked concern for spacecraft and, more worryingly, highlighted the lack of international treaties regulating space weapons, meaning the cosmos is becoming a battleground.

While the US currently opposes controls on orbital arms, the shifting balance of power means that it would likely do well to reconsider. The test in question, confirmed by Moscow on Tuesday, destroyed an old, inoperable Soviet reconnaissance satellite, with Washington blasting the operation as “irresponsible” and “reckless” over the resulting debris.

So-called “space junk” poses a serious danger to objects such as satellites and the International Space Station. By adding to the cloud of junk floating around in orbit, Russia has done nobody any favours, although it should be pointed out that the test didn’t break international law, as there is at present no binding legal regime regulating space debris.

Typical of Western responses to the Russian test was that of General James Dickinson, commander of the US Space Command, who said that Russia had “demonstrated a deliberate disregard for the security, safety, stability, and long-term sustainability of the space domain for all nations.”

“We won’t tolerate this kind of activity,” added US State Department spokesman Ned Price. But while American complaints about space debris may be valid, one wonders whether their real concern is the threat the Russian test poses to their military dominance.

Experts distinguish between the militarization and the weaponization of space. The first involves using space for military purposes, such as communications, and the second involves placing systems with destructive capabilities in space. Militarization happened long ago. Weaponization has yet to occur.

The only legal instrument regulating weapons in space is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which prohibits the placing of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth, or on the Moon or celestial bodies. Efforts to expand the prohibition to weapons in general have failed, in large part due to American resistance.

While some strategists have argued that it is better to leave space as a “sanctuary” and to avoid going down a path that will lead to a new arms race, the current of opinion in American military circles has long been that such an arms race is unavoidable and that it is better for the United States to get a lead on others while it enjoys a technological advantage.

As the then-Commander-in-Chief of US Space Command, Joseph W. Ashy, said in 1996:

“It’s politically sensitive, but it’s going to happen… we’re going to fight in space. We’re going to fight from space and we’re going to fight into space. That’s why the US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms. We engage terrestrial targets someday – ships, airplanes, land targets – from space.”

Since the time of Ronald Reagan, powerful forces have also been lobbying hard for space-based anti-ballistic missile defence systems, a key component of which would consist of weapons systems in orbit. For these reasons, the USA has opposed efforts to tie its hands by means of arms control. In 2006, the US National Space Policy announced that the country will “oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit US access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or activities in space for US national interests.”

Consequently, when in 2008 China and Russia proposed a draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects, the United States rejected it. Similarly, the United States has consistently voted against an annual resolution put forward by the ad hoc committee of the UN Conference on Disarmament, entitled “The Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space.”

The differing approaches of the US and its Western allies on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other, became clear last year when the two sides backed competing UN committee resolutions. The first, drafted by the British and supported by the US, encouraged UN members to “share their ideas on the further development and implementation of norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviours” in space. Russia voted against this innocuous proposition, complaining that it failed to “include provisions on the need for peaceful uses of outer space, on prohibiting the installation of weapons there, on threats of use of force and a clear outline of responsible behaviour.”

Instead, Russia supported a rival draft that declared that, “the exclusion of outer space from the sphere of the arms race and preserving the realm for peaceful purposes should become a mandatory norm of State policy and a generally recognized international obligation.” The US, along with the UK, Australia, Canada, France, Israel, Japan, the Marshall Islands, and Ukraine voted against this second, more robust resolution. It would appear that they prefer vague talk about “norms” rather than a specific prohibition of the weaponization of space.

Underlying this attitude is the idea that arms control benefits the weaker side, and that as the world’s dominant military power, the US should not agree to being constrained. An arms race in space would be unwelcome, but if one happened, the US would win. Unfortunately for the Americans, it can no longer be so sure of this, and recent technological advances have rendered many of its plans for space irrelevant.

