Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

RT sends request to UN over rape allegations

RT | November 15, 2022

RT has reached out to the UN special representative on sexual violence, Pramila Patten, to request a correction or retraction of a statement in which she accused the Russian Armed Forces of employing a deliberate “rape strategy” as part of its military campaign in Ukraine. Patten made the claim in October in an interview with the AFP only to admit she did not have any solid evidence to substantiate it a month later.

“The allegations Ms. Patten has brought forward are of a very serious nature, which have the power to shape public discourse around the events in Ukraine,” RT said in a statement, adding that her words were then “widely distributed amongst media outlets and social media, to create a misleading, if not entirely false, narrative.”

In October, Patten told the AFP that when “you hear women testify about Russian soldiers equipped with Viagra, it’s clearly a military strategy.” Less than a month later, the UN official admitted that her words were based solely on some unverified reports disclosed to her in the presence of two Ukrainian officials. Speaking to Russian prank artists Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov, also known as Vovan and Lexus, she recently said that it was “not her job” to conduct investigations anyway.

No evidence has since been provided to corroborate these claims. In its statement, RT asked Patten whether she “intends to issue a retraction – or at least a correction – of her original, misleading statement.”

“As a person holding such a public role with enormous responsibility, one would hope that Ms Patten seek to provide a true, verified testimony of her organization’s work,” the statement added.

RT also asked Patten’s office to provide some evidence to support her allegations in case the UN special representative believes a retraction would be “improper.” Neither Patten nor her office has commented on the request so far.

Moscow has previously denied the accusations made by Patten. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova blasted the UN official’s claims as going “beyond the reach of reason.”

November 15, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Lavrov comments on claims of US urging Ukraine to negotiate

RT | November 15, 2022

Western media reports that the US government has tried to nudge Kiev towards engaging diplomatically with Moscow are mere rumors, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday. Even if true, the Ukrainian leadership appears to be ignoring the suggestions, he added.

“We’ve read reports citing anonymous sources,” Lavrov said, when asked about “signals” that Western nations are supposedly sending to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, urging him to negotiate with Moscow.

“There are rumors that the American administration has been telling Zelensky to be more pliable,” he added. “And there was clarification that this was not aimed at getting him to act constructively, but to counter objections from the parts of the West that doubt the need to supply additional arms to him.”

Last month, the Washington Post described communications between Washington and Kiev that supposedly went along the lines described by Lavrov. A proposed change of stance by Ukraine would tackle “Ukraine fatigue” among EU nations, according to the newspaper’s sources.

The Russian foreign minister highlighted the uncompromising public stance which Zelensky reiterated in a recorded speech, played at the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia. Lavrov, who is heading the Russian delegation to the event, said “the only conclusion” he reached after hearing the 20-minute message was that the Ukrainian president “so far takes no Western suggestions” about talks.

The Russian diplomat went on to describe Zelensky’s speech as “militant”, “Russophobic” and “aggressive”. Zelensky addressed the gathering as the “G19” in an apparent snub to Russia’s membership in the club of leading world economies, and demanded a number of concessions from Moscow before he would agree to negotiate. Lavrov described the demands as “unacceptable.”

November 15, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

‘Culture Block’ Is Leading to Ukraine Escalation (and risking WWIII)

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 14, 2022

Spot the problem here: First, the EU has lost Russia as a partner, yet the EU insists to maintain trade with China. Two, China, though, must bend to our EU ‘rules’ on how it configures its economy. Thirdly, China too, must accept to be ‘castigated’ by the likes of Olaf Scholtz and Charles Michel for ‘not having put an end to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine’. Fourth, we, the EU, anyway do not intend to depend on you. And fifth, clean up your human rights abuses!

Wow! Well, the initial reaction might be a spell back at the Academy on the art of diplomatic discourse, as being one idea. Nonetheless, the sheer number of non-sequiturs to this stance is startling. Firstly, the rest of the world is not greatly interested in EU leaders’ woke thought-code (the Chinese simply cancelled EU Chief Michel’s proposed speech to a gathering in Beijing). Europe has lost Russia; It will likely lose China. And probably, it will find itself excluded from the colossus, free-trade area unfolding in Eurasia – as the blocs differentiate into separate trading spheres.

Where does this leave that bruited EU ambition to be a global player? … Perhaps the EU’s thought-code culture might be the problem to its ambitions.

You (the EU) have not thought this through: You are now a dependent appendage of the U.S. economy – a prop to maintaining America’s exalted spot in the global system – at a time when its predatory economic model of money-printing at zero interest has been holed by an iceberg (known as accelerating inflation). American industry needs a captive market in a world that is fast seceding into two separate spheres. You have ‘elected’ to fill that role.

Containing China is America’s explicit goal. And that means blocking the European continent from moving closer to Asia to form the world’s biggest free trade zone. Washington had to stop that (i.e. sabotage Nord Stream) in order to preserve Europe as a captive market, and what remains of dollar ‘privilege’.

As an American dependency, Europe is perceived as having conceded not only economic, but political agency too. Simply put, the EU has lost its cheap-energy business model with the ‘I stand with Ukraine’ woke thought and speech codes, and now finds that it is impotent politically. Why would ‘others’ deal with the courtiers, when they can go directly to the ‘Command’ in Washington?

Furthermore, the culture block the EU adopts prevents it from bringing the Ukraine war to a political end. Rather, what it does is bake-in escalation.

Here is the problem: You bought into liberal America’s notion of a coercive process of induced government dysfunctionality – that is to stay, the state of mass psychosis that any weaponised dysfunctional state of society can produce. And it’s been a success (on its own narrow terms).

The bigger message is that ‘induced dysfunctionality’ marching in lockstep, and using culture block tactics to suppress any dissenting opinions, can and does produce a society that can be ruled over (made compliant through unpleasantness and applied pain) – without having to govern (i.e. make things actually work).

And induced compliance has proved its use for implementing all sorts of other ideological schemes that the public would otherwise never accept.

Weaponised dysfunctionality was trialled during the recent pandemic. The public was persuaded to accept systemic degradation of the economy. Western leaders regularly have expressed a pleasant surprise at the degree of public compliance achieved during the lockdowns. Of course, it was only made possible by ‘woke mobs’ on social platforms impugning the motives of anyone questioning ‘the Science’, the scale of emergency, or the long-lasting toxic effects on the real economy. Cultural roadblock was imposed.

The same process is evident today: The EU is in (another) ‘emergency’ because it made a strategic misjudgement over its Russia sanctions. The political class thought the effects of EU sanctions on Russia offered a ‘slam dunk’ outcome: Russia would fold in weeks, and all would return to how it was before. Energy would flow freely to the EU again; things would go back to ‘normal’.

Instead, Europe faces economic melt-down from astronomic fuel costs.

Yet, some leaders in Europe – zealots for the Green Transition – quietly embrace this sanctions ‘failure’ and the resulting economic mayhem caused by spiking energy prices – weaponising it as a strategic asset to accelerate Green Transition. European authorities actively encourage this pathological approach, believing that the pain incurred will force compliance on their societies to embrace de-industrialisation, accept carbon footprint monitoring and the Green Transition; and too, to bear prospective monumental Transition costs.

Yellen explicitly celebrated the financial pain (dysfunctionality) precisely as serving to accelerate ‘The Transition’ (like it or not) – even were that to push the citizen out of employment, and to the cusp of society.

Here then, is the problem: Some in the EU political class may hope for an intensification of the war on Russia, seeing in it all sorts of benefits – in extending centralised control over member-states and facilitating new means of printing money (mutualised debt instruments) ostensibly to fund Ukraine.

Sure – but there are fears for societal breakdown in Europe too. The problem? The EU cannot bring Ukraine to a deal.

The point is that the EU has framed the Ukraine conflict in absolute victim-vein terms, in line with woke cultural tropes: A revanchist Russian leader, dreaming of former empire, illegally, and without provocation has invaded and seized territory from its neighbour, whilst committing heinous war crimes in so doing. The perpetrator must face a humiliating defeat – otherwise, if he gets an inch, he will take a mile. And the global order will be ‘toast’.

The ‘online mob’ has been steered, through ‘influencers’, to insist that U.S. Realist Camp’s support for a negotiated settlement is tantamount to taking Russia’s side: rushing to denounce all voices – from Bill Burns’ (then U.S. ambassador and now CIA chief) celebrated 2008 telegram ‘Niet means Niet’ warning that any NATO takeover of Ukraine means war; to Prof Mearsheimer, Kissinger, or Elon Musk – as dangerous ‘Putin apologists’. Musk now faces a security probe.

The logic is stark: This shrinks the Overton window to only those advocating the total defeat of Russia and an end to Putin’s ‘regime’ – even if it risks WWIII. It is the ‘slash and burn’ stance, favoured by the U.S. and allied EU neo-cons.

So, we have Washington saying it has no interests, per se, in Ukraine – beyond supporting Kiev in recovering its territory. The Biden Administration says it is guided by the wishes of the Ukrainian people.

Do you still not see the problem to which this logic takes us? It is a Potemkin Village position. All façade and nothing ‘behind’ or around it. The conflict in Ukraine is not itself ‘a unique thing’, but a ‘thing’ of two leaves. At one level, Ukraine is a ‘state’ among surrounding states; and at another level, it is itself an actor. A ‘player in events’ – an owner indeed, of a certain history.

What the Potemkin ‘approach’ does is to artificially free-up some sort of abstract ‘clearing in the wood’ amidst the density of trees, in which the visible thing – Ukraine – is to be positioned, and set before the western spectator public, stripped naked of surrounding context; stripped of history and of the fact of itself being a conscient player in an extended drama.

The Realists have been culture blocked. Their motives impugned.

The title to this play – ‘America has no fundamental interests in Ukraine, and is but an innocent, called up upon the stage by an act of brutal villainy’ – is an obvious fraud. As is the corollary that the EU must therefore support the ‘war’ as Ukraine is victim.

Plainly said, the U.S. is pursuing a bi-partisan geopolitical strategy to quash China’s meteoric rise and preserve America’s dominant role in the world order. Can there be any doubt about that? No, none. For two decades U.S. foreign policy has centred around its ‘pivot to Asia’.

Washington’s real interests in Ukraine thus must be understood not as a war of values – as the EU has it – but rather as a cruise-missile launched at China, not Russia. In gist, the ‘high road’ to collapsing Beijing is perceived in DC to pass through a weakened Moscow. The NATO response to Ukraine is intended as ‘a letter’ to China, concerning Taiwan. And the comprehensive sanctions on Russia are a missive to the rest of the world to not trifle with America’s absolute primacy.

But if this latter context is absolutely ‘off the table’, through culture block and the only agenda item being the sham Potemkin Village construct, then what is there to talk about?

The matter then must inexorably be settled by events – not talk. Who has the potential for escalatory dominance? Russia has many – and various – options. Ukraine has only one. Pushing more troops at the contact line and suffering heavy losses. What does the West have: WWIII?

Can you see now why your peace efforts have come to naught? Actually, President Xi explained the situation courteously, yet pointedly, to Chancellor Scholtz during the latter’s day trip to Beijing: Having lectured Scholz on the evanescent quality of Trust in any political relationship (a quality that Xi said should be nurtured), he emphasised the need for Europe to avoid an ideological approach to relations.

Rough Translation: You (Scholz) have destroyed your relationship with Russia; you have pursued a bloc-orientated ideological policy, and this has been to your disadvantage. Do not think you can do the same with China.

(Or with the rest of the world, Xi might well have added).

November 15, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , | Leave a comment

UN reparations decision is ‘plunder’ – Kremlin

RT | November 15, 2022

A Resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly, which urges Moscow to compensate for losses inflicted on Ukraine, aims to enshrine the theft of Russian funds blocked by the West, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday.

Peskov said that “organizers of this process are trying to complete the plundering of our gold and foreign currency reserves,” which he said were illegally frozen by Western countries over the Ukraine conflict.

“This is a formalization of this plundering under the guise of the United Nations,” he reiterated, adding that “Russia is categorically opposed to this.”

The official also reminded reporters that the resolution “is not legally binding.” “This is the way we are going to regard it,” he stated.

According to Peskov, Moscow will also “do its best” to thwart the confiscation of the assets that have been frozen by the West.

The comments come after the UN General Assembly on Monday adopted a resolution calling for Russia to pay “war reparations to Ukraine.” The document was supported by 94 countries, with 73 UN members abstaining and another 14 voting against.

Commenting on the resolution, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, claimed that its provisions “cannot stand up to any criticism” from a legal point of view. “They are legally void – nothing more than an attempt to legalize what cannot be legalized in terms of effective international law,” he said, warning the document’s co-sponsors that it could trigger consequences that “may boomerang against themselves.”

After Russia launched its military operation against Ukraine in late February, the West has significantly ratcheted up sanctions against Moscow. Western countries have frozen around half of Russia’s gold and foreign exchange reserves, which amounted to around $640 billion before the large-scale hostilities broke out. Moscow has repeatedly claimed that these funds have been “essentially stolen” from Russia.

In recent months, various Western officials have spoken in favor of outright confiscating these Russian assets and for them to be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

November 15, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Washington Attempts To Bully India Into Cutting Ties With Russia

By Conor Gallagher | naked capitalism | November 13, 2022

For months the US has repeatedly tried to coerce India into cutting ties with Russia, thereby abandoning its national interests. New Delhi, however, continues to spurn American attempts to subject its economy to Washington’s dictates.

The latest fuss concerns the G7 price cap on Russian oil and EU and UK bans on shipping and related services for Russian crude. India continues to have no interest in joining the US-led initiative as it gets a steep discount on oil from Russia and wants to maintain the relationship with a long-time strategic partner. Indian Foreign Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar was just in Moscow on Nov. 8 to discuss continued sales of oil. From the South China Morning Post :

India’s foreign minister hailed New Delhi’s “strong and steady” relationship with Moscow on Tuesday, during his first visit there since Russia invaded Ukraine in February.

Subrahmanyam Jaishankar also declared India’s intention to continue to buy Russian oil, again disregarding the US appeal to allies and partners to isolate Russia from the global markets.

The G-7 plans are likely to send oil prices higher (despite US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen claiming the opposite) and reduce tanker availability, both of which will threaten India’s energy security and hurt its economy as India is the third-largest consumer and importer of oil worldwide.

Russia has said it will not sell to any countries that participate in the price cap scheme, and Jaishankar has repeatedly stated that India cannot afford to buy oil at high prices – at least not without undermining its economic growth, which is forecast to be 6.1 percent in 2023, the fastest-growing major economy in the world. According to Energy Intelligence :

Russia emerged as India’s top crude supplier in October, shipping over 900,000 barrels per day or roughly a fifth of India’s demand. The two countries’ biggest concern is ensuring that Russian oil continues to flow after the Dec. 5 EU and UK bans and related G7 price cap.

But despite Jaishankar’s bullish stance in Moscow, India’s state refiners have not placed orders for crude lifting beyond Dec. 5 due to uncertainties about whether shipping and insurance will be available, Energy Intelligence understands. And a recent attempt by an Indian buyer to use the price cap in negotiations with a Russian seller prompted the latter to abandon the deal, market sources said.

The ongoing lack of clarity on the G-7 could be by design. Russian oil exports have already begun to dip, and Bruce Paulsen, a sanctions expert and partner at law firm Seward & Kissel, told American Shipper, “ If guidance on [price cap] compliance doesn’t come soon, some industry players may sit on the sidelines until they can determine that shipments under the price cap are safe.”

The US, in a neat sleight of hand, quit pressuring India to adhere to the price cap, and Yellen now says Washington is “happy” for New Delhi to continue buying as much Russian oil as it wants, including at prices above a G7-imposed price cap. But there are just a few caveats: India wouldn’t be able to use western insurance, finance, or maritime services to transport the oil.

“Russia is going to find it very difficult to continue shipping as much oil as they have done when the EU stops buying Russian oil,” Yellen told Reuters on Friday. “They’re going to be heavily in search of buyers, and many buyers are reliant on Western services.”

More from Energy Intelligence on why this amounts to a de facto price cap:

Indian refiners have the capacity to soak up another 600,000 b/d of Russian crude, provided it outcompetes the staple Mideast grades that are the lifeline of the country’s 5 million b/d refining base. But the availability of shipping and insurance — and payment channels — is key. From Dec. 5, tankers and shipping insurance linked to EU and G7 countries — which dominate oil shipping globally — will be barred from trading Russian crude unless those volumes are sold under the price cap, as yet undetermined.

About 90% of India’s liquids trade is shipped by foreign tankers, presenting challenges, independent energy analyst Narendra Taneja said. Insurance does not appear as problematic, and analysts say that Russian and Chinese firms can handle it.

This could leave Russia reliant on a shadow fleet of older tankers with opaque ownership that do not transact in dollars. According to Freight Waves :

Brokerage Braemar reported that 33 tankers previously handling Iranian or Venezuelan exports have carried Russian exports since April, mostly to China and secondarily to India.

Braemar defined the dark fleet as tankers that have carried Iranian or Venezuelan crude at least once in the past year. It put the current total at 240 tankers, mostly smaller and midsized, with 74% 19 years or older. Eighty of those vessels are very large crude carriers (VLCCs, tankers that carry 2 million barrels) that won’t fit in Russian ports but could be used for ship-to-ship transfers for Russian cargoes.

If the entire dark fleet switched to Russian service and were as efficient as the “mainstream fleet,” it would be more than enough to keep Russian exports flowing, but “vessels engaged in illicit trading are highly inefficient,” Braemar emphasized.

At the same time Washington is pressuring New Delhi to comply with the price cap, it is importing from India more vacuum gasoil, which is mostly used at refineries to produce other products such as gasoline and diesel. From Reuters :

Russia used to be a key VGO supplier to U.S. refiners before the Ukraine war broke out.

“Given that the U.S. is not buying Russian oil, they are looking for any and all alternatives,” said Roslan Khasawneh, senior fuel oil analyst at Vortexa…

U.S. and EU sanctions do not apply to refined products produced from Russian crude exported from a third country as they are not of Russian origin. In India, refiners boosted imports of discounted Russian oil to 793,000 barrels per day between April and October, up from just 38,000 bpd in the same period a year ago, trade data showed.

India joins a list of countries – including Saudi Arabia, Serbia, and Turkey – that are causing heads to explode in Washington for refusing to be bullied into submission.

This all must be coming as a shock in Washington as its Indo-Pacific strategy in recent years has always included a “like-minded” India helping to counter China and do the US’ bidding in southeast Asia. The possibility that India might pursue its own national interests didn’t seem to factor into the strategy.

The tension over the Russian price cap is just the latest in a series of disagreements between New Delhi and Washington. US sanctions on Iran’s oil exports deprive India of cheap Iranian oil, and force it to buy more expensive US energy exports. India is now the largest oil export destination for the US.

Similar to the way Washington is arming Greece and Cyprus in an effort to bully Turkey into breaking off its friendly ties with Russia, the US is doing the same in Pakistan to pressure India. The US has begun to accommodate Pakistan again after the ouster of former Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan, who blames his loss of power in a no-confidence vote on the US.

In September, the U.S. State Department enraged India when it approved a $450 million deal to upgrade Pakistan’s F-16 fleet. Shortly after, the US ambassador to Pakistan created more tension during a visit to the Pakistani-held part of Kashmir, which he called by its Pakistani name instead of the United Nations-approved name “Pakistan-administered Kashmir.”

On Nov. 8 US State Department spokesman Ned Price lectured India on what are in its best interests:

We’ve also been clear that now is not the time for business as usual with Russia, and it’s incumbent on countries around the world to do what they can to lessen those economic ties with Russia. That’s something that’s in the collective interest, but it’s also in the bilateral interest of countries around the world to end and certainly over the course of time to wean their dependence on Russian energy. There have been a number of countries that have learned the hard way of the fact that Russia is not a reliable source of energy. Russia is not a reliable supplier of security assistance. Russia is far from reliable in any realm. So it is not only in the interest of Ukraine, it is not only in the interest of the region, of the collective interests that India decrease its dependence on Russia over time, but it’s also in India’s own bilateral interest, given what we’ve seen from Russia.

We’ll have to wait and see if the Indian people get the message because as of now the opposite is true. India’s Observer Research Foundation released poll results on Nov. 2 that showed that 43 percent of Indians regarded Russia as their country’s most reliable partner, which was far ahead of the US at 27 percent.

Washington would be hard pressed to explain how New Delhi scaling back its economic ties with Russia would be a good thing for India.

Fuelled by a surge in import of oil and fertilizers, India’s bilateral trade with Russia has soared to an all-time high of $18.2 billion over the April-August period of this financial year, according to the latest data available with the Department of Commerce. That makes Russia India’s seventh biggest trading partner — up from its 25th position last year. The US, China, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Indonesia remain ahead of Russia.

India, Iran, and Russia have also spent the past twenty years developing the International North-South Transport Corridor to increase trade between the countries, and it took on increased importance with the western sanctions on Moscow. From The LoadStar :

RZD Logistics, a subsidiary of Russian railway monopoly RZD, has begun regular container train services from Moscow to Iran to serve growing trade with India by transloading.

This is aimed at maximizing use of the alternative International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a Central Asia cross-border multimodal freight network helping the two strategic partners work around supply chain challenges created by western sanctions on Russia.

The inland-ocean leg involves an estimated transit time of 35 days, compared with about 40 with previous traditional shipping, according to industry sources.

©Peter Hermes Furian

In much the same way that US heavy-handedness is backfiring elsewhere, the pressure applied on India seems to only be encouraging New Delhi to find a way around the dollar. The Loadstar adds that the Reserve Bank of India is also implementing new regulatory guidelines to help exporters settle shipments in rupees, instead of US dollars that had run into sanctions-related bottlenecks:

The Federation of Indian Export Organizations has also been pressing government leaders to extend the alternative currency method beyond Russian markets.

“While the Russia-Ukraine war is a setback to our exports in the short run, we are looking to increase our exports to Russia once the rupee payment mechanism gets operationalised,” FIEO noted.

While India has been benefitting from the discounted Russian crude, it also wants to maintain good ties with Moscow to avoid pushing Russia closer to China and potentially Pakistan, India’s biggest rivals in Asia.

Pakistan is also now asking the Russian Trade Ministry to introduce a currency swap arrangement to strengthen economic ties between the two countries.

November 14, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Is the Anglo-Russian Fisheries Agreement about to end?

By Drago Bosnic | November 14, 2022

During the early (First) Cold War era, particularly the 1950-1970 timeframe, Soviet diplomacy tried easing tensions with the political West. This greatly contributed to the development of Anglo-Soviet relations in many areas, despite the overall geopolitical rivalry. It was at this time that a number of agreements were inked between Moscow and London, including the 1956 Fisheries Agreement, which is still in effect. It was signed in Moscow on May 25, 1956 by Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Vasily Kuznetsov and the UK Ambassador to the USSR William Hayter. On August 31, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR ratified the agreement.

The document contained only three articles. Article 1 read: “The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics agrees to grant fishing vessels assigned to the ports of the United Kingdom the right to fish in the waters of the Barents Sea along the coast of the Kola Peninsula between the meridians 36° and 37° 50′ E. along the mainland east of Cape Kanin Nos between meridians 43° 17′ and 51° E, as well as along the coast of Kolguev Island, outside three nautical miles from the low tide line both on the mainland and on the islands; these vessels are also granted the right to navigate and anchor freely in these waters.”

Additionally, the Protocol to Article 1 of the Agreement stated: “The permission given by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to fishing vessels assigned to the ports of the United Kingdom to fish, sail freely and anchor in the waters specified in Article I of the Agreement, shall not be regarded as granting to such fishing vessels the right to fish, navigate and anchor in prohibited zones which may be established by the competent Soviet authorities within the waters covered by the Agreement.”

In turn, Article 2 stated: “When fishing vessels of the United Kingdom enter Soviet ports and protected waters in case of emergency, these vessels will be guided by the rules established by the competent Soviet authorities.”

The Fisheries Agreement was signed for a period of five years and entered into force on the date of the exchange of instruments of ratification, which took place at the end of 1956 in London. It was automatically renewed every five years and is still valid, since neither party announced its withdrawal. As per a special clause, Moscow or London are obligated to declare this no later than one year before the expiration of the specified term of the Agreement.

It should be noted that the UK was a fairly large player in the international fishing industry at the time, particularly in the cod and haddock fisheries. Obviously, having concluded the agreement with the Soviet Union, the UK intended to expand its fishing industry to the Soviet part of the Barents Sea. At the same time, it should be noted that the 1956 Fisheries Agreement did not affect the rights of Soviet fishing vessels in UK waters.

In this regard, on September 30, 1964 Moscow and London exchanged notes on the issue of Soviet fishing vessels’ presence and floating bases within the fishing borders. As per these notes, Soviet fishing vessels and floating bases were allowed to anchor, sail, transship fish and carry out other work that is auxiliary to fishing operations within the zone between 3 and 12 miles from the baseline, from which UK territorial waters are measured around the Shetland Islands north of a line drawn west from Ash Ness Lighthouse and a line drawn east from the southern tip of Bressay Point.

Over the years, the so-called “Khrushchev euphoria” resulting from possible closer cooperation with the political West, particularly the UK, was starting to die down, and Moscow then fully realized that UK ships, extracting a significant part of the marine life resources available in the Barents Sea, seriously undermined Russian reserves. However, for some reason, the USSR (later the Russian Federation) showed no intention of ending the 1956 Fisheries Agreement. Although there might be serious reasons for this that were never made public, the fact is that the UK continues to fish freely and virtually unchecked in the waters of the Barents Sea.

And yet, the economic consequences fade in comparison to possible security challenges for Russia, as foreign vessels fishing in the area of the Barents Sea could easily be working for UK intelligence services, collecting and passing sensitive information which could undermine the Russian military in the area. Given the current extremely tense relations between Moscow and London, this is completely unacceptable for Russia, as the UK is one of the most adamant supporters of the Neo-Nazi junta in Kiev. As Russian fishermen have long had little interest in fishing off the UK coast, Moscow will likely need to reassess the benefits of the agreement for itself, especially as waters around the Arctic are of prime strategic importance.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

November 14, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Russia strategises with Iran for the long haul in Ukraine

Ali Shamkhani (L), representative of Supreme Leader and Secretary of Supreme National Security Council, met Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of Russia’s Security Council, Tehran, Nov. 9, 2022
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | NOVEMBER 14, 2022

Ignoring the hype in the US media about White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s Kissingerian diplomacy over Ukraine, the secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev, former KGB counterintelligence officer and longstanding associate of President Putin, travelled to Tehran last Wednesday in the equivalent of a knockout punch in geopolitics. 

Patrushev called on President Ebrahim Raisi and held detailed discussions with Admiral Ali Shamkhani, the representative of the Supreme leader and secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. The visit marks a defining moment in the Russia-Iran partnership and plants a signpost on the trajectory of the war in Ukraine. 

The Iranian state media quoted Raisi as saying, “The development of the extent and expansion of the scale of war [in Ukraine] causes concern for all countries.” That said, Raisi also remarked that Tehran and Moscow are upgrading relations to a “strategic” level, which is “the most decisive response to the policy of sanctions and destabilisation by the United States and its allies.” 

The US State Department reacted swiftly on the very next day with spokesman Ned Price warning that “This is a deepening alliance that the entire world should view as a profound threat… this is a relationship that would have implications, could have implications beyond any single country.” Price said Washington will work with allies to counter Russian-Iranian military ties. 

Patrushev’s talks in Tehran touched on highly sensitive issues that prompted President Vladimir Putin to follow up with Raisi on Saturday. The Kremlin readout said the two leaders “discussed a number of current issues on the bilateral agenda with an emphasis on the continued building up of interaction in politics, trade and the economy, including transport and logistics. They agreed to step up contacts between respective Russian and Iranian agencies.” 

In this connection, Patrushev’s exceptionally strong support for Iran over the current disturbances in that country must be understood properly. Patrushev stated: “We note the key role of Western secret services in organising mass riots in Iran and the subsequent spread of disinformation about the situation in the country via Persian-language Western media existing under their control. We see this as overt interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.” 

Russian security agencies share information with Iranian counterparts on hostile activities of western intelligence agencies. Notably, Patrushev sidestepped Iran’s suspicions regarding involvement of Saudi Arabia. Separately, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also publicly offered to mediate between Tehran and Riyadh. 

All this is driving Washington insane. On the one hand, it is not getting anywhere, including at President Biden’s level, to raise the spectre of Iran threat and rally the Arab regimes of the Persian Gulf all over again. 

Most recently, Washington resorted to theatrics following up an unsubstantiated report by Wall Street Journal about an imminent Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia in the coming days. The US forces in the West Asian region increased their alert level and Washington vowed to be ready for any eventuality. But, curiously, Riyadh was unmoved and showed no interest in the US offer of protection to ward off threat from Iran.

Clearly, the Saudi-Iranian normalisation process, which has been front-loaded with sensitive exchanges on their mutual security concerns, has gained traction neither side gets provoked into knee-jerk reaction.

This paradigm shift works to Russia’s advantage. Alongside its highly strategic oil alliance with Saudi Arabia, Russia is now deepening its strategic partnership with Iran.

The panic in spokesman Price’s remarks suggests that Washington has inferred that the cooperation between the security and defence agencies of Russia and Iran is set to intensify.  

What alarms Washington most is that Tehran is adopting a joint strategy with Moscow to go on the offensive and defeat the weaponisation of sanctions by the collective West. Despite decades of sanctions, Iran has built up a world class defence industry on its own steam that will put countries like India or Israel to shame. 

Shamkhani underscored the creation of “joint and synergistic institutions to deal with sanctions and the activation of the capacity of international institutions against sanctions and sanctioning countries.” Patrushev concurred by recalling the earlier agreements between the national security agencies of the two countries to chart out the roadmap for strategic cooperation, especially in regard of countering western economic and technological sanctions.

Shamkhani added that Tehran regards the expansion of bilateral and regional cooperation with Russia in the economic field as one of its strategic priorities in the conditions of US sanctions, which both countries are facing. Patrushev responded, “The most important goal of mine and my delegation in traveling to Tehran is to exchange opinions to speed up the implementation of joint projects along with providing dynamic mechanisms to start new activities in the economic, commercial, energy and technology fields.” 

Patrushev noted, “Creating synergy in transit capacities, especially the rapid completion of the North-South corridor, is an effective step to improve the quality of bilateral and international economic and commercial cooperation.” 

Patrushev and Shamkhani discussed a joint plan by Russia and Iran “to establish a friendship group of defenders of the United Nations Charter” comprising countries that bear the brunt of illegal western sanctions. 

With regard to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Shamkhani said the two countries should “intelligently use the exchangeable capacities” of the member countries. He said the danger of terrorism and extremism continues to threaten the security of the region and stressed the need to increase regional and international cooperation. 

Patrushev’s visit to Tehran was scheduled in the run-up to the conference on Afghanistan being hosted by Moscow on November 16. Iran and Russia have common concerns over Afghanistan. They are concerned over the western attempts to (re)fuel the civil war in Afghanistan. 

In a recent op-ed in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Russian Special Presidential Envoy for Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov alleged that Britain is financing a so-called “Afghan resistance”  against the Taliban (which is reportedly operating out of Panjshir.) Kabulov wrote that the US is baiting two Central Asian states by offering them helicopters and aircraft in lieu of cooperation in covert activities against the Taliban. 

Kabulov made a sensational disclosure that the US is blackmailing the Taliban leaders by threatening them with a drone attack unless they broke off contacts with Russia and China. He said, specifically, that the US and Britain are demanding that Kabul should refrain from restricting the activities of Afghanistan-based Uyghur terrorists. 

Interestingly, Moscow is exploring the creation of a compact group of five regional states who are stakeholders in Afghanistan’s stabilisation and could work together. Kabulov mentioned Iran, Pakistan, India and China as Russia’s partners. 

Iran is a “force multiplier” for Russia in a way no other country — except China, perhaps — can be in the present difficult conditions of sanctions. Patrushev’s visit to Tehran at the present juncture, on the day after the midterms in the US, can only mean that the Kremlin has seen through the Biden administration’s dissimulation of peacemaking in Ukraine to actually derail the momentum of the Russian mobilisation and creation of new defence lines in the Kherson-Zaporozhya-Donbass direction. 

Indeed, it is no secret that the Americans are literally scratching the bottom of the barrel to deliver weapons to Ukraine as their inventory is drying up and several months or a few years are needed to replenish depleted stocks. (here, here  ,here and here) 

Suffice to say, from the geopolitical angle, Patrushev’s talks in Tehran — and Putin’s call soon after with Raisi — have messaged in no unmistaken terms that Russia is strategising for the long haul in Ukraine. 

November 13, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Kherson withdrawal is tactical

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | NOVEMBER 12, 2022

General Mark Milley, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States assessed that it would take several weeks for Moscow to complete the evacuation of some 30,000 Russian troops deployed in Kherson city in southern Ukraine. But Russians have announced that the evacuation was successfully completed in 2 days — both soldiers and over 5000 pieces of heavy equipment.  

Evidently, much advance planning went into the execution of the evacuation order. The Russian military command began working on the evacuation weeks ahead of the actual announcement earlier this week. 

In retrospect, General Sergei Surovikin’s extraordinary interview on October 18 soon after his appointment as the first theatre commander for Ukraine operations only eight days earlier was probably choreographed to sensitise the public opinion about the criticality of the military situation in the Kherson region. 

The following excerpts from the interview are relevant here: 

“A difficult situation has arisen. The enemy deliberately bombards infrastructure and residential buildings in Kherson. The Antonovsky Bridge and the dam of the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station were damaged by HIMARS missiles, traffic there was stopped. 

“As a result, the supply of food in the city is difficult, there are certain problems with the water and electricity supply. All this greatly complicates the lives of citizens, but also poses a direct threat to their lives. 

“The NATO leadership of the Ukrainian armed forces has long been demanding offensive operations against Kherson from the Kiev regime, regardless of casualties – both among the armed forces themselves and among the civilian population.  

“We have data on the possibility that the regime in Kiev will use prohibited methods of war in the area of the city of Kherson, on Kiev’s preparation for a massive missile attack on the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric dam, the conduct of massive missile and artillery attacks on the city without distinction.

“These actions can lead to the destruction of the infrastructure of a major industrial centre and to civilian casualties. 

“In these circumstances, our top priority is to preserve the life and health of citizens. Therefore, the Russian army will first of all ensure the safe, already announced departure of the population according to the resettlement program being prepared by the Russian government.

“Our further plans and actions regarding the city of Kherson itself will depend on the current military-tactical situation. I repeat, it is already very difficult today. 

“In any case, as I said, we will start from the need to protect the lives of civilians and our military as much as possible. 

“We will act consciously and in a timely manner, without excluding difficult decisions.” [Emphasis added.] 

Three things can be said. First, the retreat from Kherson was decided for operational reasons. Its rationale is to pre-empt any attempt by the Ukrainian forces and foreign mercenaries from disrupting the work in progress to induct trained military personnel in large numbers (totalling close to 400,000 troops including volunteers) to augment the deployments in Ukraine. 

Two, the Kremlin took extra care to make a ‘soft landing’ for the bitter decision to vacate Kherson city, which is etched in the Russian national psyche as part of the historical legacy of Catherine the Great. Interestingly, the historical relics of Imperial Russia in Kherson city have been meticulously mothballed and taken away for safe storage. 

The Russian public has largely accepted the decision by the military command, including the ‘hardliners’ in the establishment such as the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov and the Wagner Group of Russian military contractors. This wasn’t the case in the withdrawal in Kharkov in September. 

Three, most important, the intention is to forestall any threat to Crimea in terms of its security, communication, water, etc. The retreating Russian forces have destroyed two big segments of the Antonivka bridge connecting Kherson city with the east bank of Dnieper. Dnieper de facto becomes the ‘buffer zone’ in the Kherson region with 60% of the oblast’s territory under Russian control. 

Antonovka Bridge across the Dnieper River, Kherson

Going forward, first and foremost, this is a tactical withdrawal. The Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has asserted that Kherson remains a part of Russia. That implies an obligation to recover Kherson city, as the special military operations continue. 

Second, the Russian military command is not contemplating any operation toward Odessa in a near term. The priority will be to complete the operation to establish full control of the Donbass region (which was the initial objective of the special operation) as well as Zaporozhye region (which is important for the security of the land bridge connecting Crimea with the Russian hinterland.) Intense fighting is continuing in Donetsk.

Third, to be sure, there are incipient signs of a shift in the thinking within the Biden Administration towards dialogue and negotiations. How authentic they are remains unclear. (See my blogs No end in view for Ukraine war, November 10, and Biden nods to compromise in Ukraine, November 11.) 

According to the CNN and New York Times, the Biden Administration is a divided house. The indications suggest that the Pentagon is pushing for negotiations. According to CNN, Gen. Milley, chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff holds the view that the time is ripe for a diplomatic solution as fighting heads toward a winter lull, while secretary of state Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, both ardent neocons, remain sceptical. 

Russians largely keep their thoughts to themselves but some signalling is also going on. Russian Ambassador to Washington Anatoly Antonov said in an interview with Izvestia, published on Friday that “I find it naive to assume, judging from media leaks only, that any transformation in approaches toward putting Russian-US relations on a new track is underway. Our relationship is facing a deep crisis, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel yet.” 

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said on Friday no meetings are planned at the foreign minister level between Russia and the US on the sidelines of the G20 at Bali. Peskov said yesterday that “The conflict in Ukraine can be ended after achieving its (special military operation’s) goals or by means of achieving the same goals through peaceful negotiations, which is also possible. Kiev does not want negotiations. The special military operation continues.” 

In the Russian eyes, how far the Biden Administration is willing to pressure Kiev is the moot point. Ryabkov addressed this crucial aspect in comments yesterday:

“I can reiterate that we are open to dialogue without any preconditions. And we have been ready for some time. On instructions from its Western patrons, Kiev broke off the dialogue which in general was progressing, and a certain document was in the works. Now these are things of the past. And what comes next no longer depends on us.

“I can certainly share my opinion here that if Kiev is given an order from certain capitals, there would perhaps be a better chance for such dialogue. But then again, we do not have any obstacles over here and there should be no preconditions for dialogue.” 

The big question is whether the Russian offensive, which is expected to begin in November – December, will go ahead or not. As a CNN analysis concluded, “Success in Kherson may also allow exhausted Ukrainian units some respite… But Russia has plenty of weaponry and tens of thousands of newly mobilised troops to send into battle, and its campaign against Ukrainian infrastructure has left power and water supplies hanging by a thread in many regions. Ukraine is slowly receiving advanced air defences from Western donors but has a huge area to defend.” 

November 12, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

US and UK troops train to ‘pacify Russian civilians’

RT | November 12, 2022

US and UK military forces have held a joint exercise to practice interoperability and test their latest gadgets and combat techniques on terrain similar to the “Ukrainian steppe,” reportedly including war-gaming on how they would “pacify” mobs of angry Russian-speaking civilians.

The ongoing drills are being held in California’s Mojave Desert as part of the Pentagon’s “Project Convergence”, which was expanded this year to include participation by allies Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK.

The troops, including an elite British infantry regiment, practiced “lessons learned” from the Russia-Ukraine conflict while training on open desert landscapes deemed “similar to the flat terrain of the Ukrainian steppe,” the UK’s Times newspaper said.

The drills took place at Fort Irwin, a sprawling US Army base that includes realistic-looking mock villages built with the help of Hollywood set designers. In years past, Arabic and Afghan speakers were hired and brought in from the Los Angeles area to play the part of civilians. This time around, with the Russia-Ukraine conflict raging in Eastern Europe, most of the civilians were played by Russian speakers.

“The fake civilians even have their own social media networks – “Fakebook” and “Twatter” – on which they whip up an unruly mob by reporting any examples of US troops behaving poorly,” the Times said. “The soldiers must then pacify the crowds.”

The exercise marked the first time that members of the UK’s new Ranger Regiment deployed alongside the US 75th Ranger Regiment, according to a UK government statement. It allowed troops to test advanced technology – such as artificial intelligence, robotics and new drones – while practicing information-sharing procedures with their allies.

For instance, swarms of drones identified targets and British rocket launchers fired at enemy positions spotted by US F-35 fighter jets, the Times said. UK defense procurement minister Alex Chalk said the exercise demonstrated the progress that the British Army is making as a “more lethal, agile and expeditionary force, through key collaboration with our longstanding international allies and partners.”

Russia isn’t alone in drawing the attention of Western military planners. The Pentagon has identified China as the top threat to US national security. An earlier stage of Project Convergence simulated a conflict breaking out on a Pacific island.

November 11, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Political West using Ukraine to probe, discredit Russian military

By Drago Bosnic | November 11, 2022

After Moscow was forced to intervene in Ukraine and launch its counteroffensive against NATO aggression, the political West got an unprecedented opportunity to probe the Russian military, test and observe its capabilities. All of this provides invaluable insight into the doctrine of the Eurasian giant’s armed forces, which would help NATO optimize its military power to match Russian capabilities. Naturally, this is nothing out of the ordinary in comparison to any other conflict in known history. However, both sides are working on misleading the other by either concealing their actual military strategy and doctrine or providing false information which could give them both tactical and strategic advantages in the future.

For its part, NATO is providing the Kiev regime with unprecedented ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities, which has been of prime importance for its forces. Without them, the Neo-Nazi junta troops would’ve had a much harder time against the Russian military. What’s more, NATO expected Russia to play all its cards (short of direct confrontation with the belligerent alliance) in tackling this issue, particularly by using its extensive experience and capabilities in electronic warfare. In doing so, Moscow would’ve gotten several months of key advantages over the Kiev regime forces, but it would also provide NATO with crucial data on how this spectrum of its battlefield capabilities worked. This would then be used by the belligerent alliance to gain an important insight and create counters, possibly tipping the strategic balance of power to its advantage.

It’s precisely this scenario that Russia is trying to avoid, which is why it decided to show only a fraction of its capabilities. This is certainly affecting the performance of the Russian military, but since the High Command sees the intervention against the Kiev regime forces as a local operation, this is considered a fair trade-off. Simply, letting NATO gain too much knowledge of the Russian military strategy and doctrine would be a much bigger problem in the long-term. What’s more, NATO’s overreliance on its ISR advantage might as well create a false sense of security and push its military planners into thinking that Russia doesn’t have counters to these capabilities. However, in a possible confrontation, Russia would certainly destroy much of NATO’s ISR assets, leaving the belligerent alliance with much less battlefield information to work with than it currently has access to.

Still, the present situation is providing NATO with a better opportunity to hurt Russia than engaging in a direct clash ever could. Apart from using the Kiev regime forces as cannon fodder, the political West is also conducting a full-spectrum war against Moscow, involving economic and financial sanctions, incessant information warfare, cyber operations, etc. The aim is to make Russia’s life as hard as it could possibly be, with hopes of eventually turning it into a giant North Korea. The end goal is clear – a coup which would bring a more “cooperative” government to power in Moscow. And this prospect isn’t even in the realm of conspiracy theories anymore as several high-ranking US officials said so themselves, including the US President Joe Biden.

At present, the Ukraine crisis is slowly entering a new phase. While the mainstream propaganda machine is portraying the Kiev regime forces as “making spectacular advances, liberating many towns and villages, and forcing Russian forces to retreat,” the political West is trying to bring the Kiev regime to the negotiating table and buy some more time before the winter season gets worse, giving Russia a significant strategic advantage as the European Union struggles with energy prices and supplies.

By maintaining the image of Neo-Nazi junta troops supposedly “winning” against the Russian military, the political West is trying to convince its populace that financing the Kiev regime is justified, despite the economic and financial fallout. For its part, Brussels is doing everything it can to reduce gas consumption as it can neither afford additional US LNG shipments, nor does it have the necessary storage capacity. The alternative – buying more Russian natural gas – is considered “geopolitically sensitive”.

In addition to conducting the economic siege of Russia, the political West also needs to find ways to continue supporting the ever-cash-hungry Kiev regime. The fallout of these policies has been affecting Western and other global economies for months, resulting in ever-growing unrest and frustration among hundreds of millions around the world, particularly in the EU, whose member states are now bearing the brunt of the suicidal anti-Russian policies.

The detached policymakers in the political West think that this strategy is working, while ignoring the consequences for their own citizens. Dissent is being suppressed by accusing anyone who questions these policies of being “pro-Russian”. Worse yet, refusing to openly support the Neo-Nazi junta in Kiev is now a mortal sin, regardless if the person in question is a public figure or a regular citizen.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

November 11, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US admits provoking Russia in the Arctic

By Lucas Leiroz | November 11, 2022

A US special forces’ representative admitted that the US actions in the Arctic are a kind of provocation against Russia, revealing how Washington deliberately poses international security risks with its anti-Russian plans.

The irresponsible US attempts to “dissuade” Moscow and stop the alleged Russian “expansionist behavior” would be some of the reasons why Washington is deliberately initiating provocative military maneuvers in the Arctic Circle, according to Lawrence Melnicoff, commander of the European Special Operations Command. Melnicoff commented on NATO’s initiatives in Europe and the sending of troops to Norway, where military units are currently being trained for combat in arctic weather and conditions.

For him, this is part of a strategy focused on “provocation without escalation”, which Washington would be using against Russia. The commander believes that Russia has expansionist ambitions in the European space and that it may even already be planning attacks against targets in the US allied countries, which supposedly “justifies” NATO’s actions in the region to “complicate” Russian plans.

“We are intentionally trying to be provocative without being escalatory (…) We’re trying to deter Russian aggression, expansionist behavior, by showing enhanced capabilities of the allies (…) It complicates Russian decision-making because we know that they’re targeting very, very large specific aggregations of allied power, [such as] Ramstein Air Base, RAF Lakenheath, things like that (…) If worse comes to worst and somebody takes out these power hubs, we can forward-project precision artillery fire across the alliance with our partners”, he said during a recent interview to US media.

As expected, the officer did not mention any evidence of his claims about such Russian “expansionist” intentions. Arguing the existence of Russian plans to hit European targets is something particularly serious and that could never be said in the absence of clear and concrete evidence. In fact, Melnicoff’s statements appear to be just an attempt to make the destabilizing American action “acceptable” in the eyes of the public opinion, considering that the aggressiveness of NATO’s maneuvers has significantly intensified.

On 9 November, NATO forces carried out a military drill in northern Norway about 500km from Russia’s Murmansk region. A long-range missile was launched in mid-air from a C-130 strategic transport aircraft. The test was the first successful one of the so-called “Rapid Dragon”, a modern weapons system developed for C-130 and C-17 aircraft, making them capable of launching Lockheed Martin AGM-158 JASSM cruise missiles against targets in long distance.

Apparently, this new missile system is NATO’s current bet to improve its tactical capability in Arctic warfare. In recent years, the US intensification of activities in the North Pole has taken place alongside a real race by the military industrial complex to modernize US forces in that region. Historically, Russia is the military power with the greatest presence in the Arctic. China has also shown growing interest in the zone and has developed special forces to operate there. And it is precisely in this scenario that NATO tries at all costs to enhance its maneuvers.

In this regard, in October, the US government published its “National Strategy for the Arctic Region”, which sets out the terms for the next 10 years of US military policy for the North Pole. The document urges an even more significant boost in US maneuvers in the Arctic, with Washington definitely seeking a position of military dominance in the Arctic similar to that of Russia and China. For this, the US counts on the strong support of NATO partners – and it is precisely to encourage these partners to support US plans that it is “interesting” to spread unfounded alarmist narratives about the “Russian threat”, as Melnicoff is doing.

In fact, acting provocatively against Moscow only tends to make the American plans more difficult. In the midst of the global security crisis, Russia is unwilling to tolerate more threats in its strategic surroundings. If American provocations increase, the Russians, who already have military hegemony in the Arctic, will respond by intensifying activities in the north, which will make the American plans to elevate its relevance in the Arctic more complicated, leading the recently announced National Strategy to failure.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in social sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

November 11, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russia brands US weapons claim ‘a lie’

RT | November 9, 2022

US accusations that North Korea was supplying Russia with ammunition are lies, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, said on Wednesday. She added that Washington was just looking for a pretext to impose new sanctions on North Korea and made up the ammunition claim for that purpose.

“There was no clear explanation for these statements, nor could there be, because everything said by American representatives is a lie from the beginning to the end,” Zakharova said in a daily briefing, further describing the claim as “another example of [fake news] and speculations spread by the West about Russia.”

On November 2, the US National Security Council spokesman, John Kirby, announced that North Korea had sent a “significant” number of artillery shells for resupplying the military effort in Ukraine. CNN also reported the claim, citing US intelligence assessments.

North Korea denied the accusations on Tuesday. “We once again make clear that we have never had ‘arms dealings’ with Russia and that we have no plan to do so in the future,” said the Defense Ministry in Pyongyang, accusing the US of “persistently spreading a groundless rumor.”

US claims about North Korean ammunition supplies to Russia date back to September. In response, Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, demanded in the Security Council that the US and UK provide evidence of their claims, or be considered peddlers of fake news.

Meanwhile, the US has supplied Ukraine with weapons, ammunition, and assorted military equipment valued at over $54 billion since the hostilities escalated in February. Most of its NATO allies have followed suit, all the while insisting they were not a party to the conflict.

Last month, Czech media reported that Washington was looking to buy $3 billion worth of anti-aircraft missiles and artillery ammunition from South Korea. When Russian President Vladimir Putin mentioned that report at the Valdai Discussion Club, South Korea denied it.

“We’ve provided humanitarian and peaceful assistance to Ukraine but never lethal weapons,” said South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, adding that his country is “trying to maintain peaceful relations with all countries around the world, including Russia.”

November 9, 2022 Posted by | Fake News | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »