Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Putin comments on borders of Donbass republics

RT | February 22, 2022

Moscow has recognized the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk with the borders they’ve had as regions of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters at a press conference at the Kremlin on Tuesday.

“We have recognized them, which means that we recognize their basic documents, including their constitutions. Those constitutions set the boundaries as those of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions from the time they were a part of Ukraine,” Putin told reporters.

Earlier, Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko had said that Moscow would respect the borders of the two republics according to where local leaders exercised authority and jurisdiction. About half of the territory that had been part of both regions before the split effectively remains under the control of Ukrainian government troops.

The Russian president spoke after a meeting with his counterpart from Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. Meanwhile, the upper house of the Russian parliament has authorized the deployment of Russian troops abroad “in accordance with the principles and norms of international law.”

The resolution did not impose any specific limits on the use of the military, with the number of troops, as well as “the areas of their activity, their goals, and length of stay outside Russia” to be decided by the president “in accordance with the Constitution.”

Putin recognized the two breakaway republics on Monday, and asked the Russian Ministry of Defense to deploy peacekeepers into both Donetsk and Lugansk in order to provide for their security. No troops have been sent so far, however. Putin told reporters not to assume the military will move in today.

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

Details of Russia-Donbass cooperation treaty emerge

RT | February 21, 2022

While the treaties of friendship and cooperation between Russia and the newly recognized republics of Donetsk and Lugansk are still in the draft stage, the Russian State Duma has released the proposed documents on Monday, showing that they will include common defense against external aggression and the right to use each other’s military infrastructure, among other things.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has recognized the people’s republics of Donetsk and Lugansk – two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine – as independent states on Monday.

The State Duma overwhelmingly voted in favor of recognizing the rebel regions last week. The draft treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with both newly recognized states – due to last at least 10 years – have now been published on the legislature’s website.

Of particular interest is Article 5, which gives both contracting parties the right to “build, use and improve military infrastructure, bases and other objects on their territory.” The Kremlin has already ordered Russian troops to deploy into the two areas as peacekeepers, pending a formal treaty on military cooperation.

Article 6 bars both parties from “entering any blocs or alliances directed against either of them” and will not allow their territory to be used for launching attacks against one another.

Article 11 envisions free movement of citizens between the contracting parties, and obligates both Russia and the republics to “develop and implement an agreed set of measures to regulate the regime of entry into and exit from their territory of citizens of third countries.”

Article 13 also obligates the contracting parties to protect the “ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious identity of national minorities in their territories and create conditions to preserve and develop” these identities while guaranteeing individual and collective minority rights “without being subjected to any attempts of assimilation against their will.”

Donetsk and Lugansk declared independence from Ukraine in 2014, after US-backed nationalists overthrew the democratically elected government in Kiev. They sought recognition from Russia at the time, but Moscow declined, insisting their conflict was an internal Ukrainian matter.

Russia had joined France and Germany in the so-called Normandy Format to mediate an armistice between Kiev and the rebels in Minsk in 2014-2015. The process envisioned Ukraine giving the two regions broad autonomy, but Kiev repeatedly declined to live up to its obligations – instead changing Ukraine’s constitution to make that impossible.

Putin cited this development and accused Ukraine of wanting to conquer the two regions by force, in his speech on Monday announcing the recognition of the Donbass republics as a move “long overdue.”

February 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Putin orders Russian military to Donbass Republics as peacekeepers

The president has signed a decree pledging cooperation between Russia and the two breakaway regions

RT | February 21, 2022

President Vladimir Putin has ordered the Russian military to “secure the peace” in the newly recognized Donetsk and Lugansk republics, which were formerly considered to be part of Ukraine.

Moscow officially recognized the independence of the two breakaway regions on Monday.

Putin has instructed the Defense Ministry to send peacekeepers into the Donbass, while telling the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to establish diplomatic relations with the states.

The Kremlin’s official move comes shortly after Putin’s lengthy address to the nation on Monday evening. In it, he explained the step as a long overdue response to what he described as the “brotherly” Ukrainian nation becoming a “colony” of the West and falling under the rule of a “russophobic” government both hostile to Moscow and denying ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers basic human rights.

Donetsk and Lugansk declared independence from Kiev in 2014, after US-backed nationalists overthrew the democratically elected government in the Maidan coup. However, Moscow has refused to recognize them until now, saying the problem is an internal affair of Ukraine and needs to be resolved according to the Minsk agreements, which established an uneasy armistice in 2015.

Earlier on Monday, however, the Donetsk leader Denis Pushilin and Lugansk leader Leonid Pasechnik formally requested recognition from Moscow once again, as both Donbass regions and Ukraine claimed intensive artillery exchanges along the armistice line.

In his speech, Putin said that the Minsk process had failed and that Ukraine is “not interested in peaceful solutions – they want to start a Blitzkrieg.”

February 21, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

NATO is trying to create irresolvable confrontation with Russia – Lavrov

By Ailis Halligan | RT | February 21, 2022

The West is attempting to incite an unavoidable confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Monday.

Speaking to his Syrian counterpart, Faisal Mekdad, Lavrov lamented that Russia is unable to focus its efforts on its relationship with the Middle Eastern country, blaming Western attempts to fan the flames of conflict in Ukraine, allegedly with the goal of encouraging war between Russia and NATO.

“The situation in the world is developing rapidly. This also applies to northern Africa and the Middle East, including Syria,” Lavrov said. “Unfortunately, our efforts with you … are affected by the atmosphere that is now being escalated our Western colleagues.”

According to Lavrov, the “Western alliance” is trying to create an “almost insurmountable confrontation” with Russia.

According to the foreign minister, Moscow wants to focus its efforts on working towards a ceasefire and political settlement in Syria.

The Russian presence in the country, at the invitation of President Bashar Assad, has been ongoing since 2015, and is aimed at aiding Damascus’ fight against extremist Islamist terrorism.

The minister also stressed that NATO attempts to spoil Russia’s reputation due to its presence in Syria would be fruitless.

“We certainly will not allow such attempts to undermine our ability to achieve concrete results,” he noted, stressing that Russia would work to strengthen Syria’s “sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence.”

In response, Mekdad revealed Syria’s support and gratitude for Russia’s efforts and echoed Lavrov’s attack on NATO.

“The campaign of hypocrisy, lies, and deception waged by the West is the same as the campaign it launched against Syria,” Mekdad said.

Lavrov is due to meet with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Europe on Thursday to discuss options for diffusing rapidly growing tensions surrounding Ukraine. Many NATO members, including the US, have made allegations that Russia is preparing for an imminent invasion of its neighbor. The Kremlin has denied this.

February 21, 2022 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Joe Biden Regime One Year On… America Is Back, With More Aggression Than Ever

Biden hasn’t started a war yet. But he’s still got three years to go and the first one fills the outlook with dread.

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 19, 2022

This weekend marks Joe Biden’s first year in office since his inauguration on January 20, 2021, as 46th president of the United States. In that time, it’s quite staggering how rapidly relations have deteriorated between the U.S. and Russia on the one hand and China on the other.

Right now, Europe is on the cusp of a war breaking out between a U.S.-backed regime in Ukraine and Russia. The volatile situation has the potential to drag the U.S. and other NATO powers into a proxy war with Russia, if not a full-blown international military conflict that could escalate into a nuclear conflagration.

Washington’s baleful relations with Beijing have been eclipsed by the recent stand-off with Russia. But make no mistake, U.S.-China tensions have also been heightened with the attendant risk of war. Much of the tension has been increased by the Biden administration’s provocations towards China over the breakaway island province of Taiwan. Under Biden, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan have burgeoned as have the large-scale maneuvers of American military forces near Chinese territory – in the name of “freedom of navigation”.

Let’s rewind to Biden’s inauguration on that cold, sunny day of January 20 last year. There was the usual jamboree that often accompanies a new Democrat president. We saw it when Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were installed in the White House. Likewise, with Biden’s tenure, there were expectations of a more professional president, a more multilateral president, a more proficient president on foreign policy, and, dare we say, a more refined and law-abiding president. As usual, there was rosy rhetoric about how Biden would recover America’s international image that had been tarnished under his boorish predecessor, Donald Trump.

Biden declared over and over again that “America was back” as he took office. European leaders swooned at the prospect of again having an American ally who respected them. The expectation was that the “adults were back in control” of U.S. policy (whatever that’s supposed to mean) and that the feathers ruffled by Trump would be smoothed.

Strategic Culture Foundation can take pride in not having bought into any of the wishful thinking regarding a Biden administration. We predicted in several articles at an early stage of his presidency that international relations would take a serious turn for the worse under Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

Take, for example, this interview on November 23, 2020, with Christopher Black. It was headlined: “A Biden Administration Will Be Dominated by More U.S. Aggression”. It predicted that the world “would see more intensified militarism and aggression under a Joe Biden presidency than under the outgoing Trump administration.”

Another observation in the same interview was “the Biden administration will be bent on war… in particular against Russia and China… we can expect U.S. provocations to accelerate.”

See also our weekly editorial on January 22, 2021, entitled: “President Biden’s New Administration, Old Aggression”.

In a subsequent column, on January 28, 2021, Strategic Culture Foundation highlighted how the Biden administration would ramp up efforts to sabotage the Nord Stream 2 gas project between Russia and the European Union. This unspoken objective has come to a head in the present crisis over Ukraine. It is driving the geopolitical dynamics behind the conflict between the U.S. and Russia, as explained in a later SCF article published on June 8, 2021, – some five months before the crisis erupted in Western media coverage.

Virtually every U.S. president has gone to war or overseen some form of criminal foreign aggression. Barack Obama – the “hope and change president” went on to unleash American wars and bombing in seven countries. Obama’s vice president was Joe Biden who owns some of the past criminality. Donald Trump didn’t start any new American wars but he too was up to his neck in waging aggression abroad.

Republican and Democrat presidents are all the same. They are tools of U.S. imperialism.

So far, Biden hasn’t actually started a new war. He has continued some of the existing militarism. And if he keeps going in the same mode, a war against either Russia or China or both is a “distinct possibility” to use Biden’s words this week about an alleged Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Underpinning the intensified aggression under Biden is the objective historic condition of failing U.S. imperial power. This has nothing to do with whether the president is Democrat or Republican. From the early post-Cold War years we had the Wolfowitz Doctrine, coined under a Republican president as it happened, that set out the objective of staving off U.S. imperial decline and in particular staving off the challenge to U.S. power from a resurgent Russia or an ascendant China.

Under prevailing U.S. establishment politics and the national security state, the Cold War policy against Russia and China would inevitably continue. American power relies fundamentally and intrinsically on confrontation with perceived rivals who must be treated as enemies to be subjugated.

It just so happens that Biden and his administration are more in tune with the U.S. political establishment and the national security state than, for example, the maverick egomaniac Trump. That’s why there has been a more determined and discernible deterioration in U.S. relations with Russia and China over the last year.

Biden hasn’t started a war yet. But he’s still got three years to go and the first one fills the outlook with dread.

One final note: Strategic Culture Foundation has come under fire from the U.S. authorities who have banned America-based writers from publishing articles in our journal. The U.S. government accuses SCF of being an agent of Russian foreign intelligence. See this recent hit-job on ABC news which cites some of our headlines without providing links to the articles. SCF is not an agent of the Russian government. It is an independent journalistic forum for analysis and comment. The prescience of our articles cited above on exposing the criminality of U.S. imperial power would suggest that is the real reason why SCF is being targeted with American slander and sanctions.

February 20, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

The War Party Wants a New Cold War, and the Money That Comes with It

By Ryan McMaken | Mises Wire | February 12, 2022

In perhaps the most predictable column of the year, the Wall Street Journal this week featured a column by Walter Russell Mead declaring it’s “Time to Increase Defense Spending.”

Using the Beijing Olympics and the potential Ukraine war to push for funneling ever more taxpayer dollars into military spending, Mead outlines how military spending ought to be raised to match the sort of spending not seen since the hot days of the Cold War.

Mead claims that “[t]he world has changed, and American policy must change with it.” The presumption here is that the status quo is one of declining military spending, in which Americans have embraced some sort of isolationist foreign policy. But the reality doesn’t reflect that claim at all. The status quo is really one of very high levels of military spending, and even outright growth in most years. This sort of gaslighting by military hawks is right up there with left-wing attempts to portray the modern economy as one of unregulated laissez-faire.

Rather, according to estimates from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, military spending is set to reach a post–World War II high in 2022, rising to more than $1.1 trillion. That includes $770 billion spent on the Pentagon plus nuclear arms and related spending. Also included is current spending on veterans. Keeping veteran spending apart from defense spending is a convenient and sneaky political fiction, but veteran spending is just deferred spending for past active-duty members—necessary to attract and retain personnel. And finally, we have the “defense” portion of the interest of the debt, estimated to be about 20 percent of total interest spending. Taking all this together, we find military spending has increased thirteen years out of the last twenty and is now at or near the highest levels of spending seen since the Second World War.

This, not surprisingly, is not enough for Mead, who would like to see military spending much closer to the Cold War average of 7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), up from today’s spending of a little less than 4 percent. To get this average back up would require at least an extra $300 billion in spending, and possibly even spending levels not seen since the bad old days of the Vietnam War. In those days, of course, the US was busy spending enormous amounts of taxpayer wealth on a losing war that cost tens of thousands of American lives. The spending was so enormous that the US regime was driven to breaking the dollar’s last link to gold and subjecting ordinary Americans to years of price controls, inflation, and other forms of economic crisis.

But none of that will dissuade hawks like Mead, who pound the drum incessantly for more military spending. Note also that Mead uses the “spending as a percentage of GDP” metric, which is a favorite metric of military hawks. They use this metric because as the US economy has become more productive, wealthy, and generally larger, the US has been able to maintain sky-high military spending levels without growing the amount of spending in relation to GDP. The use of this metric allows hawks to create the false impression that military spending is somehow going down and that the US is being taken over by peaceniks. In reality, spending levels remain very high—it’s just that the larger economy has been robust.

Yet even if we use this metric—and then compare it to those of other states with large militaries—we find that Mead’s narrative doesn’t quite add up. These numbers in no way suggest that the US regime is being eclipsed by rivals in terms of military spending.

For example, according to the World Bank, China—with a GDP comparable to that of the US—has military spending amounting to about 1.7 percent of GDP (as of 2020). Meanwhile, the total was at 3.7 percent of GDP in the United States. Russian military spending rose to 4.2 percent of GDP in 2020, but that’s based on a GDP total that’s a small fraction of the US’s GDP. Specifically, the Russian economy is less than one-tenth the size of the US economy.

Thus, when we look at actual military spending, we find the disconnect to be quite clear.

According to the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, in 2020 total Chinese military spending totaled approximately $245 billion in 2019 dollars. In Russia, the total was $66 billion. In the US, the total—which in the SIPRI database excludes veteran spending and interest—amounted to $766 billion in 2020.

In other words, total military spending by these presumed rivals amounts to mere fractions of total spending in the US. Moreover, as China scholar Michael Beckley has noted, the US benefits from preexisting military capital—think military know-how and productive capability—built up over decades. Even if the US and China (or Russia) were spending comparable amounts on military capability right now, this would not demonstrate any sort of actual military superiority in real terms.

But, as usual, Mead’s strategy is to claim that financial prudence is in fact imprudence with the usual refrain of “you can’t afford to not spend boatloads of extra money!” This claim is premised on the new domino theory being offered by anti-Russia hawks today. This theory posits that if the US does not start wars with every country that has pushed back against US hegemony—i.e., Iran or Russia—then China will see this “weakness” and start conquering countless nations within its own periphery.

The old cold warriors were telling us this back in 1965 also, insisting that a loss in Vietnam would place all the world under the Communist boot. Needless to say, that didn’t happen, and it turned out Vietnam had nothing to do with American national security.

But none of this will convince the usual hawks—for example, the Heritage Foundation—that there’s never enough military spending.

Prudence, however, suggests the US should be going in the opposite direction. At its most belligerent, the US regime should be adopting a doctrine of restraint—focusing on naval defense and cutting back troop deployments—while changing its nuclear posture to one that is less costly and more defensive.

The ideal solution is far more radically anti-interventionist than that, but a good start would be eliminating hundreds of nuclear warheads and freezing military spending indefinitely. After all, the US’s deterrent second-strike capability does not at all depend on keeping an arsenal of thousands of warheads, as many hawks insist. And geography today continues to favor US conventional defense, just as it always has.

Unfortunately, we’re a long way from a change toward much more sane policy, but at the very least we must reject the latest opportunistic calls for a new cold war and trillions more taxpayer dollars burned in the name of “defense.”

February 19, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russian-led military bloc could send peacekeepers to Ukraine – top general

By Layla Guest | RT | February 19, 2022

With fears of an all-out military conflict in Ukraine’s war-torn Donbass region, troops from a major Moscow-led military faction could be sent on a mission to stabilize the tense situation if Kiev and the international community agree on the plan, the bloc’s secretary general has said.

Speaking as part of an exclusive interview to Reuters, published on Saturday, Stanislav Zas weighed in on which measures the Collective Security Treaty Organization could take if given the go-ahead.

“We have colossal potential in our hands. We all understand that we need to be very careful with this sharp instrument,” he said.

According to the lieutenant-general, the CSTO has the capacity for a large-scale deployment. “Believe me, we can send as many as needed.”

“If we need 3,000, we’ll send them. If we need 17,000 we’ll send them. If we need more there’ll be more. As many as are needed,” he continued.

However, he added the caveat that such a move would need to be given the greenlight from multiple sides, including Kiev, which is not a member of the bloc.

“Hypothetically you can imagine it … if there were goodwill from Ukraine – it is after all their territory – if there was a U.N. Security Council mandate, and if it was needed and such a decision was supported by all our governments,” he explained.

The interview, which was conducted before the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics began mass evacuations of civilians to Russia, comes amid clashes erupting in the Donbass in the past few days. Ukrainian soldiers and those loyal to the two self-declared separatist regions have accused one another of aggression along contact lines, with claims of heavy shelling coming from both sides.

In January, units from the multinational CSTO were sent to Kazakhstan after street protests decrying the government’s removal of price controls on liquified petroleum gas, a fuel that many use to power their cars, turned violent.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken suggested that Moscow could have ulterior motives with the troop deployment, stating “I think one lesson in recent history is that once Russians are in your house, it’s sometimes very difficult to get them to leave.” However, the forces left just days after their arrival having completed their mission.

February 19, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Document confirms US told Russia NATO won’t expand

Putin was right, Stoltenberg was wrong: NATO “brazenly deceived” Russia about expansion and a British document proves it

RT | February 18, 2022

A newly discovered document from March 1991 shows US, UK, French, and German officials discussing a pledge made to Russia that NATO will not expand to Poland and beyond. Its publication by the German magazine Der Spiegel on Friday proves Moscow right and NATO wrong on the matter.

The minutes of a March 6, 1991 meeting in Bonn between political directors of the foreign ministries of the US, UK, France, and Germany contain multiple references to “2+4” talks on German unification in which the West made it “clear” to the Soviet Union that NATO will not expand past the eastern borders of Germany.

“We made it clear to the Soviet Union – in the 2+4 talks, as well as in other negotiations – that we do not intend to benefit from the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe,” the document quotes US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Canada Raymond Seitz.

“NATO should not expand to the east, either officially or unofficially,” Seitz added.

A British representative also mentions the existence of a “general agreement” that membership of NATO for eastern European countries is “unacceptable.”

“We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe,” said West German diplomat Juergen Hrobog. “We could not therefore offer Poland and others membership in NATO.”

The minutes later clarified he was referring to the Oder River, the boundary between East Germany and Poland. Hrobog further noted that West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher had agreed with this position as well.

The document was found in the UK National Archives by Joshua Shifrinson, a political science professor at Boston University in the US. It had been marked “Secret” but was declassified at some point.

Shifrinson tweeted on Friday he was “honored” to work with Der Spiegel on the document showing that “Western diplomats believed they had indeed made a NATO non-enlargement pledge.”

“Senior policymakers deny a non-expansion pledge was offered. This new document shows otherwise,” Shifrinson said in a follow-up tweet, noting that “beyond” the Elbe or Oder by any standard includes Eastern European countries to which NATO started expanding just eight years later.

During a major press conference in December 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the West had promised the Soviet Union NATO would not expand “a single inch” to the east, but “brazenly deceived” and “cheated” Moscow to do just that.

Responding to these comments, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the alliance “has never promised not to expand.” In an interview with Der Spiegel later, Stoltenberg repeated that “there has never been such a promise, there has never been such a behind-the-scenes deal, it is simply not true.”

NATO admitted Poland, Hungary, and Czechia in March 1999, just before launching an air war against Yugoslavia without the permission of the UN Security Council. This put NATO directly on the Russian border – the enclave of Kaliningrad – for the first time ever. The next round of expansion in 2004 included the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, placing NATO’s eastern frontier just 135 kilometers (84 miles) from St. Petersburg.

In a series of security proposals made public in December, Russia demanded NATO publicly renounce expansion to the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia and withdraw US forces to the 1997 boundaries of the alliance, among other things. The US and NATO have rejected this, arguing the alliance’s “open door” membership policy is a fundamental principle for them.

February 18, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

US names condition for meeting with Russia

Blinken won’t travel to speak with Lavrov if Moscow invades Ukraine, Washington reveals

By Ailis Halligan | RT | February 18, 2022

Russia’s chance for a meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken rests on the promise that Moscow will not launch an invasion of Ukraine, Washington has revealed.

Speaking to TASS on Friday, State Department Press Secretary Ned Price revealed that Blinken had accepted the date proposed by Moscow and was prepared to meet with Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov at the end of next week.

On Wednesday, it was reported that Blinken had sent a letter of invitation to Lavrov proposing that the two meet in Europe to discuss options for diffusing the tensions surrounding Ukraine. Moscow responded by offering dates in the coming week.

However, Price made the caveat that Blinken’s attendance rests on the condition that Russia does not begin an offensive on its neighbor Ukraine. The US has accused Moscow of planning an invasion since November, and on Thursday, US President Joe Biden declared that it could take place “in the next several days.”

“The Russians have responded with proposed dates for late next week, which we are accepting, provided there is no further Russian invasion of Ukraine,” he said, according to TASS.

Price highlighted the secretary of state’s motivations to agree to an exchange centered around a US pursuit of “diplomacy and dialogue” – key aspects, in his opinion, of a “responsible” solution to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.

Speaking to the UN Security Council on Thursday, Blinken announced that an invasion would prove Moscow’s disregard for maintaining diplomatic relations going forward.

“If they invade in the coming days, they will make it clear that they have never been serious about diplomacy,” the state secretary declared, while promising that US negotiators would “continue to coordinate with allies and partners and seek further engagement with Russia.”

The meeting between the White House and Kremlin officials next week will be set against the backdrop of heightened tensions on the Ukraine-Russia border. Washington has accused Moscow of amassing over 100,000 troops along the frontier, allegedly with intent to launch an invasion.

February 18, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Breakaway Ukrainian region orders evacuation

Civilians must flee from rebel-held Donetsk region to Russia, its head says

RT | February 18, 2022

Ukrainian troops have been bolstered with arms supplies from Western nations and “are now prepositioned for combat and ready to take Donbass by force,” Denis Pushilin claimed in a statement on Friday, referring to his region and fellow breakaway entity, the Lugansk People’s Republic, by their collective name.

The Ukrainian rebels are expecting President Volodymyr Zelensky to order an offensive “in the nearest future.” Their military forces are prepared to fight, but civilians in rebel-controlled areas are at risk of being caught in the crossfire, the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic warned.

“That is why starting today, February 18, a mass evacuation of people to the Russian Federation has been organized,” he said, adding that vulnerable groups like women, children, and the elderly would be given priority.

Pushilin said Russian officials in the neighboring Rostov Region are expecting an inflow of evacuees and will provide them with what they need. There will be conditions at border crossings to expedite the process, he added. He urged people “to heed to the warning and take the right decision,” saying that the relocation would be temporary and would save lives.

The statement was released after OSCE observers deployed to eastern Ukraine to monitor the situation along the line dividing government-controlled parts of the country and territories held by the rebel forces reported a surge in hostilities this week.

Western nations have been claiming for months that Russia was preparing a military invasion of Ukraine. US officials stated that Moscow was preparing a “false flag” operation to justify an attack.

Moscow rejected the accusations. The only way hostilities could break out, Russian officials said, is if Ukraine attempts once again to use military force to take over its breakaway regions.

February 18, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Moscow responds after US ‘cherry picked’ from Russia’s security proposals

RT | February 17, 2022

The US has “failed to provide a constructive answer” to all the key elements of Russia’s proposals on security guarantees, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in an official response to Washington on Thursday. The 10-page document was handed over in Moscow to American ambassador John Sullivan.

Washington has “cherry picked” some “convenient” topics out of a set of “indivisible” proposals and has further “twisted” them to create security advantages for the US and its allies, the ministry said, in an assessment of America’s security proposals. Such actions “raise doubts” as to the US’ willingness to improve European security, the Russian diplomats have added.

“Our ‘red lines’; our key security interests and Russia’s sovereign right to defend them are still being ignored,” the ministry said, adding that Moscow would have to respond with “military and technical measures.”

Russia also blasted ongoing Western media reports and officials’ statements about the supposedly planned invasion of Ukraine, saying the only purpose of such an information campaign is to “exert pressure” on Moscow and “discredit” Russia’s security proposals.

“No ‘Russian invasion’ into Ukraine the US and its allies have been talking about since autumn has taken place or is planned,” the ministry has said, adding that Moscow cannot be blamed for the rising tensions in Europe.

The Ukrainian conflict has been caused by solely internal reasons, Russia maintains, adding that Moscow has nothing to do with it. De-escalation of the situation around the embattled nation can only be achieved through Kiev fulfilling its part of the Minsk agreements and the US and NATO stopping arms supplies to Ukraine, ceasing joint drills with the Ukrainian Armed Forces and pulling out all Western instructors from its territory, the statement said.

The US ultimatums demanding Russia withdraw its troops from the “certain areas on its own territory” and threats of sanctions are “unacceptable” and only “undermine the prospects of reaching some real agreements,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

“Russian Armed Forces deployed to Russia’s territory do not affect and cannot affect fundamental US interests,” the statement pointed out, adding that “there are no [Russian] forces on the territory of Ukraine.”

Moscow also accused the US of circumventing the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe regulating the limits on and deployment of conventional military equipment in Europe, as well as the 1997 Russia-NATO ‘Founding Act’ on mutual relations. Washington and its allies have expanded their military infrastructure further to the east by deploying troops to the territory of the bloc’s new members after 1997, the foreign ministry said, calling such a situation “unacceptable.”

Russia “insists on the withdrawal of the US troops and equipment deployed in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in the Baltic States,” the statement said. Moscow has also demanded that the US withdraw its nuclear weapons deployed to the territory of its non-nuclear allies in Europe, as well as all the relevant rapid deployment infrastructure.

The very existence of nuclear weapons on their territory as well as NATO drills used to teach the troops of these nations to use nuclear arms violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Russia believes.

However, Moscow also sees some potential common ground for future negotiations with the US and NATO. Russia has particularly welcomed the US proposal on mutual verification and transparency measures, involving inspections of the US missile defense systems Aegis Ashore in Poland and Romania, as well as at relevant facilities in the European part of Russia’s territory.

Moscow also “sees a potential for future agreements” on mitigating the risks stemming from heavy-bomber sorties near the national borders of Russia, the US and its allies. The Russian Foreign Ministry welcomed “the US readiness” to discuss similar measures to prevent open-sea and neutral airspace incidents. Still, “this work cannot be a substitute for resolution of the key issues raised by Russia,” the statement cautioned.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Threat of War between Syria and Israel is getting More Real

By Vladimir Platov – New Eastern Outlook – 14.02.2022

On February 9, Israel launched yet another series of strikes on targets near Damascus, which resulted in one Syrian killed and five injured, which has aggravated the threat of war between Syria and Israel.

According to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), on February 9, four Israeli F-16s, without crossing the state border of Syria, launched another guided missile attack on facilities near Al-Kiswah, a village south of Damascus. One of the anti-aircraft missiles of the Syrian army exploded over the occupied Golan Heights, after which the IDF fired from the area occupied by Israeli troops in the Syrian Golan Heights ten surface-to-surface missiles at the positions of the Syrian air defense forces. Some missiles were brought down by Syrian air defenses. Nevertheless, the attack still caused significant damage to some buildings in the city of Qudsaya, destroying dozens of houses and cars. To repel the attack, Syrian troops utilized Russian-made air defense systems, which shot down eight missiles.

According to an IDF statement, in response to an intercepted missile fired from Syria into northern Israel, Israel attacked targets in Syria, including the “Syrian radar and anti-aircraft batteries that launched missiles at Israeli Air Force aircraft.” However, it is obvious that the missile chosen by the IDF as the reason for retaliation was the anti-aircraft missile that exploded in the air and was launched by Syrian air defenses as a measure of protection against earlier Israeli missile attacks launched from Lebanon.

In the message the Syrian Foreign Ministry sent to the UN Security Council regarding the aforementioned act of aggression by Tel Aviv, the Syrian government denounces the dangerous consequences the Israeli attacks on the SAR territory may have for stability in the Middle East and the entire world. “Syria reserves the right to use all legal means to respond to the treacherous strikes carried out by Israel on the outskirts of Damascus from Lebanese airspace and from the occupied Golan Heights,” the document says. The Syrian Foreign Ministry drew attention to the fact that “the United States, which patronizes Israel, encourages it to continue attacks and paralyzes possible measures by the UN Security Council to deter the aggressor, which undermines the prestige of the international community.”

Initially, Israel planned to launch two strikes simultaneously on February 9 – one on the outskirts of Damascus, and the other on Latakia. However, after encountering two Su-35s scrambled in response, the IAF fighters flew back without attacking the Syrian port. At the same time, almost all of the missiles allegedly aimed at Iranian facilities in the Rif Dimashq Governorate were shot down by Russian-made Syrian air defense systems. The attack was carried out from Lebanese airspace, which is another gross violation of international law.

Israeli Air Force regularly strikes targets in Syria without entering the airspace of the Arab Republic, and mainly operates from the airspace of Lebanon – in violation of international norms, or from the Mediterranean Sea. Since 2013, the IDF has been carrying out hundreds of airstrikes on the territory of a neighboring country primarily targeting pro-Iranian forces in the SAR. This year, there have already been two such attacks by Israel. The first one was took place on January 31 at targets near Damascus, namely Hezbollah facilities and warehouses in the vicinity of Al-Qutayfah. In 2021, there were 55 attacks:

– 3 missile strikes in December (on December 7, 16 and 28, mainly in the area of the port of Latakia, one Syrian soldier was killed, and significant damage was caused). It is noteworthy that on December 28, not for the first time, two F-16s of the Israeli Air Force launched four guided missiles at facilities on the territory of the port of Latakia without crossing the Syrian border (from the Mediterranean Sea). The Syrian air defense forces did not engage in a battle to repel the IAF raid on the port of Latakia, since a landing Russian Air Force transport plane could be in the affected area;

– 4 missile strikes in November (on November 3, 8, 17 and 28, mainly on targets near the city of Homs, which resulted in four people killed, including two civilians, several people wounded and significant material damage);

– 4 missile strikes in October (on October 8, 13, 25 and 30, strikes were carried out on the outskirts of Damascus, the outskirts of al-Ba’ath and the village of Al-Krum in the Quneitra Governorate in southern Syria, and the city of Abu Kamal, as a result of which more than ten Hezbollah militants and a Syrian soldier were killed, and significant damage was caused);

– 3 missile strikes in September (on September 3, 14 and 27, South from the village of Mayadin in the Deir ez-Zor Governorate in Eastern Syria, near the Iraqi border, with many people being wounded);

– 2 missile strikes in August (on August 17 and 19); 3 missile attacks from May to July (on May 5, June 8 and July 19); 9 missile strikes from January to April, with dozens of people dead and wounded;

– 39 missile attacks and air raids were carried out in 2020.

Israel explains its attacks with the desire to prevent modern weapons from falling into the hands of it enemies. Enemy No. 1 in this regard is the Lebanese Hezbollah movement, which is fighting on the side of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and is controlled by Tehran. After the first Israeli airstrikes, Moscow invited all interested parties to meet and talk about disentangling their interests in order to avoid armed conflicts and civilian casualties. However, these calls of Russia have not been heeded.

Israel, despite repeated statements by official Syrian authorities to the UN, continues regular airstrikes on Syrian civilian targets, using, among other things, provocative air attacks by its fighters “under the cover” of civilian aircraft. Thus, in addition to the attack of December 28, on the night of October 13, 2021, four IAF F-16s once again entered the Syrian airspace in the area of the US-occupied Al-Tanf zone in the Homs Governorate and, under the cover of civilian aircraft flying at the same time, carried out an airstrike on a phosphate ore processing plant in the Palmyra area. It is noteworthy that this is not the first time such air attacks have been carried out from the area of the US-occupied zone in the Homs Governorate, which clearly indicates the coordinated actions of the IAF with the US military.

Such provocative tactics of the Israeli Air Force can lead to a serious aggravation of the situation, and it will by the IAF’s fault if the Syrian air defenses in their anti-missile actions shoot down a civilian aircraft of any country, under whose cover Tel Aviv carries out its airstrikes. And such an incident has already occurred in 2018 when Israeli planes bombed Syria from the air zone where the Russian reconnaissance plane was located, and the Syrian air defense shot down this plane by mistake. Russian service members were killed and a big scandal broke out, which was extinguished, and an armed conflict with Israel prevented, only thanks to complex diplomatic efforts.

The Syrian leadership has repeatedly demanded that the UN Security Council put pressure on Israel to stop attacks on the territory of the republic, since such actions violate its sovereignty and lead to increasing tensions in the region. The Syrian Foreign Ministry has previously repeatedly stated that the republic can use “all legal means” to respond to Israeli airstrikes on the Syrian territory. Therefore, by continuing such provocative attacks, Israel is openly tempting its fate, which could turn into a serious armed conflict at any time.

February 14, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »