By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | October 15, 2022
The moment that Lieutenant-Colonel Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba was ousted by his former military colleague, Captain Ibrahim Traore, pro-coup crowds filled the streets. Some burned French flags; others carried Russian flags. This scene alone represents the current tussle underway throughout the African continent.
A few years ago, the discussion regarding the geopolitical shifts in Africa was not exactly concerned with France and Russia per se. It focused mostly on China’s growing economic role and political partnerships on the African continent. For example, Beijing’s decision to establish its first overseas military base in Djibouti in 2017 signalled China’s major geopolitical move by translating its economic influence in the region to political influence, backed by military presence.
China remains committed to its Africa strategy. Beijing has been Africa’s largest trading partner for 12 years, consecutively, with total bilateral trade between China and Africa reaching $254.3 billion in 2021, according to recent data released by the General Administration of Customs of China.
The US and its Western allies have been aware of and are warning against China’s growing clout in Africa. The establishment of US AFRICOM in 2007 was rightly understood to be a countering measure to China’s influence. Since then, and arguably before, talks of a new “Scramble for Africa” abounded, with new players including China, Russia and even Turkiye entering the fray.
The Russia-Ukraine war, however, has altered geopolitical dynamics in Africa, as it highlighted the Russian-French rivalry on the continent, as opposed to the Chinese-American competition there.
Though Russia has been present in African politics for years, the war – thus the need for stable allies at the United Nations (UN) and elsewhere – accelerated Moscow’s charm offensive. In July, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Egypt, Ethiopia, Uganda and the Republic of Congo, fortifying Russia’s diplomatic relations with African leaders.
“We know that the African colleagues do not approve of the undisguised attempts of the US and their European satellites. . . to impose a unipolar world order to the international community,” Lavrov said. His words were met with agreement.
Russian efforts have been paying dividends, as early as the first votes to condemn Moscow at the UN General Assembly in March and April. Many African nations remained either neutral or voted against measures targeting Russia at the UN.
South Africa’s position, in particular, was problematic from Washington’s perspective, not only because of the size of the country’s economy, but also because of Pretoria’s political influence and moral authority throughout Africa. Moreover, South Africa is the only African member of the G20.
In his visit to the US in September, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa defended his country’s neutrality and raised objections to a draft US bill – the Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa Act – that is set to monitor and punish African governments who do not conform to the American line in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
The West fails to understand, however, that Africa’s slow but determined shift toward Moscow is not haphazard nor accidental.
The history of the continent’s past and current struggle against Western colonialism and neocolonialism is well known. While the West continues to define its relationship with Africa based on exploitation, Russia constantly reminds African countries of the Soviet’s legacy on the continent. This is not only apparent in official political discourses by Russian leaders and diplomats, but also in Russian media coverage, which is prioritising Africa and reminding African nations of their historical solidarity with Moscow.
Burning French flags and raising Russian ones, however, cannot simply be blamed on Russian supposed economic bribes, clever diplomacy or growing military influence. The readiness of African nations – Mali, Central African Republic and now, possibly, Burkina Faso – has much more to do with mistrust and resentment of France’s self-serving legacy in Africa, West Africa in particular.
France has military bases in many parts of Africa and remains an active participant in various military conflicts, which has earned it the reputation of being the continent’s main destabilising force. Equally important is Paris’s stronghold over the economies of 14 African countries, which are forced to use French currency, the CFA franc, and, according to Frederic Ange Toure writing in Le Journal de l’Afrique, to: “Centralise 50% of their reserves in the French public treasury.”
Though many African countries remain neutral in the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, a massive geopolitical shift is underway, especially in militarily fragile, impoverished and politically unstable countries that are eager to seek alternatives to French and other Western powers. For a country like Mali, shifting allegiances from Paris to Moscow was not exactly a great gamble. Bamako had very little to lose, but much to gain. The same logic applies to other African countries fighting extreme poverty, political instability and the threat of militancy, all of which are intrinsically linked.
Though China remains a powerful newcomer to Africa – a reality that continues to frustrate US policymakers – the more urgent battle, for now, is between Russia and France – the latter experiencing a palpable retreat.
In a speech last July, French President Emmanuel Macron declared that he wanted a: “Rethink of all our (military) postures on the African continent.” France’s military and foreign policy shift in Africa, however, was not compelled by strategy or vision, but by changing realities over which France has little control.
By Larry Johnson | A Son Of The New American Revolution | October 15, 2022
If you take the time to watch Vladimir Putin’s press conference yesterday (Friday) in Astana and then watch any recent cluster fark by Joe Biden, you will understand why the Russians are so calm in dealing with Ukraine. Putin is remarkable. Low key, well informed, articulate and not afraid of tough questions. He did not get any softballs here and, in fact, faced some tough questions. So much for the myth that Russia is a totalitarian state that brokers no dissent and requires everyone to toe a party line. That characterization more aptly describes the United States under the demented Joe Biden.
Here are the highlights with the relevant time stamp:
9:15 Putin is asked about Germany’s behavior. He notes incisively that Germany has put a priority on serving NATO rather than the interests of its nation and people.
14:40 Putin is asked about attending the G20 and meeting with Joe Biden. Putin said, there is no point. “There is no platform for any kind of negotiations at this point.” And we are in constant contact with some members of the G20, e.g. Turkey.
18;00 Putin is questioned directly about recent arrest of man in Moscow for listening to Ukrainian music. Putin responded that the arrest is wrong and we (Russia) should not behave like the West in trying to cancel a culture, in this case Ukrainian culture. He noted that Ukrainian is still a recognized language in Crimea and would remain so. He emphasized that Neo-Nazis and Nazi symbols on display in Ukraine are NOT Ukrainian culture and must be eliminated.
20:10 Mobilization was a hot topic. Will there be another wave of mobilization? Will there be “total mobilization”? Putin said the Defense Ministry initially planned a smaller number than the 300,000. Putin remarked that he doesn’t see any need right now to expand that number. There are 220,000 mobilized and the work of mobilization will be finished in two weeks.
22:00 Putin was asked about the men who fled Russia for other countries and calls in the Duma to confiscate their property. Putin said it must not be handled based on emotions. Rather it must be dealt with according to the law. In other words, each case must be litigated on an individual basis instead of a blanket action.
24:00 Another reporter cited one person mobilized who died allegedly with no training. Putin emphasized that the mobilized are supposed to receive 5 to 10 days refresher training. Then they go for specialized training that lasts 5 to 15 days. Then they undergo joint combat training. So far 33,000 men have been mobilized already with front line units and 16,000 in units with combat missions. Putin said he will order a review of the training regimen to ensure it is being done appropriately.
29:15 A reporter asked about the retaliatory strikes in response to the terrorist bombing of the Crimea bridge. Putin said there is no massive retaliation. Russia hit 22 of 29 targets and is now working on hitting the remaining 7. He said he saw no need for “massive retaliation” at this point.
30:00 Final question–NATO says that defeat of Ukraine by Russia will be the defeat of NATO. What happens if NATO deploys troops to Ukraine. Putin said “it could lead to a global catastrophe and I hope that those who talk about this will be smart enough not to undertake such dangerous steps.”
Whether you like or despise Putin, give the man his due. He spoke off the cuff. No notes in hand. He did not shy away from any question and he did not get angry or lose his cool. What a contrast with a Joe Biden press encounter. I think that Western politicians and pundits who disparage Putin as an incompetent dictator are making a very dangerous mistake. They fail to take this man at his word. Putin is establishing himself as a man who says what he means and means what he says
Samizdat – 16.10.2022
Sunday marks sixty years since the outbreak of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, a thirteen-day nuclear standoff between the United States and Soviet Union that was ultimately resolved through skillful diplomacy, the type of which some fear may be lacking to defuse current superpower tensions.
On October 16, 1962, US President John Kennedy was shown surveillance photos of what he called “unmistakable evidence” the Soviets were building installations for medium-range nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba, 90 miles off Florida’s coast. In consultations with senior officials, Kennedy was presented with two alternatives: a military invasion or a naval blockade.
The missile buildup came after Cuban President Fidel Castro asked Moscow for deterrence assistance in the wake of the US failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April of 1961.
October 22, the seventh day of the crisis, Kennedy announced the imposition of a naval “quarantine,” choosing to avoid the word “blockade” which could be considered an act of war. Blockades prevent all trade and travel whereas the quarantine only prohibited offensive military equipment.
This came after hours of difficult meetings between Kennedy and US security officials, many of whom pressed for more aggressive options.
Nevertheless, in the ensuing days, Castro mobilized Cuba’s army, the Soviet missiles were placed on ready to launch, and their ships were soon at the so-called quarantine line.
Meanwhile, American military forces were put on defense readiness condition 2, the highest in US history – just one away from DEFCON 1 – which signaled the outbreak of nuclear warfare.
Lack of Leadership & Critical Thinking
It was not until day eleven that back-channel talks began between presidential adviser Robert Kennedy and Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, which culminated in a deal that publicly called for the US to vow not to invade Cuba in exchange for Moscow dismantling the nuclear sites. However, the negotiators also struck a private agreement that the US would remove missiles from Turkey.
The crisis ended on October 28, when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced the dismantling of Soviet missile installations, while keeping the deal on Turkish missiles a secret. The solution allowed both sides to “save face,” and exhibited sophisticated diplomatic acumen on the part of both Kennedy and Khrushchev, the type of which experts fear is sorely lacking today in the face of rising nuclear tensions between the US and Russia.
Not to mention, the size and nature of present day arsenals are much different than they were sixty years ago, when the US had 3,500 nuclear warheads and the Soviets about 500. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the US currently has 5,428 nuclear warheads and Russia 5,977.
During a recent interview with CNN, President Joe Biden warned that miscalculations over the Ukraine conflict “could end in Armageddon,” just a week after suggesting the world was facing another Cuban Missile Crisis and wondered aloud about finding an “off ramp,” for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Historian Dan Lazare described the stark difference between the current approach with 1962.
“The maturity of people like Kennedy and Khrushchev can’t help but contrast with the recklessness, arrogance, and sheer stupidity of people like Biden,” Lazare told Sputnik. “Thanks to NATO’s drang nach osten, we are closer to nuclear war than we probably were in 1962. Yet negotiations are nowhere in sight. How the world has regressed in a mere 60 years.”
Unlike Biden’s declaration to find an “off-ramp,” for Putin, Lazare noted that Khrushchev and Kennedy were savvy enough to make the “behind-the-scenes” deal to remove missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets doing the same in Cuba.
Historian and political commentator Anton Chaitkin feels the existence of human civilization is now endangered due to Western power structures and intellectual deficits that have made a shift away from war escalation very difficult. A situation miles away from Kennedy’s quality of “truth-seeking” that he believes “saved humanity.”
“There is no thinking at the top,” Chaitkin said. “Any critical thought, like Kennedy’s process, could have wonderful consequences.”
Former UK ambassador Peter Ford fears the Cuban missile crisis will be seen as a reason not to panic, which is dangerous because the “hubristic” West does not have the same type of leadership, not to mention it is much easier to launch a nuclear war in the 21st century.
“Biden is no Kennedy,” Ford told Sputnik. “And in the 1960s tactical nukes did not exist. The potential threshold for going nuclear today is much lower.”
American University in Moscow President Professor Edward Lozansky said the current situation is much worse than in 1962 partly because Washington wrongly believes the worst-case scenario is that Russia would only use tactical nuclear weapons and only against Ukraine and other targets in Europe.
“This is a gross miscalculation since, according to Russian military doctrine, in case of the existential threat to [the] homeland Moscow will use the strategic nuclear weapons that will reach the US,” Lozansky warned. “It looks like Washington is totally ignoring this scenario and therefore does not even want to think about compromise with Putin, looking only for his total defeat.”
No Desire to Talk or De-Escalate
University of Louvain Professor of Philosophy Jean Bricmont is also worried about signs Washington does not even want a settlement.
“During the Cuban missile crisis, there was a desire on both sides to de-escalate. I see no such sign now, at least on the American side,” Bricmont told Sputnik. “They have been provoking Russia since the 1990’s by extending NATO eastwards and profiting from Yeltsin’s weakness to ‘loot’ Russia.”
Hence, he added, the situation seems totally blocked or rather drifting towards the apocalypse.
“Is there anybody to stop that madness?” Bricmont said. “We will see or die.”
University of Illinois Professor of Law Francis Boyle, who also observed the lack of Kennedy-style diplomatic skill in the White House, is concerned that so far the Biden administration has publicly ruled out direct negotiations with Moscow over Ukraine.
“Though there could be back-channel negotiations going on right now that I am not aware of,” Boyle added. “Let’s hope there are.”
Stephen Schlesinger, one of the premier historians of the UN, said a major difference in today’s crisis has been the failure of either side to leverage third parties, like the US and Soviets did with then-UN Secretary-General U Thant.
“In the Cuban missile crisis, the leaders of the USA and USSR were sober enough to use intermediaries – including U Thant – to communicate a desire for a settlement – while in today’s hostilities, Biden and Putin are simply not talking,” he said.
Meanwhile, the lack of opposition to the US support for Ukraine has been conspicuous other than disgruntlement expressed in a few polls, while antiwar progressives in Congress have even backed billions in military aid to Kiev.
“There are a few brave folks warning of the looming disaster but their voices are drowning in the ocean of ignorance,” Lozansky said.
Boyle said the situation is unlikely to get resolved unless the antiwar movement mobilizes.
“It is really up to the American peace movement to pressure the Biden administration to open direct negotiations over the Ukraine war with the Russian government before the war degenerates out of control as almost happened during the original Cuban Missile Crisis,” Boyle concluded.
By Gilbert Doctorow | October 15, 2022
Some readers have commented in direct emails to me that they have taken comfort from my writings insofar as I have been a moderate voice, avoiding alarmism over the often troublesome daily news in and around the Russian war with Ukraine, or more properly speaking today, Russia’s proxy war with NATO in and about Ukraine.
For this very reason, I hesitated whether to share with readers the deep pessimism that overcame me a couple of days ago over our chances of avoiding nuclear Armageddon. This followed my watching the latest Solovyov political talk show on Russian state television. I have used this show regularly as a litmus test of the mood of Russian social and political elites: that mood has turned black.
Whereas in the past, going back six months or more, I had reported on the open contempt which leading and highly responsible Russian academics from university circles and think tanks were showing for the American political leadership in their statements on the political talk shows, this contempt has moved into an actionable phase, by which I mean that serious, God-fearing Russians are so furious with the rubbish propaganda coming out of Washington, repeated with bullhorns in Europe that if given the chance they would personally “press the button” and unleash nuclear attacks on the United States and Britain, in that order notwithstanding the possibility, even probability of a return strike, which, however enfeebled, would be devastating to their own country. That is to say, deterrence as a policy is fast losing its psychological impact on the Russian side of the argument.
Whatever the words of the Biden Administration about nuclear war being ‘off the table,’ America’s aggressive and threatening behavior, including the ongoing ‘training in nuclear weapons’ currently going on in Europe under U.S. direction, has made rational and very serious Russians ready to give it a try.
One of the most sober-minded international affairs experts to appear on the Solovyov show, Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Institute of the Near East think tank, contained his rage with some difficulty, saying only that while he had once held some sympathy for the United States, he would see its utter destruction now with little regret; he left no mention where his feet are pointed when he added that he could say no more on air for fear that he will be censored and his words removed from the video.
For these reasons, I have given to this essay addressed to the Collective West, and in particular to the fomenters of world disorder in Washington and London, a title that fits the current situation.
*****
As we have seen from even before the launch of the ‘special military operation,’ Russian talk programs identify by name individuals in the Biden team whose outstanding stupidity, obtuseness and rank ignorance they find unbearable, with the likes of Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan and Lloyd Austin among those coming in for special mention. We are left with the impression that when Biden calls in his advisers to the Oval Office, he, senile dimwit that he is, is the bright light in the room. The Russians conclude from this that they have no one to negotiate with.
Now the naming of idiots in high places carries over to all discussion of European Union and British leaders. The denunciation of incompetence, rank stupidity and, yes, neo-colonialist or fascist mindsets among European leaders was well reflected in the latest Solovyov show. The most discussed whipping boy was the EU’s commissioner on external action, Josep Borrell, who seems to be speaking to the world daily and acknowledges no limits on what he may proclaim, as if it were official EU policy in defense as well as diplomacy.
The Solovyov show put up on screen a brief video recording of Borrell expounding smugly on Europe’s privileged position as ‘a garden of liberal democracy, good economic prospects and social solidarity’ which is surrounded by ‘the jungle.’ That jungle reference fits in well, Solovyov remarked, with the colonialist mindset of Rudyard Kipling and is deeply offensive to the Rest of the World, of which Russia is a part. More to the point, Borrell was also notorious in Russia this past week for his statement that any use by Russia of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a massive non-nuclear attack from Europe which would ‘annihilate’ the Russian army. However, Borrell was not alone in the stocks: other European leaders who were decried for their stupid policies this past week included German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emanuel Macron.
So you have no bomb shelter? Then, as the Russians said decades ago, it is high time to throw a bed sheet over your shoulders and slowly walk to the nearest cemetery.
*****
One of the two latest fake news stories being disseminated simultaneously and ubiquitously in Western major media this past week is that Russia is considering using against Ukraine ‘tactical nuclear weapons,’ meaning warheads with a destructive force equivalent to the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombs mounted on cruise or medium range ballistic missiles. Our print and electronic media speculate on the numbers of warheads Russia currently possesses (2,000 or more), as if that would make any difference in an assault on Ukraine.
Rubbish say the Russians on Solovyov’s show: we have no need of nuclear arms to finish off the Ukrainians. The only nuclear forces we would deploy in the current situation are strategic arms, and they are directed against…. Washington with the help of the Sarmat and Poseidon delivery systems.
The other major fake news disseminated massively by Western media in recent days was the allegation that the Russians are seeking to freeze the Ukrainians to death by their strikes against power generation infrastructure. Images of Stalingrad were evoked by our broadcasters. A similar freeze is said to be inflicted on Western Europe by the cut-off of Russian energy supplies to the EU.
More rubbish say the panelists on the Solovyov program. The attack on the electricity grid in Ukraine is not directed against civilians per se; it is intended to halt rail deliveries of advanced weapons systems and munitions coming into Ukraine at the Polish border and being moved by train to the fronts in the east and south of the country. Without these inputs, the Ukrainian army will be kaput and the war can come to an early conclusion with the capitulation of Kiev. As regards the EU, whatever chill out may be coming this winter is due solely to the unprofessional and ignorant decisions of the Commission on imports of Russian hydrocarbons that have been blindly followed by the Member States without due consideration of consequences for their own populations.
*****
The Collective West speaks of ‘sham’ referendums in the four Ukrainian oblasts that have now been reintegrated into (or annexed by, depending on your politics) the Russian Federation. In this spirit, in the middle of the past week the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a U.S. sponsored resolution refusing to recognize the legality of this annexation. Among those who voted against Russia were such prominent ‘friendly states’ as Serbia and Hungary. One hundred forty states voted with the United States; four states, including the pariah regimes in Venezuela and North Korea, joined Russia in voting ‘nyet,’ and thirty-five states abstained.
The United States trumpeted this victory at the UN over the mischievous and rules-breaking Russians. EU chief of diplomacy Borrell was also gloating, though he expressed regret that 20% of the member states had not voted for the resolution.
The Russians, for their part, insist that this vote was a sham, given the carrots and sticks that U.S. and European diplomats used to get the results desired. Blackmail of all kinds was applied, say the Russians. Morever, the number of states in each tally tells only part of the story: among the 35 abstaining countries were India and China, which between them alone account for 35% of humanity.
Meanwhile, over in Europe, on the next day the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe meeting in Strasbourg adopted a resolution condemning Russia for its alleged aggression against Ukraine with a bill of particulars several pages long and including a call for the 46 member states to declare Russia a ‘terrorist state’ as Zelensky had requested of them. The vote as published was said to be 99 for the resolution, 1 opposed. No mention was made in the announcement of vote results that the actual number of deputies in PACE is 306. The point was not missed by the Solovyov panel, who here too cried ‘foul.’
Putting aside these two votes that garnered so much attention in the propagandistic Western media, there were other international developments bearing on the relative standing of Russia in the global community which Western media chose to ignore, but Russia media, featured prominently.
I think in particular of the three days of summitry in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan. The first of these gatherings brought together 27 heads of state from across Asia, running from Israel and Palestine, Qatar and the Emirates in the west to Korea in the east. Let us remember that a goodly number of the participants were from countries that voted against Russia in the UN General Assembly. Their presence in Astana gave the lie to the notion that they were expelling Russia from polite society.
The key personality at the meeting of 27 was clearly Vladimir Putin. Film footage on Russian television showed him in animated conversation with these leaders in group and bilateral formats. Of these the most significant was likely the face-to-face with Turkish president Erdogan, during which the two discussed immediate steps to implement the Russian proposal that a new pipeline be added to Turk Stream so as to greatly increase possibilities for delivering gas to Europe by this southern route through the Balkans. In this concept, Turkey will become a major gas hub, which represents fulfillment of a long-held dream by the Turkish leader.
In its capacity as hub, Turkey would be able to mix Russian gas with flows from Azerbaijan and possibly later from Turkmenistan, so that the product sold as a Turkish export would be bullet proof against American or European sanctions. The additional line could probably be laid down within a year, that is to say, more quickly than the problematic repairs to the damaged Nord Stream 1 pipelines.
The next day in Astana, another summit was held between leaders of the Community of Independent States. This reduced circle of members was also of great importance insofar as it confirms Russia’s standing as facilitator of diplomatic solutions between member states experiencing armed conflict with one another, the Azeris and Armenians being first in line. And the final summit, among the leaders of Central Asian republics with Russia had yet another important agenda: agreeing security measures to defend against spillover into their region of the developing civil war in Afghanistan, where the U.S. and Britain are aiding extremist groups seeking to overthrow Taliban rule. From the body language of leaders, it would seem that Putin’s ear was much in demand. Relations with Kazakhstan leader Tokaev appeared to be solid once again after a trying period of several months earlier in the year.
In considering the meaning of these gatherings, I think that a remark made several days ago on another Solovyov show and with regard to the decision of the Saudis and Gulf States to snub the insistent demands of Biden that oil production be raised: the decision to make common cause with Russia came not out of pity for the weak but out of Realism, namely the assessment that Russia will win the military contest with NATO/Ukraine. These rulers in Opec, like the rulers who came to Astana this past week, back winners not prospective losers.
If I may draw any positive conclusions from the otherwise bleak analysis in the foregoing, they are that Russia is successfully resisting massive U.S. and E.U. pressures, and that the world is realigning before our eyes in a more multi-polar and democratic direction. And yet, the fears of miscalculations on one side or another in this tense and unparalleled contest mean Armageddon constantly threatens in the background.
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | October 13, 2022
In a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he did not trust Washington and the US could not play the sole mediating role in resolving the Israeli occupation. Abbas voiced support for Moscow, saying, “Russia stands for justice.”
Abbas made the remarks during a public meeting with Putin in Kazakhstan on Thursday. “We don’t trust America and you know our position.” He continued, “[w]e don’t trust it, we don’t rely on it, and under no circumstances can we accept that America is the sole party in resolving a problem.”
He said the situation can only be resolved by the “Quartet” – Russia, the US, the United Nations and the European Union working together. Abbas stressed the importance of Moscow’s role in coming to a resolution. “We believe and know that Russia has a clear position on the settlement, and I am absolutely sure that it will never change. We know perfectly well that Russia stands for justice, for international law,” the Palestinian leader said.
Putin responded favorably and said he hopes to increase ties between Moscow and Ramallah. Russia has “a principled stance based on the fundamental resolutions of the United Nations and it remains unchanged,” Putin said.
Abbas is 87 years old and was last elected in 2005. His mandate to rule expired in 2009. However, Tel Aviv and Ramallah have prevented new elections since. While Israel maintains security control and enforces its laws over all the territory of historic Palestine, Abbas and his government in Ramallah have some control in the West Bank. His influence does not extend to Gaza, where Hamas rules as the last elected political leader.
Abbas’s “Quartet” plan appears to be a non-starter. Currently, American and many European officials are refusing to attend any meeting with Russian officials.
The meeting between Putin and Abbas does expose fractures in the West’s campaign to isolate the Kremlin. After Russia invaded Ukraine in February, President Joe Biden said he would ensure Putin lost his global partners.
Washington is Tel Aviv’s primary sponsor. The US provides Israel with $3.8 billion in military aid every year. Tel Aviv’s control over Palestinians amounts to apartheid, according to several Western human rights organizations.
Samizdat | October 13, 2022
Russia will not recognize the results of the ongoing investigation into the explosions at the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines in late September unless its experts are allowed to take part in the probe, Moscow has said. Russia’s foreign ministry revealed on Thursday it had summoned the representatives of Germany, Denmark and Sweden to convey its “bewilderment” over a lack of official reaction to a request for cooperation sent earlier this month by Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin.
In its press statement, the ministry noted that while Russian authorities and the country’s energy giant, Gazprom, have still not been granted access to the investigation, reports have been appearing which suggest that Berlin, Copenhagen and Stockholm have been far more accommodating to similar requests made by other nations, including the US.
Russian diplomats emphasized that if its calls for cooperation are ignored, Moscow will assume that the three European countries “have something to hide or [that] they are covering up the perpetrators of these terrorist attacks.”
“Russia will, of course, not recognize any ‘pseudo-results’ of such an investigation, unless Russian experts take part in it,” the statement read.
The warning comes after Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson announced on Monday that Stockholm would not share with Moscow the results of its investigation into the explosions that severely damaged the two conduits created to pump gas from Russia to Europe.
“In Sweden, our preliminary investigations are confidential, and that, of course, also applies in this case,” she explained.
The premier added, however, that Russia may conduct its own probe at the site if it so wishes.
Meanwhile, Swedish authorities have said they’d found evidence that points to sabotage.
Also on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin hinted that despite the denial of access to the probe, “we all know well who the ultimate beneficiary of this crime is.” Earlier, he had publicly laid the blame for the attack at the doorstep of the “Anglo-Saxons,” a Russian colloquialism for the US-UK bond.
Commenting on the blasts, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had described them as a “tremendous opportunity” for Europe “to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy.”
The Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines were rendered inoperable on September 26 following a series of powerful underwater explosions off the Danish island of Bornholm.
Samizdat – October 13, 2022
The UN General Assembly has adopted a non-binding resolution accusing Moscow of an “attempted illegal annexation” and calling on member states to ignore the results of referendums in four former eastern Ukrainian regions to join Russia.
Wednesday’s 143-5 vote followed the General Assembly’s refusal on Monday to use secret ballots, as requested by Russia, amid pressure from the US and its allies to join them in condemning Moscow for the accessions. Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia had argued that for many countries “it may be very difficult” to express their views publicly.
Despite that pressure, four nations joined Russia in voting against the UN resolution, including Belarus, Syria, Nicaragua and North Korea. Among those 35 abstaining were China and India, as well as South Africa, Pakistan, Thailand, Cuba, Vietnam, Armenia and Algeria.
Before launching its military operation in Ukraine in February, Russia recognized the sovereignty of two Donbass regions, the Donetsk (DPR) and Lugansk (LPR) People’s Republics, arguing that the central power in Kiev has for far too long failed to represent and protect people living there. Residents of two other regions, Kherson and Zaporozhye, also voted by wide margins in public referendums last month to declare independence and join Russia. President Vladimir Putin signed the unification treaties with the four new Russian regions on October 5.
The UNGA condemned those plebiscites as “illegal,” saying the four regions are temporarily occupied because of Russian aggression, in violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Wednesday’s resolution calls on all nations and the UN to refuse recognition of the accessions.
Moscow argued the referendums were the only legitimate way for people to exercise their right for self-determination and be protected from their former government. In a recent speech, Putin cited “an inherent right sealed in Article 1 of the UN Charter, which directly states the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”
Putin also previously argued that the UN itself set a legal precedent for the referendums, after its International Court of Justice ruled that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008 did not violate international law.
UN leaders have dismissed such parallels, with General Assembly President Csaba Korosi reiterating on Monday that the referendums in the former Ukrainian regions were illegal while calling to “find a political solution based on the UN Charter and the international law.”
Rejecting the referendums as a “sham,” Kiev – which receives military assistance, training and intelligence from NATO nations on an unprecedented scale – said it is determined to beat Russia on the battlefield. Ukraine insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked, even as its former president admitted that Kiev’s main goal since 2014 Minsk agreements was to use the Germany- and France-brokered ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.”
By Larry Johnson | A Son Of The New American Revolution | October 11, 2022
Not to beat a dead horse, but most of the world has a delusional image in their head of the war in Ukraine. As I have written previously, much of the fault lies with Hollywood, which through a plethora of movies has conditioned the masses to think of war as the conquest of critical territory. But that is a misleading image when it comes to Ukraine. Yes, there are strategically important pieces of territory that must be captured or defended, but there also are vast swaths of plains (we call them prairies here in the United States) that are tactically difficult to control and, if you succeed in capturing an area of land, you create a problem of how to defend it.
Russia has a decisive advantage over Ukraine when it comes to battling for this territory, even though it ceded some of it a few weeks ago to advancing Ukrainian troops. Why? Because Russia’s air force is still intact and can be used to attack massed Ukrainian units. Ukraine’s air capability has been eviscerated. Russia also enjoys a lopsided advantage in tanks.
At the beginning of its full-scale invasion in Feb., Russia had around 3,330 operational tanks (2,840 with the ground forces, 330 with its naval infantry, and 160 with its airborne forces), according to the Military Balance 2021 database. . . .
However, Russia still has some 2,000 battle-ready tanks at hand, as well as an enormous amount in storage.
The Military Balance 2021 database says Russian storage facilities have around 10,200 tanks, including various T-72s, 3,000 T-80s, and 200 T-90s.
Tank battles on rolling plains is great grist for a Hollywood blockbuster, but the real peril for Ukraine has been on display over the last two days–Russia’s hypersonic missiles, cruise missiles and air launched rockets mangling power nodes and military headquarters throughout Ukraine. The Russian strikes in the last two days significantly degraded Ukraine’s ability to supply electricity and critical heat to its major cities. The attacks also are disrupting Ukraine’s cell phone network and its ability to move troops and equipment from the west to the frontlines in the east.
Ukraine does not have a comparable capability to counter the Russian attacks. Moreover, the Russian missile barrage has highlighted the weakness, if not absence, of Ukraine’s anti-missile defense system. It is neither a mistake nor a coincidence that Russia’s strikes in major Ukrainian cities–more than 100 missiles– caused very few human casualties, especially on the civilian side of the ledger. Despite Ukrainian claims that Russia’s strikes killed civilians, the evidence suggests otherwise–Ukraine’s own anti-missile system failed to intercept the Russian targets and then fell to earth and hit apartments and schools.
What is the United States and NATO going to do? Immediately deploy the Iron Dome anti-missile system? Unfortunately, these Western anti-missile systems are not designed to defeat the missiles Russia is launching. Then there is the logistics problem–i.e., getting those systems deployed and training personnel to operate them. This will take weeks, if not months. And Ukraine does not have the luxury of time in this regard. Making matters worse, the United States and NATO do not have the reserves to quickly resupply Ukraine:
The United States will soon be unable to supply Ukraine, as it has up to now, with the sophisticated equipment essential for its defense against Russia as its reserves are reaching their limits, especially in terms of ammunition. . . .
But US stockpiles of certain equipment are “reaching the minimum levels necessary for war and training plans” and getting weapons stockpiles back to pre-invasion levels could take years, Mark Cancian wrote in a recent analysis. of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Washington is “learning lessons” from the conflict about ammunition needs in a very powerful war, and that it is “much larger” than expected, said a US military official who requested anonymity.
Then there is the nightmare scenario for Ukraine and NATO of Russia invoking the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and Russia asking Belarus to join the fray. Russian and Belarusian troops already are gathering on Ukraine’s northern border. Whether this is a bluff by Russia or genuine preparation for opening a new front in the north, the massing of forces requires Ukraine to deploy already depleted forces to the northern border. This will weaken Ukraine’s ability to hold off a Russian offensive in Kherson and Zaporhyzhia.
I believe that the events during the next five weeks will create a crisis within NATO and the United States. If Russia seizes the initiative and moves in force against Ukrainian units, NATO will not be in a position to rescue Ukraine from defeat on the battlefield. Any further intervention by NATO will make it, in the eyes of the Russians, a legitimate military target.
Compounding the military challenges confronting the United States and NATO, there are the economic and political headwinds. Joe Biden is likely to lose control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. If this happens, he will no longer have a congressional ally eager to keep shoveling money and weapons into Ukraine. The economic conditions throughout Europe of inflation and shuttering businesses will fuel more domestic unrest and diminish enthusiasm for keeping Ukraine afloat.
When you take all of these factors into consideration, the conclusion is clear–Russia enjoys a strategic and tactical initiative that will be difficult to surmount. Conversely, NATO is in trouble.
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | OCTOBER 12, 2022
There was something profoundly meaningful that the President of the United Arab Emirates Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan undertook a visit to Russia amidst the gathering storms in Ukraine. Conscious of the symbolism, Russian President Vladimir Putin received Sheikh Mohammed on Tuesday in a grand setting befitting a monarch — at the gorgeous Konstantinovksy Palace in St. Petersburg whose heritage dates back to Peter the Great, a symbol of the revival of Russia and its cultural heritage.
The meeting of the two potentates couldn’t have been more timely. Sheikh Mohammed and his Saudi kinsperson, Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud had just handed down a strategic defeat to a superpower in the geopolitics of oil, as the world community witnessed disbelievingly and understood that the sun has set on the American Century in international politics.
Putin too stands at the threshold of a historic victory over the combined might of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which is poised to redraw the contours of the new world order. Putin told Sheikh Mohammed that the relations between Russia and the UAE are “an important factor of regional and overall global stability.”
Putin said, “I know that you are concerned about the entire situation that is developing, and I know about your desire to make a contribution to resolving all contentious issues, including the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. I would like to note that, indeed, this substantial factor makes it possible to use your influence to help gradually resolve the situation.”
The words were carefully chosen. Putin noted the UAE’s desire “to help gradually resolve the situation” in Ukraine, underscoring that a denouement is not in the cards in a near term. [Emphasis added.] However, the centrepiece of Putin’s remarks was something else — OPEC Plus where Saudi Arabia, UAE and Russia are virtually navigating the global energy markets.
Putin signalled that Moscow is not at all viewing the OPEC+ decision in zero sum terms. Rather, its aim is “to stabilise global energy markets, so that consumers of energy resources and those supplying them to global markets would feel calm, stable and confident, and so that supply and demand would be balanced.” Of course, embedded within this polite submission is a tough message to the G7 that any further attempt on their part to extend their weaponisation of sanctions to the global energy market is unacceptable and will be resisted and defeated.
These were Putin’s first remarks on the collective decision announced by the OPEC+ at its meeting in Vienna last Thursday to cut oil production by 2 million barrels per day. Putin concluded firmly that Russia will “respond to market requirements all the time, and we try to do this in line with current developments.”
Sheikh Mohammed unmistakably signalled that his visit focused on boosting its bilateral relations with Russia, especially in the economic sphere. As the western sanctions atrophy Russia’s flourishing economic ties with Europe, Moscow is turning to the non-Western world for partnerships, and reorienting its regional strategies. Putin has repeatedly stated that Russia will gladly engage with any country that stands up to western bullying.
The UAE has been quick to grasp that Russia prioritises the Emirates as a favoured destination to conduct business. The uniqueness of the UAE for Moscow lies in its dynamic environment for doing business as well as for opening a window for Russian industry to the Western world. Moscow has been receiving strong feelers from European partners about resuming business ties albeit indirectly. After all, the Russian market is synonymous with high business returns.
A crucial template here is Moscow’s appreciation of the growing emphasis by the UAE on preserving its strategic autonomy. The Russian elites admire Sheikh Mohammad for rapidly transforming the Emirates from an economy once reliant on fishing and pearls, to becoming a financial powerhouse and diverse economy, and providing a stable political system, strong capital flow, favourable taxation environment and liberal trade regimes.
Indeed, the UAE is now an attractive investment hub with a ‘2021 Vision’ of becoming the economic, touristic and commercial capital for over two billion people. As the Russians see it, these ambitious goals will continue to facilitate a hospitable, well-regulated and secure business ecosystem in the UAE. The World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index ranks the UAE among the top dozen out of 160 countries in terms of trade logistics.
Equally, Moscow does not envisage that it could be “business as usual” with the Europeans anytime soon — if ever. The the resuscitation of the West’s Nazi heritage to spite Russia and the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines to punish Russia are only the culmination of an excessively obnoxious behaviour by the US and its allies to humiliate Russia over the decades — pouring scorn over its cultural heritages of language, literature, music, etc. out of sheer envy — in an appalling zest to “erase” Russia as a powerhouse. This has created deep wounds in the Russian psyche.
With 4,000 Russian companies operating out of the UAE, there is a rapidly growing Russian community in the Gulf region and Sheikh Mohammed noted that the Emirates will provide a friendly ambience for the Russian expatriates by approving the opening of the first Russian school in the Emirates. Conceivably, this must be the first such Russian school in that part of the world.
The Russian business community visualises the UAE as a prime launch-pad to access markets around the world. Its geographical location and amicable time zone (GMT +4), give businesses wishing to access markets in Africa, Asia and Europe a regional and business-centric hub from which to operate. Russia has set its sights high for expanding its relations with African countries, where it enjoys tremendous “soft power” dating back to the Soviet era.
In geopolitical terms, Sheikh Mohammed’s decision to travel to Russia to meet with Putin comes in the backdrop of the temper tantrums of the American political elites threatening to “punish” Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The Democrats have brashly called for the withdrawal of US troops in the UAE and Saudi Arabia and cutback on arms supplies.
These Neanderthal men ought to have become museum pieces by now. They do not comprehend that the West Asian elites have a cosmopolitan mindset and know these hollow men well enough, having interacted with them in their pristine years and watched stoically more recently as they began ageing, showing signs of exhaustion and senility.
By this visit to St. Petersburg, Sheikh Mohammed may have in his own astute way shown that such crude American threats will only be counter-productive. Earlier once, the Biden Administration had bullied him to sever the UAE’s relations with China to qualify for F-35 jets, whereupon, in disgust, he turned to France’s Rafale.
Russia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have the potential to form a troika where each of the members augmented the political power of the other two members and at the same time collectively impacted the actual distribution of power in a multipolar world. The OPEC Plus has shown the way. Sheikh Mohammed’s meeting with Putin comes within the week of the OPEC Plus meeting in Vienna.
By Lucas Leiroz | October 12, 2022
During a press conference on October 11, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov severely criticized the recent American speech insisting that Moscow had rejected peace proposals allegedly offered by the West. The minister stated that no serious proposal was made by Washington, therefore there was no Russian unwillingness to negotiate peace.
Lavrov claimed that the Americans indeed made some calls but did not show any concrete peace proposals during the talks. According to him, not even these calls were ignored, having Moscow responded, showing willingness to continue the dialogue in order to seek the formulation of a specific plan that benefits both sides. However, the West has shown itself to be uninterested in initiating conversations in this direction.
“This is a lie [that Russia refuses to negotiate]. We did not receive any serious proposals to enter into contact. There were some not very serious calls, to which we also did not respond negatively, but offered to formulate specific proposals, with which some people want to contact us through indirect contacts. And in this case, we did not receive more specific explanations from anyone”, he said.
The day before Lavrov’s interview, US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby had publicly reiterated that Moscow was not responding to US calls for negotiations. Earlier, some US officials and journalists had already said that there would be no further dialogue as the Russian government was not interested in any proposals. But Russia does not endorse this narrative and claims that no US proposal has been presented.
Journalists also asked Lavrov for his opinion on the possibility of resuming peace talks with Turkey as a mediator, given the recent rumors that Ankara is planning a new negotiation for the conflict. According to Lavrov, no Russian official has yet received any information about such an initiative, but he made clear the Russian willingness to negotiate if the proposals seem reasonable. He stated that the meeting between Putin and Erdogan in Astana would be a good opportunity to clarify this topic.
Regarding the Ukrainian decision to not continue any form of dialogue with Russia and veto peace talks, Lavrov stressed that it does not seem to be something really resolute. For him, Zelensky’s decisions could change at any time, depending on a series of factors, mainly his “mood”, considering the instability already demonstrated by Zelensky so far, and the orders he will receive from the West in the near future. For Lavrov, if the Western powers order Zelensky to start peace talks, he will simply accept and ask to talk to Moscow.
“I do not rule out that he, as he forbade himself [to talk with Russia], will then forget about it, depending on his mood when he gets up in the morning and what he does. Well, or he will receive an order from Washington, from London – he will say ‘Yes’ and figure out how to explain all this so as not to lose face”, Lavrov said.
The veto of peace negotiations is precisely a consequence of orders received by the West, which is the side most unwilling to negotiate and which most seeks to escalate the conflict. So, if the opinion of Western leaders on the direction of peace talks eventually changes, it is actually expected that Zelensky will rethink the veto and suddenly ask to talk to Moscow.
The narrative that “Moscow does not want to negotiate” has been spread precisely in order to justify new actions in support to Kiev and Western active participation in the conflict. On many occasions, the West has made it clear that the longer the fighting lasts, the more beneficial this will be to NATO’s interests, because, given the impossibility of defeating Russia militarily, what is sought is simply to prolong the situation of security instability in the Russian strategic environment.
Since February, the Russian side has been the only one to actively pursue peace talks. To stop the special military operation, Moscow makes it clear that it only expects a list of requirements to be met. These requirements include some Russian territorial and political goals, such as the self-determination of Russian-majority regions and the demilitarization of Kiev. For Moscow, this is not an “expansionist ambition”, as the West says, but a real necessity, since present-day Ukraine is a direct threat against the Russian state.
For peace to emerge in Ukraine, the West must “authorize” Kiev to act sovereignly and negotiate with Russia proposals that meet the demands made by Moscow. There is no way to negotiate peace without fulfilling these requirements and what prevents Ukrainians from following them is precisely the order they receive from Western leaders to continue fighting in a war in which they have no chance of winning.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
You can follow Lucas on Telegram.
Samizdat | October 11, 2022
The US-led NATO alliance has been very active in waters around Nord Stream and once even managed to “lose” an armed underwater drone right under the pipeline, a Gazprom spokesman has said.
“On November 6, 2015, a NATO underwater mine destroyer ‘Seafox’ was discovered during a scheduled visual inspection of the Nord Stream gas pipeline,” Sergey Kupriyanov told Rossiya 24 on Monday.
The device was found resting on the seabed at a depth of 40m between the Nord Stream pipelines, almost directly under one of them, Kupriyanov said. The incident, which received limited media coverage at the time, prompted a brief halt in gas deliveries, while the drone was ultimately recovered by the Swedish military.
Back then, the US-led bloc said it had “lost” the device during military drills, the spokesman claimed. The German-made drone carries a 1.4kg shaped-charge warhead, which is intended for destroying sunken unexploded munitions and mines, according to publicly available data.
“That’s NATO drills for you, when a military-grade explosive device ends up straight under our pipeline,” Kupriyanov concluded.
The remarks come in the aftermath of the apparent sabotage attacks on the Nord Stream pipeline system. The Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines both abruptly lost pressure on September 26, following a series of powerful underwater explosions off the Danish island of Bornholm. The ruptures caused massive gas leaks into the open sea and rendered the pipelines inoperable.
While Moscow has called for an international – with its own participation – probe into the incident, other parties appear to be reluctant to carry out such an investigation. Sweden, for instance, has already explicitly stated it will not share the results of its investigation into the explosion with Moscow.
“In Sweden, our preliminary investigations are confidential, and that, of course, also applies in this case,” Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson told reporters on Monday.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has already blamed the “the Anglo-Saxons,” a Russian colloquialism for the US-UK alliance, of being behind the blasts, which Moscow described as an “act of international terrorism.” Speaking during a meeting of the Russian Security Council on Monday, Putin said that “we all know well who the ultimate beneficiary of this crime is.”
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 