Most notably, Russia’s deployment of hypersonic glide missiles has made the tens of billions of dollars invested by Washington in ballistic missile defence worthless. Even if the Americans could develop some space-based defence system against these missiles, the cost would be gargantuan, and by the time the system could be deployed, new technologies would already have produced counter-measures. The idea that America needs to weaponize space in order to defend itself against nuclear attack doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

The Russian anti-satellite test may be seen as an effort to try to force the United States to recognize its vulnerability and so bring it to the negotiating table. This may not work. The gargantuan sums of money mentioned above mean that there are powerful institutional interests in the United States who will resist any such effort. This is highly regrettable. Nobody but generals and arms manufacturers will benefit from an arms race in space. The sooner everyone recognizes this the better.

Paul Robinson is a professor at the University of Ottawa. He writes about Russian and Soviet history, military history and military ethics, and is author of the Irrussianality blog.

November 18, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment

IMF Correctly Predicts Arrival of Compulsory Vaccination Across Russia After Gifting Kremlin $18 Billion

By Edward Slavsquat | Anti-Empire | November 16, 2021

Before October, most of Russia’s 85 regions had few (if any) COVID-related restrictions; mandates requiring businesses to vaccinate the majority of their employees—introduced in Moscow and several other regions in June—had not yet become the norm.

This all changed after the State Duma elections in late September. Speaking a day before the election results were announced, Annette Kyobe, IMF Representative in Russia, made a prophetic observation. As TASS reported at the time:

“There is no appetite [in Russia] for restrictive measures, lockdown, at least on the part of state authorities. <…> After the parliamentary elections, perhaps a more unpopular measure, like mandatory vaccination, can be initiated as early as October-November. “

What an incredible prediction! As it just so happens, COVID “cases” and “deaths” inexplicably began to skyrocket immediately after the Duma elections, forcing Russian authorities to introduce mandates and QR codes across the country.

IMF totally called it!

Starting in October, Russian regions began the mass adoption of vaccine mandates and digital “health” passes. On October 14, Deputy Finance Minister Timur Maksimov told the IMF and World Bank that Russia’s government understood how important it was to shove a needle into every arm:

Participants in the autumn session of the IMF and the World Bank on Wednesday came to the conclusion that the problem of the crisis in the global economy cannot be solved until the population of all countries is vaccinated in the required proportion, Russian Deputy Finance Minister Timur Maksimov told reporters following these meetings.

“Until all countries are vaccinated in the required proportion, the world will not return to the old normality. Therefore, the question was raised that it is necessary to increase efforts to produce, to ensure access to vaccines. more and more waves of COVID cover different countries, “Maksimov said.

But wait… how was the IMF—an organ of Western Financial Extortion—able to so accurately predict Russia’s warm embrace of the global Vax Caste System?

Just a lucky guess. Obviously it had nothing to do with the 18 billion United States Dollars that the IMF shoveled into the Kremlin’s coffers back in August. The head of the IMF described the generous cash-injection as part of a “vaccination for the world economy during an unprecedented crisis.” (We should note for the sake of accuracy that the $18 billion was awarded in the form of “special drawing rights.” SDRs are units of account for the IMF and represent a claim to currency held by IMF member countries for which they may be exchanged.)

Outrageously, some Russian analysts and media outlets have suggested that something is slightly suspicious about all this—but why would they suggest something so silly? Anyway:

“There is no appetite for restrictive measures, lockdown, at least on the part of the state authorities. After the parliamentary elections, perhaps a more unpopular measure, such as compulsory vaccination, can be initiated as early as October-November.”

This is an excerpt from the speech of the IMF Resident Representative in Russia Annette Kyobe during the Fitch Ratings webinar “Russia – Macroeconomic Forecast 2021”.

On the air on the Tsargrad TV channel, Alexander Losev, a member of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, explained why our country continues to cooperate with discredited organizations and why the IMF wants to vaccinate all of Russia:

“The IMF and the World Bank are two organizations that have introduced such a concept as the Washington Consensus.

Adherence to this Washington Consensus is written for all developing countries.

First of all, this is a limitation of state sovereignty, less support for business, more – the market, invisible hands of the market, there are many of them, and some requirements for budgets and budgetary policy.

All countries that followed the Washington Consensus ended up poorly, with crises.

The second point is why the IMF says it.

At the end of August, the Bank of Russia received $ 18 billion from the IMF in the form of special drawing rights, that is, it received money. I’m not hinting at anything, I’m just stating: was the money accepted? Accepted.

These are the institutes of world governance created by the United States. And now the activity of these institutions is an attempt by the United States to preserve its hegemony, to preserve its power over the world.

They are tools. Behind them is the United States and their establishment, those who manage capital, world politics – or think they do.


The main beneficiaries of the pandemic are, of course, financiers. Because all the money that governments and central banks sent to help the economy, they basically all went through the banking system. The American banking system is $ 90 trillion in assets. All the money that the government allocated went there too.

The estimate is how much money was allocated and how much got into the banking system, from 24 to 27 trillion dollars. Equivalent. In different countries, including developing countries.

Utter nonsense! Russia adopted nationwide compulsory vaccination policies because there was a huge, dangerous wave of COVID that emerged immediately after Duma elections, which required more Sputnik V, everywhere and for everyone. If Russians don’t like it, they will have a chance to vote again, in the next Duma elections, in 2026.

Public health is a funny thing.

November 16, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 3 Comments


By Paul Robinson | IRRUSIANALITY | November 12, 2021

I have had a couple more pieces published in RT in the last two days. One concerns the probably temporary closure of the Kyiv Post and why it seems to have provoked immense outrage whereas the previous shutting down of Russian-language Ukrainian media outlets did not. The other responds to a letter of resignation sent by Russian liberal journalist Konstantin [von] Eggert [MBE] to the Chatham House think tank in protest the institute’s decision to give an award to a BLM activist. I use this an opportunity to delve into different Russian and Western conceptions of rights and freedoms. You can read these here and here.

For this post, though, I intend to tackle another topic, which follows on naturally from my last one. In that, I mocked the idea being floated around in some circles that Russia was behind the Belarus-EU migrant crisis and somehow using it as a provocation for further aggressive action, including maybe a military assault on the ‘Suwalki Gap’.

As we now know from Bloomberg, this theory is nonsense: Russia has no intention of invading Poland, it’s planning to invade Ukraine instead. Or so say ‘American officials’, and as we all know you can trust their judgement 100%.

According to Bloomberg:

“The U.S. is raising the alarm with European Union allies that Russia may be weighing a potential invasion of Ukraine as tensions flare between Moscow and the bloc over migrants and energy supplies.

With Washington closely monitoring a buildup of Russian forces near the Ukrainian border, U.S. officials have briefed EU counterparts on their concerns over a possible military operation, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

… The assessments are believed to be based on information the U.S. hasn’t yet shared with European governments, which would have to happen before any decision is made on a collective response, the people said. They’re backed up by publicly-available evidence, according to officials familiar with the administration’s thinking.

… Russia has orchestrated the migrant crisis between Belarus and Poland and the Baltic states — Lithuania and Latvia share a border with Belarus — to try to destabilize the region, two U.S. administration officials said. U.S. concerns about Russian intentions are based on accumulated evidence and trends that carry echoes of the run-up to Putin’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, another administration official said.

… Some analysts argue that Putin may believe now is the time to halt Ukraine’s closer embrace with the West before it progresses any further.

“What seems to have changed is Russia’s assessment of where things are going,” said Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. “They seem to have concluded that unless they do something, the trend lines are heading to Russia losing Ukraine.”

According to defense-intelligence firm Janes, the recent Russian deployment has been covert, often taking place at night and carried out by elite ground units, in contrast to the fairly open buildup in the spring.

Let’s take a look at all this. We have some statements from three anonymous officials, based on “publicly available information” (none of which I have seen that points to an imminent invasion) and some sort of secret information that the US hasn’t shared with anybody and so can’t be assessed. Now call me a sceptic, but unverifiable information from anonymous sources doesn’t sound like something very solid to me.

Beyond that, if the final lines from Janes are correct, we have a deployment of “elite ground units,” but you can’t invade a foreign country just using “elite” units, let alone a country the size of Ukraine. You’d need a massive build-up of a very considerable volume of rank-and-file line units. So, the actual evidence presented doesn’t fit the scenario portrayed.

As for Mr Charap’s statement that “They seem to have concluded that unless they do something, the trend lines are heading to Russia losing Ukraine,” I have yet to see any indication of this. Quite the contrary. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev’s recent comment that Russia should do “nothing” about Ukraine and simply wait until the Ukrainians come to their senses, points to an entirely different conclusion. We are “patient,” said Medvedev, who is Deputy Chairman of the Security Council, and so one imagines, well versed in what is in people’s minds at the highest level. His comments hardly suggest that senior officials are thinking that radical action is urgently required.

The fact that American “officials” are briefing the press that war is possible, and that analysts from the RAND Corporation are backing them up, speaks to an awful lack of understanding of things Russian in the United States. The fact that Bloomberg then repeats these claims without serious challenge points also to a disturbing lack of critical thinking on behalf of the American press (no surprise there!), as well as reinforcing what academic studies of the media have long since noted – its worrisome dependence on official sources.

The only part of the Bloomberg article that gives readers a real sense of what’s going on comes in the following lines, which say:

Russia doesn’t intend to start a war with Ukraine now, though Moscow should show it’s ready to use force if necessary, one person close to the Kremlin said. An offensive is unlikely as Russian troops would face public resistance in Kyiv and other cities, but there is a plan to respond to provocations from Ukraine, another official said.

This strikes me as accurate. There is absolutely no reason for Russia to start a war with Ukraine. It would be enormously costly and bring no obvious benefits. Besides which, war needs careful advance preparation of public opinion. There have been absolutely no indications of the Kremlin doing anything of the sort. That said, as I have noted before, I have little doubt that if Ukraine launched a major attack on the rebel regions of Donbass, and if large numbers of civilians were killed as a result (as would be most likely), Russia would respond. And its response would likely be very tough, much tougher than it was in August 2014 when it very briefly sent a limited number of forces into Donbass to defeat the Ukrainians at Ilovaisk. If there is a Russian invasion of Ukraine, it’s likely to be large-scale, to settle the issue once and for all.

All this talk of war is therefore rather dangerous. It helps to ramp up tensions on Russia’s borders, and also serves to justify a build-up by NATO forces in the region. That in turn may send the wrong messages to Ukraine and encourage it to act rashly. Fortunately, I don’t think that things will go that far, but I do think that “American officials” and the press are playing with fire. They would be well advised to stop. Unfortunately, one gets the impression that their lack of knowledge and understanding makes that impossible. Sad times indeed.

November 12, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , | 1 Comment

EU Official Calls US Warships Near Russia’s Coast “Clearly” An Unncessary “Provocation”

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | November 12, 2021

An EU official has made surprising remarks this week, evaluating the presence of a pair of large US warships in the Black Sea. French member of the European Parliament Thierry Mariani slammed ongoing naval exercises by the USS Porter and USS Whitney as “clearly a provocation” by Washington.

“The presence of the ‘Mount Whitney’, flagship of the US Sixth Fleet and the USS Porter in the Black Sea, as well as the NATO naval maneuvers, are clearly a provocation of Russia,” Mariani said.

He issued the statements in an interview to Russia’s Sputnik : “Can you imagine what the American reaction would be if the Russian navy organized maneuvers in international waters off the American coast, near Washington DC?” he questioned.

The statements come as both US and Ukrainian officials, as well as Romanian leaders and other Black Sea NATO members, have urged a greater US military presence on the Black Sea, citing “Russian aggression.”

On renewed tensions over Ukraine, coming two weeks after Kiev officials accused the Kremlin of building up troops near Donbass and in the Crimea area, the French official said:

“This is very serious and could push Ukrainian politicians, the culprits of this widespread corruption, into a headlong rush action, for example into a hazardous military offensive in Donbass or an armed provocation of Russia in the Black Sea.”

And on NATO encroachment in eastern Europe and around the Black Sea, he said:

“NATO should have been dismantled at the same time as the Warsaw Pact was suppressed in the last century and the present expansion, and projection by NATO of military forces to the whole world is very alarming.”

The statements appeared to back provocative statements made days ago by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, who said, “This is an almost constant attempt to test us, to check how ready we are, how much we have built the entire [defense] system off the Black Sea coast.”

November 12, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | 1 Comment