Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Will ‘Insane’ Biden Provoke World War III Before November Election?

By John Miles – Sputnik – 12.09.2024

The last several years have brought the United States closer to conflict with a nuclear-armed power than any time since the 1960s, one former CIA analyst claimed.

Lasting from the end of World War II until the early 1990s, the Cold War saw the United States and the USSR locked in a global competition for power and influence. Although the two superpowers never went to war directly, the 45-year period was marked by two proxy conflicts in Vietnam and Korea and a constant fear that a third World War was not far away.

Tensions were heightened by the fact that both the United States and the Soviet Union possessed nuclear weapons, dramatically raising the stakes of global conflict.

Both countries nearly saw their worst fears realized during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when it appeared the US and USSR were unwilling to back down over the issue of nuclear missiles being placed just miles from each country’s border in Cuba and Turkey. The incident led to the establishment of a special hotline for US and Soviet leaders to communicate directly, and caused US President John F. Kennedy to remark that tensions between nuclear powers must never again rise to such a level.

For decades, Kennedy’s maxim was dutifully observed as both countries worked to improve relations, finally culminating in the end of the Cold War.

The prospect for nuclear confrontation was avoided until recent years, claimed former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, when the United States rejected Russian overtures for a new European security architecture and stubbornly insisted Ukraine’s coup regime would be granted entry into NATO. The analyst joined Sputnik’s The Critical Hour program Wednesday to consider whether US President Joe Biden is willing to risk global conflict to reverse Kiev’s flagging fortunes on the battlefield.

“They want to provoke Putin [into] doing something really drastic before the election, before the [presidential] election here on November 5th,” suggested McGovern, a critic of neoconservative US foreign policy.

“They’re losing in Kursk [region],” he noted, referring to Ukraine’s stalled incursion into Russian territory. “What were they trying to do? They were trying to get the Russians to react in such a way as to bring the US in with both feet militarily.”

“What’s this business about [Ukraine] begging for longer range missiles?” McGovern continued. “Same objective.”

Ukraine’s Western sponsors have repeatedly escalated the country’s conflict with Russia, gradually providing Kiev with more powerful weapons and granting it permission to strike within Russian territory. This has increasingly culminated in attacks on Russian civilians; perhaps most provocatively a strike on a beach in the city of Sevastopol that injured 124 people, including 27 children, and killed three people, including two children.

Some 500 Russian civilians have been killed by the Ukrainian regime in 2024 alone as the country continues to rely on the support of neo-Nazi formations such as the notorious Azov Battalion*. Kiev’s provocative attacks seem tailor-maid to produce a harsh response, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has so far sought to avoid any attack likely to draw the United States or Ukraine’s European allies directly into the conflict.

“My fear is that [the United States] will try something really drastic like a false flag attack or maybe even a mini nuke,” said McGovern, concerned that the US could fabricate an episode such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident that drew the country into the Vietnam War. “Let’s see what happens the next couple of weeks. I think Putin is right. It’s only the smart thing to see who wins on the 5th of November. Till then, I’m still holding my breath.”

But McGovern warned that the consequences of the United States’ strategy in Ukraine could fall not on the US itself, but on its European allies.

“It’s really hard to know what Biden and [National Security Advisor Jake] Sullivan, who are running things, really think,” he claimed. “Some of my best friends and analysts think they’re insane. And it’s really, really hard to predict what they’re going to do if they’re insane.”

“The Europeans are being told by the Russians, ‘look, if Biden, Blinken and Sullivan opt for a tactical nuclear weapon, for God’s sake, please, please remember we got them too. And where will we use them? We’ll use them in Europe,’” McGovern said, summarizing Russia’s possible response.

“So I think when this is directed at the Europeans, saying, ‘look at what happened to your fellow country in Europe, Ukraine. You want the same thing to happen to you? So, please, rein these guys in.’”

September 12, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO Risks Hot War With Russia as Biden Mulls Stepping on Ukraine Long-Range Missile Tripwire

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 11.09.2024

The Biden administration is mulling formally greenlighting Ukraine’s use of its NATO-gifted long-range strike systems to attack targets deep inside Russia. The scenario is fraught with risks, not least of which is turning the Russia-NATO proxy conflict into a hot war that drags the US in, says former CIA analyst Larry Johnson.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated Wednesday that there was a “high degree of probability” that a decision approving the use of US long-range strike systems by Ukraine has already been taken, and that the Biden administration is simply trying to “formalize” the measure using an information campaign through the media.

That was Moscow’s reaction to President Biden’s comments earlier in the week that Washington was in the process of ‘working out’ whether to lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of its US-made long-range weapons to attack targets deep inside Russia.

Long-range US weapons already delivered to Kiev (or reportedly under deliberation) include:

  • ATACMS: The US ‘Army TACtical Missile System’, which has a range of up to 300 km, and can be fired by tracked M270 and wheeled M142 HIMARS self-propelled multiple launch rocket systems, which have been delivered to Kiev in large numbers. Russia has found the systems’ weak spots, destroying scores of launchers and incoming fired rockets. Nevertheless, the launchers and their payload (a single 214 kg warhead or cluster bomblets) remain dangerous due to their shoot-and-scoot ability. The Pentagon began the delivery of ATACMS to Kiev last October, but apparently not in numbers Volodymyr Zelensky would prefer. Last week, Zelensky complained about a “shortage of missiles and cooperation” with NATO countries.
  • JDAM-ER: The ‘Joint Direct Attack Munition-Extended Range’ is a guidance and wing kit converting ‘dumb’ munitions weighing between 230-910 kg into guided smart munitions and delivering them to targets over 70 km away. The weapons are air-launched, meaning Ukrainian aircraft must stay far enough away to avoid dense Russian air defenses while firing them.
  • ADM-160 MALD: The ‘Miniature Air-Launched Decoy’ is a decoy missile designed to distract air defenses while real threats make their way toward their targets. Thanks to their lack of warhead, these missiles can fly up to 930 km. Deployable aboard a broad array of American aircraft and drones, Ukraine probably fires these weapons from its dwindling fleet of Soviet-era MiG-29 jets.
  • AGM-88 HARM: The ‘High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile’ is an air-to-ground missile with passive, GPS and millimeter-wave active radar homing, has a range of between 25 and 300 km, depending on variant, and a 68 kg warhead. Adding to the threat is the missile’s flight speed – up to Mach 2.9. The US began deploying these weapons to Kiev in 2022, and, in addition to modifications to allow Ukraine’s jets to fire them, reportedly provided their client with intelligence to enable attacks against Russian radar systems.
  • Not yet known to have been delivered but widely discussed in recent days is the AGM-158 JASSM (‘Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile’) – a long-range cruise missile with a 450 kg penetrator warhead that can hit targets up to 925 km away (or 370 km in the case of standard range variants). These missiles can be fired from Ukraine’s recently arrived F-16 jets.

Russian officials have warned repeatedly of the consequences of providing long-range missiles to Ukraine to attack Russia. President Putin warned last year that “the more long-range Western systems arrive in Ukraine, the further we will be forced to push the threat away from our borders” via a security “buffer zone.” In June, Putin warned that Moscow might respond in kind to NATO’s actions, supplying Russian long-range weapons to regions of the world that send missiles to Ukraine to attack Russia.

Long-Range Missile Threat: Quickest Way to NATO-Russia Hot War

“Biden has shifted every single position that he said was a red line, so I don’t see why he’s not going to violate this one as well,” retired CIA analyst and counterterrorism expert-turned whistleblower Larry Johnson told Sputnik, commenting on Washington’s threats to lift its missile restrictions.

The Biden administration “can’t afford a defeat” in Ukraine before the November vote, and thinks that if it takes the “incredibly dangerous and foolish” step of just okaying the missiles’ delivery and use, that will somehow help Ukraine, Johnson believes.

“I appreciate President Putin’s desire to show restraint and keep this as a special military operation. But the West is at war with Russia, and I don’t think people are getting their brains around that. We keep dancing around the edges pretending that this is not going to happen. It’s going to happen. And it’s not going to change the military situation as far as what Ukraine is facing. Ukraine is facing defeat. They will be defeated. But it gets more to the point that the West, instead of seeking a peaceful way out and talking to Russia, is preferring confrontation,” Johnson warned.

Another question is whether Ukraine even has the relevant long-range missiles left, and whether the US is in a state to supply them, according to the observer.

“Because if the United States moves to supply a missile that’s frankly bigger than the ATACMS or if they offer up an ATACMS or a JASSM that has an extended range capability, then I think it’s going to raise the real possibility that the logistics hubs that are outside of Ukraine that are being used to provide these missiles could become targets. Which then is this is going to expand the war,” Johnson warned.

In that sense, while the Biden administration may believe the move to free Kiev’s hand on the use of NATO missiles to attack the Russian interior could stave off the Zelensky regime’s defeat, “it may actually have the opposite effect of causing this war to expand and expand in a way that will get the United States involved. And then we’re into some very new and dangerous territory,” Johnson summed up.

September 11, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Putin: Russia May Restrict Export of Strategic Materials in Response to Unfriendly Powers’ Actions

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 11.09.2024

Despite slapping Moscow with an unprecedented sanctions regime in 2022, European countries and the United States continue to rely on vast quantities of Russian energy and strategic materials, including gas and uranium, importing them to prevent spiking prices and shortages from wrecking their economies.

Russia is a world leader in the production of an array of strategic minerals, from natural gas, gold and diamonds to uranium, titanium and nickel, and should “think about” whether it’s possible to reduce the export of the latter three resources in response to unfriendly countries’ actions against Russia, President Vladimir Putin has said.

Speaking at a meeting with government ministers on Wednesday, Putin asked Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin to look into the idea and report back, stressing that any proposed restrictions should not be “to one’s own detriment.”

“Mikhail Vladimirovich, I have a request for you: please look at some types of goods that we supply in large quantities to the world market – the supply of a number of goods to us is being restricted. Well, perhaps we should also think about certain restrictions – on uranium, titanium, nickel,” Putin said.

“In some countries, strategic reserves are being created, and some other measures are being taken. In general, if this does not harm us, we should think…about certain restrictions on supplies to the foreign market,” he added.

“I am not saying this needs to be done tomorrow, but we could think about certain restrictions on supplies to the foreign market not only of the goods I mentioned, but also of some others,” Putin said.

The ongoing NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine has reduced, but not fully stopped, economic exchange between Russia and Western countries, with the US continuing the purchase of Russian uranium for its vast network of nuclear power plants, and gas continuing to flow via a pipeline in Ukraine to customers in Hungary and Slovakia, and shipped west aboard tankers in the form of LNG. Concurrently, a number of Western companies have refused to leave the Russian market, continuing to sell their wares to Russians despite sanctions and other restrictions put in place by their own governments. Some Russian observers have suggested that it’s long past time for Russia to halt economic cooperation with countries fueling the proxy war in Ukraine, in favor of ramped up trade ties with the BRICS bloc and other friendly countries in the Global South.

September 11, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

US has ‘new tool’ for Georgian elections – Russian spy agency

RT | September 11, 2024

The US wants to use a European election monitor to kickstart mass protests in Georgia after the upcoming parliamentary election, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has claimed.

Washington is seeking to oust the ruling Georgian Dream party and is using the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in its plan, the Russian agency stated on Tuesday.

One of ODIHR’s key activities is monitoring elections, and it intends to do this during voting in the former Soviet republic, when Georgians will choose a new parliament on October 26. An advance team visited Tbilisi in May to assess the situation.

The SVR expects the body to release a critical preliminary report ten to 20 days prior to the vote, in which the ODIHR will declare that there are “no conditions in the country to hold free and fair elections.”

“After the first results of the ballot are published, it would issue a statement to declare the electoral process not to be up to democratic norms,” the Russian agency claims.

The US Department of State sees the ODIHR as “a tool” and has pre-arranged the content of its statements, the SVR claimed. Georgian opposition forces will cite its criticism to justify “mass protests aimed at seizing power in the country,” the message predicted. The purported arrangement clearly violates the OSCE’s stated mission, the Russian agency added.

”Under the circumstances, the reduction of Russian funding for the OSCE in a bid to at least weaken the destructive activities of this formerly respectable international structure appears justified,” the SVR suggested.

The Georgian government and its ruling party came into Washington’s crosshairs earlier this year due to the passage of a law, which required political and media organizations that receive foreign funding to publicly declare their affiliations. Tbilisi says the legislation was modeled on a similar American law, the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act.

US officials have stated that Georgia is walking down “the wrong path,” and that Washington is preparing sanctions against people whom it deems responsible for that.

The SVR previously warned that the Georgian government was facing a “color revolution” similar to the one that brought former president Mikhail Saakasvili to power in the early 2000s, or a violent coup, similar to what happened in Ukraine in 2014.

September 11, 2024 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Germany’s Neglect of National Interests & a Pending Nationalist Backlash

By Glenn Diesen | September 10, 2024

Security competition is the main source of conflict in the international system, as states pursuing national interests and security for themselves often undermine the security of other states. The ability to transcend nationalism by pursuing a more cosmopolitan world order is thus an attractive proposition. For Germany, with its destructive history of radical ethno-nationalism and fascism, idealist internationalism has an immense appeal.

However, is it possible to transcend power competition when the state is the highest sovereign? Should aggressive power politics be addressed by ignoring national interests or managing competing national interests? Cosmopolitanism and liberal idealism do not transcend power politics and create a global village, rather it results in the neglect of national interests and subordination to foreign powers. Aggressive nationalism will likely be the predictable backlash to ignoring national interests.

In the early 19th century, Germans fell under the lure of international idealism and failed to defend national interests. Cultural nationalism and economic nationalism became instruments for the Germans to balance the French and restore dignity and national interests. Two centuries later, Germany is yet again not capable of pursuing national interests until it decouples from American cosmopolitanism, universalism and hegemony. It seems likely, that history will repeat itself as Germany will return to cultural and economic nationalism or be condemned to vassalage and irrelevance.

German Subordination to France

In the late 18th and early 19th century, France represented a cosmopolitan universal civilisation in which development meant becoming more like France. Napoleon could thus find some people willing to support him in all countries, although internationalist initiatives usually served a French national cause.

When Napoleon invaded in the early 19th century, some German princes surrendered their sovereignty and national interests to the French with great enthusiasm. In what became known as the “shame of the princes”, many German rulers welcomed Napoleon’s annexation of the West bank of the Rhine. A combination of receiving economic compensation and fawning over France resulted in the German princes abandoning national interests and their dignity.

The Germans and other Europeans became increasingly concerned about France and the obedience demanded by allies under the Napoleonic Continental System. Under the guise of internationalism and cosmopolitanism, a system developed that was primarily for the benefit of French manufacturers. The cultural fawning over France resulted in Germans failing to further develop their own culture. While the French had promised peace under its leadership, the Europeans instead had constant war as they became instruments of war to be used against the British.

What was the solution? Germany began to pursue cultural sovereignty and economic sovereignty as conditions to restore dignity, national interests, and political sovereignty. The cosmopolitan philosophy of Voltaire and a common path to cosmopolitanism and universal civilisation were challenged by the philosophy of Johann Gottfried Herder, who argued that cultural differences should be preserved to contribute to the richness of humanity.[1] Culture is a specific link between a distinctive people required for social cohesion and societal dignity. Herder cautioned that imitation of foreign cultures made the people shallow, artificial, and weak. In Russia, there were similar concerns that imitating French culture undermined Russia’s unique development and its ability to contribute something new to the world.

Economic sovereignty was also a requirement, as Friedrich List recognised that excessive economic dependence also undermined political sovereignty:

“As long as the division of the human race into independent nations exists, political economy will as often be at variance with cosmopolitan principles… a nation would act unwisely to endeavour to promote the welfare of the whole human race at the expense of its particular strength, welfare and independence”.[2]

German Subordination to the US

Following the Second World War, the pendulum swung in the opposing direction as German national power had to be dressed up in internationalist initiatives. As Chancellor Helmut Schmidt argued in 1978, it was:

“German foreign policy rests on two great pillars: the European Community and the North Atlantic Alliance… It is all the more necessary for us to clothe ourselves in this European mantle. We need this mantle not only to cover our foreign policy nakednesses, like Berlin or Auschwitz, but we need it also to cover these ever-increasing relative strengths, economic, political, military, of the German Federal Republic within the West”.[3]

The pillars of German development were also a prison to ensure its subordination to the US. In the words of Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary General, acknowledged that NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”.[4] The historical role of Britain and the US had always been to prevent Germany and Russia from getting too close as it would form a centre of power capable of challenging the dominance of the maritime hegemon at the periphery. Peacetime alliances that contain and perpetuate the weakness of adversaries also ensure the dependence and obedience of allies. Much like its French predecessor, the US appeals to cosmopolitanism and universalism to manage an international system that upholds a US national cause.

Germany in Decline

Until recently, Germany had become known as the industrial engine that was driving European economies forward, while it had seemingly learned from its history by attempting to elevate liberal democratic principles above power politics.

This era is seemingly over as Germany has transformed itself in a remarkably short period of time. Germany fails to defend its basic national interests, its economy is deindustrialising, society becomes more pessimistic, the political leadership has rediscovered enthusiasm for war, German tanks are yet again burning in Kursk, there are some signs of political violence to come, the freedom of expression is undermined, and the political upheaval opens the door to political alternatives that the government rejects.

The German economic model has been broken as Germany cut itself off from Russia as a source of cheap energy and a huge export market for manufactured goods. Washington is also increasingly pressuring Germany to sever its economic ties with China as well, resulting in a less competitive economy and excessive reliance on the US. Germany’s submissiveness was demonstrated by the deafening silence when its key energy infrastructure was destroyed by allies (the US and Ukraine), while European allies such as the Czech Republic referred to the attack as legitimate and Poland told Germany to stay quiet and apologise for having built the pipeline. As Germany deindustrialises and its economy declines, the US has responded by offering subsidies to German industries that will move across the Atlantic to the US.

At the heart of the problem is that Germany no longer sufficiently defends its national interests. As the public flees to alternative media and new political parties, the government does not know how to respond. Police appear on the doorsteps of journalists, and protesters are beaten by the police for protesting a genocide in Palestine that Germany has supported with arms shipments. German Foreign Minister felt comfortable declaring that Ukraine will continue to receive support “no matter what my German voters think”. The media is dismissive of political violence against Sahra Wagenknecht on the political left, which is to some extent justified by arguing she is actually on the political right. On the actual political right, the AfD is surging to fill the vacuum left behind by an incompetent government without a plan, and the political-media elites have responded to the surge by discussing whether this opposition party should be banned. The rise of the AfD is compared to the rise of Hitler, yet the AfD is pushing for a negotiated peace in Ukraine while the government has backed military solutions.

The EU is also acting deeply irrationally in the Ukraine War. The Europeans used to recognise that the American ambition to pull Ukraine into the orbit of NATO would result in another European war. In 2008 the Europeans attempted to oppose NATO membership for Ukraine for this reason. In the words of Angela Merkel, Moscow would interpret the attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO as “a declaration of war”. Yet, they went ahead with the promise of future membership in 2008 to appease Washington. After destabilising the Ukrainian government, the Europeans were guarantors for a unity government in Kiev in 2014, but then betrayed this agreement for stability as the US pushed for a coup instead. After a war broke out in Donbas as a direct result of the coup, the Germans and French negotiated the Minsk Peace Agreement but then later admitted it was only to buy time to arm Ukraine. When Russia invaded in 2022, the Europeans were yet again silent as the US and Britain sabotaged the Istanbul Peace Agreement and instead pushed for war.

Even as Ukraine is losing the war, the Europeans do not want to discuss restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. Instead, the incoming EU foreign policy chief argues there should not be any diplomacy with Russia as Putin is a “war criminal”, and she has defined victory as breaking up Russia into many smaller nations. Hungary has attempted to restore diplomacy and negotiations and Orban travelled to Kiev, Moscow and Beijing. The EU responded by punishing Hungary. Subsequently, the EU has limited itself to the unachievable objective of defeating the world’s largest nuclear power and a vital trading partner, while rejecting any diplomatic solutions.

Resolving the problems of Germany and the EU requires some reflection on the European security architecture that was built over the past 30 years. The decision to redivide Europe and incrementally move these dividing lines to the East was a recipe for collective hegemony – not peace or stability. In the words of President Bill Clinton in January 1994, we cannot afford “to draw a new line between East and West that could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation”.[5] Expanding NATO triggered a new Cold War over where the new dividing lines should be drawn in Europe. This has nothing to do with liberal democracy, and everything to do with advancing a unipolar world order that has now come to an end. Continuing down this path ensures that Europe will transition from a subject of security to an object of security. Reversing the path to irrelevance requires admitting the mistakes made over the past 30 years that were celebrated as virtuous politics. Without any correction, the EU will tear itself apart and Germany will continue declining in relevance.

A Nationalist Backlash to Come?

The failure to defend national interests leaves a vacuum for nationalist political forces. Nationalism can be a movement for national liberation, sovereignty, freedom and prosperity in the spirit of Johann Gottfried Herder. However, times of crisis can also produce uglier forms of nationalism. Either way, a political correction (or over-correction) will eventually come.

[1] .G. Herder book in 1784 “Ideas of the Philosophy of the History of Mankind”.

[2] List, F. 1827. Outlines of American Political Economy, in a Series of Letters. Samuel Parker, Philadelphia, p.30.

[3] Bundesbank. ‘EMS: Bundesbank Council meeting with Chancellor Schmidt (assurances on operation of EMS) [declassified 2008],’ Bundesbank Archives, N2/267, 30 November 1978.

[4] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm

[5] https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga6-940109.htm

September 10, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Typhon Missile Deployment is Part of US Plans to Maintain ‘Primacy Over the Planet’

Sputnik -10.09.2024

Having previously deployed the medium-range Typhon missile systems – a weapon banned under the now-obsolete INF Treaty – in the Philippines, the United States now moves to station them in Japan in relatively close proximity to China and North Korea.

Washington’s plans to deploy these weapons in Asia are “part of a much wider long-running US strategy to encircle and contain China,” with this move itself being “part of a global post-Cold War strategy to eliminate any peer or near-peer competitor and maintain US primacy over the planet,” geopolitical analyst and former US Marine Brian Berletic tells Sputnik.

The US plans to deploy Typhon missile systems in Europe are also “part of a wider strategy to encircle and contain Russia,” Berletic adds.

According to him, the deployment of these weapons “reveals several important factors regarding US foreign, policy including continuity of agenda.”

For one, Berletic notes, the US pulled out from the INF Treaty during Donald Trump’s presidency, but the deployment of the Typhon missiles in various corners of the globe takes place with Joe Biden at the helm.

“The process of withdrawing from a treaty, developing, and then deploying such systems took place over the course of two presidential administrations, serving one single agenda, regardless of who sat in the White House,” he says.

“The Typhon’s deployment also reveals the true nature of US foreign policy and its disruptive nature for supposed US ‘allies’,” Berletic remarks.

Though both the Philippines and Japan “count China as their largest trade partner,” they both end up hosting US missiles aimed squarely at Beijing, which does little to improve their relations.

“This is just the latest in a long line of provocations complicating what would otherwise be increasingly constructive relations with China,” Berletic explains, arguing that the Philippines and Japan’s willingness to enable such US provocations “reveals the absence of agency in terms of either nations’ foreign policy.”

“It is very clear that this policy of hosting US forces seeking to encircle and contain China is a policy determined in Washington, not Manila or Tokyo, and is a policy serving US interests at the expense of the Philippines and Japan,” he states.

Berletic also deemed ironic the fact that the United States claims that its deployment of weapon systems around the world “is necessary to ensure global peace and stability,” even as the US “consistently demonstrates that it itself is the greatest threat to both.”

September 10, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

Kiev Uses Israeli, Turkish Cluster Munitions Against Russia – Cluster Munition Coalition

Sputnik – 10.09.2024

MOSCOW – The Ukrainian armed forces use cluster munitions from Turkiye and Israel in conflict with Russia, according to the 2024 report released by the Cluster Munition Coalition on Monday.

“Israeli-made or copied M971 120mm cluster munition mortar projectiles were photographed in the possession of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in December 2022. Israel originally produced this type of cluster munition, but it is not known how or from whom Ukraine acquired it,” the report said.

It is added that Turkish and Ukrainian high ranking government officials had denied US media reports of January 2023 stating that Turkiye had transferred cluster munitions to Ukraine in November 2022.

However, a photo posted on social media in August 2023 showed the 155mm M483A1 dual-purpose improved conventional munitions produced by Turkiye being used in Ukraine, the report said, adding that Turkish officials denied providing cluster munitions to Ukraine.

Ukraine might also use cluster munitions from Poland, the coalition added.

International Campaign to Ban Landmines – Cluster Munition Coalition (ICBL-CMC) is a global network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Geneva, Switzerland, that promotes adherence to and implementation of the treaties banning landmines and cluster munition.

September 10, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Germany and the EU Abandon Reason

Michael von der Schulenburg, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Odysee
Glenn Diesen | September 9, 2024

We had a discussion with Michael von der Schulenburg – a German top diplomat with the OSCE and 34 years in the United Nations. The topic of discussion was the transformation of Germany and the war in Ukraine. Michael von der Schulenburg argues the EU must change course on Ukraine or risk tearing itself apart.

Michael von der Schulenburg and Harald Kujat (the former head of the German Bundeswehr and former chairman of the NATO Military Committee) criticised NATO for provoking the war and sabotaging the peace agreement to use Ukrainians to fight and weaken a strategic rival. Germany is now de-industrialising, the political elites have rediscovered enthusiasm for war, the US and Ukraine attacked Germany’s critical energy infrastructure which EU partners consider to be legitimate, society is growing more pessimistic, freedom of speech is undermined, there are signs of political violence, and new political alternatives are emerging that are not acceptable to the government. Michael von der Schulenburg argues the EU no longer behaves as a rational actor. Where did it all go wrong?

September 9, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Biden is out to get me’: A Russian-American TV host facing 60 years in an American jail speaks out

RT | September 9, 2024

The US Department of Justice has accused the 76-year-old – a former adviser to the late US President Richard Nixon who now hosts a talk show on Russian TV – with sanctions violations and money laundering. His wife Anastasia has also been indicted.

Born in Moscow, Simes left the Soviet Union at the age of 26. He had fallen afoul of Leonid Brezhnev-era officials for protesting against the USSR’s involvement in the Vietnam conflict. In the US, he was a professor at Johns Hopkins University. He also ran the Soviet policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and taught at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.

Simes then served as President of the Nixon Center and later as president and CEO of the Center for the National Interest, a major Republican-party aligned think tank.

In 2013, Carnegie honored him as a “Great Immigrant and Great American.” He left National Interest in 2022 and returned to Moscow, where he hosts the show ‘The Great Game’ on Russia’s Channel One.

In an interview with Kommersant correspondent Elena Chernenko, Simes has commented in detail on the allegations made by American officials.

– According to the US Department of Justice, you allegedly participated in schemes to “violate US sanctions on behalf of Channel One” and to “launder funds obtained as a result of this scheme,” and your wife allegedly also participated in a scheme to “violate US sanctions” in order to receive funds from a blacklisted Russian businessman. How would you respond to these allegations?

– Lawlessness and blatant lies. A combination of half-truths and outright fabrications. I’m accused of money laundering. But of what, according to the US Department of Justice? It’s from my salary, which went into an account at Rosbank in Moscow, the bank used by Channel One, I transferred some of the money to my bank in Washington. And why do you think? To pay my American taxes [the US has dual taxation for citizens working abroad – RT]!

In my opinion, not only was there nothing illegal about it, there was nothing unethical about it either. They [the US authorities] say that, somehow, I was hiding something. That I could not transfer money directly from a Russian bank to an American bank. That it’s impossible because of American sanctions. So, I had to transfer money through a third bank. This, of course, complicated the process, but there is nothing illegal [about it] in either Russian or American law. It is simply outrageous to call it money laundering.

As for the accusation that I allegedly violated the US sanctions imposed on Channel One, first of all I would like to remind you that there is one thing that the Biden administration does not take seriously. I’m talking about the United States Constitution and the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And I insist that everything I have done as a journalist I have done within the framework of the First Amendment of the American Constitution.

Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the sanctions against Channel One were not approved by the US Congress, it was just a decree from the Treasury Department saying that it was not allowed to do business with Russian federal TV channels. But this ban was very vaguely worded. It could have been interpreted as a prohibition on helping the federal channels in any financial way, through any kind of payment or donation. Or it could be interpreted more broadly as a ban on any interaction.

– How did you interpret it?

– After this decree appeared, I was told that there was a conversation between representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the US State Department, during which the American side explained that the main purpose of these sanctions was to prevent Russian federal channels from receiving Western funding. And they should not affect the work of journalists.

– So you believed that your work at Channel One did not violate US sanctions?

– That’s what I was told. But I was not satisfied. I personally spoke to a senior US administration official about this. I was told that, of course, we do not approve of your work at Channel One, and if you continue to work there, it will not help your reputation and career in America, but this sanctions decree is aimed at curbing the channel’s financial revenues, not at preventing journalists from working.

In other words, I felt that, from the point of view of the US administration, I was doing something undesirable but not something for which I could be prosecuted.

– Have you spoken to lawyers?

– Of course I have. I consulted American lawyers and they had the same point of view. Now I am facing criminal charges, just for doing my job as a journalist.

– You have not been in the US since October 2022. Were you worried that the case might not be limited to a verbal expression of displeasure?

– I had a feeling that there might be a problem. But I wasn’t certain, and I had even less of an expectation that it could lead to a prosecution. I think the White House decided to go ahead and stir up the issue of Russian interference in the American election again. I had nothing to do with any interference and have nothing to do with it. Moreover, I am absolutely certain that there was and is no large-scale interference. And when I hear that charges have been brought against me as part of a campaign against Russian interference in American elections, I have the feeling that this is not only politicized, but completely fabricated.

– Yes, the New York Times, in describing the situation, wrote that the charges against you were ‘part of a broader government effort to thwart Russian attempts to influence American politics in the run-up to November’s presidential election.’

– I work for Channel One and everything I do is, by definition, very open. It’s all in Russian. Channel One does not broadcast in the United States. I could not and cannot influence the American domestic political situation in any way.

As far as interference is concerned, it would probably be more interesting to look at the demands of Ukrainian officials who have been urging the White House to take action against me for a long time.

We are talking about Ukrainian interference at quite a high level.

The “[Andrey] Yermak- [Michael] McFaul Expert Group on Russian Sanctions” [run by Vladimir Zelesnky’s top advisor and a former US ambassador to Russia, to develop recommendations on sanctions] is working on this conspiracy. This is a legalized form of high-level Ukrainian interference in decision-making in Washington.

And I would be very interested to understand how it was that when my house [in the US] was searched [in August], which lasted four days, and things were taken out by trucks with trailers, how it was that on my lawn, according to the neighbors, there were about 50 people, many of whom came not in official cars, as the FBI usually does, but in private cars. And how was it that these people, some of whom later turned up in a shop in a neighbouring small town, somehow spoke Ukrainian? I would really like to understand what role Ukrainian interference in American politics played in this situation.

– Will you and your wife try to fight the charges in an American court?

– I will have to discuss this with my lawyers and until I have spoken to them in detail I will of course not make any decisions. If we have to come to the United States to contest the charges, then no, I am not in the least tempted to do so.

Knowing the methods of this administration and knowing what they are capable of with regard to the former – and possibly future – president of the United States, I mean Trump, I know that an objective consideration of my case is out of the question.

But, of course, this situation is extremely unpleasant for me. My accounts have been frozen, I cannot pay taxes on my house and other related expenses.

At the same time, not only do I not consider myself guilty of anything but I feel as if I am being persecuted by the Gestapo.

And at least from a moral point of view I think I’m doing absolutely the right thing. And I’m going to fight it, I’m going to actively work to make sure that such actions by the Biden administration do not go unpunished.

– It is clear that most of your colleagues in Russia actively support you, but what about in the US? Have your colleagues there reacted in any way to this situation?

– They reacted in a very resounding way – with sepulchral silence. I have not heard anyone condemning me in any way, but I have not seen any support either. My colleagues there are disciplined people, they understand the American situation. Even someone like [prominent American economist and professor] Jeffrey Sachs, who was on my show the other day, has disappeared from leading American TV channels, and even he is not allowed to publish in leading American publications.

I say ‘even him’ because he was considered one of America’s leading economists and political scientists. And even he is cut off from expressing his views there. There is a climate of totalitarian political correctness in the US, where it’s impossible to even discuss the issue of relations with Russia, because as soon as a person starts to say something that differs from the general Russophobic line, they are immediately told: ‘Oh, we’ve already heard that from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin.’

– Some Western media call you a ‘propagandist’ and a ‘mouthpiece of the Kremlin.’

– For them, a ‘propagandist’ and a ‘mouthpiece of the Kremlin’ is anyone who deviates from the ‘correct’ American political line. Not only do I deviate from it in no uncertain terms, I do not accept it at all. As for being a ‘mouthpiece for the Kremlin,’ I am not aware that anyone has appointed me to that position or given me that authority. If you look at the two events in which I participated and in which Putin was present, you will see that both times I argued with him.

– The St Petersburg International Economic Forum and the Valdai Forum.

– Yes. And I have a clear feeling that on Channel One in general I am given the opportunity to say what I want to say. In times of war, of course, there is and can be no complete freedom, and I don’t need to be censored in this respect. I myself know that war is war. But no one has ever given me instructions. I have heard that they exist, but not only have I never seen them, no one has ever said anything like that to me personally.

At the same time, of course, I am interested in the opinion of the Russian authorities. If I were not interested, I would not be doing my job. It would be quite strange to be a TV presenter in a war situation and not be interested in the position of the decision-makers. But here it’s a completely different dynamic. I am the one asking questions to understand the situation and the positions of the decision-makers. But there is absolutely no question of anyone giving me instructions, even in the most veiled form.

– You have, of course, an amazing biography. You were persecuted and even arrested for dissent in the Soviet Union, and now you are facing a huge sentence in the United States, also, one might say, for dissent.

– Yes, but in the Soviet Union I was not given a huge sentence, I was given two weeks, which I served honestly in Matrosskaya Tishina [prison]. Nevertheless, when I left the Soviet Union I was allowed to take with me what belonged to me, even if it was very little. And the main thing is that when my parents – human-rights activists who had been expelled from the USSR by the KGB – left, they were able to take with them paintings and icons that belonged to our family, and even some of their antique furniture.

During the search of our house [in the US] all this was confiscated. At the same time, these things had nothing to do with my wife’s work. These are things that have belonged to us for many years, and in the case of the paintings and icons, for many decades, because they belonged to my parents. And now everything has been taken from the walls in what I can only describe as a pogrom. The roof is broken, the floor is damaged. What has this got to do with a legitimate investigation?

Interestingly, they left my gun in a conspicuous place. In general, the first thing they confiscate in a search like this is your means of communication. But they were not very good at that in my case, because I had not been there for almost two years, and all my devices are with me here. But they found my gun and for some reason they left it in a prominent place. I don’t know, maybe it was some kind of hint to me that I should shoot myself or that they might do something to me, I can’t read other people’s minds. Especially the minds of people with a slightly twisted imagination and a dangerous sense of permissiveness.

– I suppose I have one last question, but it’s a bit of a thesis. Recently, as part of another project, I was digging through the archives, looking at news footage from the spring of 2004, when Sergey Lavrov had just become foreign minister. I was surprised to discover that you were the first representative of the expert community, not just internationally but in general, to be received by the newly appointed minister. You discussed Russian-American relations and Lavrov said at the time that there were no strategic differences between Moscow and Washington, only tactical ones. Twenty years have passed and the sides have only disagreements, tactical and, what is worse, strategic. In your opinion, who is to blame for everything that has gone wrong?

– First of all, thank you for reminding me that I was the first representative of the expert community to meet Lavrov after his appointment as Minister. This was probably not unusual, as I had known him for a number of years when he was Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN in New York.

I was very concerned at the time about how many Russian diplomatic leaders, and not just diplomats but government agencies in general, were willing to play a game of give and take with the US. I was sure that this could not lead to anything good. Lavrov stood out from the others in this respect: of course, he was committed to cooperation with the US at that time, but at the same time he was able to speak in a more confident tone and showed a good, slightly sarcastic sense of humor when dealing with his American colleagues’ open attacks on Russian interests, on Russian dignity.

In 2004, I remember, we had one of the Russian leaders, not Putin, but quite an important person, who spoke at the Center for the National Interest shortly after the American invasion of Iraq. And he said that Russia does not support what the US has done in Iraq and thinks it is dangerous, but will not interfere and will not try to gain political capital at the expense of the US. And he went on to say that maybe if we had a different relationship, a more engaged relationship, we could support America, but we don’t have that relationship and it’s not on the horizon yet. I think that, in 2004, despite, of course, a great deal of dissatisfaction with American actions in Yugoslavia in 1999, Russia had a great willingness to cooperate with the US and a general acceptance that it was the only real superpower.

I have studied Russian policy in detail since the end of the Cold War, and with the exception of [Prime Minister Yevgeny] Primakov’s plane turning over the Atlantic in 1999, I have generally not seen any Russian actions that could have caused serious dissatisfaction within the US. You know that back in 1999, as prime minister, Putin offered the Americans cooperation in the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The reaction of the Clinton administration was: it’s not that the Russians want to be really good partners, they want the Americans to tolerate the new Russian influence in Central Asia. And US ambassadors, on the contrary, were instructed to oppose this Russian influence in every possible way.

Then came 2007 and Putin expressed his concerns about US and NATO actions in the famous ‘Munich speech,’ but relations were still more-or-less normal. Russia had in principle been very restrained for a very long time, in Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere, although it was less and less willing to accept American hegemony and imposition of rules. But when it came to decision makers in Moscow, it seemed to me that no one was looking to bring the matter to a head.

You are right, this is a long and complicated conversation about how we came to live like this. But I am convinced that since the late 1990s and early 2000s, the idea of preventing Russia from being an independent force on the international stage has become more and more dominant in Washington. And I did not see during that period, and I do not see now, any signs of interest among decision-makers in the United States in a serious discussion of the problems that have accumulated.

After Putin’s 2007 speech in Munich, a number of people who were there told me that he had done it for nothing. One very distinguished former American diplomat, who was generally regarded as pro-Russian, said to me: ‘This was not helpful’. And I asked him: helpful to whom? And he replied that nobody would agree to meet the demands and concerns that Putin was expressing. So, you see, even such a sensible and experienced person, who, among other things, was a consultant to major Russian companies, it didn’t even occur to him that what Putin was saying should be taken seriously.

So, it seems to me that the main responsibility for what has happened lies with the US and, above all, with the American deep state, the deep state most of whose representatives, as I found out over many years of working in Washington, are hostile to Russia. They were not interested in any rapprochement with Russia, no matter what was said publicly. I discussed this topic on air with Sachs, and he has the same feeling that this deep state ensures the continuity of this kind of Washington policy, regardless of the preferences of this or that president in the White House.

Of course, presidents, secretaries of state and national security advisers are all people with their own views and approaches to Russia. But if we talk in general, in my estimation, starting with Bill Clinton, it somehow turned out that it was people who were either critical or hostile towards Russia who in practice played a decisive role in formulating Washington’s policy towards Moscow.

– You just reminded me of the memoirs of the former US Ambassador to Russia, John Sullivan, which we wrote about recently. In it, he recalls how he promised the Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov that he would convey an invitation to Trump to visit Moscow to celebrate WW2 Victory Day, while he himself, according to his own recollections, was determined to do everything possible to prevent such a visit from taking place.

– I did not meet John Sullivan but, in the past, when I flew from Washington to Moscow, I was always invited to meetings with the heads of the US diplomatic missions. They were good and different, the most impressive was Bill Burns.

– The current head of the CIA.

– Yes. I always thought they were basically decent people. But every time it turned out that no matter how reasonable they were, in the end they followed the ‘party line,’ which is very hostile to the recognition of Russia as an independent great power.

September 9, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine Support Without Peace Strategy

DWN Interview with Harald Kujat

Glenn’s Substack | September 8, 2024

Interview by Moritz Enders in Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (DNW) – translated by Glenn Diesen

Harald Kujat (born 1942), retired Air Force General, was the highest-ranking German soldier as Inspector General of the German Armed Forces from 2000 to 2002. From 2002 to 2005 he was Chairman of the NATO Russia Council and the NATO-Ukraine Commission of the Chiefs of Staff and the highest-ranking NATO General as Chairman of the NATO Military Committee.

Does the Ukraine conflict mark another stage in the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order? According to Harald Kujat, the former Inspector General of the German Bundeswehr, neither Russia nor Ukraine and their partners and supporters in the West seem to be able to win it. And at the same time, the next source of conflict is emerging: a conflict between the USA and China.

DWN: Can Ukraine still win the war or is it already de facto lost?

Harald Kujat: Neither Ukraine nor Russia can win the war, because neither will achieve the political goals for which they are waging this war. Ukraine wants to restore the country’s territorial integrity within the 1991 borders and become a member of NATO. But despite continued support from the West, recapturing the territories annexed or occupied by Russia on its own is a legitimate but unrealistic option given the military balance of power and the military situation that has developed during the war. It was declared at the NATO summit in early July that Ukraine’s path to NATO was irreversible. However, it was also emphasized that NATO would be able to issue an invitation if all allies agreed and all conditions were met. Not all member states, including the USA, are willing to do so. President Biden emphasized this again explicitly in an interview in early June.

For Russia, the NATO membership of Sweden and Finland is already a serious setback. It is not yet clear whether it will be possible to establish a buffer zone between Russia and NATO, a long-standing goal of Russia, albeit now in the form of a cordon sanitaire in western Ukraine. One conceivable option would be to admit western Ukraine into NATO if the areas annexed by Russia cannot be reintegrated. However, I am certain that Russia will only agree to a peace settlement if Ukraine does not become a member of NATO, because that is a core demand of Russia.

The United States will also not achieve its goal of weakening Russia politically, militarily and economically. Because of the close ties between Russia and China, this would also have an impact on China, the United States’ biggest geopolitical challenger. It has not been possible to force Russia to stop the attack through a wide range of sanctions. The economic consequences are borne primarily by the European states, while Russia’s economy is stable and domestic production is increasing there. Russia’s geopolitical influence has even grown due to the accession of important states to the BRICS organization and in relation to the global south. And the Russian armed forces are stronger than before the war.

However, two losers in this war are already clear today: the Ukrainian people and the European Union, which has fallen far behind in the power arithmetic of the major powers both politically and economically.

DWN: But could the Ukrainian offensive in the Kursk area, i.e. on Russian soil, which has been going on for more than two weeks, not influence the outcome of the war?

Harald Kujat: The Ukrainian armed forces have undoubtedly pulled off a coup with this advance. They discovered a weak point with the Russians and seized the opportunity that presented itself with determination and considerable success. There are, however, some notable aspects in connection with this operation.

Although Russian intelligence undoubtedly recognized that Ukraine was bringing together elements from several brigades with reconnaissance equipment, electronic warfare and army air defense to form a combat group, they evidently did not anticipate the Ukrainian leadership’s intention to undertake a cross-border advance. The Russian border security consisted mainly of young, inexperienced conscripts equipped only with light weapons. The fact that there was no immediate reaction with combat troops and that the organization of the resistance took a long time is extremely embarrassing for the Russian military leadership.

The Ukrainians’ conduct of the operation shows that they had an astonishingly good picture of the situation regarding the Russian forces. They managed to bring in additional forces relatively quickly to reinforce the initially small combat unit. They were also able to expand their advance in a fan shape. However, they had to accept considerable losses in personnel and material as they gained ground quickly.

So far, the Russian armed forces have limited themselves to stabilizing the situation. They could now bring in superior forces and try to defeat the Ukrainian combat unit. Or they could systematically wear down the enemy forces that had penetrated and possible reinforcements, thereby forcing them to retreat. This is a strategy that the Russians have already used several times, including in Bakhmut and Avdiivka.

The Ukrainians have given various statements about the aim of this advance, which have changed over the course of the operation. It is very likely that the nuclear power plant near Kursk was to be captured. When this did not succeed immediately, it was said that Russia should be forced to withdraw combat troops from the Russian-Ukrainian front in order to strengthen resistance in the Kursk region. The expectation was that this would reduce the pressure on the Ukrainian defense. In addition, the Ukrainian conquests of Russian territory were to serve as a bargaining chip in possible peace negotiations and could be exchanged for Ukrainian territory. Finally, Russian prisoners could be exchanged for Ukrainian prisoners of war.

However, Russia did not withdraw heavy combat units from the Donbas front, but only a few, smaller infantry units. As a result, the Russian forces in the Donbas are able to continue to make territorial gains and even increase their pressure on the Ukrainian defense lines. They are getting closer and closer to Pokrovsk, a strategically important city with sixty thousand inhabitants that could be conquered in the near future. In addition, Russia has rejected negotiations as long as Russian territory is occupied by Ukraine. Thus, the results of the operation hoped for by Ukraine have not materialized

DWN: So what could Ukraine achieve with its advance? Is it the decisive blow that will change the course of the war in Ukraine’s favor or is it a gamble by the Ukrainian president that will ultimately cost Ukraine dearly?

Harald Kujat: There is a high probability that the latter is the case. Because Ukraine is taking a big risk in withdrawing combat troops from the defense front, which is under great pressure, holding the thinned-out Donbas front and at the same time defending its positions in the Kursk area. The already critical military situation will therefore end up being much more difficult than before the advance into Russian territory. The short-term political success could soon end in a strategic defeat.

DWN: Will the war now simply continue until the American presidential elections or is there a chance of ending it through negotiations?

Harald Kujat: I fear that with the Ukrainian advance into Russian territory, the chance for a ceasefire and peace negotiations opportunities for the foreseeable future have been wasted. Russia has refused to negotiate as long as Russian territory is occupied. Both sides are only willing to negotiate if the conditions you demand are met beforehand. In addition, Russia can wait for the results of the American presidential election. I consider the Chinese proposal from February last year to be the only realistic option to bring both sides back to the negotiating table: to continue the negotiations without preconditions, where they were broken off in mid-April 2022.

DWN: What effects would the election of Donald Trump as the next American president have?

Harald Kujat: With his peace initiative, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban tried to find a way out of the impasse into which the Europeans have manoeuvred themselves through their unrealistic and strategyless actions. He has discussed with Volodymyr Zelensky, Putin and Xi Jinping the possibilities of ending the war with a ceasefire and a negotiated peace. Orban has also spoken with Donald Trump about his attitude. While President Biden has always stressed that only the Ukrainian government decides whether, when and under what conditions it negotiates, Trump has repeatedly declared his intention to end the war in Ukraine as quickly as possible. After the conversation with Trump, Orban wrote: “We have talked about ways to make peace. The good news of the day: He will solve it.” Trump confirmed this on his internet platform: “Thank you, Viktor. There must be peace, and as soon as possible.” The election has not yet been decided, but it would make sense for not only the two warring parties, but also the European states supporting Ukraine to prepare for this eventuality.

DWN: The German government has been criticized for its decision not to provide any new support for Ukraine beyond the measures already agreed. What impact will this decision have on the course of the war?

Harald Kujat: The German government has budgeted four billion euros for support for Ukraine in 2025. The German government also points out that the G7 states intend to grant Ukraine a loan of 50 billion euros, the interest on which will be paid from the proceeds of the frozen Russian state assets. And the NATO member states have also decided to provide 40 billion euros for support for Ukraine in 2025.

However, Ukraine’s financial needs are very high because not only the material expenses for waging war but also the state budget must be financed by around 50 percent of foreign donations.

Whether the planned financial support covers the necessary needs for the continuation of the war depends crucially on whether and to what extent the United States continues to support Ukraine after the presidential election on November 5. If the aid is not continued or not continued to the required extent, the European states supporting Ukraine could very quickly be faced with the decision of whether they are willing and able to compensate for the United States’ failure.

It is noteworthy, by the way, that in Germany the continuation and the amount of aid to Ukraine is being discussed, but the question of which strategy is being pursued with it plays no role. Supporting Ukraine in defending its independence and territorial integrity is a legitimate but not sufficient measure to achieve lasting peace and a secure future for the country. The collective West has been supporting Ukraine in its defensive war for two and a half years financially, with extensive arms deliveries and with humanitarian aid. Despite this selfless commitment and the risk of the war spreading to the whole of Europe, the military situation in Ukraine has become increasingly critical. The fact that this negative development is continuing and has even intensified in recent months should be a reason to at least now consider whether it is sensible to continue to support Ukraine in order to achieve an unattainable goal and thereby bring it closer to military defeat. If, despite the Western expenditure, the negative military development is expected to continue and even intensify, alternatives must be sought that will end the suffering of the Ukrainian population and the destruction of the country. Because the alternative to a timely negotiated peace would be a military defeat for Ukraine.

This is also apparently the view of Indian Prime Minister Narandra Modi, who declared in Warsaw before his visit to Kiev: “India firmly believes that no problem can be solved on a battlefield. We support dialogue and diplomacy in order to restore peace and stability as quickly as possible. To this end, India is prepared to make every possible contribution together with its friendly countries.”

Those who lack this insight should think of the UN resolutions of March 2, 2022 and February 23, 2023, which call for a “peaceful settlement of the conflict through dialogue, negotiations, mediation and other peaceful means,” and also remember the peace mandate of the Basic Law.

DWN: In addition, the Federal Republic also seems to be becoming more confrontational towards China. What are the reasons for this?

Harald Kujat: The 21st century is characterized by China’s rise to world power and by the rivalry between the great powers, the United States, Russia and China. The Ukraine war has made it clear that China is the only competitor of the United States, and increasingly has the political, economic, military and technological potential to replace the United States as the world’s leading power.

In order to deal with China, the United States needs to work closely with its European NATO allies. The European NATO states, together with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, are to form an Indo-Pacific network of partners and allies in order to be involved in the conflict with China with the same unity as in the conflict with Russia. In NATO’s strategic concept, China is therefore already described as a systemic challenge to Euro-Atlantic security.

At NATO’s anniversary summit in Washington in early July, the Alliance’s heads of state and government went a step further. They declared that China had become a decisive factor in Russia’s war against Ukraine through its borderless partnership and extensive support of the Russian defense industry. This had increased the threat that Russia poses to its neighbors and to Euro-Atlantic security. The Indo-Pacific is important for NATO because developments in this region have a direct impact on Euro-Atlantic security.

The North Atlantic Alliance is thus taking a confrontational course with China. We Europeans must decide whether we want to participate in a future military conflict between China and the United States or strengthen the ability to assert ourselves politically, economically and militarily and become an independent factor of international stability with the ability to prevent and contain conflicts.

Article in German language: Harald Kujat: Die Sackgasse für Ukraine und Russland (deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de)

September 8, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s UN mission rejects Western allegations of supplying ballistic missiles to Russia

Press TV – September 7, 2024

Iran has rejected allegations of supplying ballistic missiles to Russia as baseless and misleading. The allegations are leveled against Tehran by the US and its Western allies.

The mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations said on Friday that the country regards as inhuman any military assistance to parties of the Ukraine conflict that would increase damage to lives and infrastructure in Ukraine.

Therefore, not only does it not do so, but also invites other countries to stop sending weapons to the parties involved in the conflict, the mission said.

“The position of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the conflict in Ukraine has not changed,” the mission said after American, British and French envoys leveled coordinated accusations at Tehran concerning the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict during a UN Security Council meeting on August 30

The mission also called on other countries to follow suit and end the supply of weapons to the warring sides.

Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations Amir Saeid Iravani previously also rejected the “baseless and misleading” accusations of the United States, England and France regarding Tehran’s role in Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine.

“The United States and its allies cannot deny the undeniable fact that sending advanced Western weapons, especially from the United States, has prolonged the war in Ukraine and harmed civilians and civilian infrastructure,” Iravani said.

He made the remarks in a letter sent to the UN chief and the Security Council’s president on Wednesday.

He said Iran “categorically rejects” any allegations suggesting its involvement in the sale, export, or transfer of arms in violation of its international commitments to Russia as “misleading, completely unfounded.”

Tehran has repeatedly dismissed Western allegations of its involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war.

Iran has called for a ceasefire, blaming the lingering conflict on Western arms supplies to Kiev.

Russia launched what it called a special military operation in Ukraine in February 2022 partly to prevent NATO’s eastward expansion after warning that the US-led military alliance was following an “aggressive line” against Moscow.

Russia has repeatedly warned against the flow of Western weapons to Ukraine, saying it prolongs the conflict.

September 7, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , | Leave a comment

EU nations to give Ukraine more tanks

RT | September 6, 2024

Germany, along with Denmark and the Netherlands, will supply 77 more Cold-War-era Leopard 1A5 tanks to Ukraine, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has announced. In addition, Berlin intends to provide an additional twelve PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzers, he said.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz approved the delivery of German-made tanks to Ukraine back in January 2023. Kiev has since lost an unknown number of these tanks. The Russian military has released numerous videos showing the destruction of such hardware.

Speaking during a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at US Ramstein military base in Germany on Friday, Pistorius met with Vladimir Zelensky, who attended personally in a bid to drum up more defense aid. The German minister assured the Ukrainian leader that Berlin “remains in a continuous delivery process for Ukraine.”

Pistorius estimated that Germany, together with Denmark, had already delivered 58 Leopard 1A5 tanks to Ukraine, with 77 more pieces of this hardware to be supplied in the near future.

“We will deliver twelve modern PzH 2000 howitzers to Ukraine, with six expected to arrive in the country by the end of this year,” Pistorius added.

He went on to say that air defense remains a crucial area for Kiev and that more hardware is needed to better fend off Russian missile strikes. According to the minister, Germany is funding the procurement of twelve IRIS-T air defense systems to be shipped to Ukraine. Moreover, Berlin has pledged more medium- and close-range systems, including more than 60 self-propelled Gepard anti-aircraft guns.

Pistorius also stressed that since November 2022, more than 16,000 Ukrainian service members have been trained on German soil.

In mid-July, the Bavarian daily Munchner Merkur, citing government data, claimed that Germany had secretly delivered a “huge” defense aid package to Ukraine between late June and early July. The package reportedly included ten Leopard 1A5 tanks, among other hardware.

The media outlet also alleged at the time that Berlin planned to send by an unspecified date 85 more tanks of this type to Ukraine as part of a joint project with Denmark.

Moscow has consistently warned that deliveries of Western weapons to Ukraine only serve to prolong the bloodshed, without changing the course of the conflict.

September 6, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »