Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Events in Syria and Future Prospects

By Mikhail Gamandiy-Egorov – New Eastern Outlook – December 12, 2024

The tragic events in Syria have clearly demonstrated that internal betrayal is one of the greatest challenges for any sovereign state. This is particularly true when such betrayal serves the interests of those seeking to destroy sovereign nations.

Terrorist groups

Terrorist groups, following a brief advance across several fronts and battles in which the government army effectively refused to engage, managed to capture the Syrian capital, Damascus. Initially, it seemed that this was merely a temporary disarray caused by years of complacency. However, it soon became evident that a large-scale betrayal had occurred within Syria’s political and military apparatus, favouring forces long intent on dismantling the country as a unified state.

Events in Syria as a Lesson

The recent takeover of power in Syria by overt Salafist terrorists is undoubtedly a tragedy, both for Syria itself and for all advocates of a multipolar world. However, it is likely that many representatives of Syria and other Arab nations have not yet fully grasped the far-reaching consequences of what has happened. These consequences are likely to be deeply tragic, both for Syria and for the broader region.

In reality, an undeniable fact remains: an outright terrorist affiliated with ISIL or al-Qaeda—no matter how his true masters might now attempt to portray him—has seized power in one of the world’s oldest nations. This was achieved, of course, not without the involvement of various regimes and intelligence agencies, ranging from the United States and Britain to Israel and Turkey. Furthermore, given the presence of sleeper cells linked to al-Qaeda and ISIL in nearly every Arab country, the future implications for Arab states could be catastrophic. Yet even now, many seem either unaware of this or, like the terrorists themselves, are merely executing the orders of their Western and Israeli patrons.

Nevertheless, no matter how certain hostile forces attempt to discredit Russia and Iran for their alleged failure to assist their ally, the reality lies elsewhere: when internal traitors in a given country gain the upper hand with the tacit approval of part of the population, external intervention becomes utterly futile.

This became clear to Russia—whose Aerospace Forces continued striking advancing terrorist positions—to Iran, which was reportedly ready to deploy a significant military contingent to Syria, and to Lebanon’s Hezbollah, whose fighters performed admirably in battles, including those near the Syrian city of Homs. Meanwhile, Syrian troops abandoned their positions and retreated in haste, despite Hezbollah still recovering from intensive clashes with the Israeli regime, which could reignite at any moment. In such circumstances, it became increasingly apparent that it would be entirely illogical for Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah to continue fighting terrorist forces if the Syrians themselves no longer wished to resist.

Necessary Conclusions and Prospects

There were, of course, evident mistakes at the level of Syria’s leadership. Mistakes that Moscow and Tehran had repeatedly pointed out in private discussions. The necessary reforms were not implemented in recent years, even though the opportunity was certainly there — thanks to the relative peace in Syria and the lull in hostilities. Notably, this peace was largely achieved through the efforts and support of Russia, Iran, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. These reforms were essential in the military sphere and many other areas, but they never materialised.

That said, despite these significant unresolved problems, the situation could not have unfolded as it did without mass betrayal. This is clearly evidenced by footage taken by Russian forces stationed in Syria, which not only confirm the lack of proper preparation among Syrian troops at the onset of the terrorist offensive but also highlight the betrayal by certain members of Syria’s political and military elite.

Who were the external players involved? It is almost certain that the Anglo-Saxons, the Israeli regime, Erdogan’s Turkey, and possibly some Arab states played a role. However, this has become a secondary issue. What truly matters now is that advocates of a multipolar world must closely monitor any attempts at betrayal within their own countries and eliminate them at the very earliest stages of destabilisation attempts—by the harshest means necessary. Furthermore, all necessary reforms across key sectors must be implemented without delay.

As for the enemies and rivals of a multipolar world order, their problems are only beginning. Engaging in a multi-front conflict against Russia across different parts of the globe, the representatives of the Western planetary minority and their agents aimed to provoke a new hot front for our country. They failed — the plans were clearly understood by Russian leadership. Consequently, all new Syrian problems now fall squarely on the enemies of multipolarity. The reemergence of al-Qaeda and ISIL terrorists will likely lead to another massive wave of refugees, increasing security threats. The West and several other nations still fail to understand that controlling terrorists indefinitely is impossible. Eventually, these groups slip out of control, bringing with them inevitable consequences.

So, to all the initiators of this campaign: best of luck in your “successes”, especially as former allies are already turning on each other. Pro-Turkish militants are clashing with pro-American Kurds from the so-called “SDF”, with the direct involvement of al-Qaeda, ISIL, and the US and Israeli regimes. Meanwhile, we will calmly observe from our side. Particularly as Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, is now in Russia and has avoided the fate of Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. As for those Syrians who are pleased with the “improvements”, they can fully immerse themselves in a world of total chaos and lawlessness — or, excuse me, democracy, freedom, and progress. Finally, regarding internal traitors: they always meet a grim end.

December 12, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Strikes deep into Russia ‘big mistake’ – Trump

RT | December 12, 2024

US President-elect Donald Trump has criticized Ukraine’s strikes deep into Russia using Western-supplied weapons, saying that they only escalate the conflict between Kiev and Moscow.

Trump made the statement on Thursday in an interview with Time magazine, which named him the 2024 Person of the Year.

“I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that?” he asked rhetorically.

According to the president-elect, such attacks are “just escalating this war and making it worse.”

“That should not have been allowed to be done… And I think that is a very big mistake, very big mistake,” he said of strikes deep into Russia’s internationally recognized territory.

Trump returned to the issue later in the interview, saying that “the most dangerous thing right now” is the fact that “[Ukrainian leader Vladimir] Zelensky has decided, with the approval of, I assume, the President [Joe Biden], to start shooting missiles into Russia.”

“I think that is a major escalation. I think it is a foolish decision,” he stressed.

The US president-elect’s comments came a day after the Russian Defense Ministry reported that Ukrainian forces had fired six US-supplied ATACMS missiles at a military airfield near the southern city of Taganrog.

Two of them were shot down and the rest were diverted using electronic warfare during the attack, the ministry said. The fallen debris resulted in some injuries and minor damage to two buildings and several vehicles, it added.

On Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia’s response to the strike on Taganrog “will follow at the time and in the way that will be deemed appropriate. But it will definitely follow.”

In late November, Russia used its new Oreshnik hypersonic ballistic missile system for the first time, striking the Yuzhmash military plant in the Ukrainian city of Dnepr.

According to Moscow, the deployment of the state-of-the-art weapon was a response to Washington and its allies allowing Ukraine to target internationally recognized Russian territory with the long-range weapons they supply to Kiev.

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned at the time that if Ukraine’s attacks deep inside Russia continue, Moscow reserves the right “to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow the use of their weapons against our facilities.”

December 12, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Orban reveals Trump’s stance on Ukraine negotiations

RT | December 11, 2024

US President-elect Donald Trump is not yet able to conduct official negotiations to seek a resolution to the Ukraine conflict but will start doing so after assuming office on January 20, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.

Orban made the remarks in a Facebook post on Wednesday in which he recounted his meeting with Trump and members of his inner circle earlier this week. The Hungarian prime minister expressed confidence that a “positive effect” on the conflict will be seen immediately after Trump’s inauguration.

“If two people, whether in Europe or in America, sit down to talk to each other today, they will hardly be able to avoid talking about peace and war,” Orban wrote, noting that US law strictly bars Trump from negotiating in any official capacity before he assumes office.

Orban, one of a handful of dissenters to the Western approach to the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, has reportedly been actively seeking a mediatory role in settling the hostilities.

Early on Wednesday, Orban held an hour-long phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin that revolved around the Ukraine conflict, the situation in Syria, and bilateral ties between Moscow and Budapest.

“These are the most dangerous weeks” in the entire conflict, and Hungary is “taking every possible diplomatic step to argue in favor of a ceasefire and peace talks,” Orban said in a post on X after the talks.

Putin explained Moscow’s position to Orban, detailing “his principled assessment of the current development of the situation regarding Ukraine and the destructive line of the Kiev regime, which continues to exclude any opportunity for peaceful resolution,” according to the Kremlin press service.

The talks between Orban and Putin evoked an angry reaction from Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, who mockingly expressed hopes that the Hungarian leader “at least won’t call [former Syrian President Bashar] Assad in Moscow to listen to his hour-long lectures as well.”

“No one should boost personal image at the expense of unity; everyone should focus on shared success. Unity in Europe has always been key to achieving it. There can be no discussions about the war that Russia wages against Ukraine without Ukraine,” Zelensky stated.

Orban promptly reacted to Zelensky’s rebuke, stating that the Ukrainian leader had rejected his peace efforts, namely “a Christmas ceasefire and a large-scale prisoner exchange” he had proposed.

“It’s sad that [Zelensky] clearly rejected and ruled this out today. We did what we could!” Orban said on X.

December 11, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Seizure of Frozen Russian Assets: Is EU Setting a Legal Trap for Euroclear?

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 11.12.2024

Valerie Urbain, CEO of Euroclear which holds $200 billion in frozen Russian Central Bank assets, told Bloomberg that if the European Union (EU) decides to confiscate the money, the financial services company should be exempt from any liabilities.

What are Euroclear’s concerns?

Urbain suggests Russia’s frozen money may be seized if incoming US President Donald Trump cuts off aid to Ukraine.

Confiscating the Russian assets poses severe risks to the euro currency and the broader stability of Europe’s finances, she warns.

Euroclear could also face legal challenges from Moscow to any moves to confiscate its foreign-held funds, a senior EU official told Reuters in March. Moscow could seize the €33 billion ($34.6 billion) of Euroclear money held in Russia and take legal action to sequester Euroclear assets in Hong Kong and Dubai, the official cautioned.

Sputnik pundit and French economist Jacques Sapir warned in October 2023 that the confiscation of Russia’s frozen assets would be theft – leading to legal action.

Urbain’s predecessor Lieve Mostrey warned the EU in February against seizing the frozen Russian money, adding that “the risk is a bit lower” if the EU appropriates the interest owed on the frozen sovereign assets.

But in October the European Commission moved to consider allowing Euroclear to take the frozen Russian assets, despite the risks. Euroclear complains that it faces “a significant number of legal proceedings ongoing, almost exclusively in Russian courts”.

December 11, 2024 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Peace Plans, Schmese Plans: Key Path to Ukraine Peace Long Ignored by All

By William Dunkerley | Ron Paul Institute | December 10, 2024

Politico ran the headline, “Ukraine Peace Plans Galore.”

Ukraine, Russia, and China each have a peace plan. Trump is developing one. The Alliance of Democracies has one. It looks a lot like Ukraine’s plan at first glance.

There’s talk of a Demilitarized Zone between Ukraine and Russia. There’s also the suggestion of imposing a frozen conflict. They seem like an open invitation for continued stress between the countries, not real peace.

So, what’s the ignored key path to peace I’m talking about?

The first step along that path involves adopting a strategy of honesty. That requires sharp awareness of a troubling situation. It is that the mainstream Ukraine narrative expressed by most of our politicians is fabricated. Likewise are the stories reported by our media.

Instead of debunking all the falsehoods one by one I’ll describe the truths that the false narratives ignore. They became apparent to me by closely following what actually happened during and after the revolution. Here’s what I saw:

When in 2014 the Maidan revolutionaries took over by force, they cancelled Ukraine’s democracy.

–They illegally chased the democratically elected president out of the country, falsely claiming he was impeached. But on close examination he wasn’t. The United States has admitted that. A Ukrainian official also confirmed it to me personally. No impeachment. No resignation, either.

–The revolutionaries threw out the democratically promulgated constitution and replaced it with an old one that the legitimate Supreme Court had previously declared unconstitutional.

–They began to rule as militant, self-appointed, unelected leaders of a new, non-democratic state.

–They showed early intentions of drastically altering what had been successfully a Ukrainian-Russian multilingual state. That actually played out in later overt initiatives to linguistically and culturally cleanse things Russian from the new Ukrainian state. That brought about the oppression of Ukraine’s significant Russian minority population.

Most areas of Ukraine accepted all that as a fait accompli. Two did not: Crimea and Donbas. (Donbas consists of the areas known as Donetsk and Luhansk.)

Both Crimea and Donbas rejected the loss of democracy and also the unelected revolutionary leaders that caused it. Crimea and Donbas each declared their respective independence.

In response, the revolutionaries launched a hostile attack. They waged war on what was by then the independent area of Donbas. The intent was apparently to capture it by force.

They didn’t attack Crimea, however.

You see, a treaty that Russia had with Ukraine gave Russia control over its historical naval base at Sevastopol, Crimea. It also allowed for up to 25,000 Russian troops to be stationed there. According to the March 18, 2014 Washington Post, Russia was believed to have had about 15,000 on-base at the time of the revolution. That may have deterred an attack by the revolutionaries.

The net effect of the revolution was to create in a very real sense a different country, a different Ukraine.

Look at the chain of events I described above. Pre revolution — democracy. Post revolution — unelected rule by force. There was a complete break from the earlier government. There was no continuity. Pre revolution — control over Donbas and Crimea. Post revolution — no such control. They both had achieved independence.

In a de facto sense, pre-revolution Ukraine and post-revolution Ukraine aren’t the same country when it comes to statehood.

