Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ukraine violates Chemical Weapons Convention – Russian MoD

RT | July 9, 2024

Russia has found evidence that Ukraine has violated the Chemical Weapons Convention, a top military commander stated on Monday.

Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, who leads Russia’s chemical and biological defense forces, said that the engineering troops discovered a laboratory that was apparently used to produce hydrogen cyanide – an extremely dangerous and highly toxic agent that had been used as a chemical weapon during World War I.

The facility is located near Avdeevka, a fortified Donbass town liberated by Russia in February, the general said. The improvised laboratory itself was found inside a partially destroyed building in an industrial area, which also had a chemical processing plant. The facility had a rotary evaporator and several chemical reactors. Protective clothes, including US-made gas masks and Polish hazmat suits, were found on the site.

According to Kirillov, the samples taken from the facility and analyzed in Russian military laboratories contained traces of sulfuric acid and sodium cyanide, which can be used to produce hydrogen cyanide. Traces of cyanide anions – poisonous chemical compounds of the cyano group – were on multiple equipment, the general said.

The evidence “clearly shows that the laboratory was used to manufacture poisonous substances,” Kirillov stated. According to the Russian Defense Ministry’s estimates, the facility was capable of producing at least three kilograms of chemical agents per day if operated by just two or three people. Hydrogen cyanide can kill a person if they inhale just 70 to 80 milligrams of the agent.

During his briefing, Kirillov noted hydrogen cyanide is among the Chemical Weapons Convention’s so-called “Schedule 3 chemicals” – agents with large-scale industrial uses that have the potential of being used for chemical warfare. He added that, in May 2024, civilians in the Avdeevka region showed symptoms consistent with the hydrogen cyanide poisoning after Ukrainian military drones dropped bombs in the area. Another case was reported in Russia’s Belgorod Region, where Ukrainian ammunition fragments were found that had traces of hydrogen cyanide, Kirillov said.

Kirillov also cited a Ukrainian POW, whom he identified as Sergey Batyr, as confirming that laboratories that stored chemical agents were also used to make kamikaze drones.

In March 2022, Russia accused Ukraine of running a secret biological weapons program with the help of the US. Kiev has denied having biological weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. The Pentagon has described Russia’s claims as “absurd” and “laughable.”

July 9, 2024 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Russia Rules Out All Nuclear Talks With US Until Washington Adopts a ‘Sane’ Approach

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | July 8, 2024

A top Russian diplomat stressed that the Kremlin is unwilling to engage with the White House on arms control issues due to the Biden administration’s Russophobic stance. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov argued that President Donald Trump left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) to provoke China.

In an interview with The International Affairs published on Monday, Ryabkov explained Moscow’s position on arms control talks with Washington. “We do not have the foundation right now and we are not even close to shaping one in order to launch a tentative dialogue, not talks even, in this field. This is a result of Washington’s destructive policy course,” he stated.

“Until [the US] clearly show some change for the better in their policy, at the very least, demonstrate that this boundless and unabashed Russophobia has been set aside and is replaced with a slightly more sane approach,” he said, adding, “until this happens, there simply can be no dialogue on strategic stability.”

Since the end of the Cold War, Washington has abandoned a series of agreements that limited the US and Russia’s conventional as well as nuclear arsenals. Additionally, the Kremlin left the New Start Treaty in response to the White House’s support for Kiev.

The deterioration of the global arms control agreement has coincided with a rise in spending on nuclear weapons and arms overall. Both Beijing and Moscow view the launchers as highly provocative. Ryabkov argued Trump left the INF Treaty to build intermediate-range missiles to intimidate China.

“Americans needed to withdraw from the treaty in order to create such systems to intimidate the People’s Republic of China,” Ryabkov said. “And it is no coincidence that we have recently had a sharply intensified discussion about when and where the Americans might begin to deploy their medium-range weapons in the Asia-Pacific region.”

Recently, Washington and Moscow have taken steps to use arms limited by the INF Treaty. The agreement barred land-based missiles, and launchers, with a range of 300-3,400 miles. The US has deployed a covert launcher for intermediate-range missiles to Denmark and the Philippines for war games.

On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow would begin producing weapons that the INF Treaty outlawed. “We need to start production of these strike systems and then, based on the actual situation, make decisions about where — if necessary to ensure our safety — to place them,” he stated.

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

Civil War in Donbass 10 Years On

Scroll down for video

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | July 8, 2024

July 1st marked the 10th anniversary of a brutal resumption of hostilities in the Donbass civil war. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it passed without comment in the Western media. On June 20th 2014, far-right Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called a ceasefire in Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation”. Launched two months prior following vast protests, and violent clashes between Russian-speaking pro-federal activists and authorities throughout eastern Ukraine, the intended lightning strike routing of internal opposition to the Maidan government quickly became an unwinnable quagmire.

Ukrainian forces were consistently beaten back by well-organised and determined rebel forces, hailing from the breakaway “People’s Republics” in Donetsk and Lugansk. Resultantly, Poroshenko outlined a peace plan intended to compel the separatists to put down their arms, during the ceasefire. They refused to do so, prompting the President to order an even more savage crackdown. This too was a counterproductive failure, with the rebels inflicting a series of embarrassing defeats on Western-sponsored government forces. Kiev was ultimately forced to accept the terms of the first Minsk Accords.

Anti-Maidan protesters gather in front of the occupied Donetsk Oblast regional administration building, April 2014

This agreement, like its successor, did not provide for secession or independence for the breakaway republics, but their full autonomy within Ukraine. Russia was named as a mediator, not party, in the conflict. Kiev was to resolve its dispute with rebel leaders directly. Successive Ukrainian governments consistently refused to do so, however. Instead, officials endlessly stonewalled, while pressuring Moscow to formally designate itself a party to the civil war.

No wonder – had Russia accepted, Kiev’s claims that its savage assault on the civilian population of Donbass was in fact a response to invasion by its giant neighbour would’ve been legitimised. In turn, all-out Western proxy war in eastern Ukraine, of the kind that erupted in February 2022, could’ve been precipitated. Which, it is increasingly clear, was the plan all along.

‘Grassroots Movement’

In the days prior to the April 2014 launch of Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation” in Donbass, notorious war hawk Samantha Power, now USAID chief, openly spoke on ABC of “tell-tale signs of Moscow’s involvement” in the unrest. “It’s professional, coordinated. Nothing grassroots about it,” she alleged. Such framing gave Ukrainian officials, their foreign backers, and the mainstream media licence to brand the brutal operation a legitimate response to a fully-fledged, if unacknowledged, “invasion” by Russia. It is referred to as such in many quarters today.

Yet, at every stage of the Donbass conflict, there were unambiguous indications that the Ukrainian government’s claims of widespread Russian involvement – endorsed by Western governments, militaries, intelligence agencies, pundits and journalists – were fraudulent. One need look no further than the findings of a 2019 report published by the George Soros-funded International Crisis Group (ICG), Rebels Without A Cause. Completely unremarked upon in the mainstream, its headline conclusions are stark:

“The conflict in eastern Ukraine started as a grassroots movement… Demonstrations were led by local citizens claiming to represent the region’s Russian-speaking majority.”

ICG noted that Russian leaders were from the start publicly and privately sympathetic to Russian-speakers in Donbass. Nonetheless, they issued no “clear guidance” to businessmen, government advisers or the domestic population on whether – and how – they would be officially supported by Moscow in their dispute with the Maidan government. Hence, many Russian irregulars, encouraged by “what they regarded as the government’s tacit approval, made their way to Ukraine.”

Per ICG, it was only after the conflict started that the Russian government formalised a relationship with the Donbass rebels, although the Kremlin quickly changed tack on what they should do. A Ukrainian fighter told the organisation that he “began hearing calls for restraint in rebel efforts to take control of eastern Ukrainian towns and cities” in late April 2014. However, “the separatist movement in Donbass was determined to move ahead.”

Due to this lack of control, and repeated calls for direct intervention in the conflict from the rebels, Russia replaced the Donetsk and Lugansk rebel leadership with hand-picked figures, who took an explicitly defensive posture. But the Kremlin was ultimately “beholden” to the breakaway republics, not vice versa. It could not even reliably order the rebels to stop fighting. A Lugansk paramilitary told ICG:

“What do you do with 40,000 people who believe that, once they put down their arms, they will all be shot or arrested? Of course, they are going to fight to the death.”

Elsewhere, the report cited data provided by “Ukrainian nationalist fighters”, which showed rebel casualties to date were “overwhelmingly” Ukrainian citizens. This was at odds with the pronouncements of government officials, who invariably referred to them as “Russian mercenaries” or “occupiers”. More widely, figures within Poroshenko’s administration had routinely claimed Donbass was wholly populated by Russians and Russia-sympathisers.

One Ukrainian minister was quoted in the report as saying he felt “absolutely no pity” about the extremely harsh conditions suffered by Donbass civilians, due to the “legal, political, economic and ideological barriers isolating Ukrainian citizens in rebel-held territories” constructed by Kiev. This included enforcing a crippling blockade on the region in 2017, which created a “humanitarian crisis”, and left the population unable to claim pensions and welfare payments, among other gruelling hardships.

Several Donbass inhabitants interviewed by ICG expressed nostalgia for the Soviet Union. Most felt “under attack” by Kiev. A pensioner in Lugansk, whose “non-combatant son” was killed by a Ukrainian sniper, asked how Poroshenko could claim the territory was “a crucial part” of Ukraine: “then why did they kill so many of us?”

‘Worst Option’

In conclusion, ICG declared the situation in Donbass “ought not to be narrowly defined as a matter of Russian occupation,” while criticising Kiev’s “tendency to conflate” the Kremlin with the rebels. The organisation expressed optimism newly-elected President Volodymyr Zelensky could “peacefully reunify with the rebel-held territories,” and “[engage] the alienated east.” Given present day events, its report’s conclusions were eerily prescient:

“For Zelensky, the worst option… would be to try to forcibly retake the territories, as an all-out offensive would likely provoke a military response from Moscow and a bloodbath in Donbass. It could even lead Moscow… to recognise the statelets’ independence. The large-scale military option is mainly advocated by nationalists, not members of Ukraine’s political establishment. But some prominent mainstream politicians refuse to rule it out.”

Zelensky did initially try to resolve the Donbass conflict through diplomatic means. In October 2019, he moved to hold a referendum on “special status” for the breakaway republics in a federalized Ukraine, while personally meeting with representatives of Azov Battalion, begging them to lay down their arms and accept the compromise. Mockingly rebuffed and threatened by the Neo-Nazi group’s leaders, while rocked by nationalist protests against the proposed plebiscite in Kiev, the plans were dropped. So then the President picked the “worst option”.

In March 2021, Zelensky issued a decree, outlining a “strategy for the de-occupation and reintegration” of “temporarily occupied territory.” Falsely characterising Crimea and the Donbass as “occupied by the armed forces of the aggressor state,” it sketched a clear blueprint for a hot war to recapture both territories. Immediately, Ukrainian forces began to mass in the south and east of the country in preparation.

This activity inevitably spooked the Kremlin, leading to a huge military buildup on its border with Ukraine, and extensive wargame exercises, plotting scenarios including encirclement of Ukrainian forces in Donbass, and blocking Kiev’s Black Sea access. Suddenly, the Western mainstream became awash with warnings of imminent Russian invasion, and British and US surveillance flights in the region surged. Media reporting either neglected to mention or outright denied this was explicitly triggered by Kiev’s escalation.

Things quietened down thereafter, although the situation on-the-ground remained tense. In October that year, a Ukrainian drone struck rebel positions in Donbass. Moscow, and German officials, charged that the attack violated Minsk, while Zelensky’s then-right hand man Oleksiy Arestovych denied this was the case. He had by this time openly stated on many occasions war with Russia was Kiev’s price for joining the EU and NATO.

Fast forward four months, and at the start of February 2022, French President Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed his commitment to Minsk. He claimed Zelensky provided personal assurances its terms would be fulfilled. Yet, on February 11th, talks between representatives of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine collapsed without tangible results, after nine hours. Kiev rejected demands for “direct dialogue” with the rebels, insisting – yet again – Moscow formally designate itself a party to the conflict.

Then, as documented in multiple contemporary eyewitness reports from OSCE observers, mass Ukrainian artillery shelling of Donbass erupted. On February 15th, unnerved representatives of the Duma, led by the influential Communist Party, formally requested the Kremlin to recognise the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Vladimir Putin initially refused, reiterating his commitment to Minsk. The shelling intensified. A February 19th OSCE report recorded 591 ceasefire violations over the past 24 hours, including 553 explosions in rebel-held areas.

Civilians were harmed in these attacks, and civilian structures, including schools, targeted deliberately. Meanwhile, that same day, Donetsk rebels claimed to have thwarted two planned sabotage attacks by Polish-speaking operatives on ammonia and oil reservoirs on their territory. Perhaps not coincidentally, in January 2022 it was revealed the CIA had since 2015 been training a secret paramilitary army in Ukraine to carry out precisely such strikes, in the event of Russian invasion.

So it was on February 21st, the Kremlin formally accepted the Duma’s request from a week earlier, recognising Donetsk and Lugansk as independent republics. And now here we are.

July 8, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Russia Hits Ukrainian Military Targets in Retaliation, Labels Kiev’s Civilian Strike Claims as False

Sputnik – 08.07.2024

The Kiev regime’s provocative statements about alleged Russian strikes on civilian targets are related to the NATO summit and the pursuit of further funding, the Russian Ministry of Defense has said.

The Russian military conducted coordinated strikes using long-range precision weapons on Ukrainian military-industrial targets and air bases on Monday in retaliation for Kiev’s attempts to damage Russian energy and economic facilities, the Russian Defense Ministry has stated.

“This morning, in response to the Kiev regime’s attempts to damage Russian energy and economic facilities, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation conducted a coordinated strike with long-range precision weapons on Ukrainian military-industrial targets and air bases. The strike objectives have been achieved, and the designated targets have been hit,” the military department stated in its report.

Commenting on the Ukrainian claims of an intentional Russian strike on civilian targets, the ministry said they are a blatant lie, adding that the destruction was caused by a falling Ukrainian air defense missile.

“Claims by Kiev representatives about an alleged intentional Russian missile strike on civilian objects are completely untrue,” the statement said.

It was noted that numerous published photos and videos from Kiev clearly confirm that the destruction resulted from a falling Ukrainian air defense missile launched from within the city.

“We particularly emphasize that similar hysterics from the Kiev regime have been occurring for years, especially before each NATO summit. The goal of such provocations is to secure further funding for the Kiev regime and to continue the war to the last Ukrainian,” the Russian Defense Ministry highlighted.

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

Russian Experts Gain Access to Storm Shadow Missile Warhead

Sputnik – July 7, 2024

Russian specialists have studied the cumulative warhead of European Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles, determining the penetration depth and detonation distance above the ground, an engineer and weapons specialist told Sputnik.

“The primary cumulative projectile of the Storm Shadow/SCALP missile consists of the nose cap, the primary charge, and then the main warhead. It is necessary for the initial penetration of an obstacle. It creates holes using the cumulative effect, through which the inertial warhead penetrates, causing an explosion. We understand the penetration depth, the detonation distance from the surface, the types of target sensors used, and the potential penetration depth,” the specialist said.

The cumulative warhead of the Storm Shadow/SCALP missile is a cylindrical object about half a meter in length with approximately the same diameter. The nose section is shaped like a cone, directed inward towards the body.

The study of the missile by Russian specialists will enable the implementation of countermeasures to protect against such weapons, including the creation of shelters with the necessary characteristics, the specialist explained.

The Storm Shadow is a low-observable, air-launched cruise missile. It is launched from aircraft and has a strike range of 250 to 560 kilometers, depending on the modification. It was developed jointly by France and the United Kingdom (in France, it is named SCALP and is produced by the MBDA consortium). The Ukrainian Armed Forces have been actively using the Storm Shadow since last year.

The Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG cruise missiles can approach their targets stealthily by using navigation correction via American satellites, Lieutenant General Andrey Semenov, Commander of the Air Defense and Missile Defense Forces and Deputy Commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces earlier said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that Moscow may respond asymmetrically to the supply of long-range weapons to Ukraine. The transfer of high-precision long-range weaponry to Kiev is a path to very serious problems, he emphasized.

July 7, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

What Will Iran’s Foreign Policy Be Under New President Pezeshkian?

Sputnik – 06.07.2024

Masoud Pezeshkian has emerged as the winner of the presidential runoff in Iran this week, receiving 54 percent of the votes.

The newly elected President of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian spoke to Sputnik on the eve of the election about the main priorities of Iran’s foreign policy, which include: strengthening relations with Russia and China; Iran’s active presence in BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation; restoration of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the lifting of sanctions.

“Russia is a friend and partner of Iran, and I consider it a priority to deepen and expand relations with Russia and China, as well as intensify foreign policy activities in the Asian direction in general,” Pezeshkian said. “And we, of course, at all levels – bilateral, regional and international – will continue our efforts to expand interaction with the Russian Federation.”

According to him, Iran “opposes the policy of unidirectionality” and supports “the principle of multipolarity.”

“One of the priorities of my foreign policy program is regional cooperation, and for this purpose, Iran will expand its presence in BRICS and the SCO, as well as strive for more active cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union to more fully realize the potential of trade and economic relations with the member countries of these organizations,” Pezeshkian explained.

Regarding the JCPOA, Pezeshkian pointed out that it is “an international agreement approved by the UN,” and that the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from this agreement “caused serious damage to Iran and the Iranian people.”

“As the Russian side has repeatedly emphasized, Iran has fulfilled its obligations, and we see our task as returning the other participants to this agreement as soon as possible and achieving the lifting of sanctions. I am confident that the friendly governments of Russia and China will support Iran and assist it in resolving this issue,” he added.

July 6, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel vs Hezbollah: Strategic stakes and regional implications

By Shivan Mahendrarajah | The Cradle | July 5, 2024

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know. — Former US secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld

As tensions escalate between Hezbollah and Israel, analysts are meticulously wargaming potential conflict scenarios. For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his religious-nationalist coalition, a confrontation with the Lebanese resistance movement is more than speculation – it is a strategic consideration. This coalition views a potential war as a means to address longstanding security concerns and strengthen its political position.

A key part of Tel Aviv’s strategic thinking is the hope that the US might be forced into taking a more active role in confronting Israel’s adversaries – Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran – thereby neutralizing threats that have persisted for decades. This concept of “clearing the decks” of regional enemies remains a central theme in Israeli strategic discussions.

Historical roots of Israel’s strategic confidence

For the occupation state, this potential conflict is a “war of choice” driven by historical and ethnonationalist motivations. But it is also premised on past Israeli military advantages that are long gone in today’s missile-laden West Asia.

The Six-Day War of 1967 fostered a belief in the invincibility of the Israeli military, the superiority of Zionism, and the manifest destiny of its ‘chosen people.’ It was with similar hubris that Adolf Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union in 1941. Fast forward eight decades, and today, Israelis are informing US officials “that it can pull off a ‘blitzkrieg’” in Lebanon.

In 1967, the psychological impact on neighboring Arab states was profound due to the decisive defeat of their armies. This sentiment persisted until 2006, when Lebanon’s Hezbollah emerged politically victorious, shattering the perception of Israeli invulnerability and altering regional power dynamics.

Further shaping Israeli delusions of military superiority is the ethnonationalist rhetoric prevalent in Tel Aviv’s policy decision-making circles, embodied by extremist ministers like Betzalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, who have revived the ideologies of the once-banned Meir Kahane. While a few sober military voices in Israel advocate for a diplomatic solution to the northern border crisis, hubris and ethnonationalism currently dominate the discourse.

Strategic imperatives for Hezbollah and Iran

Conversely, for Hezbollah and Iran, this conflict is a “war of necessity,” something neither can publicly admit nor provoke directly. Both have been marginalized and sanctioned by the US on Israel’s behalf, causing untold domestic pressures and economic hardships – an untenable situation that demands a direct challenge of Israeli policies.

But reversing sanctions cannot happen at the negotiating table. Israelis are arrogant and obstinate; they will not negotiate in good faith. Take, for example, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the Iran nuclear deal. When former US president Barack Obama finalized the agreement, Netanyahu whined that Israel needed “compensation.” Obama offered Israel a military package, but as soon as he left office, Netanyahu, Jared Kushner, and AIPAC manipulated the “very stable genius,” former president Donald Trump. JCPOA was annulled. The compensation package, by the by, was not returned to US taxpayers.

Iran–Hezbollah must drag Israel to the edge of the precipice. Tel Aviv must stare into the abyss and realize that with a gentle push by the region’s Resistance Axis, it will lie mangled at the bottom of the chasm. Iran–Hezbollah, however, cannot push it over the edge, as this could lead to a nuclear nightmare. Today, in its “war of choice,” Israel has already hinted at using “unprecedented” and “unspecified” weapons against Hezbollah, implying a possible nuclear threat.

The Axis must instead show Israel a path back from the edge: a treaty that settles outstanding concerns. Tehran offered Tel Aviv and Washington a “Grand Bargain” in 2003 but was rejected. A new grand bargain is indispensable for Israel and the Axis of Resistance, yet the conditio sine qua non for a lasting treaty is Israel’s military defeat by the Axis.

The threats and counter-threats are flying, each aiming to gain “leverage” and deterrence.

Earlier this month, Iranian foreign affairs adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Kamal Kharrazi, said that were Israel to launch an all-out offensive against Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic and other factions of the Axis of Resistance would support Lebanon with “all means” necessary.

Iran has previously warned that it may be compelled to revise its nuclear doctrine in response to Israeli aggression. It is suspected that Iran may have already crossed the nuclear threshold. Even without nuclear capabilities, Iran has the ballistic missile and warhead capabilities to destroy Tel Aviv, Haifa, and other major cities. Israel is a “one-bomb country”: it is minuscule, and its population is concentrated in a few central hubs. Iran and the Axis do not have any need for multiple nuclear warheads.

As General Hajizadah explained in a speech, the Khorramshahr missile can deliver 80 warheads. If the IRGC launched 100 missiles, that’s 8,000 warheads on major Israeli cities. Israel would be foolish to trust in its integrated air defense system after the IRGC’s successful strikes on 13 April.

2024 is not 2006

Comparing the potential 2024 conflict with the 2006 Israel–Hezbollah war is a popular frame of reference, but both sides have learned lessons since then. In particular, there have been significant advancements in military technology and tactics over the past 18 years.

Hezbollah has developed new tactics and weapons, such as the Almas Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM), which has proven effective against Israeli military assets. Additionally, Hezbollah’s air defense capabilities have posed new challenges for Israeli drone offensives.

The Israeli air force ruled the skies in 2006, but whether it can do so in 2024 is unclear. Hezbollah has air defense capacity (such as the Sayyad-2 medium-range surface-to-air missile). It is not known if it has newer models, like Iran’s Khordad-3. This could be a surprise.

Israeli intelligence assessments of Hezbollah’s capabilities are likely to be imprecise. Past successes against groups like the PLO and Black September are no longer relevant. Recent failures, such as Tel Aviv’s inability to foresee Hamas Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October, underscore the limitations of Israeli intelligence.

US involvement

This has been Israel’s objective since 9/11: have Americans fight Israel’s wars. Although Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Charles Brown stated that the US may be unable to assist Israel, this must not be taken as a serious military assessment. It is a political statement on behalf of the Biden Administration, which does not want to join a major war until after the 5 November election. Netanyahu, however, knows that Israel controls Congress and American media. Congressman Thomas Massie is the exception, among 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, who AIPAC has not bought. Once war begins, Israel’s minions in the White House, media, and Congress will campaign for US military participation. As Netanyahu said, “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily; move it in the right direction.” He is correct.

If the US intervenes – a high-probability event – Hezbollah and Iran will (reluctantly) welcome it. For the Axis to secure a “Grand Bargain,” it must inflict catastrophic damage on US land-based and sea-based assets in West Asia. Washington will only abandon Israel if ships, bases, and hundreds (or thousands) of American lives are destroyed because of Israel.

Russia

Russia is a wildcard, a “known unknown.” The US security apparatus warring against Russia and supporting Israel is top-heavy with Zionists/neo-cons. Iran’s enemies and Russia’s enemies are nearly congruent: Victoria Kagan née Nuland; Kagan family (Robert, Fred, Kim, their ISW); Antony Blinken (grandson of a founder of Israel); Avril Haines (Director of National Intelligence); deputy director CIA David Cohen, Alejandro Mayorkas (Secretary of DHS), and more. It behooves Russia to punish its tormentors by damaging the only country to which they are loyal: Israel.

Moscow has been chafing at US support for Ukraine. Elena Panina, Director of the Institute of International Political and Economic Strategies, wrote on her Telegram channel in December 2023, “The best option for Russia is to respond to America in a similar way: with a hybrid war far from its own borders. The most obvious at the moment is a proxy attack on American forces in the Middle East.” In May 2024, Putin said the same thing. Terror attacks in Belgorod and in Sevastopol on a religious holiday may tip the scales in favor of Iran, especially if the US jumps into the fray. Defeating the US will increase popular support for Russia among global Muslims and help eject the US from West Asia – a goal supported by Russia and China. Iran is “too big to fail”: Moscow has made military and economic investments and alliances with Tehran, particularly after the Ukraine War began, and is on the cusp of signing a new comprehensive cooperation agreement with Tehran. The Kremlin cannot allow Iran to be defeated and the republic to collapse. It will most likely provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support through Russian satellites and aircraft in Syria. Russia allows IRGC to use its Humaymim/Khmeimim air base in Syria because IDF tries to prevent supplies from Iran from arriving at airports in Aleppo and Damascus. Russia could (if not already, given recent air traffic between Russia and the air base) deliver air defense batteries, missiles, and more for the Syrian Army and Hezbollah.

Unknown unknowns

The factors outlined above, along with China and North Korea’s investments in and relationships with Iran, complicate any predictions about the looming war between Israel and the Lebanese resistance. While their direct military participation is unlikely, these nuclear powers could supply Iran with essential weapons and ammunition. The “known unknowns,” a few of which are noted, are enough to complicate wargaming, but the “unknown unknowns” may render such scenarios moot.

July 5, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Putin affirms Taliban as allies against terrorism

Al Mayadeen | July 4, 2024

Russian President Vladimir Putin affirmed the Taliban’s role as allies in the fight against terrorism during a press briefing on Thursday.

Despite the Taliban being under UN sanctions for terrorism, Putin acknowledged their control over Afghanistan and stressed the necessity of maintaining relations with the country’s real political forces.

“The Taliban movement have made certain commitments … but in general we have to assume that the Taliban control the power in the country. And in that sense, the Taliban are certainly allies for us in fight against terrorism,” Putin stated, noting ongoing signals of cooperation from the Taliban on counterterrorism efforts.

Regarding Afghanistan’s potential full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Putin remarked that this decision concerns all SCO members, and not solely Russia.

Russia-Belarus Union State Unified Parliament

Switching focus, Putin addressed internal matters, including the creation of a unified parliament for the Union State of Russia and Belarus.

He described it as a matter of time, suggesting readiness for deeper integration, potentially including a common currency in the future.

“We also have intra-parliamentary structures and intergovernmental ones. Is it necessary now to move, as it was initially stated, to the creation of a unified parliament? It is a matter of time,” Putin told reporters.

Turko-Russian Relations

Furthermore, Putin expressed Russia’s keen interest in developing relations with Turkey, despite challenges.

“In general, on both sides there is interest in this… natural [interest], related not to the fact that someone is standing in our way, but to the real development of events in Turkey,” Putin told reporters, acknowledging Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s political will as conducive to strengthening Ankara-Moscow ties.

Ending Ukraine Conflict 

Conclusively, on the topic of resolving the Ukraine conflict through mediators, Putin asserted that while Russia remains open to negotiations, a resolution solely through mediation appears unlikely due to the complexities involved.

“We have always been in favor of negotiations, you know it well, we have never given up on them. The question of finalizing the conflict with the help of mediators and only through them seems to me unlikely. First of all, because it is unlikely that a mediator will be empowered to sign final documents,” Putin told reporters.

July 4, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia halts participation in OSCE Parliamentary Assembly

RT | July 3, 2024

Russian lawmakers on Wednesday voted to suspend Moscow’s participation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE PA), citing its “discriminatory approaches, double standards and total Russophobia.”

Both chambers of Russia’s parliament – the State Duma and Federation Council – voted unanimously during sessions on Wednesday to suspend the country’s participation and stop paying fees to the organization.

Moscow already stopped its payments to the OSCE itself after its delegation was denied access to the organization’s meetings on several occasions.

“We should not pay for something we did not participate in,” the State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said at the time.

OSCE leaders have ignored Russia’s repeated appeals for an equal dialogue, the lawmakers said in a statement, adding that the body is being used as a “politicized tool to deliberately implement an anti-Russian course, and also to intentionally distort” events in Ukraine.

The lawmakers accused the assembly of “biased, discriminatory approaches, double standards, total Russophobia, unpreparedness for meaningful discussions, including on relevant issues of ensuring equal and indivisible security.”

Since the start of the Ukraine conflict, Russian MPs have been repeatedly blocked from taking part in a number of the organization’s events.

In November 2022, Poland denied visas to Russian officials scheduled to attend an OSCE meeting in Warsaw. And in June 2022, Russian MPs were barred from traveling to the UK to participate in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly session in Birmingham.

The latest case was a “demonstrative” refusal by Romanian authorities to issue visas in June to a Russian delegation to attend the annual session of the body in Bucharest.

Russia has been a participant in the OSCE since the Soviet Union signed the Helsinki Accords in 1975. The organization’s monitoring mission in eastern Ukraine began in 2014, but was terminated just prior to the start of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022. Russia had previously repeatedly accused the group of ignoring violations by Ukraine.

Having held its first session back in 1992, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly incorporates 57 member states, and declares as its primary mission the facilitation of “inter-parliamentary dialogue to advance the OSCE’s goals of comprehensive security.”

July 3, 2024 Posted by | Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Russian nuclear power plant workers injured in Ukrainian attack – officials

RT | July 3, 2024

A Ukrainian attack on a substation used by the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant has injured eight employees of the facility, officials reported on Wednesday.

Kiev allegedly launched three quadcopter-type kamikaze drones at the Raduga facility in Energodar, the city hosting Europe’s largest nuclear power station. The injured workers were part of a crew that was repairing the damage caused by a previous Ukrainian attack, the statement claimed. At least one worker is said to be in a serious condition.

The initial strike on the Raduga substation happened two weeks ago and was confirmed by a monitoring mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog. Another site called Luch was hit in a separate strike.

Neither station is critical for the work of the nuclear power plant, but its secondary facilities depend on them for power supplies. The strike on Wednesday once again disrupted the grid after both Raduga transformers were damaged.

The IAEA has declined to attribute the attacks on substations in Energodar, but its chief, Rafael Grossi, has stressed that “whoever is behind this, it must stop.”

“Drone usage against the plant and its vicinity is becoming increasingly more frequent. This is completely unacceptable and it runs counter to the safety pillars and concrete principles which have been accepted unanimously,” the official said.

Last week, a reported Ukrainian artillery strike destroyed one of the automatic radiation monitoring posts near the nuclear site.

Energodar is located in Zaporozhye Region, which became part of Russia following a referendum in 2022. The power plant is operated by Russian personnel, although Kiev still claims sovereignty over the area.

Moscow has criticized the US and its allies for failing to pressure Ukraine to stop the military attacks on the plant, which pose the threat of a major environmental disaster.

July 3, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Destroying Ukraine with Idealism

Why Ukraine should not have the “right” to join NATO

BY GLENN DIESEN | JULY 2, 2024

Political realism is commonly and mistakenly portrayed as immoral because the principal focus is on the inescapable security competition and it thus rejects idealist efforts to transcend power politics. However, because states cannot break with security competition, morality for the realist entails acting in accordance with the balance of power logic as the foundation for stability and peace. Idealist efforts to break with power politics can then be defined as immoral by undermining the management of security competition as the foundation of peace. As Raymond Aron expressed in 1966: “The idealist, believing he has broken with power politics exaggerates its crimes”.[1]

Ukraine’s Sovereign Right to join NATO

The most appealing and dangerous idealist argument that destroyed Ukraine is that it has the right to join any military alliance it desires. It is a very attractive statement that can easily win support from the public as it affirms the freedom and sovereignty of Ukraine, and the alternative is seemingly that Russia should be allowed to dictate Ukraine’s policies.

However, arguing that Ukraine should be allowed to join any military alliance is an idealist argument as it appeals to how we would like the world to be, not how the world actually works. The principle that peace derives from expanding military alliances without taking into account the security interests of other great powers has never existed. States such as Ukraine that border a great power have every reason to express legitimate security concerns, but inviting a rival great power such as the US into its territory intensifies the security competition.

Is it moral to insist on how the world ought to be when war is the consequence of ignoring how the world actually works?

The alternative to expanding NATO is not to accept a Russian sphere of influence, which denotes a zone of exclusive influence. Peace derives from recognising a Russian sphere of interests, which is an area where Russian security interests must be recognised and incorporated rather than excluded. It did not use to be controversial to argue that Russian security interests must be taken into account when operating on its borders.

Mexico has plenty of freedoms in the international system, but it does not have the freedom to join a Chinese-led military alliance or host Chinese military bases. The idealist argument that Mexico can do as it pleases implies ignoring US security concerns, and the result would likely be the US destruction of Mexico. If Scotland secedes from the UK and then joins a Russian-led military alliance and hosts Russian missiles, would the English still champion the principle that it has no say? Idealists who sought to transcend power politics and create a more benign world would instead intensify the security competition and instigate wars.

The Morality of Opposing NATO Expansionism

To argue that NATO expansionism provoked Russia’s invasion is regularly condemned by idealists as immoral because it allegedly legitimises both power politics and the invasion. Is objective reality immoral if it contradicts the ideal world we would like to exist?

The former British ambassador to Russia, Roderic Lyne, warned in 2020 that it was a “massive mistake” to push for NATO membership for Ukraine: “If you want to start a war with Russia, that’s the best way of doing it”.[2] Angela Merkel acknowledged that Russia would interpret the possibility of Ukrainian NATO membership as a “declaration of war”.[3] CIA Director William Burns also warned against drawing Ukraine into NATO as Russia fears encirclement and will therefore be under enormous pressure to use military force: “Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face”.[4] The advisor to former French President Sarkozy argued that the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership in November 2021 “convinced Russia that they must attack or be attacked”.[5] None of the aforementioned people sought to legitimise an invasion, rather they sought to avoid a war.

When great powers do not have a soft institutional veto, they use a hard military veto. The idealists insisting that Russia should not have a veto on NATO expansion pushed for the policies that predictably resulted in the destruction of a nation, the loss of territory, and hundreds of thousands of deaths. Why do the idealists get to present themselves as moral and “pro-Ukrainian”? Why are the realists who for more than a decade warned against NATO expansion immoral and “anti-Ukrainian”? Are these labels premised on the theoretical assumption of the idealists?

NATO as a Third Party?

Suggesting that Ukraine has the sovereign right to join NATO presents the military bloc as a passive third party that merely supports the democratic aspiration of Ukrainians. This narrative neglects that NATO did not have an obligation to offer future membership to Ukraine. Indeed, the Western countries signed several agreements with Moscow after the Cold War, such as the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, to collectively construct a Europe without dividing lines and based on indivisible security. NATO broke these agreements by pushing for expansion and refusing to offer Russia security guarantees to mitigate the security competition. By offering future membership to Ukraine, the NATO-Russia conflict became a Russia-Ukraine conflict as Russia had to prevent Ukraine from joining the military bloc and hosting the US military on its territory.

NATO’s support for Ukraine’s right to choose its own foreign policy is also dishonest as Ukraine had to be pulled into the orbit of the military bloc against its will. The Western public is rarely informed that every opinion poll between 1991 and 2014 demonstrates that only a very small minority of Ukrainians ever wanted to join the alliance. NATO recognised the lack of interest by the Ukrainian government and people as a problem to be overcome in a report from 2011: “The greatest challenge for Ukrainian-NATO relations lies in the perception of NATO among the Ukrainian people. NATO membership is not widely supported in the country, with some polls suggesting that popular support of it is less than 20%”.[6]

The solution was to push for a “democratic revolution” in 2014 that toppled the democratically elected government of Ukraine in violation of its constitution and without majority support from Ukrainians. The leaked Nuland-Pyatt phone call revealed that the US was planning a regime change, including who should be in the post-coup government, who had to stay out, and how to legitimise the coup.[7] After the coup, the US openly asserted its intrusive influence over the new government it had installed in Kiev. The general prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, complained that since 2014, “the most shocking thing is that all the [government] appointments were made in agreement with the United States” and Washington “believed that Ukraine was their fiefdom”.[8] A conflict with Russia could be manufactured that would create a demand for NATO.

What were the first decisions of the new government hand-picked by Washington? The first decree by the new Parliament was a call for repealing Russian as a regional language. The New York Times reports that on the first day following the coup, Ukraine’s new spy chief called the CIA and MI6 to establish a partnership for covert operations against Russia that eventually resulted in 12 secret CIA bases along the Russian border.[9] The conflict intensified as Russia responded by seizing Crimea and supporting a rebellion in Donbas, and NATO sabotaged the Minsk peace agreement that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians voted to have implemented. Preserving and intensifying the conflict gave Washington a dependent Ukrainian proxy that could be used against Russia. The same New York Times article mentioned above, also revealed that the covert war against Russia after the coup was a leading reason for Russia’s invasion:

“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”.[10]

The Immorality of Peace vs Morality of War?

After Russia’s “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine, the idealists insist that Ukraine must become a member of NATO as soon as the war is over. It is intended as an appealing and moral statement to ensure that Ukraine will be protected and such a tragedy will not be repeated.

Yet, what does it communicate to Russia? Whatever territory Russia does not conquer will fall into the hands of NATO, which can then be used as a frontline against Russia. The threat of NATO expansion incentivises Russia to seize as much territory as possible and ensure what remains is a deeply dysfunctional rump state. The only thing that can bring peace to Ukraine and end the carnage is to restore its neutrality, yet the idealists denounce this as deeply immoral and thus unacceptable. To repeat Raymond Aron: “The idealist, believing he has broken with power politics exaggerates its crimes”.[11]

 

NATO allies divided on what happens after the Ukraine war : NPR

[1] Aron, R., 1966. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. Doubleday, Garden City, p.584.

[2] R. Lyne, ‘The UC Interview Series: Sir Roderic Lyne by Nikita Gryazin’, Oxford University Consortium, 18 December 2020.

[3] A. Walsh, ‘Angela Merkel opens up on Ukraine, Putin and her legacy’, Deutsche Welle, 7 June 2022.

[4] W.J. Burns, ‘Nyet means nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines’, Wikileaks, 1 February 2008.

[5] C. Caldwell, ‘The War in Ukraine May Be Impossible to Stop. And the U.S. Deserves Much of the Blame’, The New York Times, 31 May 2022.

[6] NATO, ‘‘Post-Orange Ukraine’: Internal dynamics and foreign policy priorities’, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, October 2011, p.11.

[7] BBC, ‘Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call’, BBC, 7 February 2014.

[8] M.M. Abrahms, ‘Does Ukraine Have Kompromat on Joe Biden?’, Newsweek, 8 August 2023.

[9] A. Entous and M. Schwirtz, 2024. ‘The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin’, The New York Times, 25 February 2024.

[10] A. Entous and M. Schwirtz, 2024. ‘The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin’, The New York Times, 25 February 2024.

[11] Aron, R., 1966. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. Doubleday, Garden City, p.584.

July 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky Calls on World to ‘Force Putin to Make Peace’

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | July 1, 2024

In a series of posts on social media, President Volodymyr Zelensky demanded more weapons from his Western backers so Russia can be “forced” into a peace agreement. Advanced warplanes, long-range missiles, and air defenses were named on the Ukrainian leader’s wishlist.

In an X post, Zelensky acknowledged that Ukraine was struggling to combat Russian glide bombs, and Kiev needed a significant influx of arms. “Russian bombs remain Putin’s key capability to wage war. The sooner the world helps us neutralize Russia’s combat aviation launching these bombs and the sooner we can strike back with justified strikes,” he implored on Sunday. “The world possesses enough strength to force Russia to make peace.”

Zelensky has sought to impose peace on Russia that requires President Vladimir Putin to stand trial for war crimes and Moscow to withdraw to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders. Putin has offered Ukraine a deal that will require Kiev to recognize Russia’s claims to territory it has captured since 2022. Under Moscow’s proposal, Kiev would also have to agree to neutrality.

Washington and Kiev’s Western backers have firmly rejected any of Moscow’s offers for diplomacy and have pushed Ukraine to expel the invading Russian soldiers. However, as the conflict turned into a war of attrition, Russia gained the upper hand with a larger population and military-industrial base that outproduces Ukraine’s collective supporters.

In a separate post, Zelensky discussed his requests to a bipartisan group of American lawmakers. “We discussed key areas of further American assistance, including additional air defense systems. This is critically important, as the Patriot systems save lives and protect infrastructure,” he wrote.

Washington has struggled to provide Kiev with all the air defenses it has requested. Zelensky has only received a fraction of the Patriot systems he has demanded. Interceptors are in short supply with the White House recently announcing that it would give Ukraine priority for newly produced missiles.

On Monday, Zelensky made a third appeal for arms on X. “Life must prevail over the Russian war and all of Putin’s hostile ambitions. This is absolutely possible. But only if we sustain not just our courage but also the courage of our partners.” He continued, “Long-range weapons, fighter jets for Ukraine—of sufficient quality and quantity, and more air defense systems—are crucial factors affecting the entire course of this war.”

Zelensky said Ukraine needed to be able to “neutralize Russia’s combat aviation launching these bombs and… Russian military infrastructure and airfields.” While Washington and a number of other NATO countries have signed off on Kiev using their weapons to hit targets in Russia, Zelensky has asked the West to remove restrictions on where inside Russia the munitions can hit.

Additionally, Ukraine has used drones to hit Russian radar sites that are critical to Moscow’s ability to detect incoming nuclear weapons.

July 1, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »