Red Sea rising: Exposing the West’s diminishing naval power
By Ali Halawi | Al Mayadeen | April 12, 2024
The Red Sea has witnessed several developments that brought to light the West’s fading power, as its enemies simultaneously and continuously develop precision weapons and naval capabilities.
Although ongoing escort, air defense, and aerial attack operations in the Red Sea are viewed as uncostly, in terms of human capital, and training routines that will raise the preparedness of NATO forces in the region, they have also unveiled a quite unpleasant reality for Western navies. On the flip side, the aerial attacks of Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) on Israeli-affiliated ships, which were later expanded to include US-UK-affiliated ships in the Red Sea, add to an extended bill that NATO countries pay for securing the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people.
The weapons used in these operations are similar to Iranian-designed drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles and have been described as “cheap” yet effective weapons by US CENTCOM commanders. These precise guided munitions have been disseminated across factions in the Axis of Resistance, via direct armament or technology sharing. When put to the correct use the weapons have proven challenging for some of the world’s most well-trained and equipped forces.
West Asia casts a shadow over NATO military industrial complexes
Some weapons could have been transferred with the blueprints for the production of their main compartments and assembly at their final destination, bringing costs down and production levels up, further deepening the hole for Western counterparts. In the case of Ansar Allah in Yemen, the YAF owns and announces to locally produce a wide array of anti-ship weapons, as well as missiles, and drones that have been appropriated for attacking seaborne targets; currently being put to use to tighten a naval blockade on “Israel” through the Red Sea.
On the other hand, flailing Western military hegemony over the seas pushed the US and its allies to embark on a poorly planned campaign to protect Israeli shipping routes, forcing them to deal with these relatively low-cost weapons in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea, where the YAF has dealt direct hits to multiple non-military vessels and threatened near hits some of the most advanced American military ships. This has been the case in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, where US military bases have suffered from the horrors of cheap low-flying, and ballistic weapons in more than 100 operations on US assets, which dealt precise hits to their targets on multiple occasions.
When countering these attacks, Western forces have utilized some of the most sophisticated anti-air surface-to-air missiles, which are estimated to cost millions of dollars of taxpayer money. In the Red Sea, the US-led Western alliance has relied on NATO-standard interceptors, each of which was developed to counter specific inbound aerial objects.
According to The Responsible Statecraft and news circulating on Western media outlets regarding the mishaps of air defense units, the Western coalition has depended on the use of a layered anti-air model, consisting of RIM-116 (RAM), RIM-66 (SM-2), RIM-174 (SM-6), RIM-162 (ESSM), and RIM-161 (SM-3) interceptors. Each interceptor has been developed to counter specific weaponry, however, they all share in common extremely pricey tags.
Price list for NATO’s Israeli maritime protection campaign
Below is a list of the cost of a single interceptor, excluding operational and battery costs, as of 2022:
- RIM-116 (RAM): $905,000
- RIM-66 (SM-2): $2,100,000
- RIM-174 (SM-6): $3,901,818
- RIM-162 (ESSM): $2,031,875
- RIM 161 (SM-3) Block IB: $9,698,617
- RIM-161 (SM-3) Block IIA: $27,915,625
The price list is retrieved from the US Department of Defense and military-industrial complexes’ official documents.
Germany’s Navy ridicules itself
Keeping the aforementioned price ranges in mind, an outrageous fluke that came as a result of a failed surface-to-air missile interception attempt by the German Navy’s Hessen frigate exposed the deep-lying issues for the US-led Naval alliance in the Red Sea.
What should have been a strike on a low-cost Yemeni drone turned into a shabby affair in which the German Navy misidentified the drone, launched a dual attack on an allied asset, failed to hit the aircraft, and suffered malfunctions that led to the destruction of two interceptors midflight.
At first glance, the attack underlines several glaring issues including, the under-preparedness of the German air defense crew, inadequate storage or production of interceptors, and poor communication between NATO allied forces at Sea. Some military-concerned outlets have attempted to shift the blame on outdated German comms, however, further investigation of the incident reveals an issue of economic cost that could tip the scale towards NATO’s enemies.
Germany’s embarrassing mishap would cost the country around $4.2 million, as the Hessen launched two SM-2s at a US MQ-9 reaper drone that it failed to identify.
No SM-2 batches produced since 2018
The cost of the failed operation should not be the only consideration here, as the last time Ratheon sold a batch of its SM-2 Block IIIA interceptors was in a deal it signed with Denmark back in 2018. The deal was worth $152 million for 46 SM-2 Block IIIA interceptors and corresponding equipment for a couple of vertical launch systems. Now, the company has stopped producing the system, and the interceptors for lack of international orders and plans to resume production in 2035.
However, conflict in Ukraine, the war on Gaza, and tensions in East Asia may prompt reconsideration, especially as the genocide of Palestinian people drags on while their allies in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq tie their operations to the status of the aggression on Gaza itself.
Large-scale confrontation might see selective engagement
The fact that Raethon has not received any major orders since 2018 brings up the possibility of Western shortages in air defense systems and interceptors, in case of larger-scale engagement erupting in the region. The phenomenon cannot be limited to SM-2 interceptors but could affect a range of staple NATO-developed and produced SAMs, including the infamous Patriot systems, THAAD, Israeil Iron Dome, and other anti-ballistic and cruise missile systems.
Large-scale engagement will most likely see the Colletive West prioritize assets and selectively down often low-cost but deadly targets.
One Yemeni strike was capable of sinking a bulk carrier in the Red Sea, while an attack on a secret US outpost on the Jordanian-Syrian border injured and killed more than a hundred US servicepeople.
In a war of attrition, the Axis of Resistance’s factions will have the economic advantages of pumping out low-cost munitions that target multi-million dollar systems and vehicles, and the morale advantage of deep-rooted ideological motives related to religion and nativity to the lands they defend.
Another blunder: Denmark’s unreported defensive failure gets chief sacked
More recently, Denmark sacked its defense chief Flemming Lentfer after major faults were discovered in air defense systems on a frigate that it sent to the Red Sea earlier. Lentfer was axed on Wednesday night after failing to report to the Danish Defense Minister, Troels Lund Poulsen, that the Iver Huitfeldt vessel had experienced a 30 minutes-long malfunction in one of its missile and radar systems, during a drone attack in the Red Sea. The malfunction led Danish authorities to recall the frigate from its mission, marking the gravity of the faults.
“I have lost trust in the chief of defense,” said Poulsen. Shockingly, he found out about the incident from a specialist military outlet, rather than any of his subordinates.
“We are facing a historic and necessary strengthening of Denmark’s defense forces. This places great demands on our organization and on the military advice at a political level,” he asserted.
Danish news website Olfi was the one to break the news to the Minister of Defense, explaining that the frigate was commanded by Commander Sune Lund, who complained about a problem with the ship’s active radar and C-Flex combat management system.
Unexplained outages to the systems were severe enough to prevent the frigate from launching its ESSM interceptors. The Danish frigate’s 76 mm guns were also reported to be defective on several occasions during deployment to the Red Sea. Other reports revealed other aspects of the commander’s message, in which he stated that the equipment problems reportedly had been known about for “years”, but that little had been done to address them.
Germany’s “Embarrassment” vs Yemen’s Victory
Back to Germany’s flop in the Red Sea, which was described by German media outlet BILD as an “Embarrassment to our (the German) Navy in the Red Sea”, the YAF had just marked another milestone by downing a US-operated MQ-9 Reaper Drone over Hodeidah a few days prior to the blunder.
Although both forces attempted to target different MQ-9-type drones using their own SAMs, the Yemeni Armed Forces were able to destroy the highly prized American drone with a “locally produced” air defense system while the Germans harrowingly failed. The Germans said that they mistakenly targeted a drone on February 28, 2024. However, their failure to down the then-unidentified object was due to unnamed technical malfunctions that led to the detonation of the two SM-2 missiles midflight, rather than active efforts to avert the disaster.
Interestingly, Sanaa had only unveiled two air defense systems capable of achieving such a hit. One of which is seemingly a copy of the Iranian-developed compact air-defense missile, dubbed Saqer-2. The missile can be easily transported and launched to take down close-range targets, flying at relatively slow speeds. The Saqer-2, a copycat of the Iranian so-called 358 surface-to-air missile reportedly functions like a one-way attack drone, reaching the required via a liquid fuel-propelled engine, to later hover near an aerial target, approaching it and detonating its warhead after being manually locked on to it by a ground operator, or by working in an autonomous mode.
However, footage published by the YAF’s Military Media indicated that the air defense system utilized in the incident was similar to traditional supersonic SAMs due to the speed at which it reached its target and the sound produced during its flight in the video.
Notably, the missile impacted the drone in a near direct trajectory and did not pause to hover nearby or for directions by operators. Examining the publicly revealed arsenal of the YAF, this likely indicates that the missile in use was the Bareq-1 or Bareq-2 SAM.
The missiles resemble the Iranian Taer line of missiles, which are used on a multitude of staple air defense systems. Digging deeper into the origin of the technology, it is clear that the Taer or Bareq lines of missiles are actually reverse-engineered models of the Soviet-era 3M9, incorporating certain elements from NATO Standard Missiles.
Presuming that the Bareq-2 was used by the YAF for the operation reveals an even deeper hole dug by Western military complexes for their own armies. Moreover, NATO’s SMs are much more developed than the YAF’s interceptors, as they incorporate a wide range of technological and hardware additions, putting them in a class of their own.
These additions allow for 360° scope for air defense teams allowing Hessen and other vessels to fire at any surrounding target within its range at any time without having to adjust their position while boosters on the SM-6 allow for longer-range targeting.
Still, the single-stage and aimed single launch conducted by the YAF achieved a direct hit to the 20 m-long US drone obliterating it to pieces that were scavenged by fighters on al-Hodeidah’s shore.
Yemen’s support to Palestine uncovers deep crises in NATO’s Naval power
Putting this series of unfolding events into the context of the Yemeni Armed Forces’ support to Palestine, as the Western-backed Israeli regime continues its genocidal war on Gaza, is key to not only regional security but global security as a whole.
The equations drawn by the YAF have been unprecedented in the history of the nation’s struggle against Western imperialism, as for the first time, an Arab nation has taken the responsibility of launching an expansive naval campaign to support a moral and national cause, whose result will alter the course of human history. By setting this historical precedent, Yemen has not only altered regional security to the favor of natives, but it has also exposed essential faults in NATO’s military and naval structure which can and will be taken advantage of by adversaries.
These events have not been limited to uncovering the flaws of Danish and German forces, but they have laid bare essential challenges for the far superior American and British navies.
For the US, issues have concentrated around logistics and the high cost of operating multiple strike groups, in order to maintain feeble objectives. The UK on the other hand has witnessed multiple accidents and complications during the period of its operations.
The Yemeni Armed Forces’ strategic engagements in the Red Sea highlight a significant shift in naval dynamics, exposing vulnerabilities in Western military prowess and logistical strategies. Despite maintaining relatively low-scale engagements, the YAF’s precision attacks on military vessels have yielded valuable experience and expanded their target list, aided by direct repercussions from the US’s involvement in the genocidal war on Gaza. This evolving scenario underscores the importance of the Axis of Resistance’s strategic foresight and adaptive responses in navigating the complexities of Western provocations, in the context of modern naval warfare, signaling a paradigmatic challenge for maintaining Western military hegemony in the region.
Brits should not be part of the genocide in Gaza
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 11, 2024
How likely is it that the Israeli air force jet which killed three British aid workers in Gaza took off from our base in Cyprus? How much longer can our own government deny that there is a genocide happening each day in Gaza with not only the tacit blessing of the government but in some cases it actually goes the distance and provides the full package of support to murder women and children?
The murky dividing line between the British so-called neutral position on Gaza and the reality of what even our own MPs recently admitted was a genocide which broke a tome of internal laws – seems to be getting more opaque by the day.
The Conservative party is very confused about where it is on the Gaza war and while David Cameron recently admitted that he was “worried” about international law being broken, it is the prime minister who is now in the firing line demanding enquiries about the death of the three nationals killed.
Three of the seven who were killed were British nationals named James Henderson, John Chapman and James Kirby. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak demanded a concrete investigation into the deaths from the Netanyahu government.
But he won’t get concrete investigations from the Netanyahu government as this body has shown the world in recent months that there is no level of depravity which it is not prepared to stoop to as it still continues to shock us each day with video clips on social media breaking new boundaries of poor taste.
Yet IDF soldiers playing with women’s underwear is one thing; it is quite another thing for us to imagine that Britain could be pulled into a massive international law black hole which could go on for years via the ICJ in the Hague.
Surely the deaths of these three should be the right moment to have a re-think on a government level if we can’t have one as a society. Israel has gone over a line on “defending itself” and Britain has been dragged into that quagmire which has made us look like the amateurs we are on the international diplomatic circuit.
But where to draw that line?
While it is commonly viewed as acceptable for British nationals to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq, or indeed, it was more than alright for young Libyans in our society to fight against the terror cell in Libya (MI6 officers at Heathrow airport wished them luck when they left and then welcomed them back into the country), it has become an unthinkable crime with the gravest of punishments for any UK subjects to be linked to ISIS – the recent appeal case of Shamima Begum losing her right to British citizenship as one good example.
But many of these incidents are illogical and often end up betraying their original ethos. In the case of the Libyans known to MI6 who fought ISIS in Libya, one such young man came back radicalised and carried out the appalling terror attack on the Manchester arena attack at the concert of Ariana Grande in May of 2017. The case was a major own goal for the security services but it did at least shed light on the tawdry subject of how the intelligence services pay terrorists around the world to do our dirty work. Some might argue that Shamima Begum should have a second chance as she was indoctrinated as a minor when she left for Syria to be an ISIS bride. Seems an excessive decision given there is no evidence against her of actual terrorist activities.
The real issue is that we can’t effectively navigate around international wars and decide each one on its merits, in terms of who we allow to get involved in them. If we are not in control of our own government getting too involved in the Gaza slaughter, not to mention citizens, then we can only expect having to pay a very high price for it which will make Boris Johnson’s 40bn euro divorce from the EU look like chicken feed. We will soon no doubt see British doctors shot in cold blood by British soldiers in IDF unforms.
Just recently an Oxford-educated Jewish Brit was fired from his job as working as a spokesperson for Israel’s army. What no one seemed to ask in the UK, is what on earth was Eylon Levy doing there in the first place? It’s a similar story with how British journalist Douglas Murray failed to even raise an eyebrow of disdain when he was planning to be part of a fundraiser on behalf of Israel. Astonishing that in overregulated Britain, a country where we have rules for even how we are allowed to think on social media, that these two gentlemen found no resistance to their wartime activism.
Recently, the French government announced that it would take legal action against French citizens who leave the country and go and fight for the Israeli army in Gaza. Currently it is believed there are almost 100 British subjects who have “volunteered” to fight in Gaza with an IDF uniform. I would argue that it is high time that we follow the French model and stop this practice altogether of allowing our citizens to fight in any overseas wars, anyway unless they are dual nationals and are prepared to surrender their British passports at Heathrow when they leave.
UK and France Talk of Reviving WWI Alliance Over ‘Fear’ of Trump Return
Sputnik – 09.04.2024
In an op-ed penned on the 120th anniversary of the Entente Cordiale, a landmark agreement signed between the British Empire and France in 1904, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron and his French counterpart Stephane Sejourne penned an op-ed essentially calling for the revival of the alliance.
The two ministers argued that NATO must mobilize to deny Russia a victory in Ukraine, claiming that the UK and France, two of the military bloc’s founders and nuclear powers, “have a responsibility in driving the alliance to deal with the challenges before it.”
“We must do even more to ensure we defeat Russia. The world is watching – and will judge us if we fail,” they wrote in a piece published by The Telegraph.
Commenting on this development, Dr. John Laughland, a lecturer in politics and history at the Catholic Institute of the Vendée (ICES) in France and specialist in international affairs, observed that the UK and France are “two principal military powers in Europe” and do enjoy “quite a high level” of bilateral military cooperation.
He did point out, however, that though London and Paris “have indeed been strengthening that cooperation for some years now,” as Cameron and Sejourne wrote, he does not see “any substantial new initiatives” in the article, which he dismissed as “essentially just propaganda.”
Whereas the Entente managed to prevail in World War I in no small part due to the Russian Empire’s contribution to the cause, Dr. Laughland suggested that this new British-French axis would inevitably lean on the United States, “because everything that they say about the British-French Entente is in the context of NATO.”
“The current war is a NATO war. And so they are leaning on the Americans,” he remarked.
He suggested that France and the UK may be driven by the fear of Donald Trump’s reelection as the president of the United States.
“I think that the European powers, including France and Britain, are trying to pre-empt that outcome because whether rightly or wrongly, they fear that Trump would want to make peace in Ukraine, make peace with Russia,” the scholar mused. “But again, I regard this as just a piece of gesture politics, this article and this commemoration.”
Dr. Laughland also recalled a previous attempt by Cameron to partially revive the Entente in 2010 by signing military defense agreements with France during his premiership, with one of the outcomes of said deal being “the attack on Libya in 2011, which, as far as we understand, was a Franco-British initiative.”
“It was a French initiative which the British immediately supported. And the attack on Libya in 2011, which, of course, the Americans also supported, and then became a NATO attack, was an absolutely catastrophic war. It showed once again that NATO is an aggressive alliance,” he remarked. “I say once again, because, of course, NATO had attacked Yugoslavia in 1999. So unfortunately, it’s a very bad precedent, the 2010 agreement.”
Meanwhile, Mikael Valtersson, former officer of the Swedish Armed Forces and chief of staff of the Sweden Democrats political party, argued that the real reason for this talk about reviving the Entente Cordiale is the UK’s and France’s desire to “take a larger role in international politics” coupled with them realizing that they are not “big enough to do it on their own.”
“Both United Kingdom and France are also united in their nearly fanatical hard-line approach towards Russia. As they say in the article, Russia must lose and Ukraine must win,” he added.
According to Valtersson, this “hardline approach” towards Russia may be the reason why Germany was not included in this scheme as Berlin and Paris do not see eye to eye on how to deal with Moscow.
“The difference is that the French leader, President Macron in France, belongs to the belligerent anti-Russian camp, while the German leader Chancellor Scholz belongs to a more moderate grouping,” he explained. “These facts make a new Entante very fragile. Macron might be replaced as French president by a more nationalistic and pragmatic successor. Then the so-called alliance with the UK will be over and done with.”
Another reason for not including Germany might be the UK and France’s concerns that the German economic prowess would afford Berlin “too much influence” in such an alliance, not to mention London and Paris’ fears about Trump’s possible return to the White House, he noted.
“This talk about a revived Entente Cordiale might be an attempt from the UK and France to take over, or at least to prepare to take over, the leadership of the belligerent anti-Russian camp in the West. [It could be] Preparations in case the US abandons Ukraine,” Valtersson postulated. “But as I said earlier, it’s a weak alliance since a large part of the French population isn’t aboard.”
“But as long as the UK and France are united and work together with other belligerent states as the Netherlands, Poland, the Baltic and Nordic states, they probably can force Germany to slowly follow their lead in creating a prewar mentality in large part of Europe,” he added.
Scotland Police May Be Forced To Make Budget Cuts To Deal With Authoritarian Speech Complaints
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | April 8, 2024
Police Scotland is grappling with potential budgetary pressures and service reductions. David Threadgold of the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) has raised concerns about the financial impact of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act. According to him, the legislation has already led to an overload of calls, with over 6,000 logged since its enactment. This influx of reports, he fears, will necessitate cuts elsewhere in the police budget.
Threadgold’s worry centers on the unforeseen costs of handling these cases, particularly the overtime payments for control room staff. He believes these expenses will reverberate throughout the year, affecting other police services. Calum Steele, former general secretary of the SPF, echoes these concerns. As reported by The Scotsman, Steele criticized Police Scotland’s preparation for the Act, calling it “negligently unprepared” and pointing out that the additional costs were predictable.
The new authoritarian legislation has been criticized not only for its financial burden but also for its potential to stifle free speech. The Act consolidates existing hate crime laws and introduces a new offense of inciting hatred against protected characteristics. This broadening of the law has sparked fears about its impact on free speech and expression.
Critics, including Tory MSP Russell Findlay, have accused Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf of ignoring these concerns. Yousaf, for his part, maintains confidence in Police Scotland’s ability to manage these cases, emphasizing that the force is well-equipped and trained for this task.
The legislation’s impact extends beyond financial strains. The Act has resulted in a notable rise in the logging of non-crime hate incidents, incidents perceived as hateful but not necessarily criminal. This increase has prompted concerns about a potential inundation of trivial or malicious complaints, especially in the context of highly charged events like football matches. Tory MSP Murdo Fraser has already lodged a complaint over a tweet he posted being logged as a hate incident.
The Scottish government and Police Scotland maintain that they are adept at handling such cases. However, critics argue that the focus on these hate incidents diverts attention and resources from more serious crimes, potentially impacting the overall efficacy of law enforcement.
London pharmacist battles Zionists and wins
Press TV – April 7, 2024
London pharmacist Nazim Ali has finally won his long running legal battle against Zionist regime proxies, a battle which started in 2017 when Nazim Ali spoke at the Quds Day Rally following which the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, (CAA), lodged a complaint with the Police accusing Nazim Ali of Anti-Semitism.
The Crown Prosecution Service, however, refused to press charges.
The Zionists took a private prosecution that was eventually stopped by the CPS. They took out a judicial review against the CPS and lost.
In January 2019 Ali’s professional regulator, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), which is responsible for the independent regulation of the pharmacy profession within England, Scotland and Wales, as well as the regulation of pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and pharmacy premises, said there was no case to answer, but gave him a warning for being offensive.
The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) then bullied the regulator into reversing its position in July of that year.
The council concluded his words were not anti-semitic in November 2020. But the UK lawyers for Israel joined the campaign against Anti-Semitism to continue to harass Ali.
In December 2020, a complaint was lodged with the body which regulates the regulator, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care or PSA.
The intimidation worked and the PSA took the GPhC to court, at which point the GPhC folded and offered no defense.
The high court then sent the case back to the GPhC which made the absurd determination that two of Ali’s remarks were objectively, if unintentionally, anti-semitic. However, it gave him a warning, as it had before.
The Zionists were still not happy and appealed to the courts to get Ali sacked. In March this year, the Court declared that there was no case to answer.
This is a historic and hard fought victory.
But who are Zionist groups who have bullied and intimidated the professional regulators into such submission?
The Campaign Against anti-Semitism took up the cudgels first; the CAA is a creature of the Zionist regime which was set up to attack the pro-Palestine movement with fake anti-Semitism allegations.
Much of its early funding came from the Jewish National Fund, the racist land-theft group, which is one of the four so called national institutions in Israel.
The UK Lawyers for Israel is a group which appears to have been set up under the auspices of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its whole purpose is to use ‘lawfare’ tactics to manipulate the law and bully British institutions into doing its bidding.
The case of Nazim Ali reveals how foreign agents of the Zionist regime can harass, bully, and intimidate the UK so effectively that they can, in effect, occupy the professional bodies regulating the profession of pharmacy, which is a clear cut case of state capture.
It also tells us that people can fight back and win.
In fact, this is one of a number of recent victories against the Zionist movement.
It would appear, for all intents and purposes, that the tide is turning.
New hacking allegations against China aren’t what they seem
By Timur Fomenko | RT | April 5, 2024
In March, the UK, in conjunction with the US and other members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, accused China of engaging in a state-sponsored hacking campaign against them. In response to the alleged ‘attack’ they launched coordinated sanctions against a small group of hackers and their associated businesses.
The sanctions were particularly big news in Britain, where the government suddenly decided that Beijing had been behind a hack on the electoral commission three years ago. Notably, the country’s Conservative party-aligned newspapers all pushed this narrative in an aggressive fashion.
These accusations by the Five Eyes nations are not so much genuine concerns as they are a deliberate and opportunistic act of political theatre which, largely driven by the US, seeks to slander China for diplomatic and political gain. The sanctions, although narrow in scope and thus meaningless, are designed to try and send a message to and about China. It is essentially a fearmongering campaign, which seeks to both undermine Beijing’s engagement with other countries and serve domestic political purposes in the US.
The rhythm of US escalation and de-escalation with China
The US has an adept foreign policy whereby it intentionally chooses to escalate and de-escalate tensions with China at opportune moments, which is precisely why calls for “engagement” with Beijing coming from Washington D.C. cannot be trusted. The US does not change its goals or its policies, only its tactics in consideration of what suits it at that particular moment. Hence it has always alternated between overtures and deliberate provocations. It usually does so by having a certain report or development leaked to the media at an opportunistic time, in order to craft a particular narrative which mandates a certain set of reactions and policy responses.
To give some examples of such, the Trump administration played down tensions with China directly in 2019, even amidst the Hong Kong crisis, in order to secure a “trade deal” with Beijing. Once it got what it wanted by 2020, and the Covid-19 pandemic struck, it deliberately unleashed a full-on crusade against Beijing on every front. Similarly, the Biden administration came into office and then immediately upped tensions with China on the Xinjiang issue in order to damage China’s ties with Europe in a build-up to coordinated sanctions as a display of transatlantic unity.
After this was done, it then decided it wanted to “cool” things down for a bit and establish “guardrails” so the rhetoric guns went silent for a few months as Washington reached out to Beijing. Then, as the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics came, it took the “Xinjiang card” off the shelf again with a number of timed leaks and publications geared towards supporting a Winter Olympics boycott, as well as a sweeping ban on all Xinjiang goods under the premise of “forced labour” at that time.
What we see is that the US does not truly de-escalate with China, it “blows hot and cold” and essentially manipulates the media cycle to pursue its policy preferences as it sees fit. This means that major issues pertaining to China only tend to appear when there is an agenda serving it.
The newest phase
Now, the Biden administration has made a political design to escalate tensions with China by accusing it, in coordination with the Five Eyes, of state-backed hacking and cybercrime. The fact that the British government would sit on such an accusation for three years suggests both clear political purpose and timing. The question is, why? First, we are approaching a Presidential election in the US. It was always an inevitability that the administration would want to appear “tough” on China to prevent the issue from being used as an attack point by Biden’s rival, Donald Trump. As seen in 2020, an election year tends to become a year of very aggressive rhetoric and extreme theatrics.
Secondly, there is the goal of undermining China’s engagement with Europe. It has been publicly announced that Xi Jinping will visit a number of European countries in May, including France. As stated above, the US, with the support of the Five Eyes countries, actively seeks to damage Chinese diplomacy with Europe by weaponizing negative publicity in order to narrow political space for engagement.
What we see from this is that the US engages China on its own terms, but seeks to prevent those it deems as “allies” from doing the same, and thus resorts to psychological warfare through the manipulation of mass media.
In conclusion, when one sees these strategies being utilised, one recognises that the Western media has far less independence and impartiality than it claims to have, but is indirectly subject to the preferences of US policy. When the White House says “jump”, reporters ask, “how high?” and thus we see that a new propaganda campaign has been cultivated against Beijing, but of course, we should not be blind to the reality that there is no greater weaponisation of cyberspace and espionage in the world than the system created by the Five Eyes. And are we really going to pretend the CIA doesn’t hack anyone?
US, UK Did Not Discuss Russian UNSC Statement on Attack on Iranian Consulate – Envoy
Sputnik – 03.04.2024
UNITED NATIONS – The United States and the United Kingdom refused to discuss a draft statement of the UN Security Council proposed by Russia on Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Russian Deputy Ambassador to the UN Dmitry Polyansky said on Wednesday.
“Following the results of the Security Council meeting on April 2 on the Israeli attack on the consular department of the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, Russia prepared a draft Security Council Statement for the press with a standard text for such cases. However, the United States and Great Britain did not even want to discuss it, citing the fact that during the meeting there was no unity in assessments of what happened,” Polyansky wrote on his Telegram page.
He recalled that at that time only these two delegations, together with the French, did not condemn this obvious violation of international law, “but engaged in a verbal balancing act, from which it could be concluded that Iran itself is to blame for everything.”
“This is the best illustration of the double standards of the Western “troika” and it’s real, and not declarative, attitude towards law and order in the international context,” the diplomat emphasized.
World War III Isn’t Preordained (No Matter What They Say)
By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | April 4, 2024
A recent survey from YouGov found that 61% of Americans think a world war within the next five to ten years is “very likely” or “somewhat likely,” while only 21% say that such a scenario is “not very likely” or “not likely at all.”
It’s notable that Democrats, who are much more likely to view Russia as the source of the world’s evils, are less likely than Republicans to believe a world war is coming by a strong margin; although it is still only 28% of Democrats in the two “unlikely” categories. At the same time, Republicans who may want rapprochement with Russia mostly see this as a way to free up resources to fight China. The reality is that our ruling class has decided that a global conflict is inevitable and as such are doing nothing to stop it. Further, they are actively hostile to anything which could reduce hostilities with Russia while also proactively antagonizing China.
Our ruling class is far along in creating a simplistic good vs evil narrative which they hope to get into the history books—should anyone survive to write them—but for those of us living through it, it’s obvious the only cause would be the madness of today’s rulers. The most devastating of wars do not commonly arise out of unsolvable problems, but from rulers who refuse to solve them. Further, the drive towards oblivion is usually obvious to many observers, even if the rulers and much of the public are caught in a jingoistic mania. Things are just the same today.
There is a modern perception that World War I took the powers of Europe by surprise and that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a spark which made war inevitable. Perhaps this is believed because of the human need to understand the degree of devastation from a war which more than others lacks a clear meaning. However, author Rebecca West, in her landmark text Black Lamb and Grey Falcon, which was written in the 1930s, tells a different story. West explains that all of Europe expected that the Central Powers were preparing for an aggressive war, writing, “It is said that both France and Russia were for some reason convinced that Germany and Austria would not make war until 1916, and certainly that alone would explain the freedom with which Russia announced to various interested parties in the early months of 1914 that she herself was not ready to fight.”1
According to West’s account, Austria then worked quite hard to make the assassination their pretext although the plot had almost no connection to the Kingdom of Serbia. This isn’t a perfect parallel to our moment, but it’s notable that no one was trying to stop the war; they simply wanted time to arm themselves. Similarly, Germany and other countries in Europe have not hidden their current lack of preparedness, but made it clear their interest isn’t avoiding war, but fighting one. In the classic satirical antiwar novel The Good Soldier Svejk by Jaroslav Havec, the author repeatedly includes the line “an empire this stupid shouldn’t exist” in regards to the Austro-Hungarian ruling class; because of the war they, launched it soon wouldn’t.
The closest parallel to the dangers arising from the war in Ukraine comes from the first book of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. The most immediate cause of the war was civil dissension within a colony leading to conflict with the mother city, and ultimately seeking the protection of that city’s enemy. However, what has gotten more notice recently about this text is one passage that is applied to China, which is now known as the Thucydides Trap. Thucydides wrote, “The real cause however, I consider to be the one which was formally most kept out of sight. The growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Sparta, made war inevitable.” For all that people have commented on this, it is not that incisive to say that one country’s power growing would alarm another country. What is more commonly missed is that no one forced Athens to expand recklessly to the extent that it caused war with Sparta. It was an unforced error which caused them the briefest moment of greatness followed by utter devastation. On the other side, no one forced Sparta to respond with war, and Sparta’s post-war supremacy was also short-lived. Unfortunately the leaders on both sides chose conflict over co-existence, and in many ways Greece never recovered from that war and the ones which followed.
In America it is part of our founding mythology that War of Independence against the United Kingdom was inevitable because of conflicting interests between the Americans and the British. However, if one reads key British authors of the time, it is clear that the wiser men of the era knew that the British government was barreling towards a devastating and pointless war for no good reason. The reality is that the volume of trade in the British American colonies was growing so rapidly that peaceful reconciliation at any cost was in Britain’s self-interest; The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776 and contains some incredible statistics in this regard. Directly taxing the American public instead of levying taxes from their colonial governments was in no way a point worth proving, especially given the profitability of peace and trade.
Edmund Burke was a leader of the peace faction in the British Parliament and his timeless words about avoiding war should be remembered. Burke wrote, in March 1775, “The proposition is Peace. Not Peace through the medium of War; not Peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negociations; not Peace to arise out of universal discord…not Peace to depend on the Juridical Determination of perplexing questions… it is simply Peace; sought in its natural course… laid in principles purely pacific”2 It is obvious in our current times that peace could be preserved with Russia and China if it was approached with this principle, but that is considered out of the question by our rulers.
The world is currently a tinderbox and every day we watch our rulers pour on more gasoline and throw out extinguishers. I have to wonder what our descendants will think of us and the war which seems to be coming. There is certainly no chance that they can create a clear World War II sort of narrative about this. I often think of the European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen saying, “Ukrainians are ready to die for the European perspective,” a statement which should only exist as a parody of the vapid state of Western “values.” They want us to believe Vladimir Putin is obsessed with rolling his tanks across Europe, but that makes no sense and clearly isn’t possible. They certainly can’t admit the lengths they went to in order to provoke Russia into war in Ukraine.
There is absolutely no justification for not doing the work necessary for a lasting and equitable peace with Russia and China. When all is said and done, if there are people left to comment on the causes of the Third World War that so many think we are about to experience, perhaps people will say the same as the famous character Captain Edmund Blackadder said of World War I, “the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.” The majority of the American public thinks countless millions will die in a new world war, and if that comes to pass, it will be because our rulers found going to war easier than making peace.
Palestine Action protest Teledyne, Elbit weapon export to ‘Israel’
Al Mayadeen | April 3, 2024
UK-based Palestine Action activists “occupied” a US-owned Teledyne factory in West Yorkshire in the UK on April 2 because it exports weapons for the Israeli occupation forces.
In its statement, the group said, “Breaching security, the activists have scaled the factory to take the roof, forcing the site closed and rendering it unable to fulfill its shipment of weapons parts to be used in the Gaza genocide.”
It is noteworthy that the group announced today that four of its activists were arrested following the protest at the Teledyne factory.
At least 86 licenses to ‘Israel’ between 2009-2014 alone
They added that at least 86 licenses for weapons exports to “Israel” were given to this site from 2009 to 2014 which, according to the protesters, makes Teledyne the largest exporter of weaponry from the UK to “Israel”.
“A significant proportion of the company’s almost 200 export licenses for weapons and weapons parts to the US, 2009-2020, will also form into finished products ultimately exported to Israel,” it stressed.
The statement added that Teledyne produces parts, including filters and multi-function assemblies, for UAVs, aircraft, and radar systems, including the AN/APG-81 (AESA) type fitted in Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets.
“Teledyne, the parent company, also produces image sensors for military applications and radar technologies around the borders of the occupied West Bank and Gaza while also providing armed UAVs to Israel as far back as 1973,” it emphasized.
Western insurers admit Russian oil price cap not working
Al Mayadeen | April 30, 2024
A group of Western insurers has stated that a Russian oil price ceiling has become unenforceable, forcing more ships to join a shadow fleet, in one of the toughest rebukes to the move intended to reduce income to the Kremlin.
The G7 adopted a price ceiling for Russian oil after Washington campaigned to limit the Kremlin’s earnings during the war in Ukraine while keeping Russian oil flowing to avert an energy price surge.
The cap permits Western shippers and insurers to engage in Russian oil trade as long as oil is sold for less than $60 per barrel.
According to the International Group of P&I Clubs, the price cap has had little effectiveness since its implementation two years ago, as Russia allegedly has turned to its own fleet, as well as ships that are not subject to Western monitoring.
The declaration was presented as written evidence before a UK parliamentary committee on Tuesday.
The association claims to include 12 marine third-party liability insurers that cover 87% of the world’s ocean-going tonnage.
The statement reveals that “The oil price cap appears increasingly unenforceable as more ships and associated services move into this parallel trade. We estimate around 800 tankers have already left the International Group Clubs as a direct result of the introduction of the oil price cap.”
US and EU officials believe the price cap was successful in reducing Russia’s earnings while keeping oil flowing and averting a price shock.
The US Treasury’s enforcement of the price ceiling has restricted the number of ships prepared to carry Russian petroleum, hindering Russia’s efforts to sell it and profit from it.
Tom Keatinge, head of the Royal United Services Institute’s Centre for Finance and Security, told the panel that “within the reach of the UK and the G7, there are insurers who are providing insurance that is in breach of the oil price cap.”
“These are names that should be being added to the sanctions list and should be drawn to the attention of the international community that dealing with that particular insurance company is going to get you into hot water,” he said, without mentioning any specific companies.
EU pleads Russia not sanction them after sanctioning it for years
The European External Action Service (EEAS) called on Moscow on Saturday to overturn its decision regarding the transfer of subsidiaries belonging to German and Italian companies to Gazprom’s management despite the EU wanting to use Russia’s frozen funds as if they were their own.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on Friday mandating the transfer of Russian subsidiaries of Italy’s Ariston and Germany’s BSH Hausgeraete to the temporary management of Gazprom Household Systems, a subsidiary of the Gazprom group.
Expressing the EU’s ironic disapproval, the EEAS emphasized the necessity for Russia to reconsider its actions and engage in dialogue with the affected European companies.
“The European Union calls on Russia to reverse these measures and seek acceptable solutions with European companies targeted by them,” the EEAS said in a statement.
This comes at a time when Russia’s assets have been frozen by the EU and its economy sanctioned relentlessly for years.
Although Russia has been taking drastic countermeasures since the sanctions started befalling it, the EU possibly only realized that its sanctions were backfiring mere months ago.