The post-revolution Ukrainian state was given some semblance of democracy in June 2014. That’s when it installed its first democratically elected president, Petro Poroshenko. This was about two months after the revolutionaries had already attacked Donbas. Upon taking office Poroshenko continued to attack Donbas as did Volodymyr Zelensky who followed as president.

To appreciate the concept of post-revolution Ukraine as a “different country” think of China in the 1900s. It had a revolution, too. Pre revolution it was the Republic of China. Post revolution it was the communist People’s Republic of China. Again, a complete break. Who would argue that they were the same country?

This perspective is consistent with a multinational treaty. It is the Montevideo Convention of 1933. It was signed on behalf of the United States by Cordell Hull, President Franklin Roosevelt’s secretary of state.

In international law this treaty is widely regarded as definitional regarding statehood and country status. Two essential qualifications are government and territory. Pre- and post-revolution Ukraine were discontinuous on both qualifications.

Why have the politicians and media gone for the false narrative? The full answer is beyond the scope of this article. But suffice to say, the extended war has been very lucrative and beneficial for many investors/financiers, defense industry companies, and politicians.

The impact of this on a potentially successful peace plan is a misalignment of interests. The interests of the war beneficiaries are served by prolonged war and tensions, not by sustainable peace.

That’s exactly why a sustainable peace agreement must be based on an honest perspective. The so-called peace plans that I’ve seen in the news all are accommodations of the false narrative. An honest accounting of the etiology of war in Ukraine will serve as a sounder basis.

I’m not suggesting that this be used to place blame. That would not be a wise approach. Rick Staggenborg, MD has followed this situation and explains: “To move toward peace in Ukraine we don’t have to agree on who is at fault. Unfortunately too many make that a big issue — but that’s gotten us nowhere. As a psychotherapist with training in family therapy, I know from experience that focusing on who is responsible for a problem almost never leads to a satisfactory solution; indeed it can be counterproductive.”

The key principals in negotiating a genuine peace plan must be the presidents of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. I fail to see how they can bring about sustainable peace if the pretense of the false narrative is not broken, regardless of how entrenched it has become.

An approach based on honesty will have a better chance.

Here’s an example of an honest approach on a related matter: In mapping Ukraine, the National Geographic Society in 2014 chose not to include Crimea as part of it.

U.S. News quoted the Society’s geographer and director of editorial and research, “We map de facto, in other words we map the world as it is, not as people would like it to be.” That’s honesty on display.

In contrast, a spokesperson for Rand McNally said, “We take our direction from the State Department.” At that time the State Department was headed by politician John Kerry.

But fighting the false mainstream narrative will be difficult. There is a lot of dishonest narrative to discard.

Many countries have recognized the bogus territorial claims of the revolutionaries as factual. They’ve accepted the false narrative as being true. They side with the war beneficiaries. Those countries do so in disregard of the actual facts that are at hand.

However, in traditional diplomacy the concept of “recognition” is very powerful. Many judgments are based on that concept. Negotiators will need strength to oppose that.

“Recognition” is a political contrivance, though. It does not necessarily comport with the honest truth. Frankly, recognition sounds to me like a genteel euphemism for mob rule.

The negotiators will have a lot of controversial issues to deal with: Russia’s sudden 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the disposition of post-Ukraine territories now claimed by Russia, the main water supply for Crimea that the revolutionaries cut off, just to start with.

Then there are Russia’s security concerns over Nato advancement. History tells that President John F. Kennedy brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in 1962 over a Soviet missile threat far smaller than the Nato threat now perceived by Russia. In due fairness, Russia deserves having Nato threats considered with a comparable level of seriousness.

The peace negotiators will need the courage and integrity to resist pressure from the war beneficiaries and their allies, and reject the entrenched false narrative about Ukraine.

I hope that an honest view of the real circumstances will prevail if and when the three presidents meet to negotiate peace. That in effect is the “key path to Ukraine peace that has been long ignored by all.”

December 11, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine strikes Russia with US-made ATACMS missiles

RT | December 11, 2024

Ukrainian forces fired a barrage of six US-made ATACMS missiles at a military airfield near the southern Russian city of Taganrog, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has said, vowing retaliation for the attack.

Two of the missiles were shot down, while the other four were affected by electronic warfare measures and veered off course, the ministry said in a statement. The attack inflicted minor damage on the airfield, with two administrative buildings and a number of cars hit with shrapnel.

An unspecified number of Russian servicemen were injured in the attack by “falling fragments of the missiles,” the ministry added, vowing to retaliate for the strike.

“This attack by Western long-range weapons will not go unanswered, and appropriate measures will be taken,” it said without providing further details.

Earlier in the day, acting Rostov Region Governor Yury Slyusar said an unspecified “industrial site” was targeted by the barrage, with around 15 cars being burned out in a parking lot.

December 11, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Syria, a pawn on the grand chessboard of global geopolitics

By Eduardo Vasco | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 10, 2024

Very few people really know what happened – and is still happening – in Syria. We may never know what really happened. All most of us can do is speculate and analyze based on public information and logic. Sometimes logic is more accurate than information.

What we need to keep in mind is that Donald Trump’s election has changed everything. The American Deep State does not accept that he can put into practice what he has been talking about for a long time: withdrawing (or at least reducing the participation of) the United States from the great global geopolitical game. This would be a near-fatal blow not only to the imperialist domination of the United States, which has lasted almost 80 years, but to the entire international imperialist system that has been in force since the beginning of the last century.

That is why the Deep State made a very dangerous move – although it could turn out to be a masterstroke: it launched a series of offensives to leave the United States in a situation that Trump will not be able to reverse. This could even lead to a new world war, including a nuclear one.

Interconnected episodes of great magnitude then occurred at critical points in the Cold War (which is becoming less and less cold) with the Russians and the Chinese:

  • The authorization for Ukraine to use ATACMS against Russian territory;
  • The first use of ATACMS by Ukrainians inside Russia;
  • The attempted military coup in South Korea;
  • The devastating offensive by the “rebels” in Syria.

The advance on the Donbass front and the revelation of the Oreshnik are certainly important cards for the Russians to deter [US offensives]. However, there is a feeling in the government that the war needs to end as soon as possible and the risk of two new all-out wars in the vicinity of its territory (Syria and Korea) have raised the alarm in the Kremlin. At the same time, the frantic announcements of $725 million and $988 million, respectively, in military aid to Ukraine in the coming weeks, as well as $841 billion in defense spending for 2025, have shown the Russians that the Deep State is indeed capable of taking action and starting World War III.

Knowing that Vladimir Putin has already demonstrated that he is willing to fight for Ukraine, whatever the cost, and realizing the advantage the Russians have on the ground, the escalation at the end of Joe Biden’s administration would have served as a strong bargaining chip for imperialism to secure dominance on other fronts. For the first time, Vladimir Zelensky spoke of accepting dialogue with Russia and even seeking an agreed peace. In Paris, Trump met with the Ukrainian leader and reaffirmed Kiev’s surprising willingness to seek a possible peaceful solution in the short term.

It is possible that the Deep State exerted all this pressure to force Putin to give up Syria if it wants peace in Ukraine. The imperialists showed Moscow that they were willing to set the world on fire to protect their interests, and the Russians had to give up positions in the Middle East in exchange for guarantees in Eastern Europe.

After all, it would be extremely costly to maintain Bashar al-Assad’s regime. After 13 years of resisting imperialist aggression, Syria was already tired. Assad was not very popular among the population or among the state bureaucracy and the national bourgeoisie. The economic crisis was distressing and the armed forces were devastated. The Russians would only have to lose by intervening if the Americans really wanted to overthrow Assad once and for all. Russia would not be able to fight two wars at the same time.

Everything indicates that the Assad regime was indeed crumbling. All it took was a blow. And it came in an overwhelming way, with an alliance between the US, Turkey, Israel and Qatar. The Russians and Iranians had to accept it. But at least the Russians were able to take part in the agreement. They repelled the “rebel” forces near Latakia and Tartus, to protect their naval and air bases, but intelligence certainly knew that Assad would fall without Russian intervention and helped him escape. While the Iranian embassy was stormed and destroyed by the terrorists, the Russian embassy was unharmed.

The new regime has already announced that it will treat Russia as a partner like any other. Reports indicate that the military bases will be maintained. The Russian media no longer calls the terrorists terrorists, as it had done until the end of the week. It now calls them the “armed opposition”. The flag of the new regime has already been raised over the Syrian embassy in Moscow, without any inconvenience. Contrary to the trend in several countries whose regimes imperialism wants to overthrow, the Syrian opposition has not shown itself to be anti-Russian at any time during this fatal offensive. Compare what we see in Georgia, where a government much less influenced by Moscow is labeled a puppet of the Kremlin and protesters try to beat up anyone who speaks Russian.

Most of the state bureaucracy of the old regime (including diplomats in Russia) will be preserved. Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali will remain in office. He was appointed by Assad on September 24, and I do not rule out the possibility that there was already a move to change the regime “peacefully.” His continued presence in office may have been a condition for the Russians to allow Assad to leave.

The situation for the Russians is not the same as it was in 2015. The necessary intervention in Ukraine took a lot of its military and economy. It was not possible to save Assad once again. Between Syria and Ukraine, the Russians would obviously choose Ukraine. The Russians have always had dialogue with many parties wherever they are, and in Syria it is no different. Assad was the first option, but not the only one. Now they will try to preserve their interests to a minimum, especially on the Mediterranean coast, and neutralize the United States as much as possible. We will see what happens in Georgia, which is nearby.

The Soviet legacy, since Stalin, is also highly valued by the current Russian bureaucracy. When it was necessary to sell off an allied country in order to preserve a more important one, Moscow never hesitated. The most famous example was the handover of Italy, mainly, and some other Western European countries, to the United States and the European imperialist bourgeoisie, saving them from the proletarian revolution, in order to obtain from them the guarantee that they would not interfere in Eastern Europe. In fact, the division of the world after the Second World War into zones of influence was a hallmark of Soviet diplomacy to preserve the interests of Moscow’s bureaucratic caste.

That was a betrayal by Stalin of the peoples of the world. But it would guarantee the survival of the Soviet bureaucracy for another 45 years. Putin’s current government is not founded on the foundations of a proletarian state, the fruit of a socialist revolution. Therefore, it has no obligation to save anyone. It fights for the interests of the new Russian state, which is weaker than Stalin’s Soviet one. It is understandable – even if one does not agree – that he gave up Syria to defend his positions in Ukraine against NATO aggression.

This does not mean that it was not a mistake. Much less that it was not a very important defeat. Nor does it mean that it contained the warlike and chaotic impulses of American imperialism.

December 11, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Kiev reveals terms of $20 billion US loan

RT | December 9, 2024

The Ukrainian government has approved the terms of a conditional agreement with the US Federal Financing Bank (FFB) for a 40-year loan of $20 billion which will be backed by profits from frozen Russian state assets.

It’s part of a broader $50 billion G7 loan deal, which includes a separate $20 billion EU commitment, and $10 billion to be split by G7 members Britain, Japan and Canada.

The money will be transferred to the Facilitation of Resources to Invest in Strengthening Ukraine Financial Intermediary Fund, established by the World Bank on October 10, “for the sake of the state,” a resolution issued by Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers on Friday stated.

The transfer will be based on a Certificate Purchase Agreement between Ukraine, the FFB, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), along with a loan guarantee and repayment agreement between Ukraine and USAID.

Under the deal, Ukraine’s Finance Ministry will issue a certificate of indebtedness to the FFB, guaranteed by USAID, the government resolution said.

The loan, which has an annual interest rate of 1.3% plus the current average rate for one-year US Treasury bills, will be repaid using interest earned from immobilized Russian sovereign assets.

The US and its allies froze an estimated $300 billion in assets belonging to the Russian central bank following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. In June, G7 members pledged a $50 billion loan for Kiev, with the frozen Russian assets to be used as collateral, to help Kiev buy weapons and rebuild damaged infrastructure. The agreement was finalized in October.

Moscow has repeatedly denounced the asset freeze as “theft” and argued that tapping into these funds would be illegal and set a dangerous precedent. The Russian Finance Ministry has warned that it will initiate retaliatory measures mirroring the West’s actions against resources of Western investors held in the country.

The latest move is part of the current US administration’s last-minute strategy to bolster Kiev’s war effort, which includes a new $725 million military aid package to Kiev and another round of sanctions against Russia. It comes as uncertainty grows over Washington’s commitments under the upcoming presidency of Donald Trump, particularly after US House Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed President Joe Biden’s request to include $24 billion in additional aid to Ukraine in a government funding bill last week.

December 9, 2024 Posted by | Corruption | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s gas is the answer to world’s energy woes

Press TV – December 8, 2024

With the role of natural gas in future power generation being under debate by world countries amid a race to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, Iran is hosting a ministerial meeting of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF).

Organizers say the meeting is an opportunity to exchange views among the member and observer countries as well as experts and specialists in the gas industry about the mechanism of consensus-building and strengthening communication and coordination on supply policies and related affairs.

While the future role of gas in the energy mix is the source of much contention among countries, the global gas consumption grew unprecedentedly in 2023, GECF Secretary General Mohamed Hamel told the forum’s opening in Tehran on Sunday.

He touched on the resilience of gas to regional conflicts and geopolitical strains which have exposed significant fragilties in the post-pandemic global energy system. Since the formation of the GECF in Tehran in 2001, global demand for natural gas has grown 70 percent, Hamel said.

The race to rapidly decarbonize and digitize the global economy under the net zero energy initiative has been subsumed by geopolitics that remains anchored in realist power struggles. The Ukraine war has undermined interdependence and prompted unprecedented levels of economic statecraft.

The need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels and fossil raw materials has exposed countries to a myriad of compliance risks with dire financial repercussions, leading to deepening instability, injustice and energy poverty.

Even the most optimistic clean energy projections indicate that by 2050, at least half of the world’s energy needs will still come from oil and gas resources. Hence, the rush to eliminate fossil fuels from the global energy system is unrealistic, threatening the world’s energy security.

According to the Energy Studies Institute of the International Energy Agency, gas will continue to play a significant role as a clean and cost-effective fuel in the global energy mix, accounting for 28 percent of the total by 2050. Forecasts indicate that by 2050, natural gas production and consumption will increase to more than 5.9 trillion cubic meters per year.

Asia-Pacific has emerged as the world’s largest net importer of natural gas. In 2023, China was the largest consumer of natural gas in the region, with around 405 billion cubic meters. Japan was the second-largest, with a consumption of around 92.4 billion cubic meters. The region’s gas consumption is forecast to hit 1.6 trillion cubic meters by 2050.

Also, predictions show that the largest share of the increase in natural gas production in the world will be from Russia, Iran, Qatar, and Turkmenistan.

Hence, the role of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum as a leading platform for dialogue and cooperation in order to provide a level of stability beneficial to both exporters and consumers and supporting the gas industry which requires significant effort and financing is of particular importance.

Iran, as the second largest holder of gas reserves in the world, has an important role to play in the gas diplomacy and guarantee its national interests and the interests of the other members.

The GECF countries hold 70% of the world’s proven gas reserves and produce some 40% of the world’s gas.

Despite years of sanctions, Iran has made significant progress in expanding its gas sector. The country now produces 275 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually, and gas accounts for more than 70 percent of its energy consumption.

Iran’s overall proven natural gas reserves excluding shale gas deposits and huge hydrocarbon reserves in the Sea of ​​Oman and possibly the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea are put at 34 trillion cubic meters, or about 17.8% of world’s total.

Assuming that the current unbridled consumption of about 250 billion cubic meters per year continues and with the pessimistic assumption that no new gas fields are discovered in the coming years, the existing supplies are enough to meet Iran’s needs for the next 130 years.

With investment and production from unconventional shale reserves which the country has already discovered, Iran’s gas supply capacity can rise more than twofold in the coming decade.

Exploratory research in the Sea of ​​Oman has indicated the existence of gas hydrate reserves in Iranian waters in larger quantities than the huge South Pars field.

Further development of more than 20 fields currently producing gas can add another 500 million cubic meters a day to the country’s gas production capacity.

This huge capacity can be tapped to supply gas to the world markets through building new pipeline networks to neighboring countries and sending LNG to the rest of the world.

December 8, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , , | Leave a comment

US beefing up missile deployment in Europe

RT | December 8, 2024

The US is stepping up efforts to increase deployment of intermediate and short-range missiles, including stationing hypersonic weapons in Europe and Asia, according to information obtained by RT. Production and deployment of such systems in the US has reportedly been picking up pace in recent years.

Among the major weapons being developed is the multiple-launch rocket system Dark Typhon, which will be capable of firing Standard-6 missiles with a 500-km range and Tomahawk cruise missiles (2,400-km), as well as a hypersonic missile that is also still being developed. The system is expected to become operational by 2025.

During the NATO summit this past July, Washington and Berlin announced that Dark Typhoon would be stationed in Wiesbaden, Germany starting in 2026, a prospect that Russia slammed as an “escalatory action” given that it would place the missiles within range of Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other major Russian cities. The Pentagon also reportedly plans to deploy the system on the Japanese island of Io by October of next year, which would put the missiles within 2.5 hours flight time of Russia’s Vladivostok.

Among Washington’s most ambitious projects is the Dark Eagle hypersonic missile, which is designed to hit critical land-based targets within a range of 5,500km with strike precision of 3-10 meters. While still being developed, the prototype has passed at least seven tests, four of them successfully.

According to the information obtained by RT, the US plans to start deploying the missiles in Japan by October 2025, which would put them within 8-10 minutes’ flight time from Vladivostok. By 2026, one rocket launcher equipped with 16 missiles is expected to be stationed in Wiesbaden, with a flight time to central Russia also estimated at 8-10 minutes.

Russia has long warned that the US military buildup and the deployment of nuclear-capable missiles will draw a proportionate response. Earlier this week, Russia and Belarus signed a security treaty, which, among other things cemented the deployment of Russia’s brand-new hypersonic ballistic Oreshnik missile systems in the neighboring country next year. The Russian military combat tested the Oreshnik last month, using it to strike a Ukrainian military industrial facility in Dnepropetrovsk with multiple warheads.

Washington unilaterally pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with Russia back in 2019. Moscow also subsequently abandoned the treaty. Under the INF, both countries were prohibited from new deployments of ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500km.

December 8, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

US admits much-hyped tanks failed in Ukraine

RT | December 8, 2024

American-made M1 Abrams tanks were “not useful” to the Ukrainian military, despite being billed as a potential “game changer” in the conflict with Russia, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has admitted.

After months of requests from Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and his officials, the White House approved the transfer of 31 M1 Abrams main battle tanks – enough to equip an entire tank battalion – to Ukraine in January 2023. President Joe Biden said the tanks would help “counter Russia’s evolving tactics and strategy on the battlefield in the very near term,” while multiple US media outlets described them as a “game changer” ahead of Kiev’s planned counteroffensive against Russian forces that summer.

This was not the case, Sullivan said at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California on Saturday. Asked whether the Biden administration could have better prepared Ukraine for the counteroffensive had it supplied Kiev with more heavy weapons, he cited the Abrams tanks as an example of how not everything in America’s arsenal worked in Ukraine.

”When it comes to Abrams tanks, we sent Abrams tanks to Ukraine,” he replied. “These Abrams tank units are actually undermanned because it’s not the most useful piece of equipment for them in this fight.”

Shortly after their deployment, the Russian Defense Ministry began releasing videos of Abrams tanks burning on the battlefield. According to some estimates, as many as 20 of the 31 tanks sent to Ukraine in 2023 have since been destroyed, and Ukrainian commanders began withdrawing the rest from service earlier this year, American officials told AP.

The M1A1 variants sent to Ukraine were first stripped of their depleted uranium armor, leaving them vulnerable to Russian drones and anti-tank missiles.

One of the heaviest main battle tanks in service worldwide, the M1 Abrams weighs in at 60 tons, with the latest M1A2 variant increasing this heft to more than 73 tons. An M1 Abrams tank costs more than $450 per mile in fuel and repairs, according to a 1991 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report adjusted for inflation.

The GAO report stated that the average M1 Abrams needs its track replaced after as little as 710 miles, with engines typically suffering catastrophic “blowouts” after 350 hours of operation.

Even before Biden authorized their delivery to Ukraine, US military officials warned that the Abrams tanks would prove unsuitable for Kiev’s needs.

“The challenge with the Abrams is, it’s expensive. It’s difficult to train on. It is very difficult to sustain. It has a huge, complicated turbine engine that requires jet fuel,” US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl warned in early January 2023. “Frankly, our assessment is just that the Abrams is not the right capability at this time.”

December 8, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Belarus to Host Russia’s Oreshnik in Response to US Missiles in Germany

Sputnik – December 7, 2024

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to deploy the latest Russian weapons, including the Oreshnik system, on Belarusian soil on Friday following a meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State.

“The decision to deploy the Oreshnik system on the territory of the Republic of Belarus was made in response to the actions taken by the United States and Germany regarding the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe. The Americans and Germans have repeatedly stated this before,” the Belarusian Ministry of Defense’s Telegram channel quoted

Here are some official statements of the sides at the time.

  • Washington and Berlin: “The US will begin episodic deployments of the long-range firing capabilities of its multi-domain task force in Germany in 2026. These will include SM-6, Tomahawk, and developmental hypersonic weapons, which have significantly longer range than current land-based fires in Europe.”
  • US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan: “What we are deploying to Germany is a defensive capability, like many other defensive capabilities we’ve deployed across the alliance, across the decades.”
  • German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: This is a “very good decision” which is “exactly in line” with the German government’s security strategy. “The decision has been in the works for a long time and is not a real surprise for anyone involved in security and peace policy.”
  • German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius: Germany needs a longer-term plan for investment in “appropriate long-range defense systems” to protect itself and Europe.
  • Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov: The move is “a very serious threat” to Russia, which would “take thoughtful, coordinated and effective measures to contain NATO.”
  • Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov: “Without nerves and emotions, we will develop, first of all, a military response” to the move, which is “just another link in the chain of a course of escalation”.

In response, the Russian leader agreed, stating that the deployment of Oreshnik in Belarus was possible in the second half of 2025.

December 7, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »