Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ukraine massacred civilians to blame Russia – witnesses

RT | November 25, 2024

Mercenaries in Ukrainian service, including Polish nationals, executed a number of civilians in the city of Selidovo before fleeing advancing Russian forces, local residents have said. Moscow believes that Kiev wanted to use the massacre for a “false flag” claim of atrocities.

Selidovo sits about 15km south of Pokrovsk, in the territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic controlled by Kiev since 2014. In 2022 it had a population of around 21,000. Russian soldiers secured it completely on October 29.

The retreating Ukrainians executed local residents with the intent of accusing Russia of a “massacre,” Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry official charged with collecting evidence of Ukrainian war crimes, said on Monday.

“When the West started talking about peace negotiations, [Vladimir] Zelensky started preparing ‘Bucha 2’, but in Selidovo,” Miroshnik told RIA Novosti. He said that residents evacuated from the frontline city have reported dozens of civilians being executed in the streets.

“They said that the Nazis staged a bloodbath two or three days before the city was taken by Russian troops,” Miroshnik said, adding that the witnesses provided details such as names and addresses of the people killed, as well as descriptions of the perpetrators. Some of the witnesses, he said, described people in Ukrainian uniforms who spoke Polish.

One of the testimonies Miroshnik shared with the media was of Vladimir Romanenko, who described how Ukrainian soldiers murdered five of his family members and burned their bodies.

“I went out into the street and heard shouting. A short man was shouting, ‘Everyone out of the house, face the wall!’ And he began to shoot,” Romanenko said. He was spotted by the uniformed men and ran away, somehow managing to escape. He later identified the dead as his wife Olga Romanenko and sister Lidiya Zavarzina, both 69, son Roman (46), grandson Vladislav Nikolaychuk (33), and niece Olga Zavarzina (50).

According to Miroshnik, Ukrainian troops and foreign mercenaries wanted to blame Russia for the deaths of civilians they killed, but ran out of time to stage their “false flag” operation.

In early April 2022, Ukrainian media outlets published photos and videos of bodies on the streets of Bucha, a suburb of Kiev, claiming they had been massacred by withdrawing Russian troops. The Defense Ministry in Moscow insisted that not a single resident of Bucha had been harmed by Russian soldiers, who had left the town by March 30, and pointed to militants loyal to Kiev bragging about “cleansing collaborators.”

November 25, 2024 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , | Leave a comment

NATO admiral urges Western businesses to prepare for ‘wartime scenario’

RT | November 25, 2024

Businesses in NATO countries should prepare themselves for a “wartime scenario” and adjust their production lines and supply chains to be less vulnerable to blackmail by nations such as Russia and China, the outgoing chief of the US-led bloc’s military committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, said on Monday.

Speaking at a European Policy Center think-tank event in Brussels, he urged Western industries and businesses to implement deterrence measures.

“If we can make sure that all crucial services and goods can be delivered no matter what, then that is a key part of our deterrence,” Bauer argued.

“Businesses need to be prepared for a wartime scenario and adjust their production and distribution lines accordingly. Because while it may be the military who wins battles, it’s the economies that win wars,” the NATO official said. He mentioned China and Russia in the context of how he believes wars are waged in the economic sphere.

“We thought we had a deal with Gazprom, but we actually had a deal with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” he stated, apparently referring to the drop in Russian gas supplies to the EU, which took place after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

At the time, the EU declared that ending its reliance on Russian energy was a key priority, and many members voluntarily halted their imports, while supplies also plunged due to the sabotage of Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines.

American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh blamed the sabotage on the CIA, alleging that the agency had carried out the attack under the direct orders of the White House – an allegation it has denied.

Bauer then extended his warning to China, claiming that Beijing could use its exports to NATO states and the infrastructure that it owns in Europe as leverage in the event of a conflict.

“We are naive if we think the [Chinese] Communist Party will never use that power. Business leaders in Europe and America need to realize that the commercial decisions they make have strategic consequences for the security of their nation,” the official claimed.

It is unclear what “wartime” Bauer is predicting in his statements.

NATO has long declared Russia to be a direct threat, and Western officials have repeatedly claimed that if Moscow is allowed to win the conflict in Ukraine, it could then attack other European countries. Russia has dismissed these claims as nonsense. Restrictions that Moscow introduced in trade with the West have largely come in response to unprecedented economic sanctions placed on the country in connection with the Ukraine conflict.

Beijing has also faced its share of trade barriers and restrictions introduced by Western states, and introduced similar measures in response. According to most experts, including many in the West, the sanctions policy has backfired on Western economies, leading to supply shortages and inflation.

November 25, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Will Armageddon Be Joe Biden’s Final Legacy?

By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | November 25, 2024

When the Soviet Union dissolved in late 1991, the world seemed poised for a new, more peaceful era no longer haunted by the fear of a nuclear Armageddon. The principal successor state from the wreckage of the USSR was a noncommunist Russia that was intent on becoming part of the democratic, capitalist West. President George H. W. Bush and his top advisers exercised considerable diplomatic skill in managing the twilight years and ultimate demise of the Soviet Union. Their core achievement was to gain Moscow’s assent to Germany’s reunification and membership in NATO. The implicit tradeoff (unfortunately, never put in writing) was that NATO would not expand beyond the eastern border of a newly united Germany.

The contrast between the benign end to the original Cold War and the current status of relations between the West (especially the United States) and Russia could not be greater or more alarming. NATO’s meddling in the armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia has reached the point of being an outright proxy war for the alliance. As NATO’s leader, the United States has pushed a series of extremely dangerous escalatory steps. The latest provocation is the decision by President Joe Biden’s administration authorizing Ukraine to use long-range U.S. Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) that are capable of striking at least 190 miles inside Russia. Moscow has responded by adopting a new nuclear doctrine warning that the use of such missiles by NATO’s Ukrainian proxy would mean that Moscow is officially at war with the U.S.-led alliance. Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin is bluffing, but the risk of a nuclear collision between NATO and Moscow now appears to be at unprecedented levels.

It is bitterly ironic that the decision to let Ukraine use American missiles that might trigger World War III has been made by the lamest of lame duck U.S. presidents. At the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, the leaders of the Democratic Party pressured Joe Biden to withdraw from the presidential race. They did so because the evidence of his cognitive decline had become undeniable. However, his hand-picked successor, Kamala Harris, then proceeded to lose the presidential election to Republican nominee Donald Trump.

To say that the Biden administration has no mandate to make such a crucial decision involving war and peace would be a monumental understatement. In fairness, though, the current foreign policy crew is not solely responsible for fouling-up relations with Russia and provoking a new cold war with nuclear implications. That “achievement” has been a bipartisan effort taking place over a span of more than three decades.

Toward the end of George H. W. Bush’s administration, public opinion polls in Russia showed that nearly 80% of Russians held positive views of the United States. In the late stages of the Bill Clinton administration, nearly the same percentage held negative opinions.

It was hardly a surprising development. During his years in office, Clinton and his Russian-hating advisers (especially UN ambassador and later Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) antagonized Moscow on multiple occasions. Washington went out of its way to attack Russia’s long-standing religious and political clients, the Serbs, as the Yugoslav federation disintegrated. However, the Clinton administration’s decision to expand NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary struck the biggest blow to East-West relations.

Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, continued and intensified the policy of provoking and antagonizing Russia. Subsequent rounds of NATO expansion brought U.S. military power to Russia’s immediate neighborhood by adding such new members as the three Baltic republics, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. Most provocative of all, Bush pushed to add Ukraine to the alliance. Although Germany and France temporarily blocked immediate moves to make Ukraine a member, Washington’s ultimate goal was quite clear.

A rising number and volume of warnings against making Ukraine a NATO asset also came from Putin and other officials. Washington and its key European allies ignored those warnings but it became clear in 2014 that the Kremlin was not bluffing. When President Barack Obama and key European leaders helped overthrow Ukraine’s generally pro-Russia president and install a regime subservient to NATO, Moscow struck back emphatically, seizing Ukraine’s strategic, but majority Russian populated, Crimean peninsula.

Relations between the West and Russia continued to deteriorate thereafter. In the autumn of 2021, the Kremlin proposed a new relationship with the West that amounted to Russia’s minimum demands. Those demands included a guaranteed neutral status for Ukraine—thus foreclosing the prospect of Kiev’s eventual membership in NATO. The Kremlin also sought the withdrawal of advanced U.S. weaponry from the easternmost members of NATO. It amounted to an ultimatum, and when the Biden administration treated Moscow’s demands with contempt, the Kremlin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. That offensive, combined with the decision by the United States and its allies to impose severe economic sanctions against Russia, ignited an ever-escalating military crisis.

It is uncertain whether President-elect Donald Trump intends to end the dangerous impasse with Moscow. Contrary to the partisan myth that Trump has been Putin’s puppet, his actual policies during his first term were consistently hardline. One can hope, though, that he has fully absorbed the lesson of what a disaster Washington’s love affair with Ukraine has become for both countries. Restoring cooperative bilateral relations with Russia is essential for global peace.

There is an alarming possibility, however, that Trump won’t get the opportunity, even if he wishes to back away from the beckoning abyss. The lame-duck Biden administration still holds power for nearly another two months, and that is more than enough time to plunge the country into nuclear war, if administration leaders are so inclined. The departing president’s conduct in recent weeks, especially authorizing Ukraine to attack Russia with U.S.-supplied, long-range missiles, is beyond reckless. Biden’s legacy is already bad, but it could become even worse.

November 25, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Britain’s Kursk Invasion Backfires

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | November 24, 2024

British Challenger 2 tanks reached Ukraine with enormous fanfare, ahead of Kiev’s long-delayed, ultimately catastrophic 2023 “counteroffensive”. On top of encouraging other proxy war sponsors to provide Ukraine with armoured fighting vehicles, Western audiences were widely told the tank – hitherto marketed to international buyers as “indestructible” – made Kiev’s ultimate victory a fait accompli. As it was, Challenger 2 tanks deployed to Robotnye in September were almost instantly incinerated by Russian fire, then very quietly withdrawn from combat altogether.

Hence, many online commentators were surprised when footage of the Challenger 2 in action in Kursk began to circulate widely on August 13th. Furthermore, numerous mainstream outlets dramatically drew attention to the tank’s deployment. Several were explicitly briefed by British military sources that it marked the first time in history London’s tanks “have been used in combat on Russian territory.” Disquietingly, The Times now reveals this was a deliberate propaganda and lobbying strategy, spearheaded by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Prior to the Challenger 2’s presence in Kursk breaking, Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey had reportedly “been in talks about how far to go to confirm growing British involvement in the incursion towards Kursk.” Ultimately, they decided “to be more open about Britain’s role in a bid to persuade key allies to do more to help – and convince the public that Britain’s security and economic prosperity is affected by events on the fields of Ukraine.” A “senior Whitehall source” added:

“There won’t be shying away from the idea of British weapons being used in Russia as part of Ukraine’s defence. We don’t want any uncertainty or nervousness over Britain’s support at this critical moment and a half-hearted or uncertain response might have indicated that.”

In other words, London is taking the lead in marking itself out as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – will follow suit. What’s more, The Times strongly hints that Kursk is to all intents and purposes a British invasion. The outlet records:

“Unseen by the world, British equipment, including drones, have played a central role in Ukraine’s new offensive and British personnel have been closely advising the Ukrainian military… on a scale matched by no other country.”

Britain’s grand plans don’t stop there. Healey and Foreign Secretary David Lammy “have set up a joint Ukraine unit,” divided between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence. The pair “held a joint briefing, with officials, for a cross-party group of 60 MPs on Ukraine,” while “Starmer has also asked the National Security Council to draw up plans to provide Ukraine with a broader range of support.” On top of military assistance, “industrial, economic, and diplomatic support” are also being explored.

The Times adds that in coming weeks, “Healey will attend a new meeting of the Ukraine Defence Coordination Group,” an international alliance of 57 countries overseeing the Western weaponry flooding into Kiev. There, “Britain will press European allies to send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.” The British Defence Ministry also reportedly “spoke last week to Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, and has been wooing Boris Pistorius, his German opposite number.”

Evidently, the new Labour government has an ambitious vision for the proxy war’s continuation. Yet, if the “counterinvasion” is anything to go by, it’s already dead in the water. As The Times notes, the imbroglio is primarily “designed to boost morale at home and shore up Zelensky’s position,” while relieving pressure on the collapsing Donbass frontline by forcing Russia to redirect forces to Kursk. Instead, Moscow “has capitalised on the absence of four crack Ukrainian regiments to press their attacks around Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar.”

Similarly, commenting on Starmer’s wideranging efforts to compel overt Western action against Russia, a “defence expert” told The Times: “if it looks as if the Brits [are] too far ahead of their NATO allies, it might be counterproductive.” This analysis is prescient, for there are ample indications London’s latest attempt to ratchet tensions and drag the US and Europe ever-deeper into the proxy war quagmire has already been highly “counterproductive”, and boomeranged quite spectacularly. Indeed, it appears Washington has finally had enough of London’s escalatory connivances.

In repeated press conferences and media briefings since August 6th, US officials have firmly distanced themselves from the Kursk incursion, denying any involvement in its planning or execution, or even being forewarned by Kiev. Empire house journal Foreign Policy has reported that Ukraine’s swoop caught the Pentagon, State Department, and White House off-guard. The Biden administration is purportedly not only enormously unhappy “to have been kept out of the loop,” but “skeptical of the military logic” behind the “counterinvasion”.

On top being a clear suicide mission, the eagerly advertised presence of Western weapons and vehicles on Russian soil “has put the Biden administration in an extremely awkward position.” Washington has since the proxy war erupted been wary of provoking retaliations against Western countries and their overseas assets, and the conflict spilling outside Ukraine’s borders. Adding to US irritations, the British-directed Kursk misadventure also torpedoed ongoing efforts to secure an agreement to halt “strikes on energy and power infrastructure on both sides.”

This comes as Kiev prepares for a harrowing winter without heat or light, due to devastating Russian attacks on its national energy grid. Putin has moreover made clear that Ukrainian actions in Kursk mean there is no longer scope for a wider negotiated settlement at all. Which is to say Moscow will now only accept unconditional surrender. The US has also seemingly changed course as a result of the “counterinvasion”.

On August 16th, it was reported that Washington had prohibited Ukraine’s use of British-made, long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory. Given securing wider Western acquiescence to such strikes is, per The Times, a core objective for Starmer, this can only be considered a harsh rebuke, before the Labour government’s escalatory lobbying efforts have even properly taken off. The Biden administration had in May granted permission for Kiev to conduct limited strikes in Russia, using guided munitions up to a 40-mile range.

Even that mild authorisation may be rescinded in due course. Berlin, which like Britain had initially proudly promoted the presence of its tanks in Kursk, is now decisively shifting away from the proxy war. On August 17th, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner announced a halt to any and all new military aid to Ukraine as part of a wider bid to slash federal government spending. The Wall Street Journal reporting three days earlier that Kiev was responsible for Nord Stream II’s destruction may be no coincidence.

Germany’s Bild newspaper: “In Russia, Ukraine advances with German tanks!”

The narrative of the Russo-German pipeline’s bombing detailed by the outlet was absurd in the extreme. Conveniently too, the WSJ acknowledged that admissions of “Ukrainian officials who participated in or are familiar with the plot” aside, “all arrangements” to strike Nord Stream “were made verbally, leaving no paper trail.” As such, the paper’s sources “believe it would be impossible to put any of the commanding officers on trial, because no evidence exists beyond conversations among top officials.”

Such an evidentiary deficit provides Berlin with an ideal pretext to step away from the proxy war, while insulating Kiev from any legal repercussions. The narrative of Ukraine’s unilateral culpability for the Nord Stream bombings also helpfully distracts from the attack’s most likely perpetrators. This journalist has exposed how a shadowy cabal of British intelligence operatives were the masterminds, and potential executors, of the October 2022 Kerch Bridge bombing.

Kerch Bridge in flames following its British-planned bombing

That escalatory incident, like Nord Stream’s destruction, was known about in advance, and apparently opposed, by the CIA. Chris Donnelly, the British military intelligence veteran who orchestrated the Kerch Bridge attack, has privately condemned Washington’s reluctance to embroil itself further in the proxy war, declaring “this US position must be challenged, firmly and at once.” In December that year, the BBC confirmed that British officials were worried about the Biden administration’s “innate caution”, and had “stiffened the US resolve at all levels”, via “pressure.”

The determination of Washington’s self-appointed “junior partner” to escalate the proxy conflict into all-out hot war between Russia and the West has only intensified under Starmer’s new Labour government. Yet, the Empire gives every appearance of refusing to take the bait, while seeking to curb London’s belligerent fantasies. This may be an encouraging sign that the proxy war is at last reaching its end. But we must remain vigilant. British intelligence is unlikely to allow the US to withdraw without a fight.

November 24, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russia: Comprehensive deal with Iran will include defense, security ties

Press TV – November 24, 2024

Russia’s deputy foreign minister says the treaty on a comprehensive strategic partnership between his country and Iran will include cooperation in the defense and security sectors.

Speaking to Russia’s TASS news agency on Sunday, Andrei Rudenko said he would not disclose the details of the agreement that is expected to be signed in the near future.

“I would only note [that] it will meet challenges and requirements of our time and cover almost all current and promising spheres of Russian-Iranian cooperation, including defense and security,” he added.

In 2001, Tehran and Moscow signed a long-term cooperation deal, officially known as the Treaty of the Foundation of Mutual Relations and the Principles of Cooperation. It was initially set for 10 years but was extended up until 2026.

Now, the two capitals are making final arrangements for the comprehensive partnership pact, which may determine their bilateral ties in all fields for the next 20 years.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has announced that his country will sign a strategic partnership agreement with Iran “in the near future.”
Rudenko emphasized that the nature of Iran-Russia interactions has notably changed over the past two decades.

“We are closely coordinating approaches with our Iranian friends and take necessary measures to strengthen peace and security” in the region, he added.

Last month, Iran’s Ambassador to Russia Kazem Jalali said the strategic partnership treaty would be signed during Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s visit to Moscow. The date of this visit has yet to be decided.

Iran and Russia are both subject to illegal Western sanctions. They have over the past years deepened their relations in various fields, including military and defense, and become close allies.

November 24, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

A defining moment in the Ukraine war

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | November 24, 2024 

Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a statement on Thursday regarding the two attacks by Western long-range weapons on Russian territory on November 19 and 21 and Moscow’s reactive strike on a facility within Ukraine’s defence industrial complex in the city of Dnepropetrovsk with a hitherto unknown non-nuclear hypersonic ballistic missile named Oreshnik. 

On Friday, at a meeting in the Kremlin with the military top brass, Putin revisited the topic where he clarified that Oreshnik is not really in “experimental” stage, as the Pentagon had determined, but its serial production has commenced. 

And he added, “Given the particular strength of this weapon, its power, it will be put into service with the Strategic Missile Forces.” He then went on to reveal, “It is also important that along with the Oreshnik system, several similar systems are currently being tested in Russia. Based on the test results, these weapons will also go into production. In other words, we have a whole line of medium- and shorter-range systems.” 

Putin reflected on the geopolitical backdrop: “The current military and political situation in the world is largely determined by the results of competition in the creation of new technologies, new weapons systems and economic development.” 

Succinctly put, an escalatory move authorised by the US president Joe Biden has boomeranged. Did Biden bite more than he could chew? This is the first thing. 

The US apparently decided that Putin’s “red lines” and Russia’s nuclear deterrence were the stuff of rhetoric. Washington was clueless about the existence of a wonder weapon like the Oreshnik in the Russian armoury. The shock and awe in the western capitals speaks for itself. Biden avoided commenting on the issue when asked by reporters. 

The Oreshnik is not an upgrade of old Soviet-era systems but “relies entirely on contemporary cutting-edge innovations,” Putin stressed. Izvestia reported that Oreshnik is a new generation of Russian intermediate-range missiles with a range of 2,500-3,000km and potentially extending to 5,000km, but not intercontinental, equipped with multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRV) — ie., having separating warheads with individual guidance units. It has a speed between Mach 10 and Mach 11 (exceeding 12,000 kms per hour). 

The Russian daily Readovka reported that with an estimated 1,500 kgs of combat payload, lifting to a maximum height of 12 km and moving at a speed of Mach 10,  the Oreshnik launched from the Russian base at Kaliningrad would strike Warsaw in 1 minute 21 seconds; Berlin, 2 min 35 sec; Paris, 6 min 52 sec; and London, 6 min 56 sec.  

In his statement on Thursday, Putin said, “there are no means of countering such weapons today. Missiles attack targets at a speed of Mach 10, which is 2.5 to 3 kilometres per second. Air defence systems currently available in the world and missile defence systems being created by the Americans in Europe cannot intercept such missiles. It is impossible.” 

Indeed, a terrible beauty is born. For, Oreshnik is not just an effective hypersonic weapon and is neither a strategic weapon nor an intercontinental ballistic missile. But its striking power is such that when used en masse and in combination with other long-range precision systems, its effect and power is on par with strategic weapons. Yet, it is not a weapon of mass destruction — rather, it’s a high-precision weapon.

Serial production implies that dozens of Oreshnik are in the process of being deployed, which means that no US / NATO staff group and no Anglo-American target intelligence unit in bunkers in Kiev or Lvov is safe any longer. 

Oreshnik is also a signal to the incoming US president Donald Trump who is ad nauseam calling for an immediate end-of-war settlement. Oreshnik, ironically, has been developed only as Moscow’s reaction to the hawkish decision by then US president Trump in 2019 to unilaterally withdraw from the 1987 Soviet-American treaty on intermediate range nuclear forces (INF). Hence this also signals that Moscow’s trust in Trump is near zero. 

To drive home this point, on the very same day Oreshnik emerged out of its silo, Tass carried an unusual interview with a top Russian think tanker affiliated to the foreign ministry and Kremlin — Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the Valdai Discussion Club, dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s MGIMO International Relations Department, and member of the Scientific Council under the Russian Security Council. 

The following excerpts of the interview, plain-speaking and startling, should shatter the hypothesis that there is something special going on between Trump and Putin: 

  • “Trump is considering ending the Ukrainian crisis, not out of any sympathy for Russia, but because he acknowledges that Ukraine has no realistic chance of winning. His goal is to preserve Ukraine as a tool for US interests, focusing on freezing the conflict rather than resolving it. Consequently, under Trump, the long-term strategy of countering Russia will persist. The US continues to benefit from the Ukrainian crisis, regardless of which administration is in power.”
  • “The United States has regained its position as the European Union’s top trading partner for the first time in years. It is the Europeans who are bearing the financial burden of prolonging the Ukrainian crisis, while the US has no interest in resolving it. Instead, it is more beneficial for them to freeze the conflict, keeping Ukraine as a tool to weaken Russia and as a persistent hotspot in Europe to maintain their confrontational approach.”
  • “Trump has made numerous statements that differ from the policies of Joe Biden’s administration. However, the US state system is an inertial structure that resists decisions it deems contrary to American interests, so not all of Trump’s ideas will come to fruition.”
  • “Trump will have a two-year window before the midterm congressional elections, during which he will have a certain freedom to push his policies through the Senate and the House of Representatives. After that, his decisions could face resistance both domestically and from US allies.”

Make no mistake, Russia is under no illusions. Putin will not waver from the conditions he outlined in June for resolving the conflict: the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbass and Novorossiya; Kiev’s commitment to abstain from joining NATO; the lifting of all Western sanctions against Russia; and the establishment of a non-aligned, nuclear-free Ukraine. 

Clearly, this war will continue on its course till it reaches its only logical conclusion, which is Russian victory. Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev is spot on when he said in an interview with Al Arabiya yesterday that the use of Oreshnik missile “changes the course” of the Ukrainian conflict. 

The Western capitals will have to reconcile with the reality that the scope for escalation of the war is ending. Make no mistake, if another ATAMCS strike inside Russia is attempted, it will have devastating consequences for the West. 

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic put it nicely: “If you [NATO] think you can attack everything on Russian territory with Western logistics and weapons without getting a response, and that Putin won’t use whatever weapons he deems necessary, then you either don’t know him or you’re abnormal.”

November 24, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ballistic vs. Cruise Missiles: What’s the Difference?

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 23.11.2024

Russia’s successful combat test of the Oreshnik intermediate-range missile garnered its share of attention and more than a little confusion as media and amateur observers alike began comparing the new ballistic weapon to other weapons in both Russia and NATO’s arsenals, including cruise missiles.

Sputnik sets the record straight by outlining the key differences between these two very distinct types of weapons:

Ballistic missiles

Powered by a single rocket or series of rockets operating in stages to propel them to the required trajectory, ballistic missiles ascend tens of kilometers into the atmosphere, shedding motors and thrusters along the way, with larger ones leaving the atmosphere altogether, after which their payload separates and begins its descent back down toward Earth, traveling in an arc.

Ballistic missiles typically have three flight phases, starting with the boost phase, followed by a midcourse phase – which starts when the rocket motor(s) stop(s) firing and the missile’s payload starts to coast, usually while continuing to ascend, and finally the terminal phase, during which the payload starts the final course toward its target(s).

Some also have a distinct fourth phase, which kicks off after the post-boost phase, during which the onboard multiple independent reentry vehicle (MIRV) bus makes changes to its trajectory, and decoys are released to confuse and saturate enemy missile defenses.

Some ballistic missiles can make changes to their trajectory, so long as onboard rocket fuel allows, but usually, any maneuverability attributed to these weapons is the result of their payloads.

Russia’s Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, for instance, is blasted into space by an ordinary ICBM, but becomes maneuverable after separating from its carrier. MIRV buses also often contain small rocket motors and inertial guidance, allowing alterations to its payload’s trajectory before individual warheads separate.

Cruise Missiles

Cruise missiles are jet engine-powered weapons that stay within the atmosphere throughout their flight. In fact, they often fly at extremely low altitudes, ‘hugging’ the ground as few as a few meters from the surface to avoid detection.

These weapons are designed for precision strikes against an array of ground and sea-based targets and, if fitted with nuclear warheads, can target large built-up areas or entire carrier strike groups (in the case of Russia’s P-800 Oniks, for example). Conventional cruise strikes can be calibrated to attack targets as small as individual buildings or bunkers.

Cruise missiles stay maneuverable through their approach to their targets, featuring GPS, inertial guidance, terrain mapping and/or other tools to guide them. Some designs allow human operators to manually guide missiles in the terminal phase.

Pros and Cons of Ballistic and Cruise

Cruise missiles are typically far cheaper (costing as little as 15% as a typical tactical ballistic missile), with their launch more difficult to detect, and the missiles boasting higher accuracy. However, unless they are nuclear armed, their firepower is typically lower, with the US AGM-86 ALCM air-launched cruise missile boasting the largest payload in this class of weapon – 1,362 kg, while most cruise missiles average about 500 kg.

Ballistic missiles are typically less accurate (with a circular error probable, or CEP, measured in the tens or even hundreds of meters, compared to meters for cruise missiles), but do have a number of distinct advantages – the most obvious of which is payload size (Russia’s RS-28 Sarmat, for example, has a 10,000 kg payload).

Ballistic missiles’ arcing approach also allows their payloads to accelerate to incredible speeds (often hypersonic), while cruise missiles typically stay subsonic or supersonic through their flight, which makes them easier to intercept, and reduces the sheer kinetic force with which they slam down onto their targets.

November 23, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Hungary slams US for destabilizing regional energy security

RT | November 23, 2024

Washington’s decision to blacklist Russia’s Gazprombank, a key conduit for gas purchases from Russia, is aimed at undermining energy security in the Central European region, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has claimed.

Earlier this week, the US Treasury Department imposed blocking sanctions on more than 50 Russian financial institutions, including Gazprombank, linked to the eponymous Russian gas giant, and six of its international subsidiaries.

The newly introduced restrictions effectively cut off Russia’s primary bank for energy-related transactions from the SWIFT interbank messaging system, meaning it can no longer conduct dollar-based transactions.

“Including Gazprombank to the sanctions list is a decision that deliberately puts some Central European countries in a difficult situation, and deliberately jeopardizes the security of energy supplies” to several nations in the region, Szijjarto wrote on Facebook on Friday.

The Hungarian diplomat stated that any attempts to jeopardize energy supplies to Hungary “either by imposing sanctions or by cutting off transit supplies are considered as an offence against our sovereignty.”

“We reject all the attacks of the kind against our sovereignty, resist the pressure, and pursue our national interests,” he said.

Szijjarto added that he discussed the issue of gas supplies to Hungary with the first deputy head of the Russian Energy Ministry, Pavel Sorokin, on the sidelines of the Istanbul Energy Forum, which convened in Türkiye on November 22.

“We reviewed the situation in the field of gas transportation and confirmed that we will support necessary cooperation for secure energy supplies to Hungary,” he stated.

Budapest is also discussing the situation with the energy ministers of Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, and Serbia, and consulting with Slovakia to find a solution for securing energy supplies, Szijjarto added.

EU nations are still purchasing record volumes of liquified natural gas (LNG) from Russia. Despite the bloc’s plans to eliminate its dependence Russian energy, it remains one of the world’s major importers of Russian fossil fuels.

In August, pipeline gas comprised the largest share of the EU’s purchases of Russian fossil fuels (54%), followed by LNG (25%), according to the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

November 23, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

They’re at it again… the U.S. and Britain, inciting global war, must be defeated for good

Strategic Culture Foundation | November 22, 2024

This week marks a fateful threshold for the world. In a grave announcement, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the three-year proxy war in Ukraine has now reached a global dimension.

The responsibility for this abysmal moment lies fully with the United States’ elitist rulers and their British accomplices. They are inciting global catastrophe in a desperate bid to save their hegemonic empire.

Putin’s announcement on November 21 came only hours after Russia launched a retaliatory strike against Anglo-American aggression. Russia’s new hypersonic ballistic missile destroyed a munitions center in Dnepropetrovsk in central Ukraine. The conventionally armed missile – called Oreshnik – was deployed in combat for the first time. It delivered several warheads at Mach-10 speed. There is no air defense against such a unique weapon.

The Oreshnik attack was in response to the firing of long-range missiles by the United States and Britain on November 19 and 21 against the pre-conflict territory of the Russian Federation. There is no doubt that the U.S. and British forces were directly involved because, as Moscow has noted, the Ukrainian regime does not have the personnel or logistics capability to operate these advanced NATO weapon systems.

The conclusion is stark. The world is on the cusp of World War Three, a war that would inevitably become a nuclear conflagration and precipitate the end of life on Earth. The evil facing humanity is staggering.

Western barefaced lies to the public

Ludicrously, or perhaps more accurately, fiendishly, Western politicians and media are condemning Russia for the escalation. Their accusations are in flagrant contradiction with the facts. The Western public is being lied to about the sequence and causes of war.

In a move beyond reckless, the United States and Britain attacked Russia with long-range missiles from the territory of Ukraine. The ATACMS and Storm Shadow weapons were aimed at Bryansk and Kursk Oblasts in Western Russia. The American missiles were shot down by Russian air defense, while the British Storm Shadow cruise projectile caused deaths in Kursk.

That barrage marked an open act of war against Russia by the United States and Britain. Hence, the Russian leader commented that the proxy war in Ukraine had now taken on a global dimension.

The American and British leadership went ahead with this aggression even after Russia had explicitly warned several weeks ago that the deployment of such weapons against Russian territory would be seen by Moscow as an act of war. It also followed only hours after Russia revised its nuclear defense doctrine on November 19, defining that the use of long-range conventional weapons from the territory of a non-nuclear state (Ukraine) supplied by nuclear states (the U.S. and Britain) would constitute a joint attack, thereby giving Russia the right to retaliate with nuclear force.

The situation has thus entered the realm of nuclear world war.

Given the aggression initiated by the U.S. and Britain with their ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles, Russia has the legal right to hit those territories and any other territory of the NATO alliance. Russia chose not to do so – for now – limiting its Oreshnik’s target to the territory of Ukraine.

What happens next over the coming days depends on the U.S. and its NATO partners. So far, the White House and Pentagon have sought to (irrationally) blame Moscow for escalation and are saying that the United States will continue to deploy long-range missiles from Ukraine against Russian territory. That remains to be seen if the insanity prevails.

Russia has shown incredible restraint

Far from escalating conduct, Russia has shown incredible restraint, given the relentless provocations by the U.S. and NATO over many months and, indeed, years.

The U.S. and its allies have continually weaponized their corrupt, NeoNazi Ukrainian proxy regime – whose pretend-president and former cross-dressing comedian Vladimir Zelensky was given a standing ovation in the European Parliament this week – despite repeated warnings from Moscow that the dynamic is leading to a world war.

The insanity is compounded by Zelensky’s insatiable demands for more weapons and Western taxpayer handouts worth hundreds of billions of dollars, along with hubristic Western notions that “Russia is bluffing.”

How delusional! The Western leaders are playing Russian Roulette. The United States and its NATO partners are now legitimate targets for Russian strikes. Russia demonstrated this week that it has the capability to breach any Western defense, and it is warning that any further aggression on its territory will be responded to.

President Putin admonished Western ruling elites to think carefully about the choices they are going to make. They can pull back from the abyss and negotiate a diplomatic end to the proxy war. Or they can choose to keep escalating to inevitable disaster.

Western ruling class beyond reason

However, of acute concern is that the Western ruling class seems to be beyond reason and sanity. The U.S. hegemon is facing an existential crisis from its terminal collapse as a global power and loss of imperial supremacy. Starting a war with Russia – even to the point of catastrophe – seems to be the only way the Western imperialist system led by the U.S. can respond.

Significantly, the Biden administration is only a matter of weeks from exiting in disgrace. Incoming President Donald Trump has vowed to end the conflict in Ukraine through prompt negotiations. The U.S. deep state is in a quandary.

The American people voted for Trump on November 5 in large part out of repudiation of the Biden administration, the Democrat Party and its servile adherence to the deep state’s endemic warmongering.

Before Trump’s inauguration on January 20, the American ruling class is desperately pushing the proxy war in Ukraine to prevent a negotiated settlement.

Biden’s approval for using ATACMS – followed by the British lackey Prime Minister Keir Starmer – was a brazen U-turn. Only a month ago, they refused such a move. The election of Trump and the prospect of diplomacy with Russia has caused the Western establishment to ramp up the proxy war.

This week saw the 1,000th day of conflict in Ukraine since Russia launched its special military operation to stop NATO aggression on February 24, 2022. The conflict has reached its most dangerous point.

Russia again this week repeated that it is open to a diplomatic settlement, just as it was in late 2021 when it presented far-reaching security proposals to prevent hostilities. The Western elites dismissed that opportunity, choosing the path of war instead. They also sabotaged the Minsk Accords in 2014 and 2015, and the Istanbul peace deal in March 2022. Millions of casualties later, they still want more war, slaughter, and global war, with their grotesque masks of “defending democracy and rules-based order.”

The American people want to end the conflict. The incoming Trump administration appears to be willing to honor the popular demand.

But sanity, morality and democracy are not qualities shared by the imperialist ruling class in the U.S. and its NATO accomplices.

An American deep state coup, then and now

A couple of observations are notable. November 22 marks the date 61 years ago when an American president, JFK, was murdered by the U.S. deep state. A coup d’état was executed very much for the objective of keeping the Cold War going with the Soviet Union because of the vested economic interests of U.S. militarism and the military-industrial complex.

All these years later, the U.S. deep state is attempting another coup against the democratic wishes of the American people for a peaceful end to the proxy war in Ukraine. The U.S. ruling elite want the war against Russia to persist in maintaining their lucrative profits and for existential reasons of empire. Joe Biden is a brain-dead president who is signing orders pushed in front of him by deep-state operatives like Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan just before he wanders off to a retirement home – or into the Amazon jungle à la the hilarious photo-op at the G20 summit in Brazil this week.

Ukraine proxy war back to Nazi Germany

This long perspective also puts the Ukraine proxy war into a proper, wider historical context. The conflict in Ukraine did not start in February 2022. It did not even start with the CIA-backed coup in Kiev against an elected president in February 2014. It did not even start with the U.S.-financed Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004. This conflict goes back at least to the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in 1945 when the United States and its imperialist allies immediately responded by creating the Cold War with its newly forged imperialist instrument known as NATO, in part by deploying Ukrainian fascist collaborators to covertly attack Russia. After World War Two, the CIA and Nazi remnants like spymaster Major General Reinhard Gehlen were united in purpose along with the British MI6 to defeat the Soviet Union. What is transpiring today in Ukraine is the culmination of a systematic conflict, essentially about projecting and maintaining Western imperial power.

The emergence of Russia, China, the BRICS, and the Global South has amplified Western imperial angst and diehard hostility to preserve global power and privilege. The latter hegemonic Western system is the epitome of fascism and neocolonialism.

Historical nemesis

There is a profound historical nemesis at this juncture. Will the U.S. imperial aggressor and its NATO front go down in defeat, or will it push the world to a final global war?

Russia is not bluffing. It won’t back down because of the historical sacrifices it has made already to defeat fascist tyranny – 27 to 30 million dead in World War Two alone. The Russian nation’s pain and suffering from imperialist aggression make it defiant and resolute in a way that the Western regimes could never comprehend or emulate.

Will sanity prevail? The American and European people have onerous obligations to hold their criminal elite rulers accountable.

November 23, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s final warning to NATO – you’ll get your war, but it’ll be over in 15 minutes

By Drago Bosnic | November 23, 2024

We are inches away from a global thermonuclear war. And no, this isn’t a meaningless, overused catchphrase. Quite the contrary, it’s as serious as it gets. We have reached a historical boiling point. At no other time in human history have we been closer to the scenario of annihilation, not even during the so-called “Cuban” Missile Crisis. It should really be called “Turkish” or something along those lines. And it’s important to note that we’re not digressing from the topic by mentioning this.

Namely, the mainstream propaganda machine just loves maintaining its narratives that essentially whitewash the political West and denigrate the actual world. This is why the fact that the United States initiated the “Cuban” Missile Crisis by deploying nuclear-tipped missiles in Italy and Turkey back in 1961 (although some sources claim it was as early as 1959) is ever so “conveniently” forgotten. The USSR waited a full year (at the very least) to respond by placing its own missiles in Cuba.

Thus, it’s perfectly clear who initiated that confrontation. And yet, as previously mentioned, modern historiography remembers the event as the “Cuban” Missile Crisis, sending a subliminal message that it was initiated by the Soviet Union and Cuba. Why is this important? Because the same people are now telling us that Russia “escalated” the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict by “firing missiles at a democratic Ukraine”, once again “forgetting” to mention the preceding events.

Namely, as we all know, the political West gave the Neo-Nazi junta the go-ahead to use long-range missiles against targets deeper within Russia. And they just did. In the last two days, approximately a dozen ATACMS and “Storm Shadow”/SCALP-EG missiles have been used (on the same day Moscow updated its nuclear doctrine, mind you). So, how did the “evil Kremlin”, led by the “crazy, bloodthirsty tyrant Putin”, respond to this? Well, not with nukes, as we’re still here, even though the doctrine allows it.

However, Russia did fire what is technically an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile). This marks the first time such a weapon was used in a conflict. And while ICBMs normally carry thermonuclear warheads, this one was conventionally armed. To better understand what sort of weapon this is, we have to go back a decade or so, specifically to the RS-26 “Rubezh” program that was supposed to deter NATO’s crawling aggression in Europe and the post-Soviet space.

Namely, the RS-26 was envisaged as the successor to the formidable RSD-10 “Pioneer” IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missile). Essentially a shortened version of the three-stage RS-24 “Yars” ICBM, with one stage removed (and some other modifications), the RS-26 had a shorter range, but was no less deadly. In fact, it carried more powerful warheads than the “Pioneer” (at least four 300 kt instead of the latter’s three 150 kt ones), while also being more accurate and impossible to intercept.

This enabled it to target even massive underground command centers or any other high-priority targets across NATO-occupied Europe. However, there was a (geo)political problem with the RS-26. Namely, it was made at a time when the INF Treaty was still in force (banning all missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km). So, for the RS-26 to formally comply with this, it had to have a range greater than 5,500 km. Otherwise, it would violate the INF Treaty and be designated as an IRBM.

To avoid this, it was designed to achieve a maximum range of 5,800 km, just enough to be designated as an ICBM. However, this created another problem, as it affected the New START treaty. Namely, this would force Russia to reduce the number of its, so to speak, “purebred” ICBMs such as “Yars”, R-36M2 “Voevoda” and RS-28 “Sarmat”. As a result, in 2011, the program was postponed to a period after 2027, with most resources diverted for the development of Russia’s new hypersonic weapons.

However, on August 2, 2019, the US unilaterally withdrew from the INF Treaty and started developing previously banned intermediate and medium-range missiles, prompting Russia to respond. These programs accelerated significantly after the start of the special military operation (SMO), resulting in new designs, as well as massive improvements to the existing ones. However, we still didn’t hear almost anything about the RS-26, indicating that the program might have even been scrapped altogether.

But, on April 12 this year, Moscow tested an “unnamed ICBM”. To this day, the Russian military is yet to publicly reveal the exact type of the missile launched that day. At the time, I argued that the missile was actually the RS-26, as it had striking similarities with the previously mentioned RS-24 that the “Rubezh” was actually based on, including the way it conducted wobbling maneuvers designed to confuse NATO’s ABM (anti-ballistic missile) systems, making it virtually impossible to intercept.

For seven months, no news came through about this “mysterious ICBM”. Until the early hours of November 21, that is. Initially, the Russian military didn’t reveal what missile it was, letting NATO contemplate what to do next. However, the “mysterious ICBM” was soon not only uncovered, but actually named – “Oreshnik” (“Hazel” in Russian). However, solid information about the missile is extremely scant, fueling all sorts of speculation, wild guessing and outright misinformation.

For instance, the Pentagon insists the missile that hit Dnepropetrovsk was fired from Kapustin Yar, a testing site in the Astrakhan oblast (region) in southern Russia, located over 1000 km to the east. This distance is too short for an ICBM, raising questions about the veracity of the US military’s claims. Then, videos from Kazakhstan emerged, specifically over the city of Satbayev, which is 1,500 km to the east of Kapustin Yar. Even more interestingly, some 450 km to the southeast lies Sary Shagan.

This place is home to one of the largest and most important missile test sites in the former Soviet Union, with the Russian military still using it extensively, including during the aforementioned April 12 test. It’s simply impossible to see “Oreshnik” fly over Satbayev if it was fired from Kapustin Yar to Dnepropetrovsk. However, it’s certainly possible that the missile was fired from Sary Shagan. Still, NATO doesn’t want to reveal that it flew nearly 2,400 km before hitting its targets with pinpoint precision.

Even more interestingly, videos over Satbayev also show that the missile is wobbling and maneuvering just like the “mysterious ICBM” tested on April 12, further reinforcing the notion that the “Oreshnik” could actually be a conventionally armed “Rubezh”. In addition, its maximum range exceeds 5,000 km, which puts virtually all of Europe in range. And indeed, it makes little sense to get a completely new missile if you have the “Rubezh”, as it’s already a largely finished product.

Technically speaking, there are several possibilities when it comes to the “Oreshnik”. First, it doesn’t even have to be a regular missile and could be some sort of MaRV (maneuverable reentry vehicle), MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle), HGV (hypersonic glide vehicle), etc. or perhaps even a hybrid, with the “Rubezh” being the primary missile carrier. The “Rubezh” itself can already carry the “Avangard”, so if the “Oreshnik” is an HGV, it shouldn’t be a problem for the “Rubezh” to deploy it.

Another possibility is that the “Oreshnik” is a completely new missile (not necessarily ballistic, but likely a more advanced hypersonic, maneuvering weapon) that has its own MIRV/MaRV/HGV warheads. There are no definite claims about this at present, simply because very little is publicly known about it. However, personally, I am more inclined to believe that the “Oreshnik” is a conventionally armed HGV that can be carried by nuclear-capable ICBM/IRBMs like the RS-26 “Rubezh”.

The reason is quite simple, because why would someone make something completely new when they already have a finished project that can immediately go into production (the “Rubezh” uses the same production lines as the “Yars”)? This reinforces the notion that the RS-26 is a highly modular design which can be equipped with various types of warheads, including conventional ones. It also harkens back to President Putin’s vision of Russia’s strategic preemptive strike capabilities.

One more thing that should be noted about the “Oreshnik” is that it was certainly an overkill against the Neo-Nazi junta. Russia’s more tactical and operational level missiles could’ve easily conducted this. However, given the fact that Moscow is faced with the increasingly delusional and aggressive West, it just had to demonstrate its firepower, prompting Putin to authorize the long-range strike on Dnepropetrovsk. This is a particularly important message to both the US and EU/NATO.

In terms of the functioning of the missile’s warhead, the available footage shows at least 30 smaller projectiles divided into five groups (six in each). The lack of visible detonations (although at least one was seen) suggests these are probably advanced kinetic penetrators capable of annihilating heavily defended and dug-in positions. This means that any NATO base anywhere in Europe and/or elsewhere would be in range, but Russia wouldn’t need to rely on its thermonuclear arsenal to deter aggression.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

November 23, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

NATO Contraction – Part 23 of the Anglo-American War on Russia

Tales of the American Empire | November 21, 2024

Previous episodes of this series explained NATO’s senseless expansion that threatened Russia and caused a disastrous war in Ukraine. The plot to add Ukraine to NATO failed. As Russian troops advance to occupy all of Ukraine to secure it as a close ally, nearby nations may choose to join the prospering Russian led Eurasian Economic Union. Russia may encourage Ukraine’s neighboring nations to join its economic block with a return of Ukrainian land seized by the Soviets.

The loss of Eastern Europe would be a huge setback for the Anglo-American empire as members leave NATO and the EU to trade freely with Russia and China, or join a new Hungarian led Eastern Europe economic union that does not support EU and Anglo-American sanctions nor imperial adventures in Africa and Asia. This is likely to happen if Russian troops reach Ukraine’s western border to open the door to the east. As a result, the Anglo-American empire may risk World War III and send NATO troops into Ukraine to block further Russian advancement and halt a rebellion by its vassal states.

_________________________________

“As EU Confirms Economic Punishments On China, U.S. Panics Over Impending Iran Oil Attack”; Sean Foo; YouTube; October 5, 2024;    • As EU Confirms Economic Punishments O…  

“Why EU’s Baltic States Feel the PAIN and MISERY From Their Sanctions on Russia”; SCO & BRICS Insight; May 28, 2024;    • Why EU’s Baltic States Feel the PAIN …  

“In Russia’s shadow: The Baltics wait for Europe’s strategic new railway”; Lisa Louis; BBC; November 10, 2024; https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2…

Related Tale: “The American Colony Called Germany”;    • The American Colony Called Germany  

“How the US Forced Germany to Attack China (and Kill its Own Economy)”; Cyrus Janssen; YouTube; March 12, 2024;    • How America Destroyed the German Economy  

Related Tales: “The Anglo-American War on Russia”;    • The Anglo-American War on Russia   

November 23, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Counter-insurgency Is “On” – Against Trump’s ‘storm’

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 22, 2024

More than just a dangerous provocation aimed at Russia, the ATACM and Storm Shadow attacks represent an attempt to turn foreign policy on its head.

“The Deep State whispered to Trump: ‘You cannot withstand the storm’. Trump whispered back: “I am the storm”. The war is on. The Deep State has launched a war of disruption to disable Trump’s ‘storm’. This week’s ATACM strike was but one part to an inter-agency counter-insurgency – a political strike directed at Trump; so too are all the inter-agency false narratives attributed to the Trump camp; and so too, the escalating provocations directed at Iran.

Be assured the Five Eyes are full participants in the counter-insurgency. Macron and Starmer openly conspired together in Paris ahead of the U.S. announcement to promote the ATACMS strike. The inter-agency grandees clearly are very fearful. They must worry that Trump may expose the ‘Russia Hoax’ (that Trump in 2016 was a Russian ‘asset’) and put them in jeopardy.

But Trump understands what’s afoot:

“We need peace without delay … The foreign policy establishment keeps trying to pull the world into conflict. The greatest threat to Western civilization today is not Russia. It’s probably more than anything else ourselves… There must be a complete commitment to dismantling the entire Globalist Neo-con establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars, pretending to fight for freedom and democracy abroad while they turn us into a Third World country and a Third World dictatorship right here at home. The State Department, the Defense bureaucracy, the intelligence services and all of the rest need to be completely overhauled and reconstituted. To fire the Deep Staters and put America first – we have to put America First”.

Whilst the long-range ATACM launch on ‘deep Russian pre-2014 territory’ is no game-changer – it will not change the course of the war (ATACMS regularly are – at 90% – downed by Russian Air Defences); the salience of this act however, is not strategic; rather, it lies with the crossing into the realm of direct NATO attacks on Russia.

Colonel Doug MacGregor reports that two sources are telling him that “Russian nuclear rocket forces are on full alert. They are at the highest level of readiness ever achieved. It suggests that Russia has taken this crossing of the line very seriously”.

Yes, it was a provocation, and President Putin will respond appropriately. He has to – but not necessarily through nuclear escalation. Why? Because the war in Ukraine is moving rapidly in his direction, with Russian forces closing-in on the Dnieper east bank. Effectively, facts on the ground will be the outcome determinant, leaving little point to external mediation.

But more than just a dangerous provocation aimed at Russia, the ATACM and Storm Shadow attacks represent an attempt to turn foreign policy – literally – on its head. Instead of policy being aimed directly at a rising foreign adversary threatening U.S. hegemony, it is being transformed into a loaded weapon locked onto America’s domestic war. It is aimed specifically at Trump – to ‘hog tie’ him in, and to divert his attention to wars that he does not want.

Logic suggests that Trump would want to keep clear of Netanyahu’s scheming for a war against Iran. But the ‘Israel Firsters’ and the Lobby (as Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues) long have had effective control over Congress and the U.S. military – more than does the President. Explains Sachs:

“Because the Zionist Lobby is so powerful, Netanyahu basically has had control over the Pentagon to fight wars on behalf of Israeli extremism. The war in Iraq in 2003 was a Netanyahu War. The attempt to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the overthrow of Moamar Gaddafi – All were ‘Netanyahu Wars’”.

The important point is that Netanyahu can ‘do what he does’ because it was always planned this way – a plan that has been 50 years in execution. The ‘Israel First’ strategy was fully embraced by Scoop Jackson (a two-times Presidential candidate). And just so the policy could not be rolled back, Scoop insisted on Zionists staffing the State Department, and that neo-cons and Zionists hold the reins at the NSC. That same pattern continues until today.

At bottom lies the ultimate boondoggle by which the political class of both U.S. parties become wealthy and afford the campaign costs of remaining legislators: “It’s quite a dandy deal that the Israel Lobby or the Zionist Lobby puts in, say, a hundred million dollars into campaigns and it gets trillions out –trillions, not billions, trillions out [in government] expenditures. And so, when Netanyahu speaks, it’s bizarre to me, but it is not Trump who is appointing or naming [those ‘Israel Firsters’ who are part of his Team, but Netanyahu]”, Sachs says.

When Netanyahu describes Trump’s ‘Israel First’ nominations as his ‘dream U.S. team’, the explanation is not difficult to see. On the one hand, Trump has a ‘Revolution’ to conduct in America and wants his nominations to office approved. And, on the other, Netanyahu has a further war he wants the U.S. to fight for him.

“The ‘Big Ugly’ was always a description of the battle that few understood”, another commentator notes:

“The Senate is factually the core of republican opposition to MAGA and President Trump. The visible battle … consumes the most attention. However, it is the less-visible battle against the entrenched ideological Republicans that proves to be the hardest”.

“The Republicans in the upper chamber will not relinquish power easily. They have a multitude of weapons to use against the (Trump) insurgency … We are seeing this play out now in the alignment of Republican Senators who stand in opposition to Trump’s nomination of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, [as] this recent report [explains]”.

“The basic outline is that the senate leadership will reluctantly support Matt Gaetz for Main Justice, where ‘support’ means they will not directly oppose; in exchange for the nomination of FBI Director Mike Rogers [a co-founder of the ‘Never Trump’ group] to defend inter-agency interests at FBI”.

The prospective Republican Senate Leader, John Thune, will play his cards carefully in order to extract maximum damage . He has leverage by trying to connect Trump to Netanyahu’s carnage in the region.

Thune, whilst announcing huge quantities of weapons for Israel, said:

“To Our Allies in Israel, and to the Jewish People Around the world, my message to you is this: Reinforcements are on the way. In six weeks, Republicans will reclaim the Senate Majority, and we will make clear that the United States Congress stands squarely In Israel’s Corner”.

Trump will need to play his cards carefully, too. Since, for his purposes, the absolute priority are his two domestic wars: First, “dismantling the entire Globalist Neocon Establishment”, and secondly, ending the out-of-control government expenditure that has bloated the Deep State boondoggle and turned the U.S. real economy into a shadow of its former self.

Trump needs those radical reform nominations to pass, even if he has to sacrifice one or two to secure Senate approval for the others. The Israel First nominees, needless to add, will be approved seamlessly.

Of the two ‘entanglement’ threats to Trump’s reform agenda, Russian escalation is the lesser of the two. The Ukraine war is motoring steadily towards some form of dénoument. One that works for Russia. Putin is in the driving seat, and does not need a major war with NATO. Nor does Putin need Trump’s ‘art of the deal’. A resolution of some sort will occur without him.

However, Trump’s role will be important subsequently to define a new border between the security interests of the Atlanticists and those of the Asian heartland (including China and Iran).

The other putative war – Iran – is the more dangerous to Trump. Jewish political influence and the Lobby has taken the U.S. into multiple disastrous wars before. And now, Netanyahu desperately needs a war and he is not alone. Much of Israel is clamouring for war that would end ‘all the fronts’ facing it. There is a profound conviction in this prospect as the solution and the ‘Great Victory’ that Netanyahu and Israel so desperately need.

The ground has been dug-over, both by propaganda that Iran’s nuclear programme is ‘staggeringly vulnerable’ (which it isn’t), and by the media’s onslaught that replays the meme that to attack Iran now represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, with Hizbullah and Hamas already weakened. War with Iran – totally erroneously – is thus being sold as an ‘easy war’.

There is an unshakeable certitude that it must be so. ‘We are strong, and Iran is weak’.

Who will roll-back the Israel Firsters? They have the momentum and the fervour. A war against Iran will fare badly for Israel and the U.S. The wide ramifications likely will precipitate precisely the severe financial and market crisis that could derail Trump’s ‘Storm’.

November 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »