Despite its shortcomings, UNSC vote will tie Israel’s hands
By MK Bhadrakumar | The Cradle | December 25, 2023
The adoption of a resolution by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on Friday with focus on a pause in the fighting in Gaza to allow for the delivery of more humanitarian aid can be seen as a turning point in the tortuous journey toward imposing a sustainable ceasefire.
But a caveat must be added that the ultimate litmus test lies in the implementation of the UNSC resolution, as the past history of such resolutions on Palestine does not give cause for optimism.
In fact, Israel’s defiance was in full view already. As the Security Council passed the resolution, Israeli forces pushed ahead with their offensive into Gaza on Friday and ordered residents in Al Bureij — an area in central Gaza where Israel had not previously focused its offensive — to evacuate. The Israeli military’s chief spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said on Thursday: “Our forces continue to intensify ground operations in northern and southern Gaza.”
UN Secretary General António Guterres was spot on when he told reporters after the resolution was passed that “a humanitarian ceasefire is the only way to begin to meet the desperate needs of people in Gaza and end their ongoing nightmare.”
The resolution itself is the outcome of week-long intense negotiations between the United States and the Arab countries that sponsored it — the UAE and Egypt, in particular — to settle for the lowest denominator, which meant accepting a Washington-friendly text that enabled the Biden administration to evade responsibility for another veto, for the third time since 7 October.
Unsurprisingly, the US negotiators brazenly resorted to pressure tactics by drawing on their usual diplomatic tool box — blackmail, arm-twisting and ultimatums — to water down the text to the extent that important provisions relating to a ceasefire and a UN mechanism to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza and ensure its monitoring were abandoned.
And, yet, the US abstained in the vote at the end of the day, registering its reservations — principally, that the resolution was silent on the attack by Hamas on 7 October.
The unkindest cut of all is that the resolution accommodated the US diktat to replace the language describing an immediate cessation of violence with an ambiguous phrase calling on the parties to “create conditions for a cessation of hostilities.” The wording meets the Israeli requirement to have a free hand to continue with its barbaric military operations.
This anomaly, coupled with the absence of any reference to the condemnation of indiscriminate attacks by the Israeli military against civilians almost delivers the wrong signal that the Security Council is effectively becoming an accomplice to the destruction of Gaza — a misnomer that agitated Russia so much that it proposed a last-minute amendment to replace the phraseology in the resolution: “to create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities” with the unambiguous call “for urgent steps toward a sustainable cessation of hostilities.”
Russia’s demand for an immediate ceasefire was in line with a resolution overwhelmingly passed by the UN General Assembly recently, but the Americans would have nothing of that sort. The unfortunate part is that the Arab sponsors of the resolution caved in to US blackmail to veto the resolution. What transpired between the protagonists behind the scenes is not known.
The paradox is that, in reality, the Americans themselves were desperately keen to avoid casting a veto — the third in as many months — that would have made a mockery of President Joe Biden’s bombastic remark in his September speech at the UN last year that the permanent members of the Security Council should cast vetoes only under “rare, extraordinary situations to ensure the council remains credible and effective.”
All indications are that the US is acutely conscious of finding itself “diplomatically isolated and in a defensive crouch,” as the New York Times put it in an acerbic commentary on the Biden administration’s plight as “an increasingly lonely protector of Israel … (that) puts it at odds with even staunch allies such as France, Canada, Australia, and Japan.”
The commentary says that what rankles most is that first, when the US seems to have green-lit a massive Israeli military response to 7 October “without guardrails,” it:
“painfully confirmed to many in the (global) south this sense that there was a double standard” — and second, even more, “the Russian strategy works, because beyond the United Nations what everyone sees is Russia standing up for international law — and the US standing against it.”
The crux of the matter is that Israel’s Gaza operation is running into a Cornelian dilemma (dilemme cornélien) where sooner rather than later, it is obliged to choose one option from a range of options, all of which reveals a detrimental effect on itself.
Hamas’ top leaders have evaded capture so far, and Gaza’s armed resistance groups have continued to fire rockets into Israel, including two barrages that reached Tel Aviv and its environs last week.
According to another New York Times report,“ political commentators and some military experts have been lowering expectations for a quick and decisive Israeli victory.
“Nobody should imagine that there will be a situation where we put a flag on top of a hill and say: OK, we won, and now Gaza will be peaceful and safe. It will not happen,” said Gabi Siboni, a colonel in the reserves and a fellow at the conservative-leaning Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security. “The reality is that we are going to be fighting in Gaza for years to come.”
But is that sustainable — even if Israel controls the US Congress? Conceivably, Israel’s main goal in Gaza was to ethnically cleanse the Strip and drive the Palestinian population to Egypt and Jordan by killing and starving them and making Gaza unlivable.
The real significance of the UNSC resolution, therefore, lies in that such an Israeli game plan will not fly. By not vetoing the resolution, the US may also have signaled that it will not allow the ethnic cleansing. There seems to be an understanding on this score between the US and the Arab protagonists at the political level — Egypt, in particular.
On the other hand, can Israel really destroy Hamas while the Palestinian population remains in Gaza? No, it will not be possible. Now, there is reason to believe that Hamas is inflicting significant damage to the Israeli military. The retreat of the Golani Brigade from the Gaza operation also points in that direction.
The bottom line is that the Israeli operation in Gaza will have to take a different form during the next several weeks — one that is anchored on surgical strikes rather than continuing with the extended ground operation and open-ended Israeli occupation. With warts and all, the Security Council resolution that was passed on Friday paves the way for such a transition.
Russian Troops Fully Liberate Strategic DPR Settlement of Maryinka
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 25.12.2023
The heavily-fortified settlement, situated on the outskirts of the city of Donetsk, was used by Ukrainian forces to indiscriminately shell the Donetsk People’s Republic’s capital for nearly ten years before finally being liberated by Russian forces.
The Russian Army has completed the liberation of Maryinka, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has announced.
“In the course of offensive operations, assault detachments from the Southern Group of Forces completely liberated the settlement of Maryinka southwest of Donetsk,” Shoigu told Russian President Vladimir Putin in a briefing on Monday.
“I would like to congratulate you. This is a success. Pass on the words of gratitude to all the staff and fighters who took part at different times and at different stages [in the settlement’s liberation, ed.],” Putin replied.
The president expressed confidence that control of the settlement will allow Russian forces to push Ukrainian positions further back from Donetsk.
Shoigu concurred, saying Maryinka’s liberation will also make it possible to more effectively protect the city of Donetsk from Ukrainian fire.
The defense minister said that troops from the 150th Motorized Rifle Division distinguished themselves in the settlement’s capture. During WWII, it was the 150th Division which famously captured the Reichstag building in Berlin.
“The liberation of this settlement naturally reduces the defense capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and gives us additional opportunities for further actions,” he said.
Maryinka had been turned into a fortress over the past nine years, connected by a network of underground passages, with fortifications on almost every one of its streets, Shoigu said.
Putin asked the defense minister to distribute medals to soldiers who distinguished themselves in the strategic settlement’s liberation, and instructed him to promote the commander overseeing its capture to the rank of major.
“By breaking into this fortification, which the enemy has factually been building up since 2014…our troops have the opportunity to enter a wider operational area. But, of course, this is a matter for local commanders and specialists from the General Staff and the Defense Ministry. This is a separate issue, but in any case, this opportunity arises in this area,” Putin said.
Maryinka was first captured by Donbass militias seeking to break off from Kiev’s control in April 2014, after the Ukrainian government installed in the February 2014 coup launched an ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation’ against them meant to crush the rebellion by force. Ukrainian forces, including paramilitaries from the infamous neo-Nazi Azov Regiment, recaptured Maryinka in August 2014. From that time on, the strategic town, situated directly on the western outskirts of Donetsk City, was turned into a seemingly impenetrable fortress, and used by Ukrainian forces to launch regular, indiscriminate attacks against the militia-controlled city. Battles for the settlement by Donetsk People’s Republic militias, now backed by the regular Russian military, began immediately after the start of Russia’s special military operation in February 2022. Images of the settlement today show that it has been turned into a pile of ruins, with most civilians living in the town leaving after 2014, and the rest evacuated after 2022.
Russian Forces Wipe Out First French-Donated Crotale NG Missile System in Ukraine
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 25.12.2023
In the course of the ongoing special military operation in Ukraine, the Russian Armed Forces have been successfully delivering high-precision strikes targeting foreign equipment and ammunition provided to the Kiev regime by Washington and its NATO allies, obliterating the much-touted sophisticated weaponry.
Russia’s Armed Forces operating in the special military operation zone have destroyed several Norwegian-made NASAMS (National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System) and one French Crotale NG short-range air defense system that the Kiev regime received from its Western patrons, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Sunday. The NATO-donated weapons systems were stationed at the Starokonstantinov Airfield in the Khmelnitsky region.
This is believed to be the first recorded instance of a Crotale NG being obliterated in combat, and serves as further proof that NATO’s state-of-the-art equipment is fair game for Russia’s military.
The Russian military carried out a coordinated assault that involved tactical aircraft, missile troops, artillery units, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Besides neutralizing the air defense systems, the attack inflicted damage on the Kiev regime’s aircraft equipment, flight navigation sysems, and aviation ammunition stored at the airfields in Kanatovo, Kirovograd region, and Dnepr, Dnepropetrovsk region. Furthermore, military personnel and equipment of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was destroyed in 127 districts.
The strategic impact of Russian strikes on Ukraine’s air defense capabilities is expected to be significant, Army Recognition, an online Western military outlet, acknowledged, commenting the MoD announcement. It clarified that the destruction of enemy air defense capabilities enables Russia’s military to gain even greater control over the airspace. While reducing the risk to their own aircraft, it boosts their ability to carry out air operations such as strategic bombing, providing close air support to ground forces, and conducting reconnaissance missions.
As part of NATO’s ongoing proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, France has supplied Ukraine with two Crotale NG air defense batteries, the military outlet underscored.
The French Crotale NG (New Generation) missile system is a modernized version of the Crotale air defense system designed for short-to-medium range air defense. Equipped with the VT1 missile with an engagement range of around 11 kilometers (6.8 miles), it is touted as providing effective defense against aircraft, helicopters, various precision-guided weapons, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The system can engage targets at altitudes up to 6,000 meters.
As far as NASAMS are concerned, a number of countries have delivered these systems to Ukraine. Thus, Belgium has purportedly contributed an undisclosed number of AIM-120 NASAMS missiles, Lithuania has delivered two launchers, while Canada has supplied Kiev with one NASAMS air defense battery along with AIM-120 missiles.
The NASAMS utilizes the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), capable of engaging targets at distances of up to 25 kilometers. This renders the NASAMS effective for medium-range air defense scenarios.
The United States reportedly sent eight NASAMS batteries as part of its billions’ worth of military assistance to Ukraine, while the UK has donated NASAMS missiles.
Despite the vast amounts of military aid being provided by the West, Ukraine’s much-hyped 2023 counteroffensive that began in June of this year failed to produce any tangible battlefield results. As the country’s military losses have mounted, public support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also waned in recent months.
Political developments have suggested that support for Ukraine is dwindling in the United States as well, where President Joe Biden’s massive funding package for Kiev has stalled in Congress. Republicans have insisted on incorporating funding for border security. In Europe, “Ukraine fatigue” is also gaining momentum, as EU states face depleted stocks from funneling military aid to Kiev, and repercussions from self-harming anti-Russia sanctions.
Since Western countries ramped up military support for the Kiev regime, Moscow officials have consistently warned that such moves do not bode well for Ukraine, and only prolong the conflict. NATO weaponry, no matter how sophisticated, will eventually be destroyed, the Kremlin underscored, and vehicles carrying supplied weapons are a legitimate target for the Russian army.
Europe betrayed by US and Ukraine – Minsk talks negotiator
By Lucas Leiroz | December 25, 2023
The current conflict in Ukraine is a direct result of the failure of the Minsk Agreements. Between 2014 and 2015, Russia and the European Union mediated negotiations between the breakaway republics of Donbass and the Kiev government, reaching a mutually beneficial protocol that was expected to guarantee regional peace. However, the terms of the pact were never respected by the Ukrainian regime, which continued to constantly attack the republics and advance its project of “de-Russification” and ethnic cleansing.
According to former German prime minister, Angela Merkel, the Agreements did not fail, but fulfilled their real objective: to prepare Ukraine for a war against Russia in the near future. Commenting on the beginning of Moscow’s special military operation and the escalation of the conflict in Donbass, the German former official stated that this confrontation was expected from the very beginning, with the ceasefire established in Minsk only working as a way to temporarily alleviate tensions, enabling Kiev to gain time.
However, this does not appear to be the opinion of some other insiders who were also deeply involved in negotiations in the Belarusian capital. I recently had the opportunity to visit the Donbass region as a war correspondent. There I interviewed several local leaders, politicians and state officials, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of Lugansk, Vladislav Deinego, who was one of the negotiators in the Minsk process.
In our conversation, I asked the Minister his opinion on the failure of the Minsk Agreements and heard from him a long explanation about how the situation got out of control and escalated to the current status of war. According to Deinego, Merkel is lying when she claims that the plan has always been to simply prepare Ukraine. For him, Europe had a genuine interest in achieving regional peace and stabilizing its relations with Russia, avoiding a military escalation that would put the entire continental security architecture at risk.
Deinego claims that Kiev wanted total war from the beginning. The Minister explains that, before the Minsk Accords were established, the separatists tried to resolve the situation diplomatically in several ways. After non-military means failed, the republics proposed to Kiev that the fighting be somewhat limited to avoid civilian casualties.
First, a ban on the use of artillery and aviation was proposed, which Kiev quickly denied. Next, Donbass’ leaders attempted to establish security zones, limiting the use of heavy weapons according to their distance to civilian areas. In this model, artillery would be allowed only in regions far from inhabited cities, while in the “zero line” combat would be limited to the regular use of infantry, preventing civilians from being hit by heavy weapons. Even so, Ukraine denied signing such a deal.
This insistence by the neo-Nazi regime on waging all-out war against the separatists, according to the minister, generated real concerns among Europeans. The deeper the Ukrainian incursions were, the closer the attacks would come to Russian borders, worsening the security crisis. In practice, the situation could at any time escalate into a situation of absolute violence in which Moscow would be forced to intervene, generating a major conflict in Europe. This worried EU members, especially Germany, which was very dependent on the partnership with Russia.
Being a major importer of Russian gas and depending on friendship with Moscow to guarantee its economic and social stability, Berlin engaged deeply in the diplomatic process to try to end, or at least freeze, the conflict. For this reason, Germany was the main negotiator on Kiev’s side in Minsk, while Russia negotiated in support for the Donbass’ republics. In this sense, after many negotiations, the pact was finally signed, establishing measures such as ceasefire, release of prisoners and respect for the political autonomy of Russian-speaking regions.
Deinego believes that actual compliance with the Agreements would be the best scenario for Europeans as it would guarantee stability in Russia-EU relations, despite Ukrainian hostility towards Moscow. However, as well known, Kiev never obeyed the Minsk’s terms and continued violence in the region – even though the intensity of the fighting obviously decreased. Deinego thinks that this was never in the European interest and that, in fact, the direction taken by the conflict showed the failure of European diplomacy.
Indeed, at the time Russia-EU relations were prosperous, despite ideological and geopolitical rivalry. There was no reason for Europeans to agree to participate in a war plan in which they would be severely harmed. This leads us to believe that other actors worked to escalate the crisis, without considering European interests. Certainly, the US, which always wanted war with Russia, was responsible for this.
The circumstances show that Washington probably took advantage of the “stability” generated by the Minsk Agreements to prepare Kiev to act as a proxy against Russia. The Europeans never participated in this plan and were betrayed by NATO just like the Russians. Currently, Europe continues to be a victim of NATO’s war plans, being forced by the US to impose suicidal sanctions against Russia, affecting its own economy.
The opinion of an insider of the Minsk process is vital to show the real reasons for the conflict. In practice, Deinego presents proof of how relations between the US and EU are semi-colonial, with Europeans being used by Washington in war plans, without having their interests respected.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram.
The Anglo-American War on Russia – Part Twelve (NATO Wants War)
Tales of the American Empire | December 21, 2023
The American empire is expanding to rule the world with the help of its NATO vassal states. In 2008, American President George Bush announced that NATO wanted to add Ukraine to NATO, even though most Ukrainians opposed the idea. Russia announced this would be unacceptable while Germany and France said now is not the time to add Ukraine.
NATO now has 31 members who all must approve of new members, so it’s politically impossible to add Ukraine to NATO while it fights with Russia. However, the United States had already made Ukraine de facto member and wanted a war to occur.
Ukraine never implemented the 2015 Minsk peace accords nor the 2019 Steinmeier Formula agreement and continued random tank and artillery fire into rebel held cities, killing some 14,000 ethnic Russians since 2015. On the eve of the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine, the buildup of Russian troops on the eastern border of the Donbas was heavily reported. Unreported was the buildup of Ukrainian troops on the Donbas’ western border that preceded it. Ukraine had massed 60,000 troops along its border with Donbas rebels.
As Ukraine slowly loses its war with Russia, many fear NATO will intervene militarily. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenburg has spent years selling the dangerous idea of adding Ukraine to NATO. This led to disaster, yet Stoltenburg still promotes this insane idea that would lead to a world war.
_________________________________
“German agency suspends certification for NordStream 2”; DW; November 11, 2021; https://www.dw.com/en/german-agency-s…
Related Tale: “The American Colony Called Germany”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adfyC…
“Germany’s Economy is in Freefall”; Remix; September 2023; https://www.bitchute.com/video/bo10lE…
“Address by the President of the Russian Federation”; Vladimir Putin; The Kremlin; February 21, 2022; http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president…
Related Tales: “The Anglo-American War on Russia”; https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
Russia warns West against seizing assets
RT | December 22, 2023
The seizure of Russian assets by Western countries would be “illegal” and “extremely dangerous” for the global finance system, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned on Friday.
The US and EU are reportedly considering using Russian assets frozen in the West to rebuild Ukraine, or even fund Kiev’s ongoing military efforts. According to the New York Times, the administration of US President Joe Biden is said to have made the latest proposal to do so as the White House struggles to greenlight a new $60 billion aid package for Ukraine.
An estimated €260 billion ($285 billion) in Russian central bank assets was immobilized in G7 countries, the EU, and Australia following the launch of Moscow’s offensive in Ukraine in February 2022, with most of the reserves being held in Europe.
Speaking to journalists on Friday, Peskov noted that the issue of confiscating the frozen funds continued to be raised in both Europe and the US.
“This topic is, first of all, unacceptable,” Peskov said, adding that the potential seizure of Russian assets would deal “a very serious blow to the international financial system.”
The Kremlin spokesman stressed that any country considering the move must understand that Russia would “never leave those who did this alone,” and would take wide-ranging legal steps.
The EU and US must also understand that the seizure of Russian assets would be followed by a proportionate response from Moscow, Peskov added. “If something is confiscated from us by someone, then we will see what we can confiscate in response. And if this something is found, we will, naturally, [confiscate] it immediately,” the spokesman said.
Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov previously issued a similar warning to the West, promising a tit-for-tat response, while State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin claimed last month that the G7’s assets in Russia were “more numerous than Russia’s frozen funds [in the West].”
The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that a number of EU members, including France, Germany and Italy, have been “extremely cautious” over the idea of seizing Russian assets. According to the newspaper, these countries are worried that the move would be seen as “cross[ing] a line,” and may cause concern in Asia and the Middle East that sovereign assets held in Western currencies are not safe.
Empty Quiver
By William Schryver – imetatronink – December 21, 2023
As the sun sets here at the Winter Solstice of 2023, I would like to draw attention yet again to what, in my estimation, is one of the most strategically significant battlefield humiliations inflicted upon NATO over the course of the Ukraine War: the progressively comprehensive defeat of their precision-guided strike missile inventory — ATACMS, HARMS, JDAMS, GMLRS fired from HIMARS, cruise missiles (Storm Shadow and SCALP).
The Russians have demonstrated that they can routinely shoot down ANY species of strike missile the US/NATO can field against them — not all of them all of the time, but most of them most of the time.
And they get better and better at it as time goes on.
Indeed, over the past few months it is increasingly becoming “all of them most of the time”.
As Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu reported earlier this week:
“We are using air defence systems in a comprehensive manner during the special military operation. This significantly improved their responsiveness and strike range. Over the last six months, we have shot down 1,062 of NATO’s HIMARS rockets, short-range and cruise missiles, and guided bombs.”
No other military on the planet has previously attested this level of capability. The US does not have it, and is at least a decade away from developing it.
And, it is important to bear in mind that the precision-guided systems the US and its NATO allies have provided for Ukraine are representative of the best their own militaries could deploy in a conflict with Russia.
The current front-line inventory of US tactical ballistic missiles and sea- and air-launched cruise missiles would present no greater technical challenge for Russian air defenses than what they have already seen and defeated in the Ukraine War.
The significance of this battlefield development defies exaggeration. It alters the war-fighting calculus that has been assumed for many decades.
Against Russia at least, the Pentagon must know that the success of a large conventional strike missile package is far from assured. There is no doubt some damaging hits would be inflicted, but Russian retaliatory capacity would not be appreciably affected, and the subsequent Russian counterstrike against NATO targets would be devastating — for the simple reason that US/NATO air defenses are not even remotely as effective as their Russian counterparts. In fact, they are rookie league in comparison. They would be as utterly befuddled as was the Patriot system in Kiev the night the Russians launched a very modest attack against it.
It would also be logical to assume that China, if not as fully proficient as Russia in every respect, is very likely not far behind.
It is also increasingly apparent that Iran has made great strides in the same direction.
As I have noted repeatedly in recent months: for the declining empire and its decrepit vassals, there are no easy wars left to fight.
UK about to escalate naval tensions in Black Sea
By Lucas Leiroz | December 20, 2023
The UK appears to be close to launching a new dangerous anti-Russian naval policy. According to reports, the British Navy will send new combat ships and heavy weapons to the Black Sea in order to help Ukraine strengthen its regional presence there. It appears that a formal agreement between both countries will be signed in the near future, setting out the terms for naval cooperation, which will obviously result in increased tensions with Russia.
The data was published by The Telegraph. The outlet’s sources claim that the agreement between the UK and Ukraine will be signed “in the coming weeks”, generating expanded British participation in the activities of the Ukrainian Navy. The Black Sea, which is currently a conflict zone between Russian and Ukrainian forces, is expected to receive a large number of British military ships that will support Kiev in hostilities.
The news comes shortly after the British Ministry of Defense announced the sending of at least two mine clearing ships to Ukraine. The measure was taken within the framework of a coalition of naval support for Kiev that also involves Norway. As the UK is one of the most active sponsors of the Ukrainian regime, constantly sending packages of weapons and equipment to Kiev, the delivery was not seen as something “surprising” at the time, but, apparently, London still plans to further deepen its interventionism, starting to participate in even more actions in the Black Sea.
According to anonymous sources mentioned by the newspaper, the new agreement would also make it possible to send heavy ground and air weapons, with the aim of making Ukrainian units close to the Black Sea more “interoperable” with NATO. More modern and lethal versions of British ship-based Brimstone missiles are also expected to supply the Ukrainian Navy, giving it more capability for the high-intensity fighting that is currently taking place in the region.
In addition, it is planned to advance in the training of commando troops focused on amphibious assault and mine-clearing operations. The UK has been training many Ukrainian troops since the beginning of the Russian military intervention. It is estimated that more than 30,000 Ukrainian soldiers were trained by the British last year as part of the so-called “Operation Interflex”. Now, it is believed that, under the new agreement, the Navy’s special forces training programs will be expanded.
Unconfirmed rumors also indicate that the new security pact between the UK and Kiev will have as one of its objectives to provide guarantees to Ukraine regarding post-conflict British aid. Faced with Ukraine’s evident military defeat, concerns are growing about possible aid packages to rebuild Ukraine in a post-war scenario, which is why Kiev officials are expected to pressure their partners to include guarantees in this regard in new agreements signed with Western countries.
In fact, all these measures seem irresponsible and anti-strategic from a realistic point of view. It is more than clear that no Western aid will be able to make Ukraine reverse the military scenario of the conflict, which is absolutely controlled by the Russian Federation. Defeats on the battlefield, territorial losses and the humiliating failure of their attempted “counteroffensive” have proven that Kiev’s forces have no chance of defeating their adversaries, and that it is pointless to continue supporting the neo-Nazi regime with weapons, money and equipment.
The situation is particularly delicate for Ukraine in the Black Sea, where Russia is focused on destroying all enemy targets, including suspicious commercial ships and critical infrastructure. Kiev has been using the region’s ports to store weapons, as well as transporting military equipment and troops via ships disguised as commercial vessels. After suffering several attacks against its territory due to the Ukrainian military use of civilian naval infrastructure, Moscow decided to consider such suspicious ships and ports as legitimate targets.
In this sense, the UK may be making a serious mistake by planning to expand its participation in Black Sea’s hostilities. British ships sent to the Ukrainian Navy will be seen by the Russians as a priority target and it is likely that most of the vessels will be neutralized even before they begin to be operated by Kiev’s forces. Moscow is not willing to tolerate any foreign interventionism in the region and is focused on preventing further attacks on Russian civilians from Ukrainian units in the Black Sea, so there will certainly be efforts to destroy all equipment sent by London.
Instead of creating new military agreements and aid packages, the West should simply encourage Kiev to negotiate peace, ending hostilities without further damage.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Ukraine joins NATO’s Arctic projects against Russia
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | DECEMBER 19, 2023
In a plea earlier this month to Republicans not to block further military aid to Ukraine, US President Joe Biden warned that if Russia is victorious, then President Vladimir Putin will not stop and will attack a NATO country. Biden’s remark has drawn a sharp rebuke from Putin when he said, “This is absolutely absurd. I believe that President Biden is aware of this, this is merely a figure of speech to support his incorrect strategy against Russia.”
Putin added that Russia has no interest in fighting with NATO countries, as they “have no territorial claims against each other” and Russia does not want to “sour relations with them.” Moscow senses that a new US narrative is struggling to be born out of the debris of the old narrative on Ukraine war.
To jog memory, on 24 February, during a White House press conference on the first day of Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, Biden said western sanctions were designed not to prevent invasion but to punish Russia after invading “so the people of Russia know what he (Putin) has brought on them. That is what this is all about.”
A month later, on 26 March Biden, speaking in Warsaw, blurted out, “For God’s sake, this man (Putin) cannot remain in power.” These and similar remarks that followed, especially from Britain, reflected a US strategy for regime change in Moscow, with Ukraine as the pivot.
This strategy dates back to the 1990s and was actually at the core of the expansion of NATO along Russia’s borders, from the Baltics to Bulgaria. The Syrian conflict and covert activities of US NGOs to foment unrest in Russia were offshoots of the strategy. At least since 2015 after the coup in Kiev, CIA was overseeing a secret intensive training programme for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel. Succinctly put, the US set a trap for Russia to get it bogged down in a long insurgency, the presumption being the longer the Ukrainians can sustain the insurgency and keep Russian military bogged down, the more likely is the end of the Putin regime.
The crux of the matter today is that Russia defeated the US strategy and not only seized the initiative in the war but also rubbished the sanctions regime. The dilemma in the Beltway narrows down to how to keep Russia as an external enemy so that the West’s often fractious member states will continue to rally under US leadership.
What comes to mind is a sardonic remark by Soviet Academician Georgy Arbatov who was advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, to an elite group of senior US officials even as the curtain was coming down on the Cold War in 1987: “We are going to do a terrible thing to you -– we are going to deprive you of an enemy.”
Unless black humour in this cardinal truth is properly understood, the entire US strategy since the 1990s to rebuff the efforts of Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and early Putin to establish non-adversarial relations with the West cannot be grasped.
Put differently, if the US’ post-cold war Russia strategy has not worked, it is because of a fundamental contradiction: on the one hand, Washington needs Russia as an enemy to provide internal unity within the western alliance, while on the other hand, it also needs Russia as a cooperative, subservient junior partner in the struggle against China.
The US hopes to draw down in Ukraine and stave off defeat by leaving behind a “frozen conflict” which it’s free to revisit later at a time of its choice, but in the meanwhile, is increasingly eyeing the Arctic lately as the new theatre to entrap Russia in a quagmire. The induction of Finland into NATO (and Sweden to follow) means that the unfinished business of Ukraine’s membership, which Russia thwarted, can be fulfilled by other means.
After meeting Biden at the White House last Tuesday, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky headed for Oslo on October 13 on a fateful visit to forge his country’s partnership in NATO projects to counter Russia in the Arctic. In Oslo, Zelensky participated in a summit of the 5 Nordic countries to discuss “issues of cooperation in the field of defence and security.” The summit took place against the backdrop of the US reaching agreements with Finland and Sweden on the use of their military infrastructure by the Pentagon.
The big picture is that the US is encouraging Nordic countries to get Ukraine to participate in strengthening NATO’s Arctic borders. One may wonder what is the “additionality” that a decrepit military like Ukraine’s can bring into NATO. Herein hangs a tale. Simply put, although Ukraine has no direct access to the Arctic, it can potentially bring in an impressive capability to undertake subversive activities inside Russian territory in a hybrid war against Russia.
In a strange coincidence, the Pentagon recently prepared the Starlink satellite system for use in the Arctic, which was used by Ukrainian military for staging attacks on the Crimean Bridge, Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and strategic assets on Russian territory. The US’ agreement with Finland and Sweden would give the Pentagon access to a string of naval and air bases and airfields as well as training and testing grounds along the Russian border.
Several hundred thousand Ukrainian citizens are presently domiciled in the Nordic countries who are open to recruitment for “an entire army of saboteurs like the one that Germany collected during the war between Finland and the USSR in 1939-1940 on the islands of Lake Ladoga,” as a Russian military expert told Nezavisimaya Gazeta recently.
Russia’s naval chief Admiral Nikolai Evmenov also pointed out recently that “the strengthening of the military presence of the united NATO armed forces in the Arctic is already an established fact, which indicates the bloc’s transition to practical actions to form military force instruments to deter Russia in the region.” In fact, Russia’s Northern Fleet is forming a marine brigade tasked with the fight against saboteurs to ensure the safety of the new Northern Sea Route, coastal military and industrial infrastructure in the Arctic.
Suffice to say, no matter Ukraine’s defeat in the US’ proxy war with Russia, Zelensky’s use for the US’ geo-strategy remains. From Oslo, Zelensky made an unannounced visit on December 14 to a US Army base in Germany. Analysts who see Zelensky as a spent force had better revise their opinion — that is, unless the power struggle in Kiev exacerbates and Zelensky gets overthrown in a coup or a colour revolution, which seems improbable so long as Biden is in the White House and Hunter Biden is on trial.
The bottom line is that Biden’s new narrative demonising Russia for planning an attack on NATO can be seen from multiple angles. At the most obvious level, it aims to hustle the Congress on the pending bill for $61 billion military aid to Ukraine. Of course, it also distracts attention from the defeat in the war. But, most important, the new narrative is intended to rally the US’ transatlantic allies who are increasingly disillusioned with the outcome of the war and nervous that US involvement in Europe may dwindle as it turns to Indo-Pacific.
When Putin reacts harshly that Biden’s new narrative is “absurd”, he is absolutely right insofar as Russia’s focus is on things far more important than waging a senseless continental war in Europe. After all, it was one of the founding fathers of the USA, James Monroe who said that a king without power is an absurdity.
NATO troops directly involved in Ukraine conflict – Russia
RT | December 19, 2023
Several NATO member states have boots on the ground in the Ukraine conflict, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has claimed. He alleged that Western military personnel are operating certain weapons systems, and that hundreds of satellites belonging to the US-led military bloc are providing Kiev with surveillance.
Speaking at a meeting of Defense Ministry officials on Tuesday, where President Vladimir Putin was also present, Shoigu stated that “NATO service members are directly operating air defense systems, tactical ballistic missiles, and multiple launch rocket systems” in Ukraine. He cited radio intercepts featuring English and Polish speakers. According to the minister, Western officers are also playing an active role in preparing Ukrainian military operations as well as training troops, both in their home countries and in Ukraine.
Russian officials have repeatedly warned that ever-deepening Western involvement in the conflict unnecessarily increases the chances of a direct military confrontation between NATO and Moscow.
The Russian defense chief went on to claim that more than 5,000 foreign fighters have been killed since hostilities broke out in February 2022, with 1,427 Polish, 466 US, and 344 UK nationals among them.
“Working in the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ interest are 410 NATO military and dual-purpose space devices,” Shoigu estimated.
He also lauded Russia’s defense industry for ramping up production in the past 18 months and helping prevent ammunition shortages on the front lines. “Despite the sanctions, we are manufacturing more high-tech weaponry than NATO countries,” Shoigu continued.
The minister concluded by stating that “as of today, the Russian army is the best-prepared and most combat-ready in the world, armed with cutting-edge weapons tested in combat.”
Putin insisted at the same meeting that the West’s efforts to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia have failed.
Speaking to the Ukrainian branch of US state-run broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) on Friday, Kiev’s former ambassador to the UK, Vadim Prystaiko, claimed that Britain is developing plans to potentially deploy troops to Ukraine.
The diplomat, who was fired after criticizing Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, went on to suggest that while Western officials will deny any such plans, foreign deployments are still possible under certain circumstances.



