MOSCOW – The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected Kiev’s claim to recognize Russia as an “aggressor state” and the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) as “terrorist organizations,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday.
Earlier in the day, the ICJ rejected most of Ukraine’s claims against Russia under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in Crimea, Court President Joan Donoghue said.
“The International Court of Justice did not follow Kiev’s whim and refused to recognize Russia as an ‘aggressor state.’ The court also rejected Ukrainian insinuations that the DPR and LPR are allegedly ‘terrorist organizations,'” the statement said.
Kiev hoped to back up its demands for the transfer of Russian assets frozen in the West and the introduction of international restrictions against Russia with the court claim, the ministry added.
Ukraine filed the lawsuit with the ICJ in 2017, accusing Russia of violating international conventions on anti-terrorism and racial discrimination over actions in Donbass and Crimea.
The ICJ found that Russia had breached the anti-discrimination treaty by “the way in which it has implemented its educational system in Crimea after 2014 with regard to school education in the Ukrainian language,” and rejected all other claims.
The Hague-based court also found that Russia had faithfully fulfilled its obligations to cooperate in the fight against terrorism financing, including the obligation to identify and block funds used to finance terrorism.
The ICJ declined to rule on Kiev’s accusations of Russia’s alleged responsibility for the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014.
January 31, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | ICJ, Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
By John Helmer | Dances with Bears | January 31, 2024
When the General Staff have been discussing with President Vladimir Putin the timing of the Russian offensive to force the Kiev regime into capitulation, it has been agreed, understood, and repeated that the strategic reserves of the Ukrainian forces should be destroyed first, together with the supply lines for the weapons and ammunition crossing the border from the US and the NATO allies.
This process, they also agreed, should take as long as required with least casualties on the Russian side, as determined by military intelligence. Also agreed and pre-conditional, there should be no repeat of the political intelligence failures of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) which precipitated the failed special forces operation known as the Battle of Antonov (Hostomel) Airport from February 24 to April 2, 2022.
Taking account of the mistakes made then by the SVR director, Sergei Naryshkin, and the subsequent mistakes of military officers around Yevgeny Prigozhin, the General Staff has also accepted that their tactical operations must run least risk of Russian casualties through March 17, the final day of the presidential election.
Reinforcing these preconditions for the timing of the Russian offensive, General Winter and General Patience have joined the Stavka meetings.
This week military sources believe there has been a turning point – on the Ukrainian battlefield, and on the Russian clock.
The daily Defense Ministry briefing and bulletin from Moscow reported last Thursday, before the Friday weekly summary, that the Ukrainian KIA (killed in action) for the previous twenty-four hours totaled 795, with the ratio of offensive tactics to defence, 3 to 3. On Monday, the KIA total was 680, the ratio 4 to 3. On Tuesday, KIA came to 885, the ratio 5 to 1. The casualty rate is unusually high; the shift to offence is recognizably new, if not announced.
The “Stavka Project”, a military briefing which is broadcast by Vladimir Soloviev, confirms the positional breakthroughs this week on several of the fronts or “directions”, as the Defense Ministry calls them, along the Donbass line; click to watch (in Russian).
In Boris Rozhin’s summary of the Defense Ministry briefing materials, published before dawn on Wednesday morning, the leading Russian military blogger (Colonel Cassad ) identifies “small advances”, “slight movements”, some positional “successes”, other positional “counter-fighting”, and “no significant progress yet”. The adverb is military talk for timing.
According to a military source outside Russia, “the Russian breakthrough is beginning to happen now. It’s being coordinated with strikes and raids along the northern border. The commitment of the ‘crack’ Ukrainian brigades at the expense of other sectors shows how desperate [General Valery] Zaluzhny is to plug the holes. He knows that the target is the isolation of Kharkov, the establishment of a demilitarized ‘buffer zone’, as well as the development of a situation whereby all Ukrainian forces east of the Dnieper are threatened with being cut off… and he’s quickly running out of ammunition, not to mention cannon fodder.”
“By the end of the winter,” the source has added overnight, “the Ukrainians will barely be able to move along the roads they use to feed the front due to the Russian drone, missile, conventional air, and artillery strikes. Once they can no longer plug the gaps with mechanized units acting as fire-fighting brigades, it’s just a matter of time before the big breakthroughs and encirclements begin. At the current burn rate of Ukrainian forces, I imagine we’ll start seeing Russian tanks with fuel tanks fitted for extended range appearing and Russian airborne troops making air assaults in the Ukrainian rear within weeks.”
In yesterday’s edition of the Moscow security analysis platform Vzglyad, Yevgeny Krutikov, a leading Russian military analyst with GRU service himself and GRU sources for his reporting since, published a report entitled “What does the offensive of Russian troops in the Kharkov region mean?” “Russia is creating a new strategic situation in the Kharkov region,” Krutikov concluded, “threatening to dismember the Ukrainian defence up to the Donetsk agglomeration.” A verbatim English translation of this piece follows.
January 29, 2024 – 19:10.
What does the offensive of Russian troops in the Kharkov region mean?
By Yevgeny Krutikov
“The settlement of Tabayevka in the Kharkov region has been liberated,” the Russian Defense Ministry says. We are not just facing the capture of a village: Russian troops are now hacking into the contact lines, which have not budged for a year. Russia is creating a new strategic situation in the Kharkov region, threatening to dismember the Ukrainian defence up to the Donetsk agglomeration.
First, Krakhmalnoye, then Tabayevka – Russian troops have advanced in the Svatovo direction (Kharkov region), pushing the enemy to a new line of defence (to the village of Peschanoye). Slightly to the north, already close to Kupyansk, the enemy’s positions are also gradually moving to the west and southwest.
Along the way, forests are being cleared, which the VSU [Ukrainian Armed Forces] is turning into fortified areas, even giving them names (“Alligator” and “Woodpecker”). The enemy is losing the old lines of trenches, the first line of contact has been destroyed. Something similar is happening directly near Kupyansk, but there the advanced fortified lines in Sinkovka are being held still by the VSU, though the positions on the flanks have gradually begun to sink.
At first glance, we are looking at isolated episodes of positional warfare, since the big, iconic and recognizable geographical names do not appear in the information releases. But this is not quite true.
Firstly, even in this scenario as published so far, strategic threats arise for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, for example, in the possible drive of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation to the Oskol River which has far-reaching prospects. Notwithstanding, it is still impossible to predict when this will become possible in practice.
Secondly, the enemy has been demonstrating a systemic defence crisis in the Kupyansk direction during the past week. The defence of Kupyansk has been under construction by the Armed Forces of Ukraine since the spring of last year, when the decision was made in Kiev on a ‘counteroffensive’ in the southern direction. New brigades with western armoured vehicles were sent to the southern section of the contact line, and Kupyansk and the area around it were designated for defence with the rest of their forces.
In Kiev, they were convinced that Russian troops were forming an offensive group in the Kupyansk direction, and so the VSU began to wait there for a frontal assault. However, as a result, the Russian Army did not undertake anything of the kind in this area. Instead, the Ukrainian units were gradually ground down by the Russian army in positional battles, while the Kupyansk group of the VSU had to be replenished with whatever troops were left.
Now Ukrainian sources are complaining that as a consequence, a combination of lines has formed in the sinkhole areas (that’s the same Krakhmalnoye and Tabayevka). Into these lines the VSU has herded separate battalions from different units, with the result that unified management and command have been lost, and the performance quality of the troops has left much to be desired.
As a result, the VSU is considering the possibility of transferring the remnants of those forces which participated in the failed ‘counteroffensive”’ to Kupyansk from the southern direction. Before that, they had been sent in great haste sent to Avdeyevka.
But this is already a systemic problem for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, since there is trouble in the southern sector. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have gradually regained some of the positions which were left during the so-called counteroffensive, and these forces continue to move forward. We are even talking about possible threats to Orekhov, a rearguard city for the VSU, from which all the communications and command of the ‘counteroffensive’ had been carried out.
Behind the defensive fortifications of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, an open field for tens of kilometres opens up on a whole group of sites. Kiev’s military reserves are gradually being squandered, and there is practically no human materiel left to plug the holes. Related to these problems there are the panic campaigns in Kiev about total mobilization.
There is another problem: the attrition of officers. Western military personnel cannot replace this crucial resource — they can only be used to service technically complicated weapons systems such as air defence or long-range artillery. Along the line of contact, foreign officers are more likely to interfere due to their ignorance of the language and misunderstanding of the mentality of the [Ukrainian] subordinates.
There are other factors weakening the Ukrainian defence, but they are not directly related to military operations. For example, the Western sponsors are really concerned about the corruption of the Ukrainian leadership. The inspections and audits which are taking place in Kiev on this issue right now are preventing Ukraine from building new defensive lines swiftly enough.
Another non-military factor: political discord among the various factions of the Ukrainian authorities. The premonition of defeat is triggering a drop in morale, not only in the troops, but also in the elites.
All this in general creates a strategic opportunity for Russia to seriously change the situation on the line of contact.
Partial tactical successes must at some point turn into a major breakthrough in the enemy’s defence. Moreover, we are talking about such a breakthrough that will not stop in just two or three days at the next defensive line, but will lead inevitably, precisely, to the collapse of the front. This is exactly what the efforts of the Russian Armed Forces are now aimed at, probing for the weaknesses in Ukrainian defensive positions.
The liberation of Tabayevka is an example of just such an approach. Sooner or later, the VSU will not have time to create a new defensive line behind a particular settlement. And then we will see how the special operation will break the current positional deadlock.
January 31, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
The Pentagon plans to “field test” a new, ground-launched variant of its deadly Small Diameter Bomb design in real world battlefield conditions in Ukraine. What are these weapons? What dangers will they pose to Russian forces and civilians in frontline areas? How can Russia defeat them? Sputnik explores.
Sources told Politico on Tuesday that Ukraine is preparing to receive a delivery of the US’ new Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs (GLSDBs) as soon as this week.
The deliveries will give Kiev “a deeper strike capability they haven’t had” and “complement” the Ukrainian military’s “long-range fire arsenal,” a US official familiar with the transfer boasted. The weapons, which even the US military doesn’t have in its arsenal yet, will serve as “an extra arrow in the quiver that’s gonna allow them to do more,” the official said, without elaborating.
What is the Small Diameter Bomb?
Developed in the mid-2000s by US aerospace and defense giant Boeing’s Integrated Defense Systems division, the original GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb was envisioned as an air-dropped glide bomb designed to target an array of stationary ground targets, ranging from bunkers and electronic warfare jamming equipment to airfields, fuel depots, barracks, and troop concentration.
The GBU-39 is equipped with a 285-pound (130 kg) bomb and has a 206-pound (93 kg) penetrating blast fragmentation warhead – enough to punch through up to three feet of steel-reinforced concrete, and can be guided by a combination of active radar homing, laser guidance, GPS, and inertial navigation, depending on configuration and model. The system boasts a circular error probable of about one meter, and has a range of between 75 and 110 km.
The GBU-39 is a glide weapon, which, as the name suggests, means the bomb glides to its target along a pre-designated flight path at low speeds, without the assistance of rocket engines. The system’s comparatively low cost (as little as $40,000 apiece compared to $3.2 million for the Storm Shadows Kiev has been receiving from Britain and using to terror bomb Donbass, for example, combined with its small radar signature and comparatively short flight time makes it difficult to detect and intercept using traditional air defenses.
What is the Ground-Launched Variant of the Small Diameter Bomb?
With Ukraine’s Air Force hard pressed to get its aircraft into the skies due to the constant threat of Russian air defenses and interceptor warplanes, the US and its allies have committed significant resources to converting ordinarily air-launched weapons for launch from ground-based systems (for more information check out the US military-industrial complex’s “FrankenSAM” program for Ukraine).
Besides air defenses, another component of efforts to convert ordinarily air-launched weapons from the ground revolves around rocket artillery. That’s where the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb comes in. Unlike its air-launched cousin, the modified GBU-39 is fitted with an engine from the M26 rocket motor used by the M270 and HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) to propel it toward its target.
Developed by Boeing and Swedish defense giant Saab in the mid-2010s, the GLSDB is said to have a range of up to 145 km, and has a reported price tag of about $100,000 apiece.
With the US and its allies having already sent dozens of MLRS artillery platforms to Ukraine over the past two years, the delivery of new ground-launched Small Diameter Bombs is expected to provide Kiev with an instantaneous new long-range strike capability.
How Many GLSDBs Will Ukraine Get?
With US funding for Ukraine running out in December and the Pentagon forced to dip into its own dwindling stockpiles to assist Kiev, it’s not clear how many of the newfangled ground-launched GLSDBs Ukraine will receive. When plans to deliver the weapons were first announced a year ago as part of a $2.17 billion arms package, US media mentioned a figure of two launchers and 24 weapons total.
That would be enough for Kiev to attempt strikes deep behind Russian lines, or to launch terror attacks against cities in Donbass or other Russian border settlements, but not enough to have any serious strategic impact – where quantity of available munitions has proven key.
Where Have Small Diameter Bombs Been Used?
Ukraine’s military will be the GLSDB’s first operator, with the Chinese breakaway island province of Taiwan expected to follow at a later date.
The original SDB was used by the US and its allies in conflicts across the Middle East and Asia, from Iraq and Afghanistan, to Syria and Gaza (where it has been used by Washington’s Israeli ally), and Yemen (deployed by members of the Gulf-led coalition against the Houthis). In each instance, GBU-39s successfully targeted forces fighting US or allied militaries, but in no case has their deployment resulted in or even contributed to a strategic victory for an aggressor power.
How Can Russia Defend Against Ground-Launched GBU-39s?
As mentioned above, glide bombs’ design characteristics and principle of operation makes them difficult to intercept and destroy, but that doesn’t mean the task is impossible. Russia’s response to GLSDB deployment by Ukraine will likely include:
- continuing operations to target HIMARS and M270 fire positions, ammunition, supply, and repair depots using artillery and precision missile strikes.
- deploying radio-electronic jamming equipment to degrade the weapons’ accuracy (although this will not affect onboard inertial guidance systems, without GPS the glide bombs are less precise).
- shooting the glide bombs down using the dense array of conventional air defenses along frontline areas, from the Tor and Buk missile system to close-in anti-aircraft guns.
January 31, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | Russia, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
EU member states have reached an agreement that is expected to allow Brussels to transfer the income generated by Russia’s frozen central bank reserves to Kiev, according to the Belgian presidency of the EU Council.
“EU Ambassadors just agreed in principle on a proposal on the use of windfall profits related to immobilised assets to support Ukraine’s reconstruction,” the country’s representatives announced in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Monday.
The Financial Times, meanwhile, has reported that EU envoys had approved a plan aiming to set aside the billions of euros in profits generated by the frozen assets of Russia’s central bank. Some €191 billion ($206 billion) out of €260 billion ($291 billion) of Russia’s immobilized reserves are currently held by Belgium’s Euroclear, a central security depository, generating billions as securities reach maturity and are reinvested.
According to the draft seen by the FT, profits generated by Euroclear will be booked separately with no dividends to be paid to shareholders until members of the bloc unanimously opt to set up a “financial contribution to the [EU] budget that shall be raised on these net profits to support Ukraine.”
The proposed measures are expected to only target future profits and won’t apply retroactively.
Last week, sources close to the discussions told Bloomberg that EU foreign ministers had backed applying a windfall tax on Russia’s frozen assets. At the same time, Reuters reported that the EU was unlikely to confiscate the funds despite G7 plans to discuss the legality of doing so at a meeting in February.
Moscow has repeatedly warned that any actions related to its assets by the US and its allies would amount to “theft,” stressing that seizure of the funds or any similar move would violate international law and undermine reserve currencies, the global financial system, and the world economy.
In April, President Vladimir Putin signed a decree establishing a mechanism to temporarily take over foreign assets in Russia in the event that other countries seize Russian private or government property in their jurisdictions, or threaten the national, energy, or economic security of the country.
January 30, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Economics | European Union, Russia |
Leave a comment
MOSCOW – The West is beginning to understand that the “Ukraine project” is failing but can not stop assisting Kiev because of its economic benefit and fear of losing “prestige,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday.
“The figures that are hidden in Ukraine, they speak a lot about how important it is for the West to prevent the ‘failure’ of their ‘Ukraine project’. Moreover, they already understand that the failure has already begun. But nevertheless they cannot stop. And not only for reasons of prestige … And also from the point of view of economic benefits,” Lavrov said during a meeting with foreign diplomats in Moscow.
Addressing the UN Security Council meeting on January 22, 2023, Lavrov emphasized that there are no interests – and there never were – in the conflict with Russia in favor of the Ukrainian people. There are only “the interests of the Anglo-Saxons, their henchmen and the criminal, rotten Kiev elite, which is tied to the West by mutual responsibility and which is afraid of being swept away the day after the end of the war.”
The Russian top diplomat pointed out that Moscow has never given up on a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict.
“We never gave up on the peaceful resolution, we are always ready to negotiate — negotiate not about how to keep the leadership of the Kiev regime in place but about overcoming the inheritance of a decade-long destructive looting of the country and violence against the people, removing the reasons for the tragic Ukrainian situation,” Lavrov said. However, the key factor hindering a resolution of the conflict in Ukraine is the continued support of the West, he added.
January 30, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Militarism | European Union, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
By repeatedly targeting the Houthis in Yemen and pushing for an escalation in the Red Sea, the US is jumping into the Middle East with a military and strategic mindset. The objective is to create space for Washington – and its global allies – to push back against the recent gains, i.e., normalization between Iran and Saudi and Arab normalization with Syria more than a decade after the start of the so-called “Arab Spring”, that Russia and China have made. A wider war in the region will, in the US calculation at least, re-politicize regional fault lines that might allow Washington to reverse the larger normalization process. Considering the high stakes Washington has in developing a wider war in the region, it makes sense for both Russia and China, who largely have similar interests vis-à-vis normalization processes within the Middle East, to develop a joint approach.
In October, soon after Israel launched its brutal war after the October 7 attacks by Hamas and much before the US started doing its own strikes, Russia, anticipating a deeper US military involvement in the Middle East, confirmed that it was already coordinating its Middle East policy with China. This coordination, on the other hand, is also an outcome of the recent state of Russia-China bilateral ties, which, in the words of the Russian foreign minister, are in the best state in the “centuries-old history”.
This coordination also has its roots in the ways that the Arab world itself has come to see its ties with the US on the one hand and Russia and China on the other. For instance, some recent surveys have shown that an increasing number of people across most Arab states view Russia and China as crucial economic players above all. The core reasons for this favourable view are twofold. First, many Arab societies today view the US as no longer a reliable partner. Second, they view Russia and China not from a revisionist perspective, i.e., as states deepening their involvement in the region to replace the US. Rather, Russia and China continue to emphasize the Middle East as a region that can play an autonomous role, i.e., a role not tied to, or disproportionately overshadowed by, any superpower’s interests.
The fact that Russia and China both see the Middle East from this perspective, their calculation sees the Middle East as a vital region that can really push for shifting the center of the present world order away from the West to creating multiple power centres within a multipolar world order. Therefore, developing a joint policy and indirectly protecting the Middle East from slipping too much under the US radar makes sense for both Moscow and Beijing. Were the Middle East to relapse to being a US vassal region, it would make it extremely difficult, if not entirely impossible, for Russia and China to realize their ambitions for a new world order.
Now, for both Russia and China, keeping the Middle East – which is already on the verge of a wider war – as a center of power, they must project their ties beyond the Gaza war. Of course, Israel’s war on Gaza is the most important issue today, and both Russia and China have adopted and emphasized a pro-Arab/pro-Palestine position. But Russia and China are also taking steps to not allow their ties with the region to be bogged down by this one issue.
China and Russia, as we know it, already have deep economic ties with the Middle East. Both, as we know, remain focused on maintaining and expanding these ties despite the ongoing conflicts. Putin’s recent visit to the Middle East was not simply provoked by the Gaza crisis, nor was this war the sole subject of his discussions with Arab leaders. In fact, a lot of discussion was around the core issue of a multipolar world order. Putin emphasized how the conflict in the Middle East is a US failure, a failure that makes it imperative for the Middle East to not only distance itself from Washington but also adopt a more autonomous role to, among other things, resolve the issue through its initiatives. But beyond this, Putin emphasised that “The UAE is Russia’s main trading partner in the Arab world.”
For China as well, this logic of relationship beyond and above the Palestine issue remains prominent. While Beijing has openly supported the Arab state’s current stance on the issue, its ongoing engagement with this region remains predominantly underpinned by the logic of trade and development, building a relationship that helps the Middle East transform into a powerhouse that can ultimately help China and Russia tackle the hegemony of the West. (That’s why both China and Russia recently adopted new members into BRICS, including those from the Middle East.)
At the same time, China has taken steps to use the scenario, like Russia, to step up itself as a global power that can help mediate regional conflicts. In November, China announced its five-point peace plan that placed heavy emphasis on the United Nations, calling for the implementation of all relevant UN resolutions on the conflict and an international conference organized by the world body that leads to a two-state solution, all overseen by the Security Council. While nothing concrete followed this plan, it served China’s purpose of projecting itself as a power different from the West on the one hand and very close to the Arab world on the other.
For Washington, which has been hoping for differences to emerge between Russia and China taking them back to the era of rivalry, this situation is frustrating, making it extremely difficult for it to not lose ground in the Middle East specifically and across the Global South more generally. But its continuing support for Israel’s war machine and its continuing push for NATO’s expansion is doing exactly the opposite of what the US aims for, i.e., preventing its global decline and the related rise of Russia and China.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
January 29, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | China, Middle East, Russia, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The US assured Kiev that the Russian assets that remain frozen in the West are going to be seized and used to rebuild Ukraine after the conflict, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmygal has said.
The US, EU, and their allies blocked some $300 billion of Russian central bank assets as part of sanctions in response to Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine. Around $200 billion of that money is held in the EU.
Politico reported on Thursday that it asked Shmygal if he was concerned that US funding for the Kiev government would come to a complete stop if Donald Trump won the presidential election in November and returned to the White House for his second term.
”We have all the assurances from the US about long-term support for Ukraine – for example, the seizure of Russian assets to fund the Ukrainian recovery,” he claimed.
On Wednesday, a US Senate committee approved the “Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity (REPO) for Ukrainians Act,” which should help pave the way for such a move by Washington. If it passes both houses and is signed into law by President Joe Biden, Washington could seize the Russian central bank assets, using such a measure against a country that it’s not directly at war with for the first time in history.
Reuters reported this week, citing a senior official in Brussels, that the EU will be unlikely to join the US in confiscating the Russian funds as there’s no agreement on such a step between the bloc’s member-states.
Earlier in January, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned that Moscow would respond to a possible seizure of its assets by the West, inducing tit-for-tat measures.
Previously, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that the confiscation of Russian funds would amount to “outright theft” by the West. He told reporters that it would undermine the trust in the US and EU financial systems around the globe.
Shmygal also stated that Kiev is “working hard with the administration of President Biden and with Congress to have support for 2024.” As for the continuation of the aid in 2025, “we’ll see how conditions develop,” he stressed.
”I believe that any president of the US will support our fight for civilized values, our mutual values,” the Ukrainian PM said.
The US has provided Ukraine with around $111 billion in economic and military support amid the conflict with Russia. But the flow of funds subsided dramatically in recent months as Republican lawmakers continue to resist attempts by the White House to push through another $60 billion in assistance for Kiev.
January 27, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Economics | European Union, Russia, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
Washington is developing a new Black Sea strategy envisaging bolstering the US and NATO role in the region, as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Jim O’Brien announced at a German Marshall Fund meeting on January 25.
Assistant Secretary of State O’Brien, who oversees US relations with Europe and Eurasia, visited the German Marshall Fund on Thursday to discuss 2024 US priorities in Europe, including backing Ukraine and “widening European integration.”
During his speech, O’Brien placed special emphasis on the strategic importance of the Black Sea to the US and NATO, stressing that the development of a grand design to ensure security in the region is underway. He pointed out that meetings had been held with Turkiye and other littoral states.
“[The US] want[s] to establish dominance over the Black Sea,” Vasily Dandykin, a captain 1st rank reserve and military expert, told Sputnik. “This is an old idea. One of the goals is to bring Ukraine into NATO. Because they believe that whoever dominates the Black Sea and owns Crimea receives all the bonuses. This is the underbelly of Russia in the south. And that’s why there was such irritation when the Crimean Spring happened in 2014 [Crimean people voted to reunify with Russia in March 2014 – Sputnik ]. As far as I remember the Americans had agreed with Kiev to establish a base for the US fleet in Sevastopol by that time.”
What’s Behind US Plans to Create Strategic Dominance in the Black Sea?
It was not the first time that O’Brien has pushed the idea of beefing up US/NATO presence in the region. On October 25, 2023, the US official testified before the US Senate’s Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation. He claimed that the Ukraine conflict is “a very good bargain” for the US as it gives Washington a unique opportunity to increase NATO’s military presence in the Black Sea, including the region’s lands, airspace, and waters, while “Ukrainians are paying the bulk of the cost” by fighting with Russians.
NATO’s dominance in the region could create conditions for pulling Ukraine and other Black Sea countries away from Russia and integrating them into the Western sphere of influence, O’Brien added. That would also help the West build oil and gas pipelines that lead from Central Asia via Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkiye to Europe thus completely axing Russia’s energy commodities from the Old Continent’s market. In particular, O’Brien hinted that Washington was very interested in the Ukrainian conflict going on to allow the US to accomplish its geopolitical goals in the Black Sea region.
The Biden administration is considering the idea of redrawing the energy map of the Black Sea region altogether, as Edward Hunt, a PhD in American Studies from the College of William & Mary, has written in his op-ed for Foreign Policy in Focus. Hunt noted that the idea of the “Southern Gas Corridor” through the Black Sea was recently touted by State Department official Geoffrey Pyatt, who served as a US ambassador to Ukraine at the time of the 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev and who now leads US energy diplomacy. Per Pyatt, “the redrawing of the energy map around the Black Sea that’s taking place” envisages “new pipeline infrastructure”, in particular, “the Southern Gas Corridor to bring gas from Central Asia to European consumers.”
‘NATO’s Expanding in All Directions’
Meanwhile, Dandykin pointed out that Washington’s expansionist plans are not limited to the Black Sea:
“The fact is that the strengthening of the United States and NATO – first of all, the United States – in all directions has become the general concept,” the military expert stressed, adding that the US has recently expanded its continental shelf (including in the Arctic region) to about one million square kilometers – an area twice the size of California.
“They established their bases in Finland, and the Finns gave the go-ahead, for airfields, etc. In the Baltic, near our borders, maneuvers will now take place for two months, with a total of 90,000 [NATO] military personnel. This is a concept of the expansion in all directions, including in the south. They seek to encircle and bleed the Russian Federation white,” the expert said.
Dandykin emphasized that Washington appears to have benefitted the most from the Ukrainian conflict and sanctions spree. The US forced Europe to decouple from Russia and at least partially filled the latter’s shoes. The American military-industrial complex is now working “at full capacity” to replenish the allies’ depleted weapons stockpiles, as their obsolete weapons have been burned down in Ukraine.
“More and more [Western] countries are placing orders for weapons. There is a military schizophrenia in Germany, they want to rearm. The Americans have always been the beneficiaries in all these messes. Therefore, they will, in particular, try to pour more gasoline on the fire this year to create difficulties for Russia,” Dandykin said.
How Will Russia React to US Black Sea Strategy?
The US and their NATO allies have been trying to enhance their operations in the Black Sea, the military expert noted, referring in particular to Western surveillance drones flying in close proximity to Crimea.
Russia has repeatedly warned the US against meddling in the Ukraine conflict. On the morning of 14 March 2023, a Russian Su-27 fighter jet was scrambled to intercept an American MQ-9 Reaper drone. The latter eventually crashed into the Black Sea after conducting a botched maneuver.
Dandykin pointed out that no matter how brazen the US and its NATO allies may behave, they are fully aware that they are risking nothing short of a nuclear war with Russia.
Washington’s Black Sea strategy obviously won’t go unnoticed by the Russian Foreign Ministry, the expert continued, adding that Russia is ready for all potential scenarios. He noted that a lot depends on how Black Sea littoral states, especially Turkiye, will react to Team Biden’s Black Sea initiatives. Ankara has so far demonstrated its firm position by closing off the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits to warships from any country, whether or not they border the Black Sea, after the beginning of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. Besides, a new conflict in the Middle East over Israel’s Gaza war may also influence the balance of power in the region. So, Russia is likely to take a wait-and-see approach and it won’t add fuel to the fire as its American counterparts are presently doing overseas, Dandykin noted.
What’s more, the US security doctrine for the Black Sea could hardly be accomplished as it excludes Russia, a littoral state with considerable strategic strength and influence in the region, Dandykin stressed. “No, it’s obviously impossible” the expert emphasized when asked whether it’s possible to implement this or any other security strategy in the Black Sea region without the participation of the Russian Federation.
January 27, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Militarism | NATO, Russia, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
For the time being, there are no official photographs of the meeting in Moscow on Thursday evening at the Russian Foreign Ministry between Mikhail Bogdanov, the deputy foreign minister and chief Russian negotiator in the Middle East and Africa, and Mohammed (Mukhameddov) Abdelsalam leading a delegation of the Ansarallah government of Yemen, known as the Houthi movement.
Bogdanov’s communiqué said “special attention was paid to the development of tragic events in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone, as well as the aggravation of the situation in the Red Sea in this regard. In this context, the missile and bomb attacks on Yemen undertaken by the United States and Great Britain, which are capable of destabilizing the situation on a regional scale, were strongly condemned.”
This is the plainest signal to date of Russian backing for the southern front of the Arab war against Israel, and the link which the Houthis have made between the Israeli blockade of Gaza, the genocide of the Palestinians, and the Red Sea blockade which the Houthis have imposed on vessels owned or directed by Israeli shipowners, US naval fleet, and American-flagged and other vessels carrying military and civil cargoes to Israel or reload ammunition for future attacks on Yemen.
At the same time across Moscow, unusually large delegations of officials of the Russian Security Council, led by Nikolai Patrushev, and Ali-Akbar Ahmadian, special presidential representative and Secretary of Iran’s National Security Council, have been meeting to discuss a detailed agenda which Patrushev’s communiqué calls a “wide range of Russian-Iranian security cooperation” and “the practical implementation of the agreements reached at the highest level.”
In an open statement for reporters, Ahmadian told Patrushev: “”America’s grandeur has shattered, and today, it cannot even rally its traditional allies. A country that considers itself a superpower is engaged in war against resistance groups and the people of the region.”
The display of Russian support for the Axis of Resistance against Israel and the US is unprecedented. The Foreign Ministry and Security Council meetings confirm there is now a new definition of “terrorism” in Russian warfighting strategy, in which there is both public and secret support for Hamas, the Houthis, and other groups in Lebanon and Iraq fighting for national liberation against Israel and the US. (On the differentiation between national liberation which Russia supports, and terrorism which it condemns, click to read this.)
Bogdanov’s meeting with Abdelsalam was not the first high-level Russian contact with the Houthis, nor their first negotiation. The two officials had met in Moscow on July 24, 2019, when they discussed terms for ending the civil war in Yemen; Bogdanov was also meeting at the time with other Yemeni political factions. Abdelsalam said then: “The meeting discussed the most important issues related to the Yemeni policy and the steps of the national delegation [the Houthi delegation] in the Stockholm Agreement in addition to the regional crisis, in addition to the importance of the Russian role at the regional level, and its reflection on the situation in Yemen to calm the escalation and prevent further tension as Yemen represents a key point towards regional calm that will be positively reflected in the tense regional situation.”
Bogdanov met Abdelsalam again in Oman on August 30, 2019.
So long as the agenda was limited to the Yemen civil war and the intervention of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, the Israelis were not exercised. But they are now, as the Russian Foreign Ministry announcement of Thursday evening’s negotiations caught Israeli intelligence agents and government officials by surprise. The first Israeli press reports over Thursday night cribbed from Reuters which had followed Tass in reading the Foreign Ministry communiqué; no Israeli officials were available to comment to their reporters.
The Russian-Houthi negotiations took place in parallel with the talks between the Russian Security Council and their Iranian counterparts headed by Ali-Akbar Ahmadian, head of Iran’s Security Council. Tass reported that Nikolai Patrushev had invited Ahmadian to the talks. Ahmadian issued a statement through the Iranian Embassy in Moscow to say “the Supreme National Security Council secretary hailed Iran-Russia cooperation in the fight against terrorism, particularly in Syria, saying that cooperation must continue.” By terrorism Ahmadian meant Israeli attacks on Iranian military advisers in Syria, as well as the bombing of civilians at the Kerman cemetery on January 3.
Here is the full text of the Bogdanov-Abdelsalam communiqué:
On the meeting of the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation for the Middle East and Africa, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Mikhail Bogdanov with a delegation of the Yemeni Ansar Allah movement
On January 25, the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation for the Middle East and Africa, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Mikhail Bogdanov received a delegation of the Yemeni Ansar Allah movement headed by Mohammed Abdelsalam.
During the in-depth conversation, an in-depth discussion took place on the issues of a comprehensive settlement of the military-political crisis in Yemen, which has been going on for almost nine years. At the same time, the importance of increasing international efforts to create the necessary conditions for establishing a full-scale inter-Yemeni national dialogue under the auspices of the United Nations was emphasized.
Special attention was paid to the development of tragic events in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone, as well as the aggravation of the situation in the Red Sea in this regard. In this context, the missile and bomb attacks on Yemen undertaken by the United States and Great Britain, which are capable of destabilizing the situation on a regional scale, were strongly condemned.
Here is the Russian Security Council communiqué following the plenary session between Patrushev, Ahmadian and their delegations, before they broke up into working-group meetings:
In Moscow Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev held talks with the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran Ali Ahmadian
A wide range of Russian-Iranian security cooperation was discussed. The focus is on the interaction of the security councils, law enforcement agencies and special services of the two countries. Special attention is paid to the fight against terrorism, information security issues, problems of ensuring the economic security of Russia and Iran in the face of sanctions pressure from Western countries, as well as countering attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states. The development of a new bilateral comprehensive long-term agreement was touched upon. It was emphasized that the conclusion of this fundamental document will give a powerful impetus to the further development of mutually beneficial cooperation in all spheres.
In addition, the conversation discussed global and regional trends, as well as the upcoming bilateral and multilateral contacts between the Security Councils of Russia and Iran in 2024. The schedule of activities of the working groups of the Security Councils of the two countries on issues of mutual interest has been agreed.
The parties noted that relations between Russia and Iran continue to strengthen and reach a qualitatively new level across the entire spectrum of areas. The focus on the practical implementation of the agreements reached at the highest level was confirmed.
Hours after this meeting in Moscow, but before the Houthis arrived at Bogdanov’s office in Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held a press conference at the United Nations in New York. Lavrov did not mention the Houthis explicitly nor did he condemn their blockade of Israeli ports, shipping and deliveries, but he did attack the Anglo-American bombings of Yemeni territory.
“Regarding the Red Sea,” Lavrov said, “there is a direct and illegal aggression there in violation of all international norms. Those taking part in it and who are behind this aggression are lying when they claim that this is an act of self-defence in accordance with the UN Charter. Our mission in New York has circulated a real document that reviews all the arguments put forward by the UK and the US and exposes their actions as outright robbery rather than self-defence.”
Asked about Russia’s relationship with India and the plan for an eastern maritime corridor for shipping between the two countries, Lavrov replied by emphasizing Russia’s strategic priority is to defend against US and NATO attacks, including economic warfare against its oil exports.
A question of this kind calls for a lengthy answer. To put it briefly, just like most countries on the Eurasian continent, Russia needs new corridors as a way of cutting logistics costs and ensuring faster deliveries compared to using the Suez Canal or sending ships around Africa. Everyone is interested in creating these transport and logistics chains and ensuring that they are independent from the West and those who regularly abuse their standing in global trade and along the shipping routes.
There is the North-South corridor that ensures quick, effective and reliable shipments from the Baltic Sea to the Persian Gulf. There are plans to link Russian ports in the Far East with India. There is also an initiative called Europe–Middle East–India, backed by western Europeans. For us, the North-South corridor remains a priority and India stands to directly benefit from it. This route will cross Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran and go all the way to India. Pakistan is also interested.
There has been much talk about this lately. India is looking at the Northern Sea Route with a lot of interest. The same goes for China. Considering global warming and the fact that it is expected to become operational year-around, the Northern Sea Route can directly compete against all other routes since it cuts shipping time by a third compared to the Suez Canal, to give you one example. We have been discussing it with our Indian colleagues but, of course, not at the Foreign Ministry level. The ministers of economy, finance, transport and our prime ministers are working on this matter. This is one of the most promising tasks in terms of our regional development.
Moscow sources say the official communiqués indicate the multi-track approach Russian strategy is adopting, and speak for themselves, requiring no comment at this stage
Vzglyad, the semi-official Moscow website for security analysis, which has followed a pro-Israel, anti-Hamas line since October 7, reported on January 24 that their sources are confident that Russian oil shipments to India and China, through the Suez Canal and Red Sea, remain secure from attack by the Houthis, and also that there will be no behind-the-scenes interference from Saudi Arabia. Without saying as much, the Vzglyad reporter conceded this is only possible because there have been direct Russian agreements with the Houthis and Iran.
“Russia has not changed logistics at all,” Vzglyad reported a source, Igor Yushkov, an analyst of the National Energy Security Fund. “Ships with our oil are still sailing through the Red Sea past Yemen, and we will most likely be the last to leave the Suez Canal. Russia will [sic] obviously try to negotiate with Iran to coordinate the passage of Russian tankers through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea.”
“In general, Russia, of course, benefits if all the other oil producers are forced to send their ships around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope, while Russia itself retains the shorter, previous route through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea… Because the logistics will become more expensive for all other companies, these costs will be included in the cost of oil, and so that will grow. Whereas Russia’s transportation costs will remain the same, and it will then be possible to sell Russia’s oil more expensively. As for Saudi Arabia, Russia has many more points of common interest with it than differences. Therefore, the West’s bet on a contest between the two countries over the entire situation with navigation in the Red Sea is premature.”
Premature is official Russian-speak for wishful thinking.
Boris Rozhin, chief of the Colonel Cassad internet platform and one of the leading military analysts in Moscow, noted on the evening of January 25: “Since the Yemeni Ansar Allah movement began its operations against shipping related to Israel, the volume of cargo traffic through the Suez Canal has decreased by about 85%. Navigation on the Suez Canal has almost completely stopped after the attacks in the Red Sea. This has a serious impact on the Israeli economy.” Rozhin, who has been writing on the Yemen conflict for several years, has not yet commented on the Houthi visit to Moscow.
According to Vzglyad’s source, “I don’t see any serious reduction in Russian oil supplies to India and China. Moreover, by itself Russia is now reducing production and exports; these are included in the new commitments under the agreement with OPEC+. At the same time, Russia is still the largest supplier for both India and China. Therefore, it is not worth saying that we have left these markets or someone has pushed us out… There are no problems with the sale of Russian oil, and it is unclear why Saudi Arabia would squeeze Russia out of the Asian market. In the previous two years, we have swapped markets — the Saudis got the European market after Russia left. At the same time, Saudi Arabia is still represented in Asia, where Russia has now become a strong player. It makes no economic sense to compete and knock the ground out from under each other’s feet… In order to displace Russian oil from the Asian markets, the Saudis would have to offer the same price as Russia offers. However, it is more profitable for Saudi Arabia to send oil to Europe, even around Africa, than to give the same discount of $10 per barrel which Russia gives to India and China.”
CURRENT PRICE QUOTES IN THE CRUDE OIL MARKET (BEFORE DISCOUNTING)
Vzglyad concludes: “Even if Saudi Arabia gives this discount, Russia will still have nowhere to go, because we cannot supply this oil to Europe. This means that we would have to give an even bigger discount to Asian customers. Why should Saudi Arabia compete with us in the amount of this discount in order to supply oil to China and India, if they have the European market… One more point: if Saudi Arabia and Russia supply oil to Asia, who will supply oil to Europe? Then there will be a shortage of oil in Europe, the price will rise, and the Europeans will lure non–Russian oil at a high price.”
Moscow sources note that since this is the consensus calculation of the Russian oil exporters, the political and military calculation follows that agreement on terms with the Houthis and Iran is a must. “There is no place left for Israel in this calculation of Russia’s national interest”, one of the sources adds.
January 26, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Economics | Russia, Yemen |
Leave a comment
Ukraine is losing the drone war. This isn’t a claim made by the Russian Ministry of Defense or by Russian state media, but rather the headline of an article appearing in Foreign Affairs magazine, written by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt who now heads a think tank, the Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP), advising the US government regarding artificial intelligence and other emerging technology.
The article titled, “Ukraine is Losing the Drone War – How Kyiv Can Close the Innovation Gap With Russia,” makes a wide range of claims, from repeating unlikely narratives regarding astronomically high Russian losses, to admissions regarding Russia’s many and multiplying advantages over both Ukraine and its Western supporters. Schmidt’s narrative is contradictory, and the article ultimately fails to deliver a coherent explanation as to how Ukraine can actually “close the innovation gap with Russia.”
It is a mystery as to why Schmidt is even writing this article in the first place, not being a journalist or a politician, but rather a leader of the US high-tech industry. But the article demonstrates how even at the highest levels of political and industrial leadership in the US, there lies a fundamental misunderstanding of not only the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, but of the fundamental premise upon which all American foreign policy is built.
Why Ukraine is Losing the Drone War, and will Continue Losing
Schmidt’s article lays out a distorted account of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, following familiar narratives found across the collective West’s media. This includes the notion that Ukraine initially “held the upper hand in drone warfare” and had managed to keep “Russian forces on the back foot.” Such conclusions are drawn by focusing solely on the trading of territory, and in particular, on Ukraine’s Kharkov and Kherson offensives in 2022.
However, because the Ukraine conflict is fundamentally a war of attrition, the true measure of Ukraine’s success or failure is measured in the loss of manpower and equipment versus its ability to regenerate forces, replace equipment, and replenish ammunition stockpiles. In all of these regards, Ukraine has been losing the war from the moment it began – some may even look back in hindsight and conclude the war was lost before it even began.
The collective West for decades developed a large, for-profit military industrial base. It focused on maximizing profits through the production of high-cost systems built in relatively small quantities, while eliminating extra manufacturing capacity for large-scale production that rarely if ever was necessary to sustain the West’s “small wars” following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Russia, on the other hand, inherited the Soviet Union’s massive military industrial base, maintained certain aspects of it, modernized and expanded others, preparing for large-scale, high-intensity, protracted warfare within or along its borders.
From 2008, when US-armed and trained Georgian forces attacked Russian troops in the South Caucasus region, Moscow began preparing for a conflict by proxy with NATO it considered inevitable. From 2014, following the US overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government, it was almost certain that conflict by proxy with NATO would be fought in Ukraine.
From that point onward, Russia began building up the military industrial base required to fight and win a large-scale proxy war against a NATO-armed and trained Ukraine. Because Russia’s military industrial base consists of a large network of state-owned enterprises, a preference for purpose over profits prevailed.
Today, this fundamental reality is reflected in virtually every aspect of the fighting in Ukraine, from Russia’s advantage in quantity regarding low-tech artillery shells, to more advanced systems like main battle tanks, cruise missiles, and warplanes that both outnumber and outperform their NATO counterparts, to – perhaps especially – drones of all kinds.
Schmidt’s article admits that Russia is not only outproducing Ukraine in terms of drones, placing the number of drones produced monthly to around 100,000, but also admits Russia possesses drones Ukraine has no equivalent of. Schmidt singled out the Orlan reconnaissance drone and the Lancet kamikaze drone in particular.
Ukraine, however, has been provided with a large variety of drones produced across the collective West. It began the conflict with a number of much more sophisticated Bayraktar TB-2 drones manufactured by Türkiye. While these drones are formidable weapons, they are inappropriate for the battlefield in Ukraine, where they face Russia’s extensive integrated air defense network and Russia’s extensive array of electronic warfare (EW) capabilities.
Should drones equivalent to the Orlan and Lancet exist in sufficient numbers to provide to Ukraine, the inability to overcome Russia’s advantages in both air defenses and EW would still impair their use.
Schmidt, in fact, notes Russia’s EW capabilities as “superior,” capable of jamming and spoofing signals between Ukrainian drones and their operators. While Ukraine has been provided with EW capabilities as well, the collective West is admittedly years behind Russia in this field of expertise.
At one point, the article admits:
Most Western-supplied weapons have fared poorly against Russia’s antiaircraft systems and electronic attacks. When missiles and attack drones are aimed at Russian sites, they are often spoofed or shot down. U.S. weapons in particular can often be thwarted via GPS jamming.
While Schmidt spends the rest of the article discussing “winning the drone war,” he never actually articulates a coherent strategy in doing so.
He claims, “Ukraine will need to secure additional Western ammunition supplies,” without acknowledging the fact that such supplies do not exist, and will not any time in the foreseeable future because the production capacity to manufacture them in sufficient quantities does not exist.
Schmidt continues, suggesting, “Ukraine also needs antiaircraft and attack missiles to strike fast-moving airborne targets.” Just as with artillery shells, antiaircraft missiles were in short supply even before the conflict began in Ukraine, and have only dwindled further. If producing low-tech artillery shells in greater quantities will take the West years to do, producing more complex missile interceptors will take even longer.
Schmidt claims that, “Ukrainian startups are working around the clock to develop advanced drones that can resist spoofing and jamming.” Yet, this ignores the fact that many more Russians with far greater resources are working around the clock to develop better means of spoofing and jamming.
Ultimately, Schmidt’s “solution” to Ukraine’s losing drone war (and losing the war in general) is for “Kyiv’s allies” to sustain “financial and technical support.” He never explains how this can be done in a way matching or exceeding Russia’s own efforts to constantly expand its military industrial output in both quantity and quality. Russia began with and continues to maintain a headstart over Ukraine and its Western backers. Simply suggesting Ukraine needs more of everything doesn’t address the shortcomings that created these disadvantages in the first place, nor suggest any way of solving them.
Schmidt’s stated objective in the article is “neutralizing the advantages that Russia has gained.” The only actual way to achieve this would be to build a military industrial base capable of matching or exceeding Russia’s ability to research and develop new technology, and then mass produce and place this technology on the battlefield.
It would require the creation of massive state-owned enterprises able to subordinate profit to purpose, the creation of an education system able to supply a steady stream of the necessary human resources this expanded industry would require, and the ability to source raw materials and components from adjacent, likewise state-owned enterprises.
It would take years for the United States to complete such a transformation – years Ukraine doesn’t have. It would also require the political will to do so in the first place, which simply does not and will never exist because of the systemic composition of American political and industrial power.
America’s Tenuous Grasp on Reality, its Worst Enemy
Eric Schmidt has a close relationship with both the leading edge of high-tech American industry and the US government itself. His think tank, SCSP, says on its official website that its purpose is:
To make recommendations to strengthen America’s long-term competitiveness as artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies are reshaping our national security, economy, and society. We want to ensure that America is positioned and organized to win the techno-economic competition between now and 2030, the critical window for shaping the future.
SCSP sees 2025-2030 as a critical window in which the US must establish a clear lead over its “rivals” Russia and China. SCSP admits that the “margin for error is shrinking.”
Yet, Schmidt’s admission to Russia’s success in Ukraine and the advantages it holds over not only Ukraine but its Western supporters as well, seems to suggest that this critical window may have already closed.
The very premise that the United States can maintain techno-economic primacy over both Russia and China (and the rest of the world) is fundamentally flawed. All else built upon this flawed premise will find itself drifting further and further from the realm of practicality, and is reflected in a growing detachment from reality many Western leaders in politics and industry seem to exhibit, including Schmidt.
China alone has a larger population than the collective West. Its higher education system is larger than the United States’, graduating millions more each year in critical fields related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. China’s industrial base dwarfs the collective West’s, and continues to expand, while the West continues to overextend itself and contract.
Given these fundamental realities, how exactly would the United States still somehow match or exceed China’s technological development unless one assumes “Americans” are simply “better” than the Chinese, and despite all of China’s fundamental and growing advantages over the United States, it will still somehow fall short?
These same assumptions have been prevalent throughout commentary and analysis focused on the conflict in Ukraine. These assumptions have consistently been proven wrong, with disastrous consequences. Russia’s many fundamental advantages on the battlefield ahead of the vaunted 2023 Ukrainian offensive unequivocally guaranteed the offensive would fail. Yet, “intangible” factors were added into an equation assuming Western supremacy and Russian inferiority, to skew projections of the offensive’s success in Ukraine’s favor.
A similar formula is being applied to US competition with Russia and China, ignoring fundamental realities and applying “intangible” assumptions of Western superiority to sidestep the reality that China will irreversibly surpass not just the US, but the collective West.
This reality demands the US reevaluate its position and role within international relations, and begin a transition from a hegemon, into a constructive, cooperative partner with Russia, China, and the emerging multipolar world. But just as battlefield fundamentals in Ukraine ahead of the 2023 offensive demanded Kiev negotiate an end to the war in Russia’s favor, only to be ignored at catastrophic costs, these increasingly clear geopolitical fundamentals will be ignored by the political and industrial leadership of the West, by those like Schmidt, at catastrophic costs to the collective West.
It will be the multipolar world and the restraint and patience it has exhibited as well as the political maturity it exercises in developing and implementing policies, that will attempt to temper and manage these costs, both for the sake of global peace and stability, but also and most ironically, for the sake of the collective West itself.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.
January 25, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Timeless or most popular | China, Russia, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
A Russian IL-76 heavy transport plane was carrying 65 captured Ukrainian military personnel when it crashed in Belgorod Region some 90km (55 miles) from the Ukrainian border. The Russian Defense Ministry has claimed that the aircraft was brought down by Kiev’s forces.
Here is what we know so far about what happened.
The plane crash On Wednesday at 11:15 Moscow time, reports came in that an IL-76 military transport plane carrying Ukrainian POWs had crashed and exploded in a field near the village of Yablonovo in the Korochansky district of Belgorod Region, which neighbors Ukraine.
Several people captured footage of the crash and shared videos of the incident on social media.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the plane was flying from the Chkalovsky airfield to Belgorod and was transporting the Ukrainian personnel for a prisoner swap with Kiev. Aside from the POWs, there were also six crew members and three accompanying personnel.
All those on board the aircraft were killed in the crash, according to the governor of Belgorod Region, Vyacheslav Gladkov. However, the crash did not cause any damage to structures or people on the ground, landing five to six kilometers from the nearest village.
According to Russian officials, another plane carrying an additional 80 Ukrainian POWs was also in the air at the time of the incident. After the first plane crashed, the second aircraft was diverted, according to MP Andrey Kartapolov.
What was the cause? Following the incident, the Russian Defense Ministry released a statement accusing Kiev’s forces of shooting down the plane using an anti-aircraft missile system. The ministry claimed that the radars of Russia’s Aerospace Forces recorded the launch of two Ukrainian missiles from the village of Liptsy in Kharkov Region.
The ministry has also stated that the Ukrainian side was informed of the flight ahead of time and was aware that it was carrying POWs, noting that the prisoner exchange was supposed to take place later in the afternoon at the Kolotilovka checkpoint.
Ukrainian media reports Shortly after the crash, the Ukrainian media outlet Ukrainskaya Pravda released a report claiming that it had received confirmation from the Ukrainian military that the plane was shot down by Kiev’s forces, but was told that the aircraft was believed to be carrying S-300 missiles.
Shortly after, however, the outlet redacted that statement, stating only that Kiev had confirmed that it was aware of the plane crash but could not confirm it was carrying Ukrainian POWs.
Meanwhile, other Western media outlets such as Radio Liberty have confirmed from sources within the Kiev government that a prisoner exchange with Russia was indeed scheduled for Wednesday, but no further comments have been provided.
Kiev’s intelligence A representative of the Ukrainian Intelligence Service, Andrey Yusov, has also confirmed the scheduled prisoner exchange.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Coordinations Headquarters for matters regarding prisoners of war has refused to confirm the planned swap, only stating that it was “collecting and analyzing all the necessary information” while urging the media and its citizens to refrain from speculating on the incident. The body also noted that Russia is “actively carrying out special information operations” aimed at destabilizing Ukrainian society.
Russia’s reaction The head of Russia’s State Duma Defense Committee, Andrey Kartapolov, has suggested that the IL-76 was shot down using Western Patriot or Iris-T air defense missiles. He has also proposed calling off any further prisoner swap negotiations with Kiev and insisted that Ukraine should officially be branded a terrorist state and its government a terrorist cell.
State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin has called on Russian lawmakers to make a formal address to the US and Germany, urging them to stop actively supporting the “Nazi regime” in Kiev, which has stooped to killing its own POWs.
Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry stated that Kiev had once again “shown its true colors” by committing this “terrorist act” against its own citizens in an attempt to slander Russia’s forces.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has said that this act of “mindless barbarism” puts into question the possibility of reaching future agreements with Kiev, noting that “there is no doubt” that the Ukrainian authorities will eventually violate any guarantees that they give.
The ministry also stressed that the regime of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, which was propped up by the US and its NATO allies, has once again proven to be a threat not only to Russia, but to “Ukraine itself, its citizens and the whole world.”
Former Russian President and current deputy chairman of the National Security Council Dmitry Medvedev has suggested that the downing of the IL-76 may have been the result of internal political turmoil between “neo-Nazi elites in Kiev.” He suggested that “it’ll be even worse in the future” as the Ukrainian government will continue slaughtering its own troops and POWs and bombing its own cities to protect its power and money.
January 24, 2024
Posted by aletho |
War Crimes | Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Moscow has never closed the door to dialogue to end the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday, reiterating that the country’s key goal remains stopping NATO’s unchecked expansion towards its borders.
In a rare interview with CBS News in New York, where he arrived to take part in UN meetings on Ukraine and the Middle East, Lavrov rejected a recent claim by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who alleged that Moscow has shown no “willingness… to engage, to negotiate in good faith” to end the conflict with Kiev.
“It’s not true,” Lavrov stressed, adding that Russia has always been ready to discuss “any serious proposal” that addresses the situation on the ground and the root causes of hostilities. Moscow is also willing to reach a solution “which would guarantee legitimate national interests of Russia and the Ukrainian people,” the diplomat stated.
Lavrov reiterated that Russia is prepared to listen to anyone interested in establishing “justice” in relations between Moscow and Kiev. He insisted, however, that this would require the West to stop its policy of “using Ukraine as an instrument of war against Russia.”
Lavrov recalled that Russia has long voiced concerns about NATO expansion. “The goal is very simple… we’ve been warning publicly since 2008… that NATO’s expansion against all promises [to Russia and the Soviet Union]… was going too far,” he said.
At a 2008 summit in Bucharest, NATO leaders declared that Ukraine would eventually become part of the alliance, sparking a backlash from Russia, which has traditionally viewed the US-led military bloc’s expansion towards its borders as an existential threat.
In December 2021, weeks before the start of the Ukraine conflict, Moscow submitted a draft of security guarantees to the US and NATO, demanding that the West ban Kiev’s accession to the bloc and retreat to its borders as of 1997. The overture, however, was rebuffed.
Officials from Moscow and Kiev said the two sides were close to reaching a peace deal early in the Ukraine conflict, with a key Russian demand being that the neighboring country recommit to neutral status and abandon its NATO ambitions. According to numerous reports, the process was derailed by then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who convinced Ukraine to continue fighting.
January 23, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | NATO, Russia, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 