Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Russia Denies Germany Sharing Information on Nord Stream Attacks

Sputnik– 21.08.2024

MOSCOW – The German Foreign Ministry’s statements that Berlin is sharing information with Moscow on the Nord Stream terrorist attacks are a lie, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday.

Oleg Tyapkin, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Third European Department, said in an interview with Sputnik that Russia had officially filed a claim against Germany regarding the investigation into the Nord Stream bombing and is seeking to hold talks on Germany fulfilling its international obligations in the fight against terrorism. On Monday, German Foreign Ministry spokesperson Sebastian Fischer said that Berlin is exchanging data with Russia on the Nord Stream bombings, but is not providing information on the interim results of the investigation.

“They [the German authorities] do not provide the facts they have on this investigation to the Russian side, although they are obliged to do so. Russia insists on holding official bilateral consultations in accordance with the current regulations. They, by the way, are prescribed in the UN anti-terrorist conventions,” Zakharova told a briefing, adding that these statement on the exchange of information “are a lie.”

Germany responds to all Russia’s inquiries regarding the Nord Stream attacks with empty formal replies, the diplomat said, adding that not a single such document contains factual information.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , | Leave a comment

Kursk: Fighting Russia to the Last Ukrainian

Kursk: Fighting Russia to the Last Ukrainian

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – 21.08.2024 

In the lead up to the Ukrainian military’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, even Western headlines were dominated by reports of Ukraine’s gradual demise. Ukraine is admittedly suffering arms and ammunition shortages, as well as facing an unsolvable manpower crisis. Russia has been destroying Ukrainian military power faster than Ukraine and its Western sponsors can reconstitute it.

Western headlines have also been admitting the scale on which Russia is expanding its own military power as its Special Military Operation (SMO) continues into its third year.

While the launch of Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk has diverted attention away from Ukraine’s collapsing fighting capacity, the incursion itself has not only failed to address the factors leading to this collapse, it is already accelerating it.

Politico in an August 15, 2024 article titled, “As Kyiv makes gains in Kursk, Russia strikes back in Donetsk,” cites the spokesman of Ukraine’s 110th Mechanized Brigade who would admit, “since Ukraine launched the Kursk offensive I would say things have become worse in our part of the front. We have been getting even less ammo than before, and the Russians are pushing.”

The same article would also cite “Deep State,” a mapping project Politico claims is “close” to Ukraine Ministry of Defense, claiming, “over the past 24 hours, Russia occupied the villages of Zhelanne and Orlivka and made advances in New York, Krasnohorivka, Mykolaivka and Zhuravka in Donetsk.”

Thus, while Ukraine claims gains in Kursk, it comes at the expense of territory everywhere else along the line of contact.

Because of the nature of the fighting in Kursk where Ukrainian forces have come out from behind extensive defensive lines and are operating out in the open, they are suffering much greater losses than Ukrainian units being pushed back along the line of contact, according to even the Western media.

Superficial Success, Strategic Suicide  

Despite this reality, the Western media has invested heavily in depicting Ukraine’s Kursk incursion as a turning point in the fighting.

CNN in its August 15, 2024 article, “Russia appears to have diverted several thousand troops from occupied Ukraine to counter Kursk offensive, US officials say,” attempts at first glance to portray the Ukrainian operation as having successfully diverted Russian forces from the front lines.

Buried deeper in the article, however, CNN reveals that whatever troops Russia is moving are relatively insignificant compared to the number of Russian forces still fighting along the line of contact primarily in Kherson, Zaporozhye, the Donbass, and Kharkov.

In the short-term, experienced forces utilized as a mobile reserve are likely being moved to Kursk until Russian reserves within Russia itself can be sufficiently mobilized and moved to the area of fighting. The vast majority of Russia’s forces not only remain along the actual line of contact, they continue making progress at an accelerated rate.

The same CNN article would quote US officials, saying:

Some officials also raised concerns that Ukraine, which one western official said has sent some of its more experienced forces into Kursk, may have created weaknesses along its own frontlines that Russia may be able to exploit to gain more ground inside Ukraine.

“It’s impressive from a military point of view,” the official said of the Kursk operation. But Ukraine is “committing pretty experienced troops to this, and they can’t afford to lose those troops.”

“And having diverted them from the front line creates opportunities for Russia to seize advantage and break through,” this person added.

Buried under optimistic headlines across the Western media regarding this latest incursion is an ominous truth – that an operation aimed at humiliating Russia, boosting morale, and raising the political, territorial, and military costs for Russia, has only brought Ukraine deeper into its growing arms, ammunition, and manpower crisis.

Toward what end does an incursion accelerating the collapse of Ukraine’s fighting capacity serve?

Washington’s, Not Kiev’s Ends  

CNN would also attempt to convince readers that the Kursk incursion took the US itself entirely by surprise. This is untrue.

The United States, following its political capture of Ukraine in 2014, admittedly took over Ukraine’s intelligence networks. These are the same networks that would have been required to organize this most recent incursion.

A New York Times article, “The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin,” not only admits to the CIA’s role in training, shaping, and directing Ukrainian intelligence operations, but also admits to a network of CIA bases along the Ukrainian-Russian border and the fact that the CIA stood up covert military units specifically for crossing over into Russian territory and conducting operations there.

The CIA and other US military and intelligence agencies have been involved in Ukrainian military operations leading up to and all throughout the duration of Russia’s SMO.  The Washington Post admits that the US worked with Ukraine to “build a campaign plan” ahead of the failed 2023 Ukrainian offensive.

It is inconceivable Ukraine moved multiple brigades of manpower and equipment, including US-European trained soldiers and Western military equipment to Sumy where the Kursk incursion was launched without Washington’s involvement, let alone without Washington’s knowledge.

Why then did the US organize such an incursion, one admittedly overstretching Ukrainian forces already crumbling under the growing weight of Russian military power? Why, amid Russia’s strategy of attrition, have US planners decided to launch an incursion that will accelerate the loss of Ukrainian manpower, arms, and ammunition it does not have to spare?

In a much wider geopolitical context – Washington’s geopolitical context – the incursion helps raise the cost of victory for Russia in Ukraine as the US seeks to place pressure on and overextend Russia elsewhere within and along its borders.

Years before the SMO even began, as far back as at least 2019, US policymakers openly sought to draw Russia into a costly conflict in Ukraine, just one among many other proposals meant to overextend Russia.

The RAND Corporation in its 2019 paper “Extending Russia” would explain the benefits of “providing lethal aid to Ukraine,” stating:

Expanding U.S. assistance to Ukraine, including lethal military assistance, would likely increase the costs to Russia, in both blood and treasure, of holding the Donbass region. More Russian aid to the separatists and an additional Russian troop presence would likely be required, leading to larger expenditures, equipment losses, and Russian casualties. The latter could become quite controversial at home, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk has – at a minimum – raised the political cost of Russia’s ongoing SMO. This most recent incursion into Kursk almost certainly had hoped to reach the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, just 35 kilometers beyond the furthest extent the incursion has reached as of this writing. Had Ukrainian forces reached the power plant, the price would have been even higher.

In many ways, however, the Kursk incursion has created a much greater strategic dilemma for Ukraine than it has for Russia. While it has unfolded on the wrong side of the border, the outcome is the same as the Kharkov front Russia opened earlier this year.

Regarding the Kharkov front, the New York Times in its May 2024 article, “Facing Russian Advance, a Top Ukrainian General Paints a Bleak Picture,” would admit, “the Russian attacks in the northeast are intended to stretch Ukraine’s already thin reserves of soldiers and divert them from fighting elsewhere,” and that, “the Ukrainian army was trying to redirect troops from other front-line areas to shore up its defenses in the northeast, but that it had been difficult to find the personnel.” 

By committing thousands of Ukrainian troops and large amounts of Ukraine’s best military equipment to an incursion into Kursk, it is creating the same overextension of its own forces Russia had created in Kharkov last May, but with the added complication of needing to extend logistics and other means of supporting Ukrainian operations beyond Ukrainian territory itself.

The same RAND Corporation paper proposing to draw Russia into a costly conflict with Ukraine would also discuss the consequences this conflict would have for Ukraine itself, explaining:

… such a move might also come at a significant cost to Ukraine and to U.S. prestige and credibility. This could produce disproportionately large Ukrainian casualties, territorial losses, and refugee flows. It might even lead Ukraine into a disadvantageous peace.

The plan from the very beginning was to lure Russia into a costly conflict in the hopes of precipitating a Soviet-style collapse, but at the expense of Ukraine’s own survival. Thus, what we see unfolding in Ukraine today is simply the consequences predicted by the RAND Corporation in 2019.

Dangerous Escalation and the Long Game 

Perhaps most concerning of all is the looming prospect of the US intervening more directly, including in the form of a “buffer zone” similar to that created by the US and its Turkish allies in the east and north of Syria during Washington’s proxy war there.

For this intervention to succeed, Russia would have to be compelled to restrain itself from attacking Western forces arriving in Ukraine.

The possibility of this happening is difficult to predict.

On one hand, Russia has demonstrated immense patience amid other US proxy wars. Russian patience in Syria is finally paying off after almost a decade of enduring US provocations and the presence of US troops east of the Euphrates River. The US now finds itself isolated and vulnerable in Syria, its forces under regular attack there, and a disproportionate amount of US military hardware remains committed to both Syria and the surrounding region, limiting US combat power ahead of a potential conflict with Russia in Eastern Europe or China in the Asia-Pacific.

Moscow may determine that a Western intervention directly into Ukraine will, over time, collapse under its own weight in a similar manner. In the long term, the US is only going to grow weaker and more isolated as a result of its unsustainable, overreaching foreign policy. Initiating direct conflict with the US now, when it is inevitably going to be weaker later, would be permitting the US a potential and unnecessary advantage.

Instead, Russia and its allies may find an opportunity to exercise many of the means of escalation (short of direct conflict with the US itself) they have held in reserve throughout the duration of this conflict. This includes more open and direct military cooperation between Russia and China, including the arming of Russian forces with Chinese manufactured weapons and ammunition.

On the other hand, Russia may decide to restrain itself from attacking Western forces arriving in Ukraine’s westernmost regions, but continue military operations along the line of contact and obviously within Kursk itself to expel Ukrainian forces. The US would seek to test the limits of Russian resolve, seeking to constrain Russian operations as much as possible, just as the US did in Syria from 2015 onward.

Throughout this process, the potential for escalation and direct conflict between Russia and the US will grow.

Despite the continued collapse of Ukraine’s fighting capacity because Ukraine is ultimately a proxy of the United States, a difficult and dangerous transition period lies ahead dependent on the extent to which the US seeks to mitigate Ukraine’s subsequent political and territorial collapse.

Only time will tell whether the US cuts and runs as it did in Afghanistan, or doubles down as it did in Syria. It should be pointed out, however, that the US withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021 to redirect its resources ahead of Russia’s SMO in 2022. Were the US to cut Ukraine loose, it would only be because the US requires resources for a larger, more dangerous conflict elsewhere – namely in the Asia-Pacific region against China.

Either way, when Ukraine’s fighting capacity nears its end, it is likely only wider conflict awaits.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Britain’s Kursk Invasion Backfires?

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | August 21, 2024

British Challenger 2 tanks reached Ukraine with enormous fanfare, ahead of Kiev’s long-delayed, ultimately catastrophic 2023 “counteroffensive”. On top of encouraging other proxy war sponsors to provide Ukraine with armoured fighting vehicles, Western audiences were widely told the tank – hitherto marketed to international buyers as “indestructible” – made Kiev’s ultimate victory a fait accompli. As it was, Challenger 2 tanks deployed to Robotnye in September were almost instantly incinerated by Russian fire, then very quietly withdrawn from combat altogether.

Hence, many online commentators were surprised when footage of the Challenger 2 in action in Kursk began to circulate widely on August 13th. Furthermore, numerous mainstream outlets dramatically drew attention to the tank’s deployment. Several were explicitly briefed by British military sources that it marked the first time in history London’s tanks “have been used in combat on Russian territory.” Disquietingly, The Times now reveals this was a deliberate propaganda and lobbying strategy, spearheaded by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Prior to the Challenger 2’s presence in Kursk breaking, Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey had reportedly “been in talks about how far to go to confirm growing British involvement in the incursion towards Kursk.” Ultimately, they decided “to be more open about Britain’s role in a bid to persuade key allies to do more to help – and convince the public that Britain’s security and economic prosperity is affected by events on the fields of Ukraine.” A “senior Whitehall source” added:

“There won’t be shying away from the idea of British weapons being used in Russia as part of Ukraine’s defence. We don’t want any uncertainty or nervousness over Britain’s support at this critical moment and a half-hearted or uncertain response might have indicated that.”

In other words, London is taking the lead in marking itself out as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – will follow suit. What’s more The Times strongly hints that Kursk is to all intents and purposes a British invasion. The outlet records:

“Unseen by the world, British equipment, including drones, have played a central role in Ukraine’s new offensive and British personnel have been closely advising the Ukrainian military… on a scale matched by no other country.”

Britain’s grand plans don’t stop there. Healey and Foreign Secretary David Lammy “have set up a joint Ukraine unit,” divided between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence. The pair “held a joint briefing, with officials, for a cross-party group of 60 MPs on Ukraine,” while “Starmer has also asked the National Security Council to draw up plans to provide Ukraine with a broader range of support.” On top of military assistance, “industrial, economic, and diplomatic support” are also being explored.

The Times adds that in coming weeks, “Healey will attend a new meeting of the Ukraine Defence Coordination Group,” an international alliance of 57 countries overseeing the Western weaponry flooding into Kiev. There, “Britain will press European allies to send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.” The British Defence Ministry also reportedly “spoke last week to Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, and has been wooing Boris Pistorius, his German opposite number.”

Evidently, the new Labour government has an ambitious vision for the proxy war’s continuation. Yet, if the “counterinvasion” is anything to go by, it’s already dead in the water. As The Times notes, the imbroglio is primarily “designed to boost morale at home and shore up Zelensky’s position,” while relieving pressure on the collapsing Donbass frontline by forcing Russia to redirect forces to Kursk. Instead, Moscow “has capitalised on the absence of four crack Ukrainian regiments to press their attacks around Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar.”

Similarly, commenting on Starmer’s wideranging efforts to compel overt Western action against Russia, a “defence expert” told The Times: “if it looks as if the Brits [are] too far ahead of their NATO allies, it might be counterproductive.” This analysis is prescient, for there are ample indications London’s latest attempt to ratchet tensions and drag the US and Europe ever-deeper into the proxy war quagmire has already been highly “counterproductive”, and boomeranged quite spectacularly. Indeed, it appears Washington has finally had enough of London’s escalatory connivances.

In repeated press conferences and media briefings since August 6th, US officials have firmly distanced themselves from the Kursk incursion, denying any involvement in its planning or execution, or even being forewarned by Kiev. Empire house journal Foreign Policy has reported that Ukraine’s swoop caught the Pentagon, State Department, and White House off-guard. The Biden administration is purportedly not only enormously unhappy “to have been kept out of the loop,” but “skeptical of the military logic” behind the “counterinvasion”.

On top being a clear suicide mission, the eagerly advertised presence of Western weapons and vehicles on Russian soil “has put the Biden administration in an extremely awkward position.” Washington has since the proxy war erupted been wary of provoking retaliations against Western countries and their overseas assets, and the conflict spilling outside Ukraine’s borders. Adding to US irritations, the British-directed Kursk misadventure also torpedoed ongoing efforts to secure an agreement to halt “strikes on energy and power infrastructure on both sides.”

This comes as Kiev prepares for a harrowing winter without heat or light, due to devastating Russian attacks on its national energy grid. Putin has moreover made clear that Ukrainian actions in Kursk mean there is no longer scope for a wider negotiated settlement at all. Which is to say Moscow will now only accept unconditional surrender. The US has also seemingly changed course as a result of the “counterinvasion”.

On August 16th, it was reported that Washington had prohibited Ukraine’s use of British-made, long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory. Given securing wider Western acquiescence to such strikes is, per The Times, a core objective for Starmer, this can only be considered a harsh rebuke, before the Labour government’s escalatory lobbying efforts have even properly taken off. The Biden administration had in May granted permission for Kiev to conduct limited strikes in Russia, using guided munitions up to a 40-mile range.

Even that mild authorisation may be rescinded in due course. Berlin, which like Britain had initially proudly promoted the presence of its tanks in Kursk, is now decisively shifting away from the proxy war. On August 17th, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner announced a halt to any and all new military aid to Ukraine as part of a wider bid to slash federal government spending. The Wall Street Journal reporting three days earlier that Kiev was responsible for Nord Stream II’s destruction may be no coincidence.

The narrative of the Russo-German pipeline’s bombing detailed by the outlet was absurd in the extreme. Conveniently too, the WSJ acknowledged that admissions of “Ukrainian officials who participated in or are familiar with the plot” aside, “all arrangements” to strike Nord Stream “were made verbally, leaving no paper trail.” As such, the paper’s sources “believe it would be impossible to put any of the commanding officers on trial, because no evidence exists beyond conversations among top officials.”

Such an evidentiary deficit provides Berlin with an ideal pretext to step away from the proxy war, while insulating Kiev from any legal repercussions. The narrative of Ukraine’s unilateral culpability for the Nord Stream bombings also helpfully distracts from the attack’s most likely perpetrators. This journalist has exposed how a shadowy cabal of British intelligence operatives were the masterminds, and potential executors, of the October 2022 Kerch Bridge bombing.

That escalatory incident, like Nord Stream’s destruction, was known about in advance, and apparently opposed, by the CIA. Chris Donnelly, the British military intelligence veteran who orchestrated the Kerch Bridge attack, has privately condemned Washington’s reluctance to embroil itself further in the proxy war, declaring “this US position must be challenged, firmly and at once.” In December that year, the BBC confirmed that British officials were worried about the Biden administration’s “innate caution”, and had “stiffened the US resolve at all levels”, via “pressure.”

The determination of Washington’s self-appointed “junior partner” to escalate the proxy conflict into all-out hot war between Russia and the West has only intensified under Starmer’s new Labour government. Yet, the Empire gives every appearance of refusing to take the bait, while seeking to curb London’s belligerent fantasies. This may be an encouraging sign that the proxy war is at last reaching its end. But we must remain vigilant. British intelligence is unlikely to allow the US to withdraw without a fight.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

US, UK, Poland Took Part in Preparing Ukraine’s Operation in Kursk – Russian Foreign Intel

Sputnik – 21.08.2024

On August 6, Ukrainian forces launched an incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, which was slammed by President Vladimir Putin as a large-scale provocation. The Kiev regime planned the attack with the participation of the US and NATO, Russian presidential aide Nikolai Patrushev earlier said.

Ukraine’s operation in Russia’s Kursk region was prepared with the participation of the US, UK, and Polish intelligence services, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said.

“According to available information, the operation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk region was prepared with the participation of the US, British, and Polish intelligence services. The units involved in it underwent combat coordination in training centers in the UK and Germany. Military advisers from NATO countries are providing assistance in managing Ukraine’s units that have invaded Russian territory, and in using Western weapons and military equipment,” the agency told Russian media.

NATO countries are also providing the Ukrainian military with satellite reconnaissance data on the deployment of Russian troops in the area of ​​the operation, the SVR added.

As the situation on the front deteriorates for Ukrainian troops, Kiev’s Western handlers have been pushing it to move combat operations deep into Russian territory in recent months, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service said. One of the goals was to provoke an upsurge in anti-government sentiment and influence domestic policy in the country.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US PMC involved in Kursk invasion

By Lucas Leiroz | August 21, 2024

The US is directly involved in the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk – not only at the strategic level, but also at the tactical and operational sphere. Recent data confirm the participation of at least one US private military company (PMC), meaning that US troops are illegally operating within the 1991 Russian borders. This is likely to lead to a serious escalation of tensions between Moscow and Washington, with the Russian side already demanding formal explanations from US diplomats.

The presence of foreign mercenaries in Kursk is not new. The occurrence of foreigners among Ukrainian troops has been commonly reported, mainly Georgian, Polish and French citizens. However, so far, all reported mercenaries had been members of the Ukrainian Army’s “Foreign Legion”. It is now known that in addition to these individuals who have joined Kiev’s armed forces, there are also mercenary troops from at least one American PMC in Kursk, which represents a higher level of international aggression against Russia.

The American PMC Forward Observation Group (FOG) posted photos and videos on its Instagram showing some of its soldiers fighting on the Kursk front lines. In the photos, it is possible to see not only ordinary PMC members alongside Ukrainian soldiers, but also the founder of FOG himself, Derrick Bales – a well-known American mercenary who has participated in several conflicts. Bales is known for always using an M4A1 rifle in his operations, as well as for having a skull tattoo on his right arm. He has been in Ukraine since 2022, as FOG has been directly involved in training Ukrainian troops. However, this is the first time that a Western PMC has been reported inside the undisputed territory of Russia.

In fact, Western PMCs work together with Ukrainian troops quite often. However, the number of these groups has been decreasing over time. According to experts, Ukraine does not present desirable conditions for PMCs to accept contracts. Being a high-intensity conflict with a very high lethality rate, the Ukrainian scenario seems terrible for professional mercenaries, who see that it is clearly not worth fighting there.

Currently, most PMCs operating in Ukraine work only in activities that do not involve direct combat. Services such as logistics, intelligence, facility security and personnel training are some of their main activities. The fact that an American PMC is directly fighting on a highly lethal flank like the “Battle for Kursk” indicates that there may be direct intervention by the American state in the case – with Washington forcing the mercenaries to fight in Kursk, even though it does not seem like a profitable or interesting scenario.

Unlike classic mercenaries, who fought only for money and without any institutional loyalty, PMCs are a post-Cold War military phenomenon, formed from the reduction of personnel in regular armies’ special forces units. Despite fighting “for money”, these companies have the same mentality and ethics as the regular armed forces, since most of their members came from the ranks of state armies. These groups are loyal to their states and obey direct orders from their countries, being a kind of “semi-state force”. So, it is possible that FOG is following orders from the US state to fight in Kursk, even though the local military conditions did not make it worth the risk.

This possibility of direct American involvement at an institutional level has prompted the Russian Federation to ask Washington for clarification. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has summoned Washington’s charge d’affaires in Moscow to ask some questions about the direct involvement of American citizens in the hostilities in Kursk. The American responses are not yet clear, but an official statement on the matter is expected to be released soon.

Summoning diplomats for clarification is one of the most serious steps a country can take in the diplomatic sphere. This type of action usually precedes more serious moves, such as imposing sanctions, taking military action or cutting off diplomatic relations. It is unlikely that the Russians will take escalatory measures in retaliation against the US, since avoiding the escalation of tensions has been one of Moscow’s top priorities since the beginning of the special military operation. However, there will certainly be some effective response, despite the concern to avoid escalation.

Regardless of what is done in the diplomatic sphere, it is expected that the Russians will increase military action in Kursk, eliminating all foreigners involved. Mercenaries and PMCs are not protected by international law, which is why any military effort against these groups is absolutely legal.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Lavrov accuses West of ‘childish babble’

RT | August 19, 2024

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky would not have attacked Russia’s Kursk Region unless he had direct orders from the US, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

Speaking to Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin on Monday, the foreign minister stated that throughout the Ukraine conflict, Washington’s attempts to deny responsibility for Kiev’s actions have “evolved” from claiming it has nothing to do with them to accusing Ukrainian military commanders of disobeying orders.

“Listen, this is childish babble,” Lavrov said. “Everyone understands perfectly well that Zelensky would never have decided on this if the United States had not instructed him to do this.”

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aide and former Security Council secretary, Nikolay Patrushev, also accused Washington of playing a role in Kiev’s incursion, stating in an interview with Izvestia that “the US leadership’s claims of non-involvement in Kiev’s actions in Kursk Region do not correspond to reality.”

“Without their participation and direct support, Kiev would not have ventured into Russian territory,” Patrushev said, adding that “the operation in Kursk Region was also planned with the involvement of NATO and Western special services.”

Kiev launched its incursion into Russia almost two weeks ago, reportedly deploying over 10,000 troops armed with Western-supplied heavy weapons. Zelensky has stated that the purpose of the attack is to establish a “buffer zone” in Russia and inflict military and economic damage on the country.

While Western officials have publicly expressed support for Ukraine’s incursion, none, including the US, have admitted to having prior knowledge. Washington has insisted that it was not informed or involved in the preparation of the cross-border attack.

Zelensky aide Mikhail Podoliak, however, has contradicted these claims, telling The Independent last week that Kiev had discussed the operation with partner forces, “just not on the public level.”

While Kiev’s forces continue to occupy several settlements in the border region, the Russian Defense Ministry has reported that the advance has been halted. Moscow has estimated that Kiev has lost more than 3,400 troops and around 400 armored vehicles in the operation.

August 19, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO’s War on Russia

From covert war in 2014 to the invasion of Russia in 2024

By Glenn Diesen | August 19, 2024

The use of NATO weapons to attack Russia is a controversial topic due to the ambiguity about the role of NATO. The common argument by the Western political-media elites is that Ukraine was attacked in an unprovoked Russian invasion, and NATO has every right to assist Ukraine with weapons to defend itself. This is an appealing narrative that serves the purpose of manufacturing consent from the public to send weapons worth billions of dollars to fight Russia. If one accepts this narrative, it is even seen to be immoral to put restrictions on Ukraine in terms of where these weapons are used as the country is correctly fighting for its survival. The problem with this narrative is that NATO is not a passive non-participant in this war.

The war began in February 2014 when Western governments backed the coup in Ukraine that removed the democratically elected President of Ukraine and replaced him with a government hand-picked by Washington.[1] On the first day of the new Ukrainian government, a partnership was established between the CIA, MI6 and the intelligence services of the new government in Ukraine installed by the US.[2] This happened before there were any conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, and it resulted in 12 secret CIA bases along the Russian borders. Over the next 8 years, the US instigated tensions with Russia, armed Ukraine, and sabotaged the Minsk peace agreement to extend and weaken Russia.[3]

The US developing Ukraine as a proxy against Russia was the reason for the Russian invasion in 2022. As reported by the New York Times : “Toward the end of 2021, according to a senior European official, Mr. Putin was weighing whether to launch his full-scale invasion when he met with the head of one of Russia’s main spy services, who told him that the C.I.A., together with Britain’s MI6, were controlling Ukraine and turning it into a beachhead for operations against Moscow”.[4]

When Russia invaded in 2022, it contacted Ukraine on the first day after the war to start negotiations to impose a peace agreement that would restore Ukraine’s neutrality.[5] The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement by promising Zelensky all the weapons he would need if he would walk away from the peace talks and fight. Both the Israeli and Turkish mediators confirmed that the US chose war as it saw an opportunity to fight Russia through a proxy and thus weaken a strategic rival. Numerous American leaders have since expressed that this is a great war as they get to weaken Russia without losing any American troops. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has dismissed diplomacy and insists that “Weapons are the way to peace”.

Niall Ferguson wrote in Bloomberg in March 2022 that US and UK officials had confirmed that the only acceptable outcome for the war was the military defeat of Russia and regime change in Moscow. The objective was for “the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin” as “the only end game now is the end of Putin regime”.[6] The US Helsinki Commission argued in March 2022 that peace must be achieved by “decolonising” Russia, the destruction of Russia by Balkanising it.[7] The President of Poland (Andrzej Duda) and the incoming Foreign Policy Chief of the EU (Kaja Kallas) have also defined victory in Ukraine in terms of breaking Russia into many small nations.

NATO is providing weapons, ammunition, training, war planning, intelligence, target selection, management of complex weapon systems, and mercenaries to fight Russia – all under the guise of “helping Ukraine” to defend itself. NATO has authorised the use of long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory and provides its support in the invasion of Russian territory. From Britain to Germany, the success of conquering Russian territory is openly used as an argument to send more weapons.

In this context, if we look at the actual objectives of the US and NATO, rather than the childish assertion that the US is merely attempting to protect democracy, then one can only conclude that NATO has gone to war against the world’s largest nuclear power.

Russia’s dilemma: Emboldening NATO or risking nuclear war

The insanity of NATO’s relentless escalations in the Ukraine proxy war rests on the narrative that Russia will not defend its red lines as it is deterred by NATO. This delusion exists because all Russian responses are presented as “unprovoked” and thus occur seemingly in a vacuum. Yet, when the Western government toppled the Ukrainian government in February 2014 and subsequently threatened the Russian naval base in Sevastopol, Russia responded by seizing Crimea. When Western governments sabotaged the Minsk agreement for 7 years and then refused to give Russia any security guarantees in December 2021, Russia responded by invading Ukraine in 2022. When NATO began to send weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia, Russia responded by annexing four oblasts – Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhiya, and Kherson.

How will Russia respond? Russia is faced with a dilemma: It has been restrained as retaliations could easily escalate into a NATO-Russia nuclear exchange, yet the failure to retaliate will only embolden NATO. Western media refers to the failure of Russia to respond as a reason for why NATO can continue to escalate, as Russia is not retaliating. Yet, with every step up the escalation ladder, the pressure mounts on Russia to restore its deterrent.

The retaliation will come, but Russia keeps its head cool to decide when, where and how it best serves Russian interests. The Western media is obsessed with the objective of humiliating Putin without considering the possible consequences. Anyone calling for a return to common sense is denounced as being soft on Russia, and the recognition of Russia’s nuclear deterrent is framed as accepting Russia’s “nuclear blackmail”. Consequently, warmongering is celebrated as morality while advocating for diplomacy is denounced as appeasement. In our narrative-driven media, even arguing that NATO has gone to war against Russia is deemed treasonous as it is depicted as “taking the side of Russia”.

The propaganda prevents us from asking the most important question: How exactly do we think this escalation will end? Irrespective of what narrative we have sold to our own public about defending democracy, from Moscow’s perspective, NATO has now placed itself in the same category as Napoleon and Hitler. Let’s pick up a history book and ask ourselves how Russia will likely respond: capitulation or a powerful response?

I was on the Indian TV channel WION discussing NATO weapons being used to target Russian territory.

[1] Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call – BBC News

[2] The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[3] Read the RAND report on how to overextend Russia: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

[4] The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[5] Address by the President to Ukrainians at the end of the first day of Russia’s attacks — Official website of the President of Ukraine

[6] Niall Ferguson: Putin and Biden Misunderstand History in Ukraine War – Bloomberg

[7] Decolonizing Russia: a Moral and Strategic Imperative – CSCE

August 19, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Clooney Foundation declared ‘undesirable’ in Russia

RT | August 19, 2024

The Clooney Foundation for Justice (CFJ) has been designated as ‘undesirable’ in Russia, the country’s Prosecutor General’s Office has announced. The label means that the organization is essentially banned from operating in the country and is considered a security threat.

In a statement on Monday, the Prosecutor General’s Office said that the CFJ, founded by actor and filmmaker George Clooney and his wife, human rights lawyer Amal Clooney, “has been working to discredit Russia in a Hollywood fashion.”

It also accused the foundation of supporting “pseudo-patriots who have fled the country” as well as those involved with extremist and terrorist organizations.

“Under the guise of humanitarian ideas, the ‘fighters for justice’ from Madison Avenue support the campaign to prosecute Russia’s top leadership, and publicly disseminate negative pseudo-expert assessments of Russian legislation on foreign agents and NGOs,” officials added.

The CFJ has repeatedly condemned Russia’s military operation against Ukraine and supported its prosecution for alleged war crimes, which Moscow has consistently denied.

In May, Anna Neistat, the legal director of the foundation’s Docket project, said the CFJ wanted the West to prosecute “Russian propagandists,” particularly journalists covering the Ukraine conflict. The controversial remarks sparked a backlash from Moscow, which described the foundation as “madmen” and urged international organizations to investigate “a judicial safari targeting Russian journalists.”

Faced with criticism, Clooney himself downplayed the controversy, suggesting that “someone in our foundation misspoke.” “We at the Clooney Foundation would never go after journalists, even if we disagree with them,” he added.

The word ‘undesirable’ is a legal term applied to foreign organizations deemed to pose a threat to Russia’s constitutional order, defense, or security. Organizations given the label are banned from holding public events and distributing promotional materials in Russia, and face heavy fines or criminal charges if they breach the terms of their designation.

August 19, 2024 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Russia to Respond Properly If Poland Attempts to Intercept Russian Missiles Over Ukraine

Sputnik – 19.08.2024

MOSCOW – Moscow will give a specific and adequate response if Poland attempts to intercept Russian missiles over Ukraine, Oleg Tyapkin, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Third European Department, said in an interview with Sputnik.

“If official Warsaw succumbs to an adventurous impulse and decides to attempt to intercept long-range weapons legally used by our armed forces to neutralize military threats emanating from Ukrainian territory to Russia, then the response to them will be adequate and quite specific. Russian diplomacy has repeatedly pointed out the risks that potential direct participation of Western states in military actions on the side of the Kiev regime entails,” the Russian diplomat said.

“There are no negotiations on this issue with anyone. Our position is well known to both Warsaw and NATO,” he added.

Earlier, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said that Warsaw was considering the possibility of shooting down Russian missiles over Ukraine.

Kiev previously called on Western countries to shoot down missiles over Ukraine from their territory. French media, citing Ukrainian officials, reported in late June that Kiev was pushing European allies to create a no-fly zone in western Ukraine by deploying air defense systems in Poland and Romania.

Russia launched a special military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Russian President Vladimir Putin said its goal was “the protection of people who have been subjected to abuse and genocide by the Kiev regime for eight years.” He noted that the special operation was a forced measure, Russia “was left with no chance to act differently, the security risks were such that it was impossible to respond by other means.”

August 19, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Moscow denies Washington Post claims about secret Russia-Ukraine talks

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova © Sputnik / Sergey Bobylev
RT | August 18, 2024

Russia and Ukraine have not been involved in any “direct or indirect” talks that could have been derailed by Kiev’s cross-border incursion into Kursk Region, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told journalists on Sunday.

She was asked to comment on a Washington Post article which claimed, citing sources, that the Ukrainian attack thwarted secret indirect negotiations between Moscow and Kiev regarding a potential moratorium on striking energy infrastructure. The supposed talks were said to be mediated by Qatar, the outlet wrote on Saturday.

“No one has derailed anything,” Zakharova said, explaining that the two sides have not discussed any “security regimes” for critical infrastructure facilities.

She went on to say that threats to energy facilities such as the nuclear power stations in Zaporozhye and Kursk come from Kiev, not Moscow.

Earlier, a Russian journalist had reported that Kiev was plotting a “false flag” attack involving a dirty nuclear bomb either at the nuclear plant in Zaporozhye or Kursk. Commenting on the matter, the Russian Defense Ministry said it takes such reports seriously and vowed a swift and harsh response to any such attacks. Moscow has called on the UN to condemn the alleged plot, while Kiev has denied the claims.

According to Zakharova, Moscow and Kiev have not engaged in any talks since spring 2022, except for prisoner exchanges facilitated by third-party mediators. Peace talks held over the first months of the conflict collapsed after Kiev withdrew from them due to what Moscow claims was Western interference.

Ukraine had “all the chances” to resolve the conflict through negotiations, the spokeswoman said. Moscow repeatedly stated that it was ready to enter into negotiations at any moment as long as the situation on the ground was taken into account.

Kiev banned any talks with the current Russian leadership at the national level through a presidential decree signed in 2022. The move came after four former Ukrainian regions voted overwhelmingly to join Russia.

This June, Moscow put forward another peace initiative, Zakharova noted. At the time, President Vladimir Putin said Russia was ready to immediately open peace talks with Kiev if it withdrew its troops from the four regions that joined Russia in 2022 and committed to maintaining neutral status.

According to Zakharova, Kiev reacted to this “goodwill gesture” by launching an incursion into Kursk Region, where Ukrainian forces were “deliberately killing medics, rescuers, and volunteers, as well as attacking civilian transport.” In the wake of the attack, Putin said there can be no talks with those “who conduct indiscriminate strikes on civilians.”

August 19, 2024 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Chinese Scientists Propose Magnetic Launcher on Moon to Send Resources to Earth – Reports

Sputnik – 18.08.2024

BEIJING – Chinese scientists proposed building a magnetic launcher on the Moon, which could become an cost-effective way to deliver resources mined on the lunar surface to Earth, and, in addition, part of the Russian-Chinese lunar station project, Chinese media reported on Sunday.

According to the publication, scientists from the Shanghai Institute of Satellite Engineering suggest that the magnetic levitation installation will work on the same principle as the hammer throw in athletics, but the rotation at increasing speed will be carried out before a cargo capsule is sent to Earth.

Scientists are convinced that, due to the unique environmental conditions on the Moon, such as high vacuum and low gravity, payloads can be sent twice a day, and the cost of such transportation will be about 10% of the cost of existing methods.

“The system’s technical readiness is relatively high. Since it consumes only electricity and does not require any propellant, it will be relatively small in scale and straightforward to implement,” the scientists said in their paper.

They also noted that the main task will be the extraction of helium-3 to help solve the problem of the energy crisis on Earth. The project, in their opinion, will also contribute to the development of space mining technologies, heavy launch vehicles and artificial intelligence.

The proposed launch system will use a 50-meter-long rotating arm and a high-temperature superconducting engine to launch capsules with mined resources. Ten minutes after launch, the rotation speed of the arm will reach the second cosmic velocity of the Moon of 2.4 kilometers per second and about one-sixth of the second cosmic velocity of Earth — and put it on the correct trajectory for returning to Earth.

The system is designed to last at least 20 years, but it will weigh about 80 tonnes, so before it can be delivered to the Moon, it will be necessary to wait for the start of operation of the Chinese super-heavy launch vehicle, the publication said.

The team working on the project suggested that it could be part of a proposed joint Russian-Chinese project to build a research station at the south pole of the Moon by 2035.

The intergovernmental Russian-Chinese agreement on the joint creation of the International Scientific Lunar Station (ISLS) was signed on November 25, 2022. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law ratifying the agreement on June 12, 2024, and it entered into force on July 18. The document was published on July 25. It indicates that the station will be created in three phases and will receive modules both on the surface of the Earth’s natural satellite and in its orbit. During the third phase, it is planned not only to study and develop the Moon, but also to assist other countries in landing on the Moon. The implementation dates for each of the phases are not yet mentioned.

August 18, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Biden’s incriminating admission of U.S. involvement in offensive on Russia

Strategic Culture Foundation | August 16, 2024

It is breathtaking what is going on with the offensive into the Kursk and Belgorod regions of the Russian Federation. This is as close to World War Three taking place as it can get, if not already happening.

This week American President Joe Biden admitted deep U.S. involvement in the invasion of Russia by Ukrainian forces. The complacent, casual admission is shocking. Biden told media that his officials were in “constant contact” with the Kiev regime on the offensive that began on August 6. Biden added with undisguised pleasure that the incursion had created a “real dilemma” for Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

It seems likely that the summer offensive will go the same ill-fated way as last year’s offensive by Ukraine that took place in the main war zone area of Donbass, the region which was formerly eastern Ukraine but is now legally part of the Russian Federation. The offensive last summer turned out to be a disaster for Ukrainian forces as superior Russian defenses decimated them. As with this summer’s offensive, there has been much Western media hyping of the initial gains. But the optimism is giving way to the reality that Russian forces are containing the cross-border foray and will eventually expel Ukrainian troops. There are indications that the Ukrainian side has lost over 2,000 casualties over the past 10 days and incurred heavy losses of destroyed NATO military equipment.

Nevertheless, it is alarming what has been embarked on by the NATO-backed regime. This is the first time that Russia has been invaded by a foreign enemy since the Great Patriotic War when Nazi Germany waged its genocidal war. Ironically, a turning point in that war was in the Kursk region when the Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht.

The symbolism of today’s events in Kursk and Belgorod is horrifying. Here we have Ukrainian militants who glorify the Third Reich wearing Nazi helmets while they terrorize Russian civilians. Video footage shows deliberate shelling of civilian homes and apartment blocks in what can only be described as a scorched earth campaign. Up to 200,000 civilians have been evacuated from the Kursk and Belgorod regions.

The invasion force is equipped with NATO tanks and armored vehicles. This is an incredible echo of history whereby German, British, and American tanks are marauding on Russian soil and terrorizing towns and villages. Furthermore, there is reliable reporting that the enemy infantry is made up of NATO special forces from the United States, Britain, France, and Poland alongside the NeoNazis of Ukraine.

In short and shocking terms: NATO has invaded Russia with a terror campaign replicating Nazi Germany.

The United States and its NATO allies officially maintain that they are not involved and that the Kiev regime embarked on this assault independently.

That innocent pretense is contemptible. This duplicity has been going on for too long. The West has been arming a proxy force to the teeth to attack Russia since the CIA coup in Kiev in 2014 which culminated in open warfare in February 2022. The offensive capability of Western weaponry has increased relentlessly to the point where Washington, London, Paris, and Berlin are supplying long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia. Not only that but publicly permitting the use of these weapons.

The NATO side has delivered main battlefield tanks and in recent weeks F-16 fighter jets that potentially are nuclear-capable. Biden this week is reportedly considering approving the supply of JASSM air-launched missiles with a range of over 350 kilometers. The distance from Sudzha in Kursk, reportedly captured by the NATO side this week, to Moscow, is just over 600 km.

There can be little doubt that the invasion of Russia is an offensive signed off by NATO leadership. We have Joe Biden’s clumsy admission of that.

The Kiev regime also admitted that its Western patrons were involved in the planning of the invasion.

Moreover, Nikolai Patrushev, a top Russian intelligence figure, stated that NATO is participating in the invasion.

Former Pentagon analysts have also concurred that for such an audacious military endeavor to take place, the Kiev regime would have required U.S. and other NATO surveillance intelligence and logistics to implement it.

The strategic objective is dubious. The lightning assault may have gained sensational headlines in the Western media and notions of Ukrainian success. But such notions will be short-lived as Russian forces bear down on the enemy with withering firepower, despite a Ukrainian command center supposedly being set up in Sudzha.

Even Western media reports are conceding that the initial Ukrainian-NATO gains are slowing down. There are also Western reports expressing concern that the futile foray will only weaken the already overstretched Ukrainian lines in the main battle region of Donbass which will accelerate Russia’s advances in Ukraine. Moscow is indicating that it will push on without stopping to defeat the Kiev regime.

As with Nazi Germany’s Kursk offensive, the NATO-backed regime will be seen to have recklessly overplayed its hand. The last reserves of its best battalions are taking severe losses in Kursk.

From Russia’s perspective, the NATO invasion per se is not a serious threat. It is a barbaric violation of Russian territory and its citizens. But the assault in itself does not in any way constitute a national security threat. It will be dealt with harshly. The best way to characterize it is a desperate final roll of the dice by the NATO proxy, as our columnist Finian Cunningham wrote this week.

Legally, under international law and the United Nations charter, Russia has every right to retaliate militarily against all those complicit in the latest attack on its territory. Potentially, that could mean Russia’s military hitting the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and other NATO states.

This is as close to World War Three as it can get. One senses that only the calm discipline and strategic prudence of the Russian leadership are preventing the moment from escalating to a global catastrophe. By contrast, one can imagine how the American and NATO leaders would react if the shoe was on the other foot and Russia was somehow orchestrating offensive attacks on their soil.

It’s as well to keep calm. The Kiev regime is collapsing from internal corruption and despotism and Russian forces are steadily proceeding to take down this regime. Kursk and Belgorod – while abominable – are provocations to escalate the conflict. It is the collapsing Western powers that need all-out war to save their necks from systematic, historic failure.

However, there is a fiendish dilemma. There is a danger that the reckless, desperate, and disconnected Western elites will magnify their irrationality and provoke Russia even more. This is happening because Moscow is being too stoic and restrained.

Typical of the irrationality is this article for the Atlantic Council with the headline: “Ukraine’s invasion of Russia is erasing Vladimir Putin’s last red lines”.

The article, which no doubt reflects factions of Western strategic thinking, mockingly states: “The Ukrainian army’s advance into Russia… exposes the emptiness of Vladimir Putin’s red lines and the folly of the West’s emphasis on escalation management.”

In a chilling conclusion, it adds: “Now that the Ukrainian military has crossed the last of Putin’s red lines and invaded Russia without sparking World War III, there are no more excuses for restricting [Kiev’s] ability to defend itself or denying Ukraine the weapons it needs to win the war.”

Thus, Russia’s containment of the NATO invasion is not seen as a reality check on crazed assault. Rather, it is emboldening Western imperialism to double down on its criminal gambling with world security.

In that case, the moment may have arrived when Russia needs to take retaliation in a way that the NATO enemy understands. Russia’s reasoned restraint is insanely misinterpreted as weakness, thereby inciting more NATO insanity.

Vladimir Putin once remarked how dealing with bullies in his younger days growing up in St Petersburg was best done by punching them in the nose before they got out of hand.

As the impudence of Biden and other Western leaders this week shows, the U.S. and NATO’s malicious arrogance towards Russia is that of an insufferable bully who is acting more and more brazenly because of impunity.

August 17, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »