Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

BRICS Members Reject Joint Declaration at Swiss Ukraine Conference

Sputnik – 16.06.2024

The BRICS countries, as well as several other states that attended the Swiss-hosted summit on Ukraine did not sign a joint declaration on the results of the talks on Sunday, according to the signatory list.

Earlier in the day, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said that the text of the declaration had been finalized and that Kiev’s positions had been taken into account.

The list of countries that signed the final declaration was displayed by the organizers on the screens of the press center at the Buergenstock resort where the summit was held. The document was signed by 80 countries out of 92 present, but Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, the Holy See, India, Indonesia, Libya, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates did not sign it.

The Ukraine conference is taking place this weekend at the Bürgenstock resort near Lucerne. It includes 92 countries and 55 heads of state, as well as eight organizations, including the EU, the Council of Europe, and the UN. However, US President Joe Biden, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and leaders of many other countries did not attend. Some participants, such as US Vice President Kamala Harris and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, left early.

Russia was not invited to the summit. The Kremlin commented that trying to find solutions to the Ukrainian conflict without Moscow’s involvement is completely illogical and unpromising.

June 16, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

NYT Claims to Reveal 2022 Russia-Ukraine Peace Drafts: Key Details and Missed Opportunities

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 15.06.2024

Russia and Ukraine were close to concluding a peace treaty in April 2022, but the Kiev regime tore the deal up at the last minutes after then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson pressured Volodymyr Zelensky not to sign.

The New York Times has published what it claims is the full text of then 2022 draft peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine.

The never-signed documents — treaty drafts dated March 17 and April 15, 2022 — were purportedly leaked to the newspaper by Ukrainian, Russian and European sources.

Kiev ultimately pulled out of the deal, brokered by Turkey over several weeks of talks in Istanbul between Russian and Ukrainian negotiating teams from February to April of 2022, after then-British prime minister Boris Johnson promised huge arms supplies from NATO countries.

According to the key points from the document:

  • Ukraine had to maintain permanent neutrality and not engage in wars on the side of a guarantor state or any third country
  • The guarantors of Ukraine’s security and neutrality would be Great Britain, China, Russia, the US and France, with Belarus and Turkiye also mentioned
  • Ukraine would not be allowed to conduct military exercises involving foreign armed forces without the consent of the guarantors
  • The guarantors pledged not to form military alliances with Ukraine, not to interfere in its internal affairs and not to deploy troops on its territory
  • All mutual sanctions and bans between Russia and Ukraine were to be lifted, but certain provisions of the agreement did not apply to Crimea, Sevastopol and territories marked on a map in the appendices — which the NYT did not provide
  • Pages 11 and 12 specified personnel, weaponry and equipment limits for the Ukrainian Armed Forces during peacetime: no more than 342 tanks, 1,029 armoured vehicles and 96 multiple rocket launchers, based on Russia’s demands
  • The maximum firing range for multiple rocket launchers and missiles was set at under 280 km. Ukraine also pledged not to produce or domestically purchase weaponry of greater range

After Moscow launched its special military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Russian and Ukrainian delegations engaged in several rounds of peace talks. Talks in Turkiye took place in March 2022 but ended without signing any documents. In November 2023, Ukraine’s former chief negotiator with Russia, David Arakhamia, said then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson talked Kiev out of signing an agreement with Moscow to end the conflict. In October 2022, Volodymyr Zelensky signed a decree stating that Kiev could not hold peace talks as long as President Vladimir Putin is in power in Russia.

German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag claimed in April it had obtained the 17-page draft peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine.

It stated that while the sides had come close to sealing a peace treaty, The Zelensky regime objected to terms restoring Russian as an official language and Kiev’s repudiation of Nazism.

Efforts to strike a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine were thwarted by Johnson at the behest of the US, Russian Ambassador to the UK Andrey Kelin said in February.

“He blocked the peace efforts with Washington’s blessing, obviously, because he could not do it on his own accord,” Kelin told Turkish broadcaster TRT World.

After Johnson arrived in Kiev, “the document, which had already been initialled by the head of the Ukrainian delegation, [David] Arakhamia, was thrown into the wastebasket, and Ukraine started fighting,” he added. “These are the consequences of what the prime minister of the United Kingdom did.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin stated in his February interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson that talks with Ukraine in 2022 were close to agreement, but Ukraine broke the deal after Russia pulled its troops back from Kiev as a good-will gesture requested by western European leaders.

June 15, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO stumbles on €40 billion Ukraine plan

© SIMON WOHLFAHRT / AFP
RT | June 14, 2024

There is no agreement in NATO just yet regarding the proposal to fund Kiev to the tune of €40 ($43) billion, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg admitted on Friday.

The issue came up at the meeting of the US-led bloc’s defense ministers in Brussels. Italy reportedly did not agree with the proposal, which was already scaled down from Stoltenberg’s initial €100 billion request.

The “long-term financial pledge” is one of the four things NATO needs to “deliver for Ukraine” by the Washington summit next month, Stoltenberg told reporters after the meeting.

“We have not yet agreement on that,” he admitted.

“Many allies are very supportive of the idea that we need not only to have short term pledges – they are welcome, of course – but if we could have more long-term predictable pledges, it will give the Ukrainians better planning assumptions,” Stoltenberg said. “It will give more predictability and transparency and assure a minimal or fair burden-sharing within the alliance. And most importantly, it will send a message to Moscow that they cannot wait us out.”

NATO ministers did agree on the plan for Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine and pledged to send more ammunition and equipment to Kiev in the short term, Stoltenberg pointed out, adding that “there will be new announcements in the coming days and weeks.”

That leaves the financial pledge and the “language” for Ukraine’s possible membership to be worked out in the “some weeks” remaining before the Washington summit, according to the NATO secretary-general.

Kiev expected a formal invitation to the bloc last year, at the NATO summit in Vilnius. When it did not arrive, Vladimir Zelensky launched a tirade on social media, angering Washington. The US-led bloc eventually said it would be in a position to invite Ukraine “when allies agree and conditions are met.”

On Thursday, Stoltenberg said “an absolute minimum” condition for Ukraine’s membership would be defeating Russia. The US and its allies have funneled weapons, ammunition, and equipment to Ukraine over the past two years, while insisting they are not a party to the conflict.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Friday that Moscow would be ready for a ceasefire if Kiev signed a pledge never to join NATO and withdrew its troops from the four regions that have chosen to join Russia. Kiev has denounced the proposal as an “ultimatum” and rejected it.

June 14, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Ukraine Rejected Path to Peace on Western Orders, Putin Reveals

© MANDEL NGAN
Sputnik – 14.06.2024

NATO has sought to turn Ukraine into a staging ground and has done everything it could to pit nation against nation, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

“There have been five, now six, rounds of NATO expansion. They tried to turn Ukraine into their staging ground, to make it anti-Russia. To achieve these goals, they invested money, resources, bought politicians and entire parties, rewrote history and educational programs, nurtured and cultivated neo-Nazi and radical groups. They did everything to undermine our state ties, to divide and pit our peoples against each other,” Putin said at a meeting at Russia’s Foreign Ministry in Moscow.

He emphasized that the Ukrainian crisis is not a conflict between two nations but a result of the West’s aggressive policy.

“Let me say this right off the bat, the crisis regarding Ukraine is not a conflict between two states, much less two peoples, caused by some problems between them… The matter is different, though. The roots of the conflict are not in bilateral relations. The events unfolding in Ukraine are a direct consequence of global and European developments at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century. It’s the West’s aggressive, unscrupulous, and absolutely reckless policy that has been pursued for all these years, long before the start of the special operation,” he explained.

Putin pointed out that if the conflict had been solely about disputes between Russia and Ukraine, then the mutual history, culture, spiritual values, and the millions of familial ties that both peoples share would have facilitated a fair resolution.

Russia had initially sought a peaceful resolution to the Ukrainian crisis, but all proposals put forth were ultimately rejected.

“We took the Minsk agreements seriously, hoping to resolve the situation through a peaceful process and international law,” he said. Moscow expected this would address the legitimate interests and demands of Donbass and secure the constitutional status of these regions, along with the fundamental rights of the people living there. However, he added, “But everything was ultimately rejected.”

Russia, in spite of seeking to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, was, nonetheless, deceived and misled.

“The ex-German Chancellor and former French President, essentially co-authors and, as it were, the guarantors of the Minsk agreements, later admitted that they never intended to fulfill them. They just needed to buy time to build up the Ukrainian armed forces, and to supply them with weapons and equipment. They simply deceived us once again,” Putin remarked.

Putin highlighted that that Russia did not start the war in Ukraine, rather, it was Kiev that launched military assaults against its own citizens who declared independence.

The Russian leader declared that those who assisted Ukraine in its punitive operation against Donbass are the aggressors.

“Russia did not initiate the conflict [with Ukraine]. That was the Kiev regime. After the residents from a part of Ukraine, in line with international law, had declared their independence, they [the Kiev regime] launched military operations and have kept them going ever since. This is an act of aggression, given that the right of these territories to declare independence has been recognized. Those who have supported the Kiev regime’s military machine all these years are accomplices of the aggressor,” he clarified.

June 14, 2024 Posted by | Deception | , , , , | Leave a comment

Putin names conditions for Ukraine peace talks

RT | June 14, 2024

Ukraine must remove its troops from Russia’s new regions before any meaningful peace talks can begin, President Vladimir Putin has said.

Moscow rejects Kiev’s claims of sovereignty over five formerly Ukrainian regions, four of which have joined Russia amid the ongoing hostilities. People in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions voted for the transition in late 2022, though hostilities continue in all of them.

Ukrainian troops must be removed from these territories, Putin said on Friday at a meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and other senior Russian diplomats.

“I stress: the entire territory of those regions as defined by their administrative borders at the time they joined Ukraine [in August 1991],” Putin stated.

“Our side will order a ceasefire and start negotiations the minute Kiev declares that it is prepared to take this decision and starts actual withdrawal of troops from those regions, and also formally informs us that it no longer plans to join NATO,” the Russian leader pledged.

Putin outlined the conditions after condemning Kiev’s Western backers for allegedly preventing it from holding peace talks with Moscow while accusing Russia of rejecting negotiations.

“We are counting on Kiev to take such a decision on withdrawal, neutral status, and dialogue with Russia, on which the future existence of Ukraine depends, independently based on the current realities and guided by the true interests of the Ukrainian people and not at Western orders,” Putin stated.

At this point, Moscow will not accept a frozen conflict, which would allow the US and its allies to rearm and rebuild the Ukrainian military, Putin claimed. The full resolution of the issue will involve Kiev recognizing the four new regions as well as Crimea as part of Russia, he insisted.

“In the future, all those basic principled positions have to be enshrined in fundamental international agreements. Naturally, that includes the lifting of all Western sanctions against Russia,” Putin stated.

Accepting these terms will allow everyone involved to turn the page and gradually rebuild damaged relations, the president said. Eventually, a pan-European security system that works for all nations on the continent could be created, Putin added, noting that Moscow has sought this outcome for years.

The Russian president’s keynote remarks came ahead of a Swiss-hosted summit supposedly meant to further peace in Ukraine. Kiev has insisted that Moscow could not be invited to the event because it would try to “hijack” it by promoting alternatives to the “peace formula” pushed by the Ukrainian government.

Putin claimed that the event was meant to distract public opinion from the “true roots” of the conflict, and that Vladimir Zelensky has usurped power in Ukraine after his presidential term expired last month. Nothing but demagoguery and accusations against Russia can come out of the Swiss gathering, he predicted.

June 14, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Russia and NATO are drifting towards a major war

By Ivan Timofeev | RT | June 14, 2024

Is it possible that NATO forces could become directly involved in the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Until recently, such a question seemed very hypothetical given the high risks of escalation of the military confrontation between the US-led bloc and Russia into a large-scale armed conflict. But this scenario should be taken seriously now.

The direct participation of individual NATO countries or the entire bloc in hostilities could gradually spiral out of control. Crossing red lines can lead to the belief that there will be no consequences for engaging in war. The result of such movements can manifest itself at an unexpected moment and lead to a much more dangerous situation than the current one.

Strictly speaking, NATO countries have long been involved in the conflict. This takes several forms.

First, Western countries provide Kiev with substantial financial and military assistance, including increasingly advanced and destructive weapons systems. As the stockpiles of Soviet-style kit in the arsenals of the USSR’s former allies in the Warsaw Treaty Organisation have been depleted, the Ukrainian army is receiving more Western systems and ammunition. So far, mass deliveries have been limited by the production capacity of the Western defence industry and size of existing stockpiles. But if hostilities are prolonged, industrial capacity has the potential to grow. Increasing supplies are also inevitable in the event of a peaceful pause, which would allow Ukraine to prepare for a new phase of hostilities. Russia can hardly hope that the West lacks the political will and resources to increase support for Kiev. Moscow appears to be preparing for the worst-case scenario, namely a steady increase in substantial and long-term military assistance to Ukraine. In addition to the supply of arms and ammunition, this aid includes the training of personnel, help with the development of military industry and infrastructure, and the reimbursement of expenses in other areas that allow Ukraine to focus its resources on the defence sector.

Second, Ukraine receives extensive Western support in the form of intelligence, including technical data from satellites, radars, reconnaissance aircraft, etc. The information received enables a wide range of operations, from scoping the theatre of operations to the identification of specific targets. Data providers can be selective in granting the Ukrainian side access. But its use in military operations against Russia is not in doubt.

Third, military specialists who are citizens of NATO countries are involved in combat operations. Their role does not always appear to be official. They may be ‘volunteers’ or simply mercenaries, whose participation the authorities of their countries turn a blind eye to. Russian estimates put their number at around 2,000 in October 2023. Whether that is accurate or not, it’s clear that foreigners are fighting on Ukraine’s side, that their participation is systematic rather than accidental, and that at least some of them are citizens of Western countries.

Their involvement has not yet created an excessive risk of direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO. For Kiev’s Western partners, the sluggish pace of the conflict allows them to gradually improve the quality of their support for Ukraine. Cruise missile deliveries have long been commonplace. The arrival of US fighter jets is only a matter of time. The Russian army is “grinding down” the Western equipment that arrives. But foreign supplies to Ukraine also require a concentration of resources on the Russian side.

A significant escalation factor that would amplify the risk of a direct clash between Russia and NATO, could be the appearance of military contingents form bloc members on the territory of Ukraine. The prospect of such a scenario has already been mentioned by some Western politicians, although their view has not been supported by the US and isn’t an official NATO position. A number of the bloc’s leaders have distanced themselves from supporting the idea of sending troops to Ukraine.

What might trigger such a decision and how might it be implemented? The most likely factor for direct intervention by individual states or NATO as a whole would be a possible major military success by the Russian army. So far, the front has remained relatively stable. But the Moscow’s military has already achieved significant local victories, increased pressure, seized the initiative, extended the offensive front and possibly built up reserves for more decisive action.

There are no signs of a repeat of last year’s Ukrainian counteroffensive. Kiev is reportedly short of ammunition, although this shortfall could be filled in the future by external supplies. Periodic attacks on Russian territory with cruise missiles, drones and artillery cause damage and casualties, but do not disrupt the stability of the front.

Moreover, such strikes embolden Russia’s determination to create buffer zones, i.e. territories from which Kiev will not be able to attack targets in Russian regions.

A possible collapse of certain sections of the Ukrainian front and significant territorial advances of Russian forces towards the west is becoming more and more realistic scenario.

The fact that no deep advances and breakthroughs have occured for some time does not mean that there is no possibility in the future. On the contrary, the probability is increasing due to the army’s experience in combat, the supply of the military-industrial complex to the front, losses on the Ukrainian side, delays in the delivery of Western equipment, and so on.

The Russian army’s ability to make such advances and breakthroughs is also increasing. A catastrophic scenario for individual Ukrainian groups is not predetermined, but it is probable. A major breakthrough of the Russian army towards Kharkov, Odessa or another major city could become a serious trigger for NATO countries to introduce the question of intervention in the conflict into practical terms. Several such breakthroughs, simultaneous or successive, will inevitably raise the issue.

Here, individual countries and the bloc as a whole face a strategic fork in the road. The first option is not to intervene and to support Ukraine only with military equipment, money and ‘volunteers’. Perhaps to admit defeat and try to minimise the damage through negotiations, thereby preventing an even greater catastrophe. The second option is to radically change the approach to involvement in the conflict and allow direct intervention.

Intervention can take a number of forms. It may involve the use of infrastructure, including airfields of NATO countries. It could mean the mass deployment of certain communications and engineering units and air defence systems, while avoiding their presence on the front line. An even more radical scenario is the deployment of a contingent of certain NATO countries on the border between Ukraine and Belarus. Finally, an even more radical option is the deployment of military contingents from NATO countries on the front line, which would probably be categorically unacceptable to the bloc.

Each of these scenarios involves a direct clash between Russian and NATO forces. Such a situation would inevitably raise the question of deeper bloc involvement and, in the longer term, the transfer of military conflict to other areas of contact with Russia, including the Baltic region. At this stage, it will be even more difficult to stop the escalation. The more losses both sides suffer, the more the maelstrom of hostilities will grow and the closer they will come to the threshold of using nuclear weapons. And there will be no winners.

These are all hypothetical options. But they need to be considered now. After all, not so long ago such significant military deliveries to Ukraine seemed unlikely to anyone, as much as the conflict itself, three years ago. Now it is an everyday reality. The dangers of movement towards a major war between Russia and NATO should be taken seriously.

Ivan Timofeev is the programme director of the Valdai Club.

June 14, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Vucic: All signs point to a major war

The President of the Republic of Serbia, Aleksandar Vucic, interviewed by the Swiss weekly magazine Weltwoche – June 11, 2024

The rhetoric is getting worse by the day and reminds me of the phrase of a famous historian: ”The train has left the station and no one can stop it.”

If the Great Powers don’t do something soon, yeah, I’m pretty sure we’re going to be in for a real disaster.

If you bet that someone is bluffing, it means that you don’t have better hands. You just think that the other person has weaker cards. You are not sure about it because you do not know and have not seen its leaves. I am always very cautious and cautious when assessing Putin’s wishes or potential future move.

What further complicates the situation is that everyone is only talking about war. No one seeks peace. Nobody is talking about peace. Peace is almost a forbidden word!

It is very strange to me that no one is trying to stop the war. There is a different theory – which I can understand.

I’m not saying I approve – that the West thinks they can easily defeat Putin, they want to exhaust him in Ukraine and then they will enter the space and Russia with its current territory will no longer exist and Putin will be overthrown etc. Maybe to be possible, but….

Why do I say that we walk beside the brink of the abyss? Analyze the situation of NATO and the USA. They cannot afford to lose the Ukraine war.

Second, the position of Europe and the collective West in geopolitical terms will deteriorate so much that no one will be able to regenerate and renew it.

Third, this will open a Pandora’s box for more movements and hostilities against the collective West in the future. But take the other side. If Putin loses the war, he will (first) personally lose everything. (Second) He will not have the reputation of someone who created a common denominator for Ivan, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great.

And thirdly, Russia will not exist nor will it have its present form. And then when you have these two sides so far apart in terms of their wants and their expectations, then you see that everything is at stake!

Everything. No one can afford to lose. When you have this situation, we are probably approaching a real disaster. And then we come to another question. Who is ready to lose 1 million, 2 million, 5 and 10 million people? Ask yourself. I am not ready to lose a single person. And we will not participate in it. But that is a question for others.

I can’t say World War III, but I don’t think we’re far from that big conflict! No more than 3-4 months! And there is a risk that it will happen even sooner.

In Europe, the leaders act like big heroes, but they are not honest and they don’t tell their citizens that they will all pay a big price if it comes to war.

The world is changing even though we don’t want to accept and admit it, but it is indeed changing on a daily basis and much faster than ever before. And when you have these kinds of conflicting interests, then you come close to big conflicts and big wars. And I don’t see how anyone can stop it.

I’d like to see it more than anything to be honest. Today I was checking the data regarding our stocks of oil, flour, sugar, salt and everything because I don’t know what tomorrow will bring for all of us.

Full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZIDLlqh-Oc

June 13, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Behind the Myth of “Billions in Arms” Flowing into Ukraine

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – 13.06.2024 

In a June 8, 2024, Bloomberg article titled, “Putin Is Running Out of Time to Achieve Breakthrough in Ukraine,” an optimistic prognosis was made regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine in favor of Kiev.

The article claims that Russia has made “limited progress” along the line of contact, including along the newly-opened front in Kharkov and that as “billions in arms start flowing” into Ukraine, Ukrainian forces will be given the opportunity to “counter-attack.”

The “billions in arms” Bloomberg cites refers to the renewed flow of US military assistance after months of delays in passing funding in the US Congress. However, recalling the flagging impact of US arms transfers to Ukraine even before the funding delays, and a closer look at the actual quantities associated with these packages versus Russian military production, tells an entirely different story.

Bloomberg claims that the renewed flow of US arms is eroding Russia’s military advantage. However, this is simply not true.

Artillery Shells 

The most recent US arms package featured, among other items, badly needed 155mm artillery shells and anti-tank weapons including the vaunted Javelin missile. Missing from the Pentagon’s public press release, were the quantities these weapons and munitions were being sent in.

It is well-known that US and European artillery shell production falls short of Russia’s by several times. A May 2024 Business Insider article puts the number of Russian shells produced this year at 4.5 million, while the US and Europe combined amount to only 1.3 million.

The prospect of Western shell production drastically increasing to match or even exceed Russian production numbers is unrealistic, according to a June 7, 2024 Bloomberg article titled, “America’s War Machine Can’t Make Basic Artillery Fast Enough.”

In the Bloomberg piece, various factors are mentioned ranging from limited material inputs, a lack of trained human resources, the need to vastly expand the physical production sites producing both the shells themselves and their various individual components, as well as the need to consistently procure funding to expand each of these factors. All of this takes time.

The article claims that by 2025, the US should be producing up to 68,000 155mm artillery shells a month. Even if Europe was able to match these production numbers, it would represent only two-thirds of Ukraine’s monthly requirements to achieve its 6,000 round daily rate of fire, which still falls far short of Russia’s daily rate of fire, placing Ukraine at a disadvantage.

Artillery shell production is relatively straightforward compared to more advanced weapons Ukraine also desperately requires. This includes anti-armor weapons like the Javelin missile.

Javelin Anti-Tank Missiles 

Once hailed as a “game changer” by the collective Western media, the Javelin is now rarely mentioned either in headlines or even buried deep within articles. The missiles were passed over to Ukraine by the thousands during the initial phases of the Russian Special Military Operation (SMO), up to 7,000 or about one-third of the US’ total inventory according to the US government and arms industry-funded Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in late 2022.

Since then, Lockheed Martin, which produces the Javelin missile, claims to have expanded production by up to 15% in a 2024 release, producing up to 2,400 missiles per year or about 200 per month.

2,400 missiles are not being sent entirely to Ukraine each year. The missiles and less numerous command launch units (CLU) that fire them are required by the US, other NATO members, and other Lockheed customers around the globe. But let’s assume for a moment all 2,400 missiles are sent to Ukraine each year, and because US stockpiles are at critical levels, let’s assume Ukraine is sent Javelins drawn from this monthly production.

Does this mean that each month, 200 Russian tanks will be damaged or destroyed, adding up to 2,400 a year? No. According to the US Army’s own studies, even trained US soldiers have a 19% hit rate while utilizing Javelin, TOW, and AT-4 systems, all of which the US has sent to Ukraine throughout the SMO.

This means that even if Ukraine was receiving 200 missiles a month and firing them at Russian armored vehicles, they would be scoring only about 38 hits a month. Out of those 38 hits, fewer still would result in significant damage or complete destruction.

Comparing these overly optimistic numbers with Russian tank and other armored vehicle production puts this into better context.

According to a March 2024 CNN article discussing Russian military production, it admits Russia is producing up to 125 tanks a month. Other Western sources claim Russia also produces up to 250 other armored vehicles per month, for a total of 375 armored vehicles a month.

Compare that with the 38 hits Ukraine would be able to inflict even if the US sent every single Javelin produced straight to Ukraine each month. Russia is producing far more armored vehicles than the US is producing Javelin missiles to destroy them. The story is the same for other anti-armor weapon systems produced across the West (e.g. 1,000 TOW missiles produced per year), all of which face depleted stockpiles and low monthly production rates.

Considering that the number of Javelin missiles and other ordnance sent to Ukraine will be far less in reality than total monthly production, we begin to see the true measure of US (and European) military assistance and how the “billions in arms” now flowing to Ukraine do not represent a significant change in Ukraine’s ability to slow, let alone stop Russian forces as they continue mounting pressure not only along the existing front, but opening entirely new fronts, creating a wider strategic dilemma for Ukraine, stretching an already insufficient amount of manpower, equipment, and ammunition even further.

Empty Rhetoric 

Despite Bloomberg discounting its “Putin is Running Out of Time” article with its “America’s War Machine Can’t Make Basic Artillery Fast Enough” article, it and other Western publications’ attempts to convince audiences that the tide is about to shift in Ukraine’s favor is a repeat of this same empty rhetoric used to sell Ukraine’s 2023 “counteroffensive” as poised to shift the conflict.

In reality, the 2023 Ukrainian military operation was soundly defeated by Russian forces who not only decimated Ukraine’s manpower, equipment, and ammunition stocks, but managed to bolster its own numbers and capabilities in the process.

Ukrainian attempts to claw back territory it has recently lost in Kharkov will lead to the same fruitless conclusion its 2022 and 2023 offensives did, a questionable chance of actually taking the territory for a guaranteed severe cost in irreplaceable trained manpower and equipment.

Today’s headlines across the West portending the tide changing in the fighting across Ukraine represent a now familiar cycle of encouraging Ukraine to fight on in what is otherwise an unwinnable conflict inflicting an immense and indelible cost on Ukraine in terms of territory, human lives, and economic prospects well into the future.

But as has been pointed out many times before, feeding Ukraine into an unwinnable proxy war had been a US objective articulated as early as 2019 in RAND Corporation’s paper, “Extending Russia,” which stated:

Expanding U.S. assistance to Ukraine, including lethal military assistance, would likely increase the costs to Russia, in both blood and treasure, of holding the Donbass region. More Russian aid to the separatists and an additional Russian troop presence would likely be required, leading to larger expenditures, equipment losses, and Russian casualties. The latter could become quite controversial at home, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

But warned:

However, such a move might also come at a significant cost to Ukraine and to U.S. prestige and credibility. This could produce disproportionately large Ukrainian casualties, territorial losses, and refugee flows. It might even lead Ukraine into a disadvantageous peace.

Obviously, even in 2019, US policymakers realized Ukraine would not win a US-sponsored proxy war against Russia. The actual objective was to raise the cost of Russian victory high enough to undermine Russia’s economy, divide Russian society, and perhaps even eventually precipitate a Soviet Union-style collapse. While RAND’s predictions of Ukraine’s destruction amid such a proxy war have clearly come to pass, the supposed “benefits” of this policy have yet to avail themselves and do not appear even plausible at this juncture.

Thus, Western rhetoric about Ukraine’s soon-to-be good fortune is not based on genuine analysis of the ongoing conflict, but is instead a point of propaganda aimed at encouraging Ukraine to fight on despite all actual analysis warning of the disaster awaiting in doing so.

Only time will tell just how far this process plays out to where the US and its partners are no longer pushing Ukraine onto the battlefield and are instead taking to the negotiation table. In the meantime, the “billions in arms” flowing into Ukraine will continue to have the same impact they’ve had all along, ensuring “disproportionately large Ukrainian casualties, territorial losses, and refugee flows,” ultimately leading Ukraine “into a disadvantageous peace.”

June 13, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US using Ukraine conflict as pretext to impose sanctions – China

RT | June 13, 2024

The US is using the Ukraine crisis as an opportunity to impose sanctions while continuing to pump Kiev with weapons, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said on Thursday.

Lin made the remarks after the US State Department and Treasury Department announced a new round of curbs on Wednesday targeting 300 additional individuals and entities in Russia and other countries, including China, Türkiye, and the UAE. In particular, Washington has sanctioned China-based companies which are selling semiconductors to Moscow.

According to the Treasury Department, the latest measures target more than $100 million in trade between Russia and foreign partners suspected of enabling Moscow to evade Western embargoes.

The Chinese diplomat called Washington “extremely hypocritical and overbearing” for supplying Ukraine with weapons while pushing for peace.

“We urge the United States to immediately stop abusing illegal unilateral sanctions, and focus on ceasefires, stop wars, restore peace, and play a constructive role,” he said at a regular news briefing.

Beijing had previously accused the US and its allies, which together supply the bulk of Kiev’s military equipment, of hypocrisy, stating that Western powers should work on bringing Russia and Ukraine to the negotiation table, instead of “shifting the blame” onto China for the continued hostilities.

Earlier this week, China said it remains firmly opposed to the sanctions, noting it would safeguard the rights and interests of its companies and citizens. Beijing has urged Washington to stop smearing China and “lift illegal unilateral sanctions” on its businesses.

Beijing has adhered to a policy of neutrality with regards to the Ukraine conflict, and has firmly rebuffed Western calls to impose sanctions on Russia, opting instead to boost trade with its neighbor. This has led to accusations from the UK and its NATO allies that Beijing is fueling Russia’s military effort by supplying it with dual-use components that can be utilized in weapons production.

Among the latest steps, the US Treasury said it was raising “the risk of secondary sanctions for foreign financial institutions that deal with Russia’s war economy,” effectively threatening them with losing access to the American financial system.

The Chinese foreign ministry has repeatedly stressed that economic and trade cooperation between China and Russia “will not be disrupted by any third party.”

Annual trade between the bordering countries surpassed $240 billion last year, according to official data.

June 13, 2024 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

EU “playing a dark game” and serves “sinister” interests of US

By Ahmed Adel | June 13, 2024

The European Union’s reaction to the conflict in Ukraine indicates that the bloc does not pursue the peaceful objectives that were the basis of its creation, writes columnist Javier Melero for the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia. At the same time, European authorities are in negotiations to maintain the flow of gas through the important Russia-Ukraine pipeline, once again showing that Europe is committing economic suicide with its failed sanctions policy on Moscow.

“War has returned to Europe, and it would be appropriate to ask after the post-election euphoria how the EU reacts to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict,” Melero wrote.

By asking this question, the author emphasises that in public discussions in Europe no other option for resolving the conflict is considered, except “Russia’s unconditional surrender.” Based on this, he concludes that the EU does not act in accordance with declared peaceful objectives but serves the “sinister” interests of NATO and the USA.

“It seems to me that something doesn’t add up here and that Europe is playing a dark game. And these games, what’s even worse, end badly for it. And the conflict in Ukraine seems to be no exception,” concluded Melero.

Yet, even as the EU does not prioritise peace to instead serve Washington’s interests, the bloc is unable to wean itself off Russian energy, a demonstration that the economies and prosperity of the European continent is intrinsically interconnected and that the US-led sanctions have only had a boomerang effect. For this reason, European authorities are desperately in negotiations to maintain the flow of gas through the Russia-Ukraine pipeline even if the bloc tried to end Russian shipments.

The agreement covering this gas transit exchange expires at the end of this year, and with the ongoing Ukrainian conflict, most market watchers expect the flow to finally stop. However, European government and business officials are talking to their counterparts in Ukraine about how to maintain the flow of gas next year, according to people familiar with the matter interviewed on condition of anonymity by Bloomberg.

At the same time, one option that has been discussed is for European companies to buy and inject Azerbaijani gas into Russian gas pipelines bound for Europe, according to some sources. A plan to use Azerbaijani gas could, in theory, benefit Russia if it were set up as an exchange that would allow Moscow to ship its gas elsewhere.

Negotiations are in their early stages, and people familiar with the matter expect decisions only later this year, when the expiry date — and the onset of European winter — add pressure. Russia still sends around 15 billion cubic metres of gas a year to Europe , mainly to Slovakia and Austria, where Moscow is still a dominant supplier.

In Austria, Russian gas covered more than 80% of Austrian consumption for five consecutive months. Europe also imports Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) by ship and, despite frequent debates about whether it should do so, has never sanctioned Russian gas.

The European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, believes that the bloc can resist the end of Russian transit through Ukraine without any major security risk, but some member states are less optimistic and fear a repeat of the energy crisis, writes Bloomberg.

Whilst Europe worries about another energy crisis, Russian revenues from oil and gas exports increased by 82.2% in the period between January and April, compared to the same period in 2023, reaching more than 4.2 trillion rubles. The growth comes despite sanctions imposed on Russia since the launch of its military operation in Ukraine in 2022, including an embargo on Russian oil transported by sea and a $60 per barrel price cap on other types of oil.

Moscow has repeatedly expressed its readiness for peace negotiations, but the Kiev authorities have introduced a ban on them at the legislative level. At the same time, the West ignores Kiev’s constant refusals to dialogue and instead encourages the continuation of war, even as Ukraine loses more territory and experiences a demographic collapse as millions have fled the country and hundreds of thousands are being killed in a futile war against Russia.

But as Melero highlighted, US-led NATO only has “sinister” designs. These designs can only be detrimental to European interests, making the complete servitude to Washington all the more bizarre, especially since before February 2022, French-led Europe spoke a brave game of European strategic autonomy from the US. The first opportunity to test Europe’s pursuit for strategic autonomy showed that this was only lip work by French President Emmanuel Macron and that ultimately the EU is the biggest loser in the Ukraine conflict after Kiev itself, and not Russia or even the US.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

June 13, 2024 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Musk wants Ukrainian NGO designated as terrorist group

RT | June 13, 2024

A Ukrainian NGO has compiled a database of influential American citizens, who it claims hold positions that ‘mirror’ those of Moscow. One of the blacklisted individuals is billionaire Elon Musk, who has called for the organization to be designated as a terrorist group.

The NGO, Texty.org.ua, produced a lengthy report last week, which detailed a supposed “ecosystem” of citizens and organizations in the US, whose narratives “echo key messages of Russian propaganda” regarding the Ukraine conflict.

On Wednesday, Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee added a provision to the markup of the State Department’s 2025 budget that bans Texty from receiving US funding.

“It’s a good first step. They should be added to the list of sanctioned terrorist organizations,” Musk said on X (formerly Twitter) in reaction to the news.

The prohibition was championed by Representative Jim Banks, who was also targeted by the Ukrainian NGO. He told fellow Republicans that “federal bureaucrats should not support or partner with foreign groups that attempt to intimidate and silence US citizens and lawmakers.”

His message alluded to a link between the department and Anatoly Bondarenko, a co-founder of Texty. He is also an instructor for the ‘TechCamp’ program, which provides training to foreign journalists, NGOs, and activists, according to the Conservative Thinker.

The group has said its report was a piece of “data journalism,” and described itself as the victim of “an attack on freedom of speech and a display of chauvinism against the citizens of Ukraine.”

“Our critics believe that we do not have the right to investigate the streams of false information they produce about our country and us, simply because they are US citizens and we are not,” it claimed.

The original report described people on its list as “forces in the US impeding aid to Ukraine,” ranging “from Trumpists to Communists.” Highlighted in the report was the renowned anti-war group CODEPINK, organizations funded by billionaire Charles Koch, popular conservative speaker Jordan Peterson, and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Texty targeted Musk for supposedly allowing “Russian propaganda” on X, which he owns, and sharing with his followers a “highly skeptical view of the United States’ financial support for Ukraine.” Meanwhile, businessman Peter Thiel was accused of investing in Rumble, a free speech video sharing website. Unlike major platforms operated by US tech giants, it allows RT content.

The report acknowledged that both entrepreneurs had contributed to Kiev’s war effort against Russia via Musk’s Starlink satellite internet system and Thiel’s Palantir big-data analysis platform, but placed them on its blacklist nevertheless.

June 13, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Joe Biden’s Time Interview Should Set Off Alarms

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | June 12, 2024

On May 28, U.S. President Joe Biden gave an interview to Time. His delivery and content were concerning for a number of reasons. Biden, at times, seemed misinformed and detached from reality. Sometimes, he seemed off message; other times, he seemed convinced by his own talking points. But four answers he gave were especially alarming and deserve to be highlighted.

The first was Biden’s assertion that America is “the world power.” The truth of that claim can be debated, but making that claim is deaf to the changes taking place in the world. Much of the world is angry at the United States for substituting leadership in the global community of international law with the imposition of an inconsistent and hypocritical rules-based order.

If the United States is still the world power, then a multipolar world that includes a rapidly growing BRICS+ and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is closer and closer on its heels. Biden seems not to have noticed what his CIA director has: that the world is in one of “those times of transition that come along a couple of times a century. Today the United States still has a better hand to play than any of our rivals, but it is no longer the only big kid on the geopolitical bloc. And our position at the head of the table isn’t guaranteed.”

In a disturbing defense of his claim, Biden said that “the reason why I cleared the intelligence so we can release the information we knew that [Putin] was going to attack, was to let the world know we were still in charge. We still know what’s going on.”

It is disturbing that Biden says that he released the intelligence, not to alert and protect Ukraine or to prevent war, but “to let the world know we were still in charge.” It is also disturbing that the United States had that intelligence, and knew Ukraine was about to be attacked, but did nothing to prevent it. Hawkishly, they could have massively armed Ukraine prior to the invasion. More rationally and responsibly, they could have seriously engaged Vladimir Putin on Russia’s December 2021 proposal on security guarantees and discussed a promise that Ukraine would not be invited into NATO. Sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko of Freie University in Berlin remarks that the United States failing to act on that intelligence in either of those ways “looks sort of strange, and of course very tragic for Ukraine.” It is disturbing that the U.S. impotently released the intelligence, not to prevent war and protect Ukraine, but to show the world that they are still “the world power.”

The second is Biden’s insistence that Putin has clearly stated his intention not to stop at Ukraine but to “reestablish the Soviet Union.” He pulled out a copy of Putin’s February 21, 2022 speech, repeatedly mocking his interviewers, “You probably haven’t read it.” But as Biden explains it to them, and summarizes it as saying “Ukraine is not a neighboring country” but “an inalienable part” of Russia, it begins to sound like Biden has not read the speech, which is highly critical of the Soviet Union.

Discussing the “critical” stage “the situation in Donbas has reached,” Putin references the closeness of the people of Donbas not to justify integrating or conquering them but to justify protecting them. If Biden has read the speech, it must have been a heavily redacted version. As Nicolai Petro, author of The Tragedy of Ukraine, pointed out to me, Biden selectively quotes from the speech while leaving much of contextual importance out.

Biden quotes that Putin “has just laid out, straight out. He said, he said, ‘I would like to emphasize again, Ukraine is not a neighboring country of us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space.’” But he then omits, “These are our comrades, those dearest to us—not only colleagues, friends and people who once served together, but also relatives, people bound by blood, by family ties.” Biden picks up Putin’s speech with “Since time immemorial, the people living in the south-west of what has historically been Russia, Russian land have called themselves Russians and Orthodox Christians,” but omits the qualifier, “This was the case before the 17th century, when a portion of this territory rejoined the Russian state, and after.”

Nowhere in Biden’s edited quotation, nor elsewhere in the speech, does Putin hint at going beyond Ukraine and reestablishing the Soviet Union.

As Petro pointed out to me, when addressing Biden’s accusation about “restor[ing] the Soviet Union,” Putin said, “the page has been turned. We look to the future based on the realities of today. There is no need to invent anything and form an opinion about Russia based on these ideas, there is no need to form an image of an enemy from Russia.” He called the “thought that Russia wanted to attack NATO” “nonsense.”

The third alarming answer that Biden gave came when the interviewer asked him if a Russian proposal to end the war is the best Ukraine can hope for when the United States finds itself “facing a difficult situation in Ukraine,” when “the war is stalled,” and when so many Ukrainians are being killed or wounded. Biden accused the interviewer of “skipping over all that’s happened in the meantime,” insisting that “[t]he Russian military has been decimated. You don’t write about that. It’s been freaking decimated.”

They don’t write about that because it’s not true. Biden’s answer is disconnected from reality. After a poor beginning, Russia has improved its battlefield strategy and its methods of dealing with Western supplied weapons and has fought effectively. The war seems to have decisively turned in Russia’s favor. Russia is gaining some ground, and Ukraine is losing huge numbers of soldiers to injury or death.

Far from being decimated, General Christopher Cavoli, the commander of United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe has reported to Congress that “the Russian ground force…is bigger today than it was at the beginning of the conflict.” He added, “Much of the Russian military has not been affected negatively by this conflict…despite all of the efforts they’ve undertaken inside Ukraine.” On April 3, Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said, “We have assessed over the course of the last couple of months that Russia has almost completely reconstituted militarily.”

On April 11, General Cavoli explained the Russian army is reconstituting “far faster” than initially projected and that “[t]he army is actually now larger—by 15 percent—than it was when it invaded Ukraine” and that it is growing by 30,000 soldiers a month. Rather than being decimated, Cavoli reported that Russia is on track to “command the largest military on the continent.”

The fourth answer was, perhaps, the most confused and alarming. When asked what the “endgame” was in Ukraine, Biden seems to have answered that the endgame was a Ukraine that is not in NATO. Biden said peace means making sure Russia never occupies Ukraine. But that, he said, “means we have a relationship with them like we do with other countries, where we supply weapons so they can defend themselves in the future.” But that relationship, he explained, “doesn’t mean NATO.” He then explained that “I was the one when—and you guys did report it at Time—the one that I was saying that I am not prepared to support the NATOization of Ukraine.”

In his confusing and surprising response, Biden seems to say that the American security arrangement with Ukraine will be that of a partner supplying weapons so they can defend themselves and not of an ally in NATO.

That last response was only the most alarming of several alarming responses that either come as a surprise or seem misinformed or disconnected from reality.

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »