Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Blinken Exploited Biden’s Senility and Brought US to Brink of Nuclear War – Scott Ritter

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 13.01.2025

Scott Ritter pointed out that Antony Blinken has facilitated the Ukraine conflict because “peace with Russia was never an option, only war.”

Outgoing US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is “a war criminal in every sense of the word,” former American Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter wrote on X, commenting on Blinken’s video, in which he praised the Biden administration’s work.

Ritter accused Blinken of being “singularly responsible for the deaths of more than a million people” as a result of the conflict in Ukraine.

“You took advantage of a mentally diminished president to take our nation to the brink of nuclear war with Russia, violating the Constitution’s due process,” the ex-intelligence officer wrote, referring to the outgoing US President Joe Biden.

Ritter voiced hope that Blinken would be “investigated, charged, and found guilty of betraying” his country. “And I hope you are given the justice you so richly deserve,” the ex-intelligence officer concluded.

Blinken earlier told the New York Times that when it comes to the Biden administration, there’s allegedly “a very strong record of achievement, historic in many ways.”

These claims are clearly out of sync with Biden’s plummeting approval rating, which hit a new low in December, when just 34% of respondents OK’d his job as POTUS, according to a Marquette Law School national poll.

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Geoeconomic Shift from Greater Europe to Greater Eurasia

By Professor Glenn Diesen | January 13, 2025

Liberal theory suggests that economic interdependence creates peace as both sides gain economically from peaceful relations. However, liberal theory is deeply flawed as it assumes states prioritise absolute gain (both sides gain, and it does not matter who gains the most). Due to the security competition in the international system, states must focus on relative gain (who gains more). As Friedrich List recognised: “As long as the division of the human race into independent nations exists, political economy will as often be at variance with cosmopolitan principles”.[1]

In all interdependent relationships, one side is always more dependent than the other. Asymmetrical interdependence empowers the less dependent state to set favourable economic conditions and obtain political concessions from a more dependent one. For example, the EU and Moldova are interdependent, but the asymmetrical interdependence results in the EU preserving its autonomy and gaining influence.

The “balance of dependence” refers to a geoeconomic understanding of the realist balance of power. In an asymmetrical interdependent partnership, the more powerful and less reliant side can extract political power. The more dependent side therefore has systemic incentives to restore a balance of dependence by enhancing strategic autonomy and diversifying economic partnerships to reduce reliance on the more powerful actor.

Geoeconomic rivalry entails competing for power by skewing the symmetry within interdependent economic partnerships to enhance both influence and autonomy. In other words, to make oneself less reliant on others while increasing the dependence by others. Diversifying economic partnerships can reduce one’s own reliance on a state or region, while asserting control over strategic markets diminishes the capacity of other states to diversify and lessen their dependence.

The Geoeconomic Foundation for Western Dominance

The centuries-long geoeconomic dominance of the West is the product of asymmetrical interdependence by dominating new technologies, strategic markets, transportation corridors and financial institutions.

Following the disintegration of the Mongol Empire, the land-based transportation corridors of the ancient Silk Road that had fuelled trade and growth vanished. Subsequently, Western maritime powers rose to prominence from the early 1500s by asserting control over the main maritime transportation corridors and establishing “Trading-Post empires”. Leading naval powers, such as Britain, have therefore historically been more inclined towards free trade as they had more to gain and risked less by controlling the trade routes. The maritime strategies of Alfred Thayer Mahan in the late 1800s were founded on this strategic reasoning, as controlling the oceans and Eurasian continent from the periphery laid the basis for US military and economic power.

The advancements in the Industrial Revolution created an even more favourable balance of dependence in favour of the West. Adam Smith noted that the discovery of America and the East Indies were the “two greatest and most important events recorded in the history of mankind”.[2] However, he also recognised that the extreme concentration of power in Europe created an exploitative and destructive relationship:

“To the natives however, both of the East and West Indies, all the commercial benefits which can have resulted from those events have been sunk and lost in the dreadful misfortunes which they have occasioned. These misfortunes, however, seem to have arisen rather from accident than from anything in the nature of those events themselves. At the particular time when these discoveries were made, the superiority of force happened to be so great on the side of the Europeans that they were enabled to commit with impunity every sort of injustice in those remote countries”.[3]

Samuel Huntington similarly wrote:

“For four hundred years, intercivilizational relations consisted of the subordination of other societies to Western civilization… The immediate source of Western expansion, however, was technological: the invention of the means of ocean navigation for reaching distant peoples and the development of the military capabilities for conquering those peoples… The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do”.[4]

Following the Second World War, the US became the dominant power due to military power, but also geoeconomic power consisting of its large share in the global GDP, technological superiority, industrial dominance, the Bretton Woods institutions, control over strategic markets/resources, and control over key transportation corridors.

From Gorbachev’s Common European Home to “Greater Europe”

Following the demise of communism, Russia aimed to integrate with the West to form a “Greater Europe”, based on the ideas of Gorbachev’s concept of a Common European Home. Economic development and prosperity required integration with the West as the main economic centre in the international system.

However, the Americans and Europeans had no incentives to accept a Greater Europe. The West aimed to construct a new Europe without Russia, which required reviving bloc politics. The ultimatum to Russia was to either accept a subordinated position as the permanent apprentice of the West or be isolated and thus become economically underdeveloped and irrelevant. The West supported only European institutions such as NATO and the EU that incrementally augmented the collective bargaining power of the West to maximise asymmetrical interdependence with Russia. Making Russia obey the European institutions where Russia does not have a seat at the table is possible under extreme asymmetrical interdependence. Cooperation then entails unilateral concessions and Russia would have to accept decisions by the West.

The alienation of Russia would not matter if it kept getting weaker. William Perry, the US Defence Secretary between 1994 and 1997, recognised that his colleagues in the Clinton Administration were aware that NATO expansionism and the exclusion of Russia from Europe fuelled anger:

“It wasn’t that we listened to their [Russia’s] argument and said [we] don’t agree with that argument… Basically the people I was arguing with when I tried to put the Russian point… the response that I got was really: ‘Who cares what they think? They’re a third-rate power.’ And of course that point of view got across to the Russians as well. That was when we started sliding down that path”.[5]

The dream of a Greater Europe failed due to Russia’s inability to create a balance of dependence within Europe. Moscow’s Greater Europe initiative aimed to obtain a proportional representation at the European table. Instead, the unfavourably asymmetrical partnerships with the West that followed enabled Western unilateralism veiled as multilateralism, in which the West could maximise both its autonomy and influence.

“Cooperation” was subsequently conceptualised by the West within a teacher-student/subject-object format, in which the West would be a “socialiser” and Russia would have to accept unilateral concessions. Russia’s decline would be managed as expanding the EU and NATO sphere of influence in the east gradually diminished the role of Russia in Europe. “European integration” became a zero-sum geostrategic project, and states in the shared neighbourhood were presented with a “civilizational choice” of aligning either with Russia or the West.

Moscow’s “Greater Europe” project was always destined to fail. The “leaning-to-one-side” policy by Yeltsin was not rewarded and reciprocated by the West, rather it made Russia vulnerable and exposed. Russia neglected its partners in the east, which deprived Russia of the bargaining power required to negotiate a more favourable format for Europe. Brzezinski noted that cooperation with the West was “Russia’s only choice – even if tactical”, and it “provided the West with a strategic opportunity. It created the preconditions for the progressive geopolitical expansion of the Western community deeper and deeper into Eurasia”.[6]

Putin Reforms the Greater Europe Initiative

Yeltsin conceded by the end of the 1990s that the “leaning-to-one-side” policy had been exploited by the West and called for diversifying Russia’s economic partnerships by becoming a Eurasian power. However, there were no powers in the East with the intentions or capabilities to challenge Western dominance. Putin attempted to revive the Greater Europe Initiative by ending the era of unilateral concessions and instead strengthening Russia’s negotiation power. Russia would not integrate into the West through unilateral concession, but integrate with the West as an equal.

Moscow began to embrace economic statecraft as the principal tool for restoring Russian power, and pursue incremental integration with the West. Re-nationalising energy resources ensured that the strategic industries of Russia worked in the interest of the state rather than oligarchs, who were courted by the West and tended to use these industries to impose their control on the state. However, the West resisted energy dependence on Russia as it risked creating more symmetry in relations and even giving Russia a voice in Europe. The narrative of the Russian “energy-weapon” was born as Europeans were told to reduce all dependence on Russia as the requirement for a more obedient Kremlin.

The Greater Eurasia Initiative

Russia’s Greater Europe Initiative eventually died when the West supported the coup in Kiev in 2014 to pull Ukraine into the Euro-Atlantic orbit. By making Ukraine a frontline instead of a bridge, it was evident that any incremental integration with Europe had been a utopian dream. Furthermore, the anti-Russian sanctions made it necessary for Russia to diversify its economic connectivity. Rather than seeking to resolve the Ukraine crisis by implementing the Minsk peace agreement, NATO began to build a Ukrainian army to change realities on the ground. Russia began to prepare for a future clash by making its economy sanctions-proof.

With the rise of Asia, Russia found a solution. Russia began to diversify away from excessive reliance on the West and embrace the new Greater Eurasia Initiative. Instead of being isolated at the periphery of Europe, Russia acquired economic strength and influence by developing new strategic industries, transportation corridors and international financial institutions in cooperation with countries in the East. While Russia is met with hostility in the stagnant West, it was embraced in the more dynamic East. Not only have the ambitions of Gorbachev’s Common European Home been abandoned, but the 300-year-long Western-centric policy since Peter the Great has also ended.

A strategic partnership with China is indispensable to construct a Greater Eurasia. Yet, Russia has learned the lessons from the failure of Greater Europe by avoiding excessive dependence on an economically stronger China. The asymmetrical interdependence that emerges in the framework of such a partnership enables China to extract political concessions, which would make it untenable for Russia in the long term. Moscow seeks a balance of dependence in its strategic partnership with Beijing, which entails diversifying economic partnerships across Greater Eurasia. As China does not seek a hegemonic role in Greater Eurasia, it has welcomed Russia’s efforts to diversify its economic partnerships.

Under the Greater Europe Initiative, the Europeans had access to cheap Russian energy and enjoyed a huge Russian market for exports of manufactured goods. Furthermore, Russia’s geoeconomic strategy to integrate with the West resulted in preferential treatment for Western corporations. Under Greater Eurasia, Europe will undergo deindustrialization as the cheap Russian energy and market opportunities go to Asia, which also enhances the competitiveness of Asia vis-a-vis Europe. The Europeans continue setting their own house on fire with reckless sanctions, in the hope that it will also hurt the Russian economy. However, while Europe cannot diversify away from Russia, Russia can diversify away from Europe.

Ideally, Europe would be one of Russia’s many economic partners in the Greater Eurasia Initiative. The revival of militarised dividing lines on the European continent makes the Europeans excessively reliant on the US and Russia becomes too dependent on China. Therefore, there are strong systemic incentives to restore some economic connectivity between the Europeans and Russians after the Ukraine War, although it will be within a Greater Eurasian format as Greater Europe can no longer be revived.

[1] List, F. 1827. Outlines of American Political Economy, in a Series of Letters. Samuel Parker, Philadelphia.

[2] A. Smith, An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations, Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1863, p.282

[3] J. Borger, ‘Russian hostility ‘partly caused by west’, claims former US defence head’, The Guardian, 9 March 2016.

[4] S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1996, p.51.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Z. Brzezinski. The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. Basic Books, New York. 2009. P. 102.

The article is based on excerpts from my previous article with the same title: Glenn Diesen, ‘Russia, China and the “Balance of Dependence” in Greater Eurasia’, Valdai Dicussion Club, March 2017

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

The United States Always Knew NATO Expansion Would Lead to War

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | January 13, 2025

The present severed from the past is easily misunderstood. In discussions of the Russia-Ukraine war, not enough is made of the historical fact that, at the end of the Cold War, the newly independent Ukraine promised not to join NATO, and NATO promised not to expand to Ukraine.

Not enough is made of the fact that Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, “External and Internal Security,” says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs…” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance; that included NATO.

Nor is enough made of the fact that in 1990 and 1991, the George H.W. Bush administration gave assurances to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev—assurances that arguably reached the level of a deal—that NATO would not expand east of Germany, including to Ukraine.

But even less is made of what the Bill Clinton administration later promised Russian President Boris Yeltsin, nor what the United States already knew at the time of where plans of NATO expansion to Ukraine would lead.

Recently declassified documents clearly show that, between 1993 and 2000, the U.S. already knew that a cornered Boris Yeltsin was distraught about NATO expansion and about the West’s broken promise, that expansion to Ukraine was a red line, and that if Russia ever enforced that red line, the U.S. would respond forcefully.

Though the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were invited to begin accession talks in 1997 and joined NATO in 1999, a secret October 1994 policy paper, written by National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and entitled “Moving Toward NATO Expansion,” makes it clear that the decision to expand NATO had already been made by that time. The paper explicitly keeps “the membership door open for Ukraine.”

Interestingly, though Russia is always publicly painted as a predatorial nation with imperial ambitions, a confidential 1993 cable states that most Eastern European states seek NATO membership “not [because they] feel militarily threatened by Russia” but because they believe “that NATO membership can help stave off the return of authoritarian forces” in their own countries. Though the cable makes the exception that Ukraine and the Baltic states may feel threatened by Russia.

By September 1994, Clinton had explicitly told Yeltsin that NATO would expand. While visiting Yeltsin in the hospital on December 16, 1994, Vice President Al Gore clarifies that “What Clinton told you in September was that eventually NATO will expand.”

But Gore promised Yeltsin that “the process will be gradual and open and we will consult carefully with you.” He added, “The process will be conducted in parallel with a deepening of the U.S.-Russia partnership and your partnership with NATO.”

Though less than a week later, a secret NSC memorandum clarifies that Russia will not be given “a veto or right of prior consultation over NATO decisions,” this promise of a deepening “institutionalized relationship between NATO and Russia—possibly in the form of a Treaty (“alliance with the Alliance”) or Charter” that will be established in parallel with NATO expansion is repeatedly mentioned. A secret memorandum written by Anthony Lake to Clinton on July 17, 1995 identifies “plans to develop a formalized NATO-Russia relationship in parallel with enlargement.” The spirit of this promise would be broken.

Importantly, it is evident that the Clinton administration was very aware of Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion and of their feeling of betrayal. Knowing that expansion is an impossible sell in Russia, Gore promised Yeltsin that expansion wouldn’t occur before 1996 because “[w]e understand you have parliamentary elections in mid-1995 and it would be hard for you if we moved forward then.”

In the July 17, 1995 memorandum, Lake informed Clinton of a “hardening Russian opposition to NATO expansion.” In a section called “Intensifying Russian Opposition,” Lake said that “opposition to NATO enlargement appears to be hardening across the political spectrum among the Russian political elite.” He reported that key Russian officials insist “that NATO enlargement and NATO-Russia cooperation are incompatible.” He recognized that Yeltsin had “approved…a strategy for delaying and possibly derailing NATO enlargement.” Lake forecast little hope of the position softening because “Russia’s opposition is deep and profound.”

Though much has been made of William Burns’ important 2008 warning that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” it was not the first such warning.

In a 1991 appeal cited in M.E. Sarotte’s Not One Inch, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Robert Strauss warned that “the most revolutionary event of 1991 for Russia may not be the collapse of Communism, but the loss of something Russians of all political stripes think of as part of their own body politic, and near to the heart at that: Ukraine.” An internal 1991 draft paper recommended leaving “the possibility of Ukraine joining the NATO liaison program” for “a later time.” Sarotte reports that Richard Holbrooke, who aggressively pushed expansion, called NATO in a briefing paper “an Alliance [Ukraine] can probably never enter.”

A secret/sensitive memorandum dated July 29, 1996 clearly states that Russia sought to “draw red lines around certain countries (e.g. the Baltics and Ukraine) to prevent their ever being considered for NATO membership.”

The declassified documents make it clear that, at the time of the decision to expand NATO east toward Russia, the Clinton administration knew that Russia vehemently opposed expansion and especially expansion to Ukraine. They also knew that crossing that red line could lead to trouble.

The July 29, 1996 memo shows, not only knowledge of Russian opposition, but understanding of it: “From a Russian perspective, they cannot (and probably should not ever want to) endorse formally NATO enlargement.”

An August 23, 1996 draft memorandum written by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot says, “The Russians are saying that they will not ‘negotiate’ on the issue of Baltic and Ukrainian eventual membership in NATO.” Using the language of conflict for, perhaps, the first time, Talbot says that “[t]his has the distinctly ominous implication of a warning to us…”

Remarkably, having recognized that Russia had drawn a red line at NATO expansion to Ukraine, the United States proceeded to invert that red line: “An important part of our job will be to make sure our red lines stick—and that the Russians’ <sic> don’t cross ours (i.e., trying to label UNACCEPTABLE Ukrainian and Baltic membership.”

Enlarging on the new language of conflict, the memo then says that if Russia’s “nasty implication [of a warning] becomes explicit, we should slam back hard…” This is the most prescient line in the declassified documents, forecasting a “hard” American response if Russia asserts its red line at NATO expansion to Ukraine.

And it is clear that the Clinton administration had no illusions about Russia’s serious concerns or about their resentment of Bill Clinton’s breaking the promise that was made to them at the end of the Cold War. In a memorandum to Strobe Talbot, Dennis Ross said that the Russians “see NATO expansion” as their being “humiliated,” but “worse,” that it confirms that “they will face potential threats closer to their borders.” Ross added that the Russians “feel they were snookered at the time of German unification” by the breaking of “[Secretary of State James] Baker’s promises on not extending NATO military presence into what was East Germany” which was “part of a perceived commitment not to expand the Alliance eastward.”

In an important meeting between Clinton and Yeltsin in Helsinki on March 21, 1997, Yeltsin’s frustration and anger are made clear. Discussing the NATO-Russia Founding Act, Yeltsin makes sure that Clinton knows that Russia’s “position has not changed. It remains a mistake for NATO to move eastward.” He then says, “But I need to take steps to alleviate the negative consequences of this for Russia. I am prepared to enter into an agreement with NATO not because I want to but because it is a forced step.”

Yeltsin then personally told Clinton, “But one thing is very important: enlargement should also not embrace the former Soviet republics. I cannot sign any agreement without such language. Especially Ukraine.”

Yeltsin implored Clinton that “[d]ecisions by NATO are not to be taken without taking into account the concerns or opinions of Russia.” He also demanded that “nuclear and conventional arms cannot move eastward into new member to the borders of Russia.” Clinton then promised Yeltsin “to make sure that we take account of Russia’s concerns as we move forward.” Another broken promise.

Interestingly, as an indication that the United States recognizes that objections to NATO expansion are not just Vladimir Putin’s objections but Russia’s, in a November 16, 2000 meeting, Talbot suggests that “the next round of NATO enlargement might be easier under Putin than it had been under Yeltsin.”

Reuniting the present with the context of its past is crucial—not for condoning Russia’s war against Ukraine, but for understanding it. More importantly, it will be crucial when it finally comes to resolving and ending it.

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia to Respond to US Sanctions Against Energy Sector – Russian Foreign Ministry

Sputnik – 11.01.2025

MOSCOW – The United States’ decision to introduce new sanctions against the Russian energy sector will receive a response, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Saturday.

“Washington’s hostile actions will not go unanswered and will be taken into account [by Moscow] when developing foreign economic strategy,” the statement said.

The ministry also noted that the introduction of new sanctions is an attempt to harm the Russian economy ahead of the end of President Joe Biden’s “inglorious tenure” at the cost of the risk of destabilizing global markets. The interests of US allies in Europe and residents of the United States are being sacrificed, the ministry added.

“Accordingly, the incoming president, who does not have the right to lift the mentioned sanctions without the approval of Congress, is left with a ‘scorched earth,’ literally and figuratively,” the statement said.

Russia will continue implementation of large oil and gas production projects, as well as import substitution, provision of oilfield services and construction of nuclear power plants in third countries, the ministry also said, noting that Moscow was and remains a key and reliable player on the global energy market.

On Friday, the US imposed sanctions on more than 200 companies and individuals linked to Russia’s energy sector, as well as more than 180 vessels involved in energy transportation. The sanctions are aimed at restricting Moscow’s access to international markets and reducing revenues from oil and gas exports.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Multipolar world’s tech edge grows, leaves political West trailing behind

By Drago Bosnic – January 10, 2025

The end of last year saw some pretty incredible breakthroughs in military technologies, the most impressive among which is the first “Oreshnik” strike, demonstrating Russia’s growing dominance in hypersonic weapons. Apart from the “Oreshnik”, Moscow also started the large-scale deployment of its unrivaled S-500 SAM/ABM (surface-to-air missile/anti-ballistic missile) systems that can track and down all sorts of targets (including hypersonic). Multiple sources are also reporting that the Eurasian giant is speeding up its “sixth generation” program, with both the Sukhoi and MiG developing their own designs. In the meantime, existing and proven Russian fighter jets, such as the Su-30 (multirole), Su-34 (strike fighter), Su-35S (air superiority) and Su-57S (next-generation multirole) are not only conducting regular missions, but in the case of the Su-35 are also helping countries like Iran maintain security amid constant US/NATO threats.

Then we have China, which presented not one, but two working “sixth-generation” jet prototypes, named Chengdu J-36 and Shenyang J-50 by the media, respectively. The two aircraft show what can only be described as a quantum leap for Beijing, which is now ahead of Washington DC in jet technologies, an unimaginable prospect until just a few years ago. In fact, this was such a shock for the US-led political West that the mainstream propaganda machine is now openly engaging in a rather pathetic denial, claiming that the Pentagon supposedly “flew its own prototype years ago”, something for which there’s zero evidence. However, this development sent Lockheed Martin’s stocks crashing as concerns for the troubled F-35’s future in the USAF started emerging. However, to make matters worse for Washington DC, there are also reliable reports that China also flew the H-20, its first stealthy strategic bomber.

In addition to this aircraft, which the Pentagon expects to enter service in the next five years, Beijing also inducted a number of other weapon systems, including the KJ-3000 AEW&C (airborne early warning and control) aircraft and Type 076 carrier (named “Sichuan”). What’s more, China is also helping several other countries to strengthen their armed forces in the wake of the US-led aggression against the world. This includes Algeria, which got a license to locally produce the Chinese Type 056 corvettes, as well as Serbia, whose HQ-22 SAM systems acquired from Beijing just became fully operational. Thus, just like in the case of Russian Su-35 fighter jets for Iran, these Chinese systems will help others maintain security and sovereignty, which is greatly contributing to global peace by deterring war criminal organizations such as NATO, by far the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel.

To that end, North Korea is also updating its already impressive arsenal, including the “Hwasong-16B” IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missile) armed with an HGV (hypersonic glide vehicle). The weapon was test launched on January 6, demonstrating that Pyongyang is still ahead of the US in hypersonic technologies. Just like in the case of Chinese next-generation jets, the mainstream propaganda machine is also engaging its coping mechanisms with ludicrous claims that the Pentagon will “soon outpace” Russia and China in hypersonics, a laughable (and extremely unlikely) prospect given just how far behind the US is. In the meantime, North Korean Russian-derived ATGM (anti-tank guided missile) systems, specifically the “Bulsae-4”, are obliterating Western weapons in NATO-occupied Ukraine, which is yet another embarrassment and humiliation for the political West which regularly mocks Pyongyang.

India is also upgrading its armed forces with Russian missile technologies, specifically the “BrahMos” supersonic cruise missile which is set to be updated and deployed on a ground-based launcher. The weapon is based on the Russian P-800 “Onyx” supersonic cruise missile, one of the deadliest in its class, as proven by its superb performance during the special military operation (SMO). Inspired by Chinese advances, Delhi is also expected to invest heavily in next-generation aircraft, likely in cooperation with Moscow, while supporting and helping its domestic military industry. This also includes hypersonic technologies, based on both Russian and homegrown designs.

All these developments stand in stark contrast to America’s growing technological ineptitude. It turns out that its much-touted ABM systems aren’t exactly working as marketed.

Namely, military sources report that the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system deployed in Israel failed to intercept Houthi missiles fired from Yemen. In addition, the Pentagon is reconsidering the future of its V-22 “Osprey” tiltrotor aircraft amid numerous crashes and operational faults. However, such failures don’t seem to deter the US and its vassals and satellite states from engaging in threats of more aggression against the world. There are numerous reports that Washington DC is preparing to attack Iran, with both the outgoing Biden and upcoming Trump administrations poised to do so regardless of their supposed differences in foreign policy approach. What’s more, there’s talk of the US annexing not just Canada, but also Greenland and even attacking Panama. What started out as a “joke” turned out to be anything but, once again confirming America’s aggressive nature.

Such developments demonstrate that expecting groundbreaking changes in American foreign policy is overoptimistic, to put it mildly. The outgoing Biden administration is making sure that some of the worst people on the planet, including unrepentant war criminals such as Hilary Clinton and Victoria Nuland still have major influence in US politics even after Trump takes office.

Namely, Clinton was recently awarded the so-called “Presidential Medal of Freedom”, along with the no less infamous George Soros. Individuals like Clinton, Nuland, Soros, etc. are extremely dangerous for sovereigntist nations and the multipolar world as a whole. Their activities, much akin to political (and, in many cases, literal) terrorism, aim to destabilize non-compliant countries that want to break free from the political West’s extremely malignant influence. All this makes the development of adequate defenses all the more important.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

January 10, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jimmy Carter’s Hypocritical Olympic Boycott

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | January 8, 2025

According to an article in the Washington Post, Gene Mills, a U.S. citizen who was one of the top amateur wrestlers in the world, stated, “He stole my life. That was my life. He took it away from me.”

Mills was referring to President Jimmy Carter, who recently passed away at the age of 100. It was Carter who ordered U.S. athletes to boycott the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, Russia. The reason? Carter used the boycott to protest the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

There were two at least two big problems with Carter’s order, however.

One problem is that in a genuinely free society, people have the right to travel wherever they want and interact with anyone they want. If people want to compete in sporting events in foreign lands or just be spectators, that’s part of living the life of a free person. It’s none of the government’s business.

That wasn’t Carter’s mindset. His order reflected the reality of the American condition in modern times. In the United States, citizens no longer have the God-given, natural right of freedom of travel or freedom to interact with people in foreign lands. American citizens are subject to the orders, dictates, and edicts of their political masters. Once the president issued his order prohibiting them from competing in the Olympics, American citizens were expected to obey. I’ve sometimes wondered what U.S. officials would have done to U.S. athletes who decided to disobey Carter’s edict. No doubt Carter and his federal henchmen would have figured out ways to smash them.

Thus, the irony was that in issuing his boycott order to protest Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan, Carter was demonstrating that the United States was now founded on at least one of the principles of the communist Soviet Union — that freedom of travel is not a fundamental, God-given right here in the United States any more than it is in communist, totalitarian nations.

Of course, things haven’t changed a bit. If American citizens travel to Cuba, for example, and spend money there without the official permission of their U.S. masters, they are immediately indicted upon their return to the U.S., prosecuted, convicted, fined, and sentenced to prison.

Another big problem is that it was Carter and his national-security establishment who intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately provoked the Soviets into invading Afghanistan in the first place. Yes, you read that right. While Carter pontificated about the evil Soviet empire’s invasion of Afghanistan — and used American athletes as pawns in his protest against the invasion — the fact is that Carter himself, as well as the U.S. national-security establishment, wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan and, in fact, provoked them into doing so.

This evil little scheme was later confirmed by Carter’s national-security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. The scheme called for supporting Afghanistan opponents of Russia in the hopes of provoking the Soviets into invading the country. The scheme worked brilliantly. And when Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Carter, Brezinski, and other U.S, officials were as exultant as U.S. officials would be many years later when they succeeded in provoking Russia into invading Ukraine.

Why such exultation? As Brezinski put it, they had now given the Soviets their “own Vietnam.” In other words, Russia would now be bogged down in a war that would entail the killing of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, just like the 58,000 American soldiers that U.S. presidents, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA sacrificed in Vietnam for nothing. What a warped and perverted thing to be excited about.

Thus, here you had Carter protesting against the invasion of Afghanistan by those evil Russians when it was Carter himself who desired the invasion, provoked it, and was exultant about it when it happened. He then had the audacity to use innocent U.S. athletes, who had nothing to do with any of these machinations, as pawns to protest against the invasion that Carter wanted, provoked, and got. Is it really difficult to understand why so many people around the world, including here in the United States, hate the hypocrisy of the U.S. government so much?

January 9, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Europe isn’t the real threat to Ukraine peace but UK

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | January 7, 2025 

The Biden Administration has not given up on Ukraine war. A meeting of the Ramstein Format Meeting is scheduled to take place in Germany on Thursday, chaired by the outgoing US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, to address Ukraine’s defence needs, which the Ukrainian President Zelensky will also address. 

Meanwhile, Kiev typically launched an attack in the Kursk region on the eve of the Ramstein Format event as the “curtain-raiser”. The operation, although played up in the British press, is spearheaded by just 2 tanks and fifteen armoured carriers and will no doubt be crushed by the Russian drones and its highly lethal Ka high-performance combat helicopters with day and night capability, high survivability and fire power. 

Typically, Zelensky won’t give up on any occasion for grandstanding in front of the Western audience. He hopes to display on Thursday that there is still some spunk left in the Ukrainian armed forces. Tragically, he is sacrificing a few dozen Ukrainian soldiers in this melodrama which may distract some attention from the front-line as Russian forces have entered Chasiv Yar and reached the suburbs of Pokrovsk in an operation to surround that city. 

With the fall of Chasiv Yar and Pokorovsk, the Battle of Donbass is nearing home stretch. It sets the stage for a massive Russian push to the Dnieper River if the Kremlin is left with no other option but to end the war on its terms. (See a recent article on the future map of Ukraine by the top Moscow strategic analyst Dmitry Trenin titled What Ukraine should look like after Russia’s victory.)

Indeed, the hopes of Donald Trump bringing the war to an end in the first day of his presidency on January 20 have withered away. The Ramstein meeting is a defiant act by Zelensky and his European associates, as Trump is set to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin soon.  

On December 18, Zelensky met in Brussels with NATO chief Mark Rutte and huddled with several European leaders to discuss war strategy. His European interlocutors are also seeking to develop their own plans if Trump, who has pledged to bring a swift end to the war, pulls the plug on the Kiev regime or forces it to make concessions. 

The key topic of the Brussels meeting was security guarantees, Zelensky’s office said. Zelensky highlighted his “detailed one-on-one discussion” with French President Emmanuel Macron that focused on priorities to further strengthen Ukraine’s position “regarding the presence of forces in Ukraine that could contribute to stabilising the path to peace.”

Prior to the Brussels meeting, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told reporters that the priority was to secure the “sovereignty of Ukraine and that it will not be forced to submit to a dictated peace.” But, he cautioned, any discussion of boots on the ground would be premature. 

Rutte himself counselled that Kiev’s allies should focus on ramping up arms supplies to ensure Ukraine is in a position of strength. Rutte estimated that Ukraine needs 19 additional  air-defence systems to protect the country’s energy infrastructure. 

Interestingly, Rutte announced that the proposed new NATO command in the German city of Wiesbaden is now “up and running” which will henceforth coordinate Western military aid for Ukraine as well as provide training for Ukraine’s military. Trump is unlikely to preserve the Ramstein Format. 

Simply put, Europe, including the U.K., lack the capacity to replace the US military assistance to Ukraine. For the EU to replace the US, it would need to double its military aid to Ukraine. But the current political situation in Europe, along with the real military capabilities of individual European countries, makes this an impossible objective. (See an analysis, here, by Samantha de Bendern at the Chatham House.) 

Germany, Europe’s largest military donor to Ukraine, has plunged into political chaos with the collapse of the Scholz-led coalition. Macron, a staunch defender of Ukraine, has lost control over France’s domestic politics since the June parliamentary elections, where he lost his majority. Elsewhere in Europe, political parties on the far right and far left, with pro-Russian sympathies, are rising.  

Europeans are running around like headless chickens. The surprise visit of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to Florida to meet Trump and watch a movie with him at this critical juncture of the Ukraine war shows that the smart lady has no confidence in the likes of Macron. 

Meloni has a warm equation with Trump’s close aide Elon Musk and is seeking to strengthen business ties with the US. “This is very exciting. I’m here with a fantastic woman, the prime minister of Italy,” Trump told the Mar-a-Lago crowd and added expansively, “She’s really taken Europe by storm.” 

Italy, an important NATO power that overlooks the Mediterranean is a vociferous supporter of trans-atlanticism, and pursues a nuanced policy on the Ukraine war that may be of use to Trump to build bridges with Europe. Meloni is positioning herself. 

Italy resolutely condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s subsequent involvement in Eastern Ukraine and joined the EU sanctions against Russia. It demonstrated its military support for Ukraine with significant military aid packages within the framework of an agreement on security cooperation (under a previous government headed by Prime Minister Mario Draghi). 

That said, Rome has often sought to balance EU responses with its national interests towards Russia. Thus, Meloni’s foreign minister reaffirmed recently, even as Biden authorised Ukraine to deploy long-range American missiles against military targets inside Russia, “Our position on Ukraine’s use of (Italian) weapons has not changed. They can only be used within Ukrainian territory.” 

In the final analysis, it is the course of the war that will decide the terms of peace in Ukraine. Europe’s swing toward right-wing governments — Austria is the latest example — may help Russia. However, the crux of the matter is that so long as the spy agencies of Britain and US work in tandem to manipulate the governments in power in White Hall — Labour and Conservative alike — the Trump administration has a serious problem on its hands. 

Of course, Trump is well aware of the UK’s pivotal role in hatching the “Russia collusion” plot, which hobbled his presidency. Downsizing Britain’s role can be a game changer for peace in Ukraine. 

But the MI6’s capacity to influence the Kiev regime is not to be underestimated. Former UK prime minister Boris Johnson played a seminal role in torpedoing the Russia-Ukraine deal negotiated at the peace talks hosted by Turkey in March-April 2022 just weeks into the conflict. Even if Trump strikes a deal with Putin, which in itself is highly problematic as things stand, London is sure to undermine it one way or another at the first available opportunity, given its Russophobic obsession with inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.  

Possibly, Trump is savouring Elon Musk’s relentless assault on the British government. “America should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government,” Musk wrote on X. But British politicians have the skin of rhino. Sir Keir Starmer is giving as good as he gets. Trump’s challenge lies in mothballing the special relationship with the UK.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU scoops up record amount of Russian LNG – Bloomberg

RT | January 7, 2025

The volume of liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipped by Russia to the European Union hit a record high in 2024, Bloomberg reported on Monday, citing ship-tracking data for key EU buyers. The surge occurred before Kiev’s suspension of gas transit through Ukraine to the bloc.

Ukraine opted not to prolong a five-year transit contract with Russian energy giant Gazprom beyond the end of 2024, halting the flow of natural gas from Russia to Romania, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Italy, and Moldova.

The data tracked by the news agency showed that last year, exports of Russian gas to the bloc totaled some 30 billion cubic meters of gas, with more than half of that volume going via the pipeline system running through Ukrainian territory.

At the same time, the amount of super-chilled LNG shipped from Russia to the region in 2024 soared to an all-time high of 15.5 million tons, the news outlet reported, noting a significant surge in shipments compared to 2020, when the EU imported some 10.5 million tons of the fuel.

“Europe will still need gas as all its efforts to wean itself from Russian gas have not been successful,” Tatiana Orlova, an economist at Oxford Economics, told the news agency. “It will probably end up buying more Russian LNG to make up for the drop in natural gas imports from Russia.”

Moscow also exports gas to Europe through the TurkStream pipeline, which runs from Russia to Türkiye via the Black Sea and then to the border with EU member Greece. Two lines of the route provide gas supplies for the Turkish domestic market and supply central European customers, including Hungary and Serbia.

Supplies via the Yamal-Europe pipeline were halted back in 2022, after Poland terminated its gas agreement with Russia and Moscow blacklisted EuRoPol GAZ, a joint venture between Gazprom and Polish gas company PGNiG (which operates the route), in response to Western sanctions.

Despite a significant reduction in pipeline gas imports from Russia due to the Ukrainian conflict and the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022, EU member states continued to purchase record amounts of the country’s LNG. The chilled fuel has only partially been targeted by the latest sanctions introduced by the bloc.

In June, Brussels banned ships from obtaining Russian LNG by engaging in re-loading operations, ship-to-ship transfers, or ship-to-shore transfers with the purpose of re-exporting it to third countries. The sanctions have a nine-month transition period.

The bloc has vocally committed itself to eliminating its reliance on Russian energy, but has continued to purchase LNG from Russia, which accounted for 15% of total imports of the fuel as of June, according to data tracked by commodities data provider Kpler.

Russia was ranked the second biggest supplier of LNG to the European continent after the US in the first half of 2024, according to data compiled by the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, which noted that the country’s share amounted to 21%.

In December, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Moscow is planning to continue to increase the share of Russian LNG on world markets, highlighting that the fuel is one of the top-requested energy products globally.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

US ‘Quietly’ Sent Heavy Weapons To Ukraine Well Before Invasion Started, Blinken Reveals

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | January 5, 2025

The United States is currently dealing with conflicts in multiple hot spots from Eastern Europe to Gaza to dealing with a collapsed Syrian state and continued standoff with Iran over its nuclear program.

But the Biden administration regrets nothing – so says Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a major end of term interview given to the NY Times and published this weekend. Among the more interesting pieces of new information from the interview is Blinken’s direct admission that Washington was covertly shipping heavy weapons to Ukraine even months before the Russian invasion of February 2022.

“We made sure that well before [Russia’s ‘special military operation’] happened, starting in September and then again in December, we quietly got a lot of weapons to Ukraine,” he said in the interview published Saturday. “Things like Stingers, Javelins.”

The Kremlin at the time cited such covert transfers, which were perhaps an ‘open secret’, as justification for the invasion based on ‘demilitarizing’ Ukraine and keeping NATO military infrastructure out. Moscow had issued many warnings over its ‘red lines’ in the weeks and months leading up to the war.

Below is the full section from the NY Times interview transcript where Blinken boasts of the pre-invasion transfers:

QUESTION:  You made two early strategic decisions on Ukraine.  The first – because of that fear of direct conflict – was to restrict Ukraine’s use of American weapons within Russia.  The second was to support Ukraine’s military offensive without a parallel diplomatic track to try and end the conflict.  How do you look back on those decisions now?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  So first, if you look at the trajectory of the conflict, because we saw it coming, we were able to make sure that not only were we prepared, and allies and partners were prepared, but that Ukraine was prepared.  We made sure that well before the Russian aggression happened, starting in September – the Russian aggression happened in February.  Starting in September and then again in December, we quietly got a lot of weapons to Ukraine to make sure that they had in hand what they needed to defended themselves – things like Stingers, Javelins that they could use that were instrumental in preventing Russia from taking Kyiv, from rolling over the country, erasing it from the map, and indeed pushing the Russians back.

Blinken claims elsewhere in the interview that the Biden White House kept diplomacy going the whole time, and tried to engage Moscow, but explains that this basically involved keeping the Western allies and backers of Kiev unified and on the same track.

Interestingly when asked about whether its time to end the war, Biden’s top diplomat basically dodged the question…

QUESTION:  Do you think it’s time to end the war, though?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  These are decisions for Ukrainians to make.  They have to decide where their future is and how they want to get there.  Where the line is drawn on the map, at this point, I don’t think is fundamentally going to change very much.  The real question is:  Can we make sure that Ukraine is a position to move forward strongly?

QUESTION:  You mean use – that the areas that Russia controls you feel —

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  In —

QUESTION:  — will have to be ceded?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Ceded is not the question.  The question is – the line as a practical matter in the foreseeable future is unlikely to move very much.  Ukraine’s claim on that territory will always be there.  And the question is:  Will they find ways – with the support of others – to regain territory that’s been lost?

Blinken in the above essentially gives his view that no… it is not time to end the war, despite the majority of the war-weary publics in Europe and the US thinking the opposite. There’s some evidence that much or most of the common Ukrainian populace wants it to end as fast as possible as well.

Ultimately, with the world now on the brink of WW3, it’s clear this White House regrets nothing, which even the title of the interview piece strongly suggests: Antony Blinken Insists He and Biden Made the Right Calls. But we think history will not look kindly.

January 6, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Journalist killed by Ukrainian drone strike

RT | January 4, 2025

Aleksandr Martemyanov, a freelance reporter with the newspaper Izvestia, has been killed in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic after the civilian vehicle he was riding in was attacked by a Ukrainian drone, Russian media reported on Saturday.

At least five other journalists, who were also in the car, including two RIA Novosti reporters, were injured in the attack, the news agency said. The vehicle was hit while traveling on a road away from the frontline between the town of Gorlovka and the regional capital city of Donetsk.

The car carrying the reporters was hit by a kamikaze drone. Martemyanov succumbed to his wounds shortly thereafter, Izvestia has confirmed.

At the time of the attack, the reporters were returning from Gorlovka after filming the aftermath of the strikes on the town, which has been coming under indiscriminate Ukrainian artillery, missile, and drone attacks on an almost daily basis.

The attack on the journalists’ car appeared to be deliberate, Maksim Romanenko, a reporter with RIA Novosti, suggested. Romanenko sustained relatively minor injuries – bruising on his face and a concussion – during the incident.

January 4, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Uncle Sam and Banderite bandits destroy Europe while Euro lackeys hail liberation

Strategic Culture Foundation | January 3, 2025

This new year began with a new era that presages Europe sliding irrevocably into economic darkness and abject suzerainty under U.S. dominance.

Uncle Sam has won a decades-long ambition to dominate Europe entirely, thanks to the help from a NeoNazi regime in Ukraine and the pathetic European politicians who hail the slavery of Europe as some liberation.

The people of Europe are facing a foreboding period of economic hardship. We can confidently say that because the most fundamental of economic inputs – fuel energy – is about to become more expensive and precariously supplied for the European Union.

Russia’s decades-long energy relations with Europe are now severed. It seems an astounding final act of reckless self-harm. The European Union’s economies have been floundering from an energy crisis caused by EU leaders willfully cutting off supplies of Russian gas. Now, with the last major transit route shut down, Europe is heading toward economic, social, and political self-destruction.

On Wednesday, New Year’s Day, the Ukrainian regime cut off the last supply route of Russian gas to the European Union. This regime, which glorifies Stepan Bandera and other Nazi-era fascists, is, in effect, holding the entire European Union hostage with its Russophobia and relentless corruption.

The arrogance and audacity are astonishing. The Ukrainian regime does not have an elected leader (Zelensky canceled elections last year), it is not a member of the EU, it has milked European taxpayers of hundreds of billions of Euros, and now has unilaterally shut down the last gas pipeline from Russia to the EU.

Ironically, the pipeline was called the Brotherhood Pipeline. It was conceived in the 1970s and began operating in the 1980s, carrying natural gas from Russia’s Western Siberia to the EU. Ukraine received generous transit fees for the overland route. The decades-long era of transcontinental cooperation was killed on December 31 by a Banderite regime that has the cheek to claim its actions are virtuous to “stop Russian blood money”.

Incredibly, too, various European leaders also hailed the Ukrainian action as a liberation from Russian energy dependence. Some Western media even tried to cast Moscow as the villain that instigated the cut-off. The New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, for example, inverted reality with the headline: “Russia ends exports of natural gas to Europe via Ukraine”.

To his credit, Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico seems to be the only sane leader among the EU’s 27 member states. He condemned what he called Ukraine’s “sabotage” of Europe’s energy supply and its economies. Fico warned that the European Union is facing a full-blown economic disaster as a result.

The Ukraine transit route supplied Slovakia, Austria, Italy and the Czech Republic. Now, those countries will have to find alternative supplies from international markets. The Ukrainian route also supplied Moldova, which is facing an immediate energy crisis. Russia claims that the Moldavian government owes outstanding bills for past gas supply.

The Brotherhood Pipeline harks back to an era of friendship and cooperation even though it was conceived during the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union. The 4,500-kilometer pipeline was partly financed by German capital.

Another ambitious Cold War-era supply route was the Yamal Pipeline, which ran over 4,100 km from Siberia to Poland and Germany. Its operation was halted in 2022 by Poland following the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine.

The more recently constructed Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines that ran 1,200 km under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany were blown up in 2022. That covert act of sabotage was no doubt carried out by the United States under the orders of President Joe Biden, according to the respected investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

The upshot is that all major Russian natural gas supply lines to Europe have now been terminated. The only one remaining is Turk Stream which runs under the Black Sea to Turkey. But it mainly supplies Balkan countries that are not in the EU.

In the space of two years, Russia has gone from being the major supplier of EU gas imports (over 40 percent) to being a minor source. The big winner of the phenomenal market disruption is the United States, whose exports of liquefied natural gas to the EU have tripled. Another winner is Norway, which is not an EU member. Other sources of gas for Europe are Azerbaijan and Algeria.

However, the unprecedented extra costs to Europe for this enormous rearrangement in its energy trade are encumbering the EU economies, industries and households with crippling burdens. New pipelines have to be built, as well as new terminals to receive the shipped gas. U.S. exports cost 30 to 40 percent more than the Russian product.

The slump in the German economy from higher energy costs is directly caused by the cutting off of abundant and affordable Russian gas. And it is going to get even worse. The grim fate of Germany heralds the economic misery that the whole EU is sliding headlong into.

The history of Europe’s economic demise is as obvious as it is blatant.

Of course, it is all about the United States using and abusing its Western “allies” for its own interests. For Western imperialists, there is no such thing as allies, only interests. And the Americans are exacting that maxim to the hilt.

For decades, the U.S. has vehemently opposed the energy trade between the EU and Russia. Back in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan’s administration tried its best to block the development of the Brotherhood Pipeline with threats of economic sanctions. The Americans openly said they didn’t want to see Europe and the Soviet Union developing cooperative relations.

At least in earlier times, the European governments appeared to have more independence and backbone. Germany, France, Italy and others rebuffed Washington’s demands to shut down the gas projects.

The long-running strategic aim of the U.S. to displace Russia as an energy supplier to Europe has now been realized. It’s a sign of the desperate times and lawlessness that American military operatives attack European infrastructure.

The blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines and the proxy war in Ukraine have secured the strategic aim of the U.S. and its NATO proxy – keeping the Germans (Europeans) down, the Americans in, and the Russians out.

So much for the free-market capitalism and rules-based order that American and European elites preach. The practice is brute economic competition and dominance down the barrel of a gun. Millions of lives have been destroyed in this “great game” of American imperialist chicanery, and the proxy war in Ukraine is risking the escalation to a nuclear Third World War.

The Banderite regime – an echo of the Nazi past – has enabled the United States to enslave Europe to Washington’s imperialist desires.

Tragically, a coterie of elitist European political leaders are so obsessed with Russophobia and servility to their American overlord that they are crowing with delight at cutting off Russia.

Russia will not suffer. Its vast energy resources are finding alternative lucrative global markets. The victims are the European citizens who are being plunged into wretched economic hardship due to the machinations of American capital, its Banderite tools, and Euro fools.

January 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Bitter Pill of Decisive Strategic Defeat

By William Schryver – imetatronink – February 28, 2024

The last two years have produced what is, for most people around the world who ponder such things, one of the most unanticipated and yet astounding geopolitical turnarounds in modern history.

The heretofore reigning global hegemon designed to inflict upon Russia — its long-time nemesis — a decisive strategic defeat that would deliver the greatest spoil ever taken, and thereby consolidate its power base into the foreseeable future and beyond.

The empire imagined Russia to be at its civilizational nadir: weak, vulnerable, and finally ripe for the picking.

Notwithstanding the now proverbial failures of the empires that preceded it, the current masters of the Anglo-American empire, in tandem with its European vassal states and a willing proxy force in Ukraine, believed “things are different this time”. They convinced themselves that the power differential between the latest iteration of western empire and its putative Russian adversary was so pronounced as to assure victory over “the gas station masquerading as a country”.

Having previously fashioned for themselves a logically fallacious metric they named “Gross Domestic Product” in order to measure the relative strength of nations, they deluded themselves into believing their imaginary superior “wealth” would guarantee invincibility in all the realms of endeavor that, in aggregate, constitute real power.

If the current war has done nothing else, it ought to have once and for all disabused the shallow minds of the western intelligentsia that an economy based on the financialization of EVERYTHING is not stronger than an economy based on actual production of stuff.

A two-year-long high-intensity conflict has revealed in unmistakable terms that deindustrialized nations are utterly incapable of prosecuting modern industrial warfare.

Of course, the deindustrialization of the so-called “western democracies” took place over the course of several decades, leaving only the myth of “The Arsenal of Democracy” instead of its material substance. It produced immense profits for a steadily diminishing few even as it hollowed out a prosperous and socially stable middle class and inaugurated an oppressive neo-feudalism that is now well on its way to deconstructing all of western culture.

In entirely unforeseen ways, the increasingly evident failure of the empire’s ill-conceived plan to divide and conquer vast Russia has brought into stark relief the internal contradictions, ideological incoherence, and vast endemic corruption of a capitalist civilization gone irredeemably awry.

In its hubris-fueled determination to prove it could do what no western hegemon had been able to accomplish over the past five centuries, the rapidly eroding Anglo-American empire will now be compelled to swallow the bitter pill of decisive strategic defeat on the same eastern European steppes where its predecessors were served their own banquet of consequences.

And the Russians, as is their wont, will pass down new hymns of victory to their children’s children’s children, for generations to come.

January 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »