Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Germany to supply Ukraine with heavy weaponry

Samizdat | April 26, 2022

The German government has given the green light for the delivery of self-propelled anti-aircraft guns to Ukraine, the country’s Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht said on Tuesday.

Speaking at US-hosted defense talks at the American airbase Ramstein in Germany’s Rhineland-Palatinate state, Lambrecht said that the leadership in Berlin made the decision on Monday. She emphasized that Germany was “determined to help the Ukrainian people with unified resolve in this existential emergency.”

The minister explained that “Ukraine will order” hardware from German manufacturers and “Germany will pay.” Berlin would earmark some 2 billion euros to that end, Lambrecht added.

The armored vehicles in question are Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, which were decommissioned by the German military back in 2010. Designed to take out cruise missiles and aircraft, Gepards can also be used against targets on the ground. As many as 50 heavy vehicles could reportedly be delivered to Ukraine. Defense firm Krauss-Maffei Wegmann will now refurbish the equipment before transferring it on to Kiev, Germany’s dpa news agency reported. It is, however, not known when exactly Ukraine can expect delivery of the anti-aircraft systems.

Lambrecht also announced that Berlin “has initiated a swap scheme with our partners in eastern Europe” that is ensuring that “Ukraine is quickly obtaining heavy weaponry that doesn’t require lengthy training.” But, according to the minister, Germany could do a lot more in this respect.

On top of that, Berlin will be cooperating with the US and the Netherlands when it comes to providing training to Ukrainian troops on German soil in the use of various artillery systems.

Lambrecht made the announcements during a meeting of defense ministers from 40 countries hosted by US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Tuesday.

Earlier this month, several German outlets reported that Germany’s Rheinmetall arms manufacturer was prepared to sell 88 decommissioned Leopard tanks, as well as ammunition, spare parts and tools to repair the hardware. Training on the equipment would also be provided to Ukrainian troops. The company was awaiting the German government’s approval, the media said at the time.

Moscow has repeatedly condemned NATO arms supplies to Kiev, saying they only destabilize the situation on the ground and hamper the prospect for peace. It also warned that any equipment deliveries will be considered a legitimate military target for the Russian forces once they cross into Ukrainian territory.

“NATO is essentially going to war with Russia through a proxy and arming that proxy. War means war,” Russia’s Foreign Minister said on Monday.

April 26, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Kiev says ready to attack Crimean Bridge at first opportunity

By Lucas Leiroz | April 25, 2022

The Ukrainian government seems to be willing to further increase its military actions just to continue a conflict in which it has no chance of winning. On April 21, a Kiev official announced that they are about to bomb and destroy the Crimean Bridge.

In a recent speech, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, Oleksiy Danilov, revealed that Kiev’s armed forces are ready to attack the bridge at any time, having plans to act at the first possible opportunity. His words during an interview with Radio NV leave no doubt about the Ukrainian intentions: “If we had the ability to do it, we would have already done it. If there is an opportunity to do it, we will definitely do it”. Danilov also commented on the reasons behind the plan, mentioning the strategic value of the bridge, which destruction would largely obstruct the movement of Russian troops.

There are many problems with Danilov’s statement. In fact, it is possible to speak of a “strategic value” in its destruction of the Crimean Bridge, but this is far from implying any justification. Many anti-humanitarian measures have “strategic value” but should be avoided simply because they are legally and ethically wrong procedures. For example, it is precisely to avoid unreasonable civilian casualties and damage to historical heritage that Moscow refrains from excessive use of air force during the special military operation in Ukraine. No doubt there would also be strategic value in escalating the use of air force.

Carefully measuring one’s own acts to avoid mass victims should be the attitude of any side during a conflict. And this is what should be expected of Kiev, considering that the destruction of the bridge would cause civilian casualties, since non-military people still circulate in the region and would completely obstruct the flow of goods between Crimea and the rest of the Russian territory, which could lead to large supply deficits and social crises.

But, apart from the humanitarian and ethical argument, the main factor is another: Kiev is announcing military attacks on the sovereign territory of the Russian Federation. Both Kerch and Taman, cities connected by the bridge, are part of Russia, so the attack would hit a non-border Russian zone and its respective marine territory, generating a serious provocation. The risk of escalating the conflict into Russia’s sovereign territory may be too high for the Ukrainian side.

The words of Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, confirm this prediction of reaction in the event of an attack: “I hope he [Oleksiy Danilov] understands what Russia would target in retaliation”. Earlier, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov had already announced that Moscow would interpret a bombing of the bridge as a terrorist attack and announced that Moscow is already acting to prevent any Ukrainian action in this regard: “Such a statement [about the potential bombing of the Crimean Bridge] is nothing but an announcement of a possible terrorist act; this is unacceptable (…) All the necessary security measures and precautions by the relevant service are being taken around the bridge and all strategic facilities”.

Still, it is necessary to emphasize the omission of Western countries and international organizations in this case. Kiev announces that it is organizing terrorist-like attitudes and Moscow condemns it, but with no statement of the rest of international society. Ignoring Kiev’s threats seems to have become standard, commonplace action in recent years while, on the other hand, actions of the Russian army are automatically condemned.

Finally, Kiev is on the verge of an escalation of the conflict in which it will not be able to deal with the consequences. If there’s really a plan going on to destroy the bridge, the best thing to do is to abort it.

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

April 26, 2022 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Russia warns about threats of Israeli settlement plans in Syrian Golan

Press TV – April 26, 2022

Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya has once again denounced Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights, stating that the regime’s plans for the expansion of its illegal settlements in the strategic region undermine regional stability.

He made the remarks during a UN Security Council session on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question in New York on Monday.

“Israel’s settlement plans in the occupied Syrian Golan threaten to undermine regional stability,” Nebenzya said.

In 1967, Israel waged a full-scale war against Arab territories, during which it occupied a large area of the Golan and annexed it fourteen years later – a move never recognized by the international community.

In 1973, another war broke out, and a year later, a UN-brokered ceasefire came into force, according to which Tel Aviv and Damascus agreed to separate their troops and create a buffer zone in the Heights. However, Israel has over the past several decades built dozens of illegal settlements in the Golan in defiance of international calls for the regime to stop its illegal construction activities there.

In a unilateral move rejected by the international community in 2019, former US president Donald Trump signed a decree recognizing Israeli “sovereignty” over the Golan.

Nevertheless, Syria has repeatedly reaffirmed its sovereignty over the Golan, saying the territory must be completely restored to its control.

The United Nations has also time and again emphasized Syria’s sovereignty over the territory.

Earlier this year, Deputy Russian Ambassador to the UN Dmitry Polyanskiy said Russia is concerned over Tel Aviv’s announced plans for expanding settlement activity in the occupied Golan Heights.

He said the move directly contradicts the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

“We stress Russia’s unchanging position, according to which we do not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights that are an inalienable part of Syria,” Polyanskiy said on February 23.

Last December, Israel announced that it intends to double the number of its illegal settlements in the Golan, despite an earlier resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly demanding the regime’s full withdrawal from the occupied territory.

Israeli-Russian relations have soured since the beginning of Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine. Observers had already predicted that the Russia-Ukraine crisis could put Israel in a difficult position, as the Tel Aviv regime has good relations with both Moscow and Kiev.

Earlier this month, the Israeli regime voted in favor of a United Nations General Assembly resolution suspending the Russian Federation’s membership in the UN Human Rights Council.

Reacting to the vote, the Russian foreign ministry called the resolution “unlawful and politically motivated.”

It also called the Israeli regime’s support for it “a thinly veiled attempt to take advantage of the situation around Ukraine in order to divert the attention of the international community from one of the oldest unresolved conflicts — the Palestinian-Israeli one.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a “special military operation” in Ukraine on February 24, following Moscow’s recognition of self-declared Lugansk and Donetsk republics, collectively known as the Donbass. The two breakaway regions, located in eastern Ukraine, are largely populated by ethnic Russians.

April 26, 2022 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , | Leave a comment

Moscow lays blame for stalled Ukraine talks

London and Washington made Zelensky backtrack on Istanbul deal, Russian FM Sergey Lavrov says


Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, April 22, 2022
Samizdat | April 26, 2022

There is a belief in Moscow that Washington, London and other Western capitals – not Kiev – are the real decision-makers when it comes to Ukraine, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview on Monday. He said that Kiev’s negotiators backtracked on the tentative understanding reached last month in Istanbul on advice from the US and the UK.

Ukrainian and Russian negotiators met face-to-face in Turkey at the end of March. Russia then took Ukraine’s outline, put it together in a “contractual” format and sent it to Kiev, only to get back “radically different” ideas in what was a “huge step back,” Lavrov said in the interview with the ‘Great Game,’ a political show on Russia’s Channel One.

“We know for sure that neither the US nor the UK – which is trying in every possible way to compensate for its current lonely status after leaving the EU – advised [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky to speed up the negotiations, but to harden his position each time,” Lavrov said. The backtracking after Istanbul, he added, “was taken on the advice of our American or British colleagues. Maybe the Poles and the Balts played some role here.”

Meanwhile, Western leaders – such as the British PM Boris Johnson and EU foreign minister Josep Borrell – make statements to the effect that Russia “must be defeated” and that the conflict needs to be resolved “on the field of battle,” while sending weapons to Kiev, Lavrov pointed out.

“These weapons will be a legitimate target for the Russian Armed Forces,” the foreign minister said. “Warehouses, including in the west of Ukraine, have become such a target more than once. How else? NATO is essentially going to war with Russia through a proxy and arming that proxy. In war, as in war.”

While “casting spells” against a Third World War, the West is fueling the conflict with weapons and hoping to have the “fight Russia to the last man” in order to bleed Moscow, Lavrov said.

“You know, goodwill is not unlimited,” he added. “If it is not reciprocated, then this does not contribute to the negotiation process. As before, many of us are convinced – as I have already mentioned – that the real position of Ukraine is determined in Washington, London and other Western capitals,” he said, noting that some political scientists have said that talks should be held with NATO, and not Zelensky.

However, Lavrov also pointed out that Russia has not had much luck talking to NATO directly. When Moscow presented its security proposals to the US and NATO in December 2021, they were politely heard and then ignored.

“Rather impolitely, they made it clear that what was needed for our security was not up to us to decide,” Lavrov said.

The objectives of the “special military operation” announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 24 have not changed, Lavrov said: the destruction of military infrastructure in Ukraine that threatened Russia, with “the strictest measures in order to minimize any damage to the civilian population.”

Lavrov also offered a prediction how the conflict would end. “As in any situation where armed forces are used, everything will end with a treaty,” he said. “But its parameters will be determined by the stage of hostilities at which this treaty becomes a reality.”

Russia attacked the neighboring state in late February, following Ukraine’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, first signed in 2014, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German and French brokered Minsk Protocol was designed to give the breakaway regions special status within the Ukrainian state.

The Kremlin has since demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.

April 25, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine is a Pawn on the Grand Chessboard

By Rick Sterling | Dissident Voice | April 23, 2022

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard was published 25 years ago. His assumptions and strategies for maintaining U.S. global dominance have been hugely influential in US foreign policy. As the conflict in Ukraine evolves, with the potential of escalating into world war, we can see where this policy leads and how crucial it is to re-evaluate.

The need to dominate Eurasia

The basic premise of The Grand Chessboard is outlined in the introduction:

  • with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States is the sole global power
  • Europe and Asia (Eurasia) together have the largest land area, population and economy
  • U.S. must control Eurasia and prevent another country from challenging US dominance

Brzezinski sums up the situation: “America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe’s central arena.” He adds “It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of challenging America.”

The book surveys the different nations in Eurasia, from Japan in the east to the UK in the west. The entire land mass of Europe and Asia is covered. This is the “grand chessboard” and Brzezinski analyzes how the US should “play” different pieces on the board to keep potential rivals down and the US in control.

Brzezinski’s Influence

Brzezinski was a very powerful National Security Advisor to President Carter. Before that, he founded the Trilateral Commission. Later he taught Madeline Albright and many other key figures in US foreign policy.

Brzezinski initiated the “Afghanistan Trap”. That was the secret 1979 US program to mobilize and support mujahedin foreign fighters to invade and destabilize Afghanistan. In this period, Afghanistan was undergoing dramatic positive changes. As described by Canadian academic John Ryan, “Afghanistan once had a progressive secular government, with broad popular support. It had enacted progressive reforms and gave equal rights to women.”

The Brzezinski plan was to utilize reactionary local forces and foreign fighters to create enough mayhem that the government would ask the neighboring Soviet Union to send military support. The overall goal was to “bog down the Soviet army” and “give them their own Vietnam”.

With enormous funding from the US and Saudi Arabia beginning in 1978, the plan resulted in chaos, starvation and bloodshed in Afghanistan which continues to today. Approximately 6 million Afghans became refugees fleeing the chaos and war.

Years later, when interviewed about this policy, Brzezinski was proud and explicit: “We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” When asked if he had regrets for the decades of mayhem in Afghanistan, he was clear: “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? …. Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire…. What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Muslims or the liberation of central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

Afghanistan was a pawn in the US campaign against the Soviet Union. The amorality of US foreign policy is clear and consistent, from the destruction of Afghanistan beginning in 1978 continuing to the current starvation caused by US freezing of Afghan government reserves.

The blow-back is also clear. The foreign fighters trained by the US and Saudis became Al Qaeda and then ISIS. The 2016 Orlando nightclub massacre, where 49 died and 53 were wounded was perpetrated by the son of an Afghan refugee who never would have come to the US if his country had not been intentionally destabilized. Paul Fitzgerald eloquently describes the tragedy in his article Brzezinski’s vision to lure Soviets into Afghan Trap now Orlando’s nightmare.

US Supremacy and Exceptionalism

The Grand Chessboard assumes US supremacy and exceptionalism and adds the strategy for implementing and enforcing this “primacy” on the biggest and most important arena: Eurasia.

Brzezinski does not countenance a multi-polar world. “A world without US primacy will be a world with more violence and disorder and less democracy and economic growth ….” and “The only real alternative to American global leadership in the foreseeable future is international anarchy.”

These assertions continue today as the US foreign policy establishment repeatedly talks about the “rules based order” and “international community”, ignoring the fact that the West is a small fraction of humanity. Toward the end of his book, Brzezinski suggests the “upgrading” the United Nations and a “new distribution of responsibilities and privileges” that take into account the “changed realities of global power.”

The importance of NATO and Ukraine

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, many people in the West believed NATO was no longer needed. NATO claimed to be strictly a defensive alliance and its only rival had disbanded.

Brzezinski and other US hawks saw that NATO could be used to expand US hegemony and keep weapons purchases flowing. Thus he wrote that, “an enlarged NATO will serve well both the short-term and the longer-term goals of U.S. policy.”

Brzezinski was adamant that Russian concerns or fears should be dismissed. “Any accommodation with Russia on the issue of NATO enlargement should not entail an outcome that has the effect of making Russia a de facto decision making member of the alliance.” Brzezinski was skillful at presenting an aggressive and offensive policy in the best light.

Brzezinski presents Ukraine as the pivotal country for containing Russia. He says, “Ukraine is the critical state, insofar as Russia’s future evolution is concerned.” He says, “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.” This is another example of his skillful wording because Ukraine as part of a hostile military alliance does not only prevent a Russian “empire”; it presents a potential threat. Kyiv is less than 500 miles from Moscow and Ukraine was a major route of the Nazi invasion.

Brzezinski was well aware of the controversial nature of Ukraine’s borders. On page 104 he gives a quote that shows many people of eastern Ukraine wanted out of Ukraine since the breakup of the Soviet Union. The 1996 quote from a Moscow newspaper reports, “In the foreseeable future events in eastern Ukraine confront Russia with a very difficult problem. Mass manifestations of discontent … will be accompanied by appeals to Russia, or even demands, to take over the region.”

Despite this reality, Brzezinski is dismissive of Russian rights and complaints. He bluntly says, “ Europe is America’s essential geopolitical bridgehead on the Eurasian continent.” and “Western Europe and increasingly Central Europe remain largely an American protectorate.” The unstated assumption is that the US has every right to dominate Eurasia from afar.

Brzezinski advises Russia to decentralize with the free market and a loose confederation of “European Russia, a Siberian Russia and a Far Eastern Republic”.

Afghanistan is the model

Brzezinski realizes that Russia presents a potential challenge to US domination of Eurasia, especially if it allies with China. In the “Grand Chessboard”, he writes, “If the middle space rebuffs the West, becomes an assertive single entity, and either gains control over the South or forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor, then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically.” Russia is the “middle space” and China is the “major Eastern actor”.

What was feared by the US strategist has happened: For the past 20 years, Russia and China have been building an alliance dedicated to ending US hegemony and beginning a new era in international relations.

This may be why the US aggressively provoked the crisis in Ukraine. The list of provocations is clear: moral and material support for Maidan protests, rejection of the EU agreement (“F*** the EU”), the sniper murders and violent 2014 coup, ignoring the Minsk Agreement approved by the UN Security Council, NATO advisors and training for ultra-nationalists, lethal weaponry to Ukraine, refusal to accept Ukrainian non-membership in NATO, threats to invade Donbass and Crimea.

Before Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, active duty soldier and former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “They actually want Russia to invade Ukraine. Why would they? Because it gives the Biden administration a clear excuse to levy draconian sanctions… against Russia and the Russian people and number two, it cements this cold war in place. The military industrial complex is the one who benefits from this. They clearly control the Biden administration. Warmongers on both sides in Washington who have been drumming up these tensions. If they get Russia to invade Ukraine it locks in this new cold war, the military industrial complex starts to make a ton more money …. Who pays the price? The American people … the Ukrainian people … the Russian people pay the price. It undermines our own national security but the military industrial complex which controls so many of our elected officials wins and they run to the bank.”

This is accurate but the reasons for the provocations go deeper. Hillary Clinton recently summed up the wishes and dreams of Washington hawks: “The Russians invaded Afghanistan back in 1980 … a lot of countries supplied arms, advice and even some advisors to those who were recruited to fight Russia… a well funded insurgency basically drove the Russians out of Afghanistan…. I think that is the model people are now looking toward.”

US foreign policy has been consistent from Brzezinski to Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton and on to Victoria Nuland. The results are seen in Aghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine.

As with Afghanistan, the US “didn’t push Russia to intervene” but “knowingly increased the probability that they would.” The purpose is the same in both cases: to use a pawn to undermine and potentially eliminate a rival. We expect the US will make every effort to prolong the bloodshed and war, to bog down the Russian army and prevent a peaceful settlement. The US goal is just what Joe Biden said: regime change in Moscow.

Like Afghanistan, Ukraine is just a pawn on the chessboard.

April 24, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia says it destroyed weapons delivered by US and EU to Ukraine

Samizdat | April 23, 2022

Russian forces have destroyed a logistics terminal in Odessa that held a large batch of foreign weapons, Moscow said on Saturday amid its ongoing military offensive in Ukraine. However, the city’s authorities claimed that its air defense group destroyed two missiles but that another four hit a military target and residential buildings, leading to victims. It was not immediately clear if the civilian buildings were hit as a result of attempts by Ukrainian forces to strike down the missiles initially aimed at a military target.

According to Russian military spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov, in the afternoon, “high-precision long-range air-launched missiles” hit a logistics terminal located on a military airfield near Odessa, where “a large batch of foreign weapons received from the United States and European countries was stored.”

Russia has repeatedly warned NATO against sending arms to Ukraine and stated that it would consider arms convoys to be legitimate military targets.

Odessa regional emergency services earlier said that “as a result of an enemy shelling,” a sixteen-story residential building caught fire, which was put out in about two and a half hours.

“At this point it is known that 6 people died, including one child, and 18 people were injured. Two people were rescued from the rubble, 86 people were evacuated,” the authorities said in a statement.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, speaking later at a press conference in Kiev, elaborated on these claims.

“At this very moment eight people have died. Eighteen or twenty have been injured. A three-month old child died. A three-month old child was killed. When the war started, this child was just one month old. Can you imagine this?” Zelensky said.

According to the press office of Ukraine’s South Air Command, on Saturday the air defense group destroyed two cruise missiles, allegedly launched by Russian TU-95 strategic aircraft from the Caspian Sea, and two operational-tactical level UAVs, which “presumably corrected the flight of cruise missiles and placed active obstacles to air defenses.”

“Unfortunately, 2 missiles hit a military facility and 2 {hit} residential buildings,” the Ukrainian military claimed.

April 23, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Sending heavy weapons to Ukraine in German interests?

By Lucas Leiroz | April 22, 2022

Political polarization in Germany continues to increase. Currently, there is strong pressure for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to take a more incisive stance on the Ukrainian issue. The opposition insists on the need to send weapons to support Zelensky, endorsing the speech spread by NATO and the EU. It is evident that by refusing to take such positions, Scholz is trying to look for the interests of his country, but it remains to be seen whether he will be really strong enough to deal with the pressure coming both externally, from Brussels and London, and internally in Berlin.

Recently, Scholz met in London with his British counterpart Boris Johnson to discuss the Ukrainian conflict. During the conversation, Johnson clearly pressed Scholz to go along with the UK and the rest of the West in their stance of absolute opposition to Russia in the conflict. The Chancellor, however, avoided giving clear answers and maintained his ambiguous position on the possibility of supporting Kiev militarily, preventing from doing more incisive statements and preferring silence.

What happened next was even more remarkable and symbolic: the British prime minister traveled to Kiev to meet with Zelensky while Scholz returned to Germany in order to promote electoral campaign. The international mainstream media took advantage of the fact to intensify its pro-NATO propaganda, claiming that Scholz is concerned only with his internal political condition, ignoring the current international situation, while the Western world is supposedly “concerned” and takes the Ukrainian issue as a “humanitarian” priority.

In Germany, Scholz’s opponents are also increasingly agitated to criticize the chancellor, taking benefit of international pressure to intensify polarization and generate a crisis of legitimacy against him. Obviously, this was a predictable attitude on the part of opposition groups, but the main problem currently is that Scholz is losing support within his own coalition. The Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Green Party are deeply dissatisfied with Germany’s unwillingness to send weapons to Kiev and use the case as a pretext to point to Scholz as a “big problem” to be solved through an electoral overthrow. And, in this sense, his situation is really worsening day after day.

In general, Scholz’s enemies demand that he takes a more active stance on the German role in the conflict. The chancellor is characterized by an extremely passive posture, avoiding making decisions until they become inevitable. Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, a member of the FDP and head of the Defense Committee in parliament, for example, recently commented that Scholz needs to “take the baton in his hand and set the rhythm.” In other words, opponents are asking Scholz to guarantee Germany a leading role on the European stage, as might be expected from the continent’s greatest economic power.

The central problem in this topic is that Scholz already seems to have realized that the most strategic thing for Germany is to remain as neutral as possible and away from any involvement in activities that harm the partnership with Russia, which is a very important commercial pillar for Germany. Scholz did not want to adhere to large-scale economic sanctions, especially regarding the SWIFT ban and the energy boycott. But he was forced to slowly accept such measures as other Western countries implemented them. This has been his typical behavior: postponing but, in the end, passively adhering to all Western measures when he finds himself “isolated”.

In this sense, the opposition is right on one point: Scholz has to change his attitudes and assume a leadership position, since this is what is expected from a country like Germany, which for years has consolidated itself as one of the “leaders” of the European bloc. The oppositionists’ problem is that they are pressuring Scholz to assume a leadership stance that is as damaging to German interests as his current indecision and passivity.

It is naive to think that sending heavy weapons to Ukraine benefits German interests in any way. On the contrary, it only extends the abyss between Moscow and Berlin even further, and with practically no benefit in return for the Germans: neither Ukraine will be sufficiently strengthened to win the conflict by receiving such heavy weaponry, nor will Germany reassume a supposed role of “leadership” in Europe.

It is not by chance that the greatest pressure on the Germans so far has been exerted precisely by Boris Johnson. The UK is not part of the EU and therefore does not care about the German role in the bloc, but, on the other hand, it is one of the most important members of NATO and tries to elevate its status in the military alliance as a way of boosting its international image in this post-Brexit context. In fulfilling British requests, Scholz would only be pursuing non-German and non-European interests.

It is obvious that there is also pressure within Europe and within Germany itself, but this pressure belongs to an outdated view of what the role of Germans and Europeans in the Western world should be. Scholz’s opponents apparently still expect a totally submissive stance on NATO from Berlin. This is also a very active thought in Brussels, with a strong tendency to see the entire European continent as a mere annex of the American military umbrella, ignoring that Europe has its own interests, which can often collide with those of the Western military alliance. That is why, in trying to prevent Germany from getting actively involved in the Ukrainian case, Scholz proves to be a really pragmatic politician who prioritizes the interests of his own country, but without the political force necessary to guarantee them.

In addition, there is a topic that needs to be mentioned, which is the German military passiveness of the last seventy years. Although it is active within NATO and has been trying to reform its defense forces in recent years, Berlin remains a virtual-demilitarized country, with an army of low offensive potential, outdated weaponry and a low-investment war industry.

In order to send heavy weapons to Ukraine, Germany would have to start a broad military industrial investment, which would cost it not only millions of euros, but a change in its international image, returning to being a nation of effective participation in international conflicts. Of course, improving its military status is a German right, but it must be taken into account in the name of what Berlin intends to do so. Would it really be strategic to break with seventy years of pacifism to defend the interests of the Maidan Junta in a conflict where Russian victory is highly predictable?

Scholz needs to be strong and active in defending German interests. His posture of passivity and silence demonstrates weakness and damages the image of both him and his country. But his stance must not be to subject Germany even more to foreign interests: on the contrary, he must assert what is in Berlin’s interests and pragmatically defend it, even if he has to clash with the NATO’s plans to do so. If Germany is interested in neutrality and maintaining good relations with Russia, Scholz must not only refrain from adhering to the new Western sanctions but also revoke those taken so far.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and a geopolitical consultant.

April 22, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian airlines told to prepare to fly without GPS

Samizdat | April 22, 2022

Russia’s air traffic regulator has told carriers to learn to fly their planes without relying on the American Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite-based-navigation facility, newspaper Izvestia reported on Friday.

According to the letter from the regulator, Rosaviatsia, which was seen by the paper, it has instructed national airlines to prepare to cope without GPS after a March report by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which warned of increased cases of jamming and spoofing of the system’s signal after February 24 – the day Russia started its military offensive in Ukraine.

These were apparently registered in such areas as Russia’s western enclave, the Kaliningrad Region, the Baltics, eastern Finland, the Black Sea, the eastern Mediterranean, Israel, Cyprus, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and northern Iran.

The interference has led to some planes changing their course or destination as the pilots were unable to perform a safe landing without the GPS, EASA has reportedly said.

According to Rosaviatsia, carriers should evaluate the risks of GPS malfunction and provide additional training to its pilots on how to act in such situations. The crews have also reportedly been told to instantly inform traffic control about any problems with a satellite navigation system.

The letter from the agency should be treated as a recommendation only and doesn’t constitute a ban on the use of GPS by the Russian airlines, the paper clarified.

Several Russian carriers, including major ones like Aeroflot and S7, have confirmed receiving a relevant message from the traffic regulator. However, they insisted that they didn’t encounter any problems with GPS over the past two months.

Rosaviatsia later clarified that “disconnection from GPS or its disruption won’t affect flight safety in Russia.”

The GPS signal isn’t the only source of information about the location of a plane at any given moment. Crews can also rely on the aircraft’s inertial navigation system, as well as ground-based navigation and landing systems, the agency said.

Last month, Dmitry Rogozin, head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos, warned that Washington may well disconnect the country from GPS as part of draconian sanctions imposed on it over the conflict in Ukraine.

On Friday, Rogozin took to Telegram to propose switching all of the country’s commercial planes from GPS to its Russian counterpart, Glonass.

However, it might be a complicated thing to do as Boeing and Airbus planes, mainly used by the country’s carriers, are designed to solely support the GPS technology.

April 22, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia warns G20 of global impact of sanctions

Samizdat | April 21, 2022

Sanctions imposed on Russia are creating serious risks to the global economy, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said via video link at a meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in Washington, DC on Wednesday.

“Excessively loose budgetary and monetary policy pursued in recent years in developed countries created inflationary pressure last year, and the sanctions imposed against Russia not only further strengthened it, but also led to new risks in the economy,” Siluanov said.

Spiking prices for energy and agricultural produce will hit developing and low-income countries, the minister warned, adding that some countries will face severe social consequences.

According to Siluanov, Russia has never refused to fulfill its obligations and continues to comply with all contracts’ terms, while shipments of goods across the global markets are being artificially restrained by sanctions, triggering an imbalance in supply and demand.

Russia has faced unprecedented penalties introduced by the US and its allies in retaliation to the Ukrainian military operation.

In less than two months, Russia has turned into the world’s most sanctioned nation, having become subject to more than 6,000 different targeted restrictions.

April 21, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

INDIA TODAY INTERVIEWS SERGEY LAVROV IN MOSCOW

April 19, 2022

Interview by Geeta Mohan of India Today.

April 21, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Why Is Russia Still Collaborating With Countries That Are Actively Working to Destroy It?

By Edward Slavsquat | Anti-Empire | April 20, 2022

Close your eyes and imagine you’re Russia.

You’re scrambling to create an alternative financial system in order to bypass 100 gazillion sanctions.

At the same time, you’re formulating “global health” policies with the same countries that are actively trying to destroy your economy.

Something doesn’t quite add up here.

Imagine being Russia and implementing “health recommendations” from an organization funded by Germany, Bill Gates, the UK and the USA. And yet…

There is endless excitement about Russia’s imminent “economic sovereignty,” but what about Russia’s medical sovereignty? Does it matter if Russia adopts the golden petro-yuan (or whatever) if it continues to copy-paste “health measures” drafted by an organization that gets most of its funding from NATO states and Bill Gates?

It’s a serious question, especially because the WHO is forging ahead with its so-called “global pandemic treaty.” Slated for completion in 2024, the agreement will give the World Health Organization unprecedented powers to combat new outbreaks of positive PCR tests.

Does Russia really need this? After two years of the WHO’s non-stop virus scamming, maybe it’s time to pull the plug?

Thankfully, a grassroots campaign (aided by lawmakers) seeks Russia’s immediate withdrawal from the WHO. This is an excellent idea—but is it possible?

Russia’s unrepentant WHO-love

It’s fun to fantasize about loading Dr. Tedros into a Novichok cannon and launching him into outer space, but it’s not so simple. The World Health Organization has friends in high places. Some prominent WHO-lovers in the Russian government include:

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council: This guy is completely smitten with global “health” tyranny. In November, Medvedev whined about how the WHO lacked “the leverage to force states to pursue a single, coordinated policy at all levels” during a declared worldwide health emergency. Thankfully he offered a solution to this terrible conundrum:

It is necessary to think about giving WHO the authority to make significant mobilization decisions in the interests of the entire world community in an emergency situation (for example, during a pandemic). It is likely that in order for the WHO to obtain such authority, it will be necessary for the UN members to adopt an international convention on cooperation in this area.

There you have it: Medvedev has fully endorsed the idea of a pandemic treaty and wants Russia to submit to the WHO whenever there are too many positive PCR tests or other existential threats to public health. (It’s charming how over the last two months, Medvedev has endeavored to rebrand himself as a mighty crusader against the depraved West. Yes, he’s a true patriot.)

Mikhail Murashko, Health Minister: Okay, maybe Medvedev is an insufferable WHO groupie, but so what? He’s not in charge of health policy. That’s Murashko’s job:

Yikes.

Russia has agreed to participate in the creation of a pandemic treaty, but with the stipulation that any new agreement should not “duplicate” previous accords.

What does this mean, exactly? It’s open to interpretation and gives Russia room to maneuver. [It sounds to me like it means the new agreement should go beyond existing agreements.] That being said, Murashko can hardly be described as hostile to the WHO; on the contrary, he’s worked tirelessly to make Russia WHO-friendly. Unsurprisingly, Murashko is also an unapologetic advocate for digital cattle tags.

Tatyana Golikova, Deputy Prime Minister: Russia’s former health minister (2007-2012) is True Believer who has been heaping praise on the WHO for more than a decade. Over the past two years she’s been instrumental in ensuring Russia’s adoption of WHO-endorsed anti-health measures.

But there’s also been some finger-wagging. In May 2021, Golikova told the WHO it needed to “speed up” its procedure for approving new vaccines. Because public health.

Sergey Sobyanin, Mayor of Moscow: In September 2020, Sobyanin thanked the WHO for inspiring him to impose a lockdown on Russia’s capital.

“I would like to express my gratitude to the World Health Organization, which from the first days of the pandemic has always informed the world community, both Russia and Moscow, about the processes that are taking place in different countries that were the first to be infected with COVID-19,” the mayor told Hans Kluge, the director of the WHO’s European Bureau.

Nine months later, Sobyanin became a trailblazer for compulsory vaccination and QR codes in Russia.

Cool WHO flag, bro.

Anna Popova, head of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor): As Russia’s chief sanitary doctor, Popova has taken on the role of National COVID Nanny. Her penchant for arbitrary and useless “epidemiological” measures can be attributed in part to her devotion to the WHO.

In October, Popova supervised a WHO exercise held in Kazan that simulated the outbreak of an infectious disease.

Popova oversaw WHO-sponsored Virus Games in Kazan (source)

The Rospotrebnadzor chief said the simulation would be used to develop international standards for rapid response to “epidemiological threats” around the world.

Ungrateful Kazan residents protested against the WHO-sponsored Virus Games, apparently because they felt they were being used as guinea pigs (ridiculous!).

Russia’s upper management is basically completely A-Okay with the WHO. So, uh, who doesn’t like the WHO? We’re glad you asked…

The fellowship of anti-WHO Duma deputies

Russia’s parliamentarians are starting to ask: “Hey, why are we part of an organization that is almost entirely funded by hostile NATO members/Bill Gates?” Good question.

Pyotr Tolstoy, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma: Tolstoy has called for Russia to withdraw from the WHO as well as the World Trade Organization and UNESCO. According to the senior lawmaker, it was idiotic of Russia to join these esteemed US-dominated global bodies in the first place.

Yana Lantratova, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Education: Lantratova believes Russia should suspend its cooperation with the WHO due to the organization’s links to biological laboratories in Ukraine.

“All of you know about the work of WHO around the world, it seems to me that interaction with this international organization in the current geopolitical situation does not meet the national interests of the Russian Federation,” she said last week. “Russia should suspend its membership in the WHO until the end of the parliamentary investigation. This will not affect on the health care system in Russia, but the fact that the organization has been collaborating for several years with biological laboratories created in Ukraine by American specialists cannot be ignored.”

Sergey Leonov, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Health Protection: Although he opposes leaving the WHO, Leonov thinks Russia should stop paying membership fees.

“It is not entirely clear what benefit this organization brings to us,” the deputy said on March 30.

Sergei Mironov, parliamentary leader of A Just Russia — For Truth: Mironov and other members of his party recently introduced a draft resolution to the State Duma calling for Russia to suspend its membership with the WHO.

The proposed legislation would halt cooperation with the organization pending the results of a parliamentary investigation into the WHO’s dealings in Ukraine.

While lawmakers are focusing their rage on Ukraine-related WHO shenanigans, Russian activists have taken a more “big picture” stance: The World Health Organizations is actively destroying our health, and that’s bad.

“A direct threat to our national sovereignty”

What’s going on outside of the Duma chambers? Quite a bit.

A group of prominent Russian activists held a roundtable on April 14 to discuss how to safeguard Russia’s medical sovereignty. According to an excellent report from Katyusha.org, numerous participants called on Russia to withdraw from the WHO.

Anti-clot-shot crusader and conservative firebrand Alexandra Mashkova-Blagikh (whom your humble Moscow correspondent had the honor of meeting at the Doctors For Truth conference in December) gave a particularly rousing speech at last week’s event:

The WHO has been turned into an instrument of geopolitics. Whom it serves is clear if you look at its main sponsors: the USA, the Bill Gates Foundation, Germany, Britain… In the conditions of the war being waged against Russia, we cannot afford such a partnership. We are dealing with cultural, value, demographic and biological terrorism.

Now, under the pretext of the need to fight a “pandemic”, the WHO seeks to expand its power around the world through the Pandemic Agreement. This is a direct threat to our national sovereignty. It is obvious that this structure will never act in the interests of our country, and the time has come to withdraw from this organization. It is encouraging that serious politicians have started talking about this.

A coalition of activist groups has also issued an open letter calling for the removal of WHO-loving government officials (including many of the unsavory specimens we listed above).

What happens now?

A lot can happen in two years. What will the world look like in May 2024, when the pandemic treaty is scheduled for completion and ratification?

Probably we will all be eating bug-tacos in socially distanced quarantine camps as Triple-Ebola Swine Pox (a positive PCR test) ravishes the Earth.

If Russia wants to avoid this unpleasant future, it should probably not volunteer to be a “co-author” of any WHO-related treaty. Just to be on the safe side, Russia should exit this regrettable organization immediately. Today. Preferably right now.

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia accuses OSCE of ‘spying’ for Ukraine

Samizdat | April 20, 2022

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) collaborated with the Ukrainian government in its fight against the Donbass republics and tried to cover up offences by Ukrainian nationalist forces, Russia’s deputy representative to the UN told a UN Security Council meeting on Tuesday.

The accusations came as Dmitry Polyansky blasted Western powers, saying they were being hypocritical regarding the security crisis in Ukraine. The US and its allies pursue their own selfish interests rather than the interests of the Ukrainian people, when they fan hostilities in the east European country, the diplomat said.

“We obtained the latest proof of how dirty your tricks are in building a ‘rules-based order’ when we discovered proof that the OSCE special monitoring mission in Ukraine simply spied for Kiev instead of recording violations of the ceasefire,” he claimed. The official said Russia was collecting more evidence to make the case against the monitors.

Polyansky made more allegations as he brought up the seizure of official OSCE vehicles by Ukrainian nationalist troops in the city of Mariupol. He said there were reports that eight cars, some of them armored, were taken by the Ukrainians at gun point. One of them was later filmed with clear signs of use in battle. Similar reports came from other places in eastern Ukraine, he said.

“The OSCE leadership was aware of the problem, but they chose to hush up this fact as long as it could,” the Russian official claimed.

He added that such discoveries “undermined trust in international organizations where Western officials play a dominant role.” This lack of trust makes Moscow question any calls for a humanitarian ceasefire in Ukraine coming from the West, the official said.

“In practice, [the calls] demonstrated a desire to give Kiev nationalists and radicals a pause to regroup, receive new shipments of drones, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, and stage more inhumane provocations to spread lies about the actions of Russian soldiers,” Polyansky said.

Russia will differentiate between “pseudo-peacemaking” and genuine attempts to “help Ukraine take the long-necessary right decisions,” he said.

The OSCE was invited to Ukraine to monitor the situation in the country in March 2014, shortly after an armed coup in Kiev triggered a spike in tensions in the east. The Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) became a crucial tool in observing a truce between government forces and rebels, which was listed as the first part of the roadmap to peace set in the so-called Minsk agreements. OSCE monitors patrolled the disengagement line to check whether deployments of forces by the warring parties complied with the deal and to report any violations of the ceasefire.

The field mission was the biggest in the organization’s history, with as many as 814 international and 477 national staff involved and over 2,400 daily reports produced in eight years.

The mission’s mandate expired on March 31, with Russia opposing its extension. Moscow accused the OSCE of pushing Russian representatives out of the SMM even as the number of observers was increasing.

As he explained the country’s decision to withdraw its participation and funding, the Russian representative at the organization, Aleksandr Lukashevich accused the OSCE of taking Kiev’s side in treating the two Donbass republics as “a territory under control of some terrorists,” and virtually refusing to coordinate with them.

Last week, the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics decided to ban OSCE monitors on their respective territories starting April 30. Both are investigating allegations of espionage by members of the mission. The government in Lugansk reported arresting two OSCE employees suspected of treason. Russia is conducting its own criminal investigation of the espionage claims.

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Deception | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »