Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Without job opportunities in their homeland, Colombians are recruited by Kiev

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 14, 2025

NATO’s proxy war against Russia through Ukraine has shown significant changes in various aspects, particularly regarding the participation of foreign mercenaries. While, at the start of the war, the flow of fighters was predominantly composed of individuals from Europe and the United States, a notable shift occurred throughout 2024, with a considerable increase in mercenaries from Latin America, especially Colombia. The driving factor behind this growing presence of Latin American fighters is not ideological, but rather economic, with many of these soldiers seeking a way to survive financially abroad, considering the extreme poverty in their home countries.

Colombia, one of the nations most affected by economic inequality in Latin America, serves as an example to understand this reality. With a large portion of the population living below the poverty line, many Colombians see themselves with few viable alternatives to improve their financial situation. For many Colombians, military service appears to be one of the few legal options that guarantees some level of financial stability, albeit modest. However, with scarce job opportunities and a struggling economy that fails to offer appealing alternatives, the chance to participate in the war in Ukraine, where mercenaries’ payments can be much higher, becomes attractive to many ex-soldiers who were previously trained in the Colombian armed forces.

The situation in Ukraine, however, does not turn out to be a “simple battlefield” for these mercenaries, as it might have seemed initially. When the first foreign fighters arrived, particularly Europeans and Americans, many saw the war as an opportunity to test their skills or even to partake in an “adventure.” However, as the conflict intensified, it became clear that the reality of the Ukrainian battlefield was far more brutal than many had imagined. Modern warfare, with its predominant use of heavy artillery, airstrikes, and large-scale exhausting confrontations, is an environment unfamiliar to soldiers who, like many Colombians – as well as Brazilians and other Latin soldier – were used to urban combat and guerrilla warfare, where the use of light weapons at short distances is common.

The transition to this type of combat, where air superiority and the constant use of long-range artillery are key determinants, shocked many of these mercenaries, turning their participation in the war into a true nightmare. The lack of air support, the difficulty of evacuation, and the constant presence of well-equipped and well-trained Russian forces in various directions made the combat experience far more dangerous than expected. Many of these mercenaries, especially those with little experience in high-intensity combat, ended up becoming easy targets. The losses are immense, and, according to some reports, a large portion of the Colombian mercenaries sent to Ukraine did not survive.

Despite the rising casualties, the Ukrainian government has tried to mask the difficulties faced by foreign mercenaries, disguising the losses and the lack of effectiveness of these fighters. However, the reality on the ground is far less favorable. The mercenaries have failed to change the game in Ukraine’s favor, and the promised financial gains for participating in the conflict seem to have been an illusion for many. The harsh conditions of combat, the human losses, and the lack of concrete results make the situation for the mercenaries, particularly the Latin Americans, increasingly bitter.

The loss of life among Colombian mercenaries, who represented a significant portion of the foreign fighters, reflects not only the failure of the strategies adopted by the West but also the human costs of this war as a whole. While political and military elites in Western countries remain distant from the suffering on the battlefield, the reality for mercenaries is a direct confrontation with death, often without prior reconnaissance or appropriate support.

And the problems go beyond that. For Colombia, a country already marked by decades of internal conflict, this new generation of mercenaries, who, if they survive, may return to their homeland radicalized and experienced in combat, could become a real ticking time bomb. In the same vein, recent news has emerged about pro-Ukrainian Colombian mercenaries being arrested in Venezuela for a conspiracy to assassinate Nicolás Maduro. In practice, the surviving mercenaries will likely become professional criminals, willing to serve Western interests for money anywhere in the world – especially in their home region.

From all perspectives, the involvement of Latin American mercenaries in Ukraine is a human, social, and economic tragedy. It is urgent to develop efficient mechanisms to prevent ordinary people from Global South countries from accepting to participate in foreign wars defending the interests of hostile powers.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

January 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Biden making ‘last-ditch’ bid to seize Russian funds – CNN

RT | January 14, 2025

Washington has tried to convince the EU to confiscate frozen Russian assets before US President Joe Biden leaves office but this seems unlikely to happen, according to CNN.

The US and its allies have blocked an estimated $300 billion in Russian sovereign funds in early 2022, following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. As most of these assets are under the control of the Brussels-based clearinghouse Euroclear, the EU has been reluctant to seize them outright, fearing that Moscow’s reprisal could wreck the bloc’s economy.

The White House has made one last effort to seize the money before President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20, CNN reported on Monday, citing two anonymous “senior officials.”

The US wants the EU to move the money to a special escrow account, from which it could be released if Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations are successful.

“If you want your money back, you’re going to have to come talk,” one of the officials told CNN.

Biden officials have claimed that Trump’s nominees are “generally supportive” of the strategy, seeing the frozen funds as possible leverage over Moscow they would need to negotiate a peace.

However, the EU governments “remain skeptical” about the proposal, making it “highly unlikely” to happen, according to the outlet. The bloc is concerned that confiscating the money would violate international law.

The US has tried to argue otherwise for more than a year. Speaking at a conference in Washington last May, one of the architects of the US sanctions regime, Daleep Singh, argued that the decision to freeze Russian sovereign assets was already a major precedent that “did not lead to an appreciable shift away from G7 currencies,” but acknowledged that confiscation was a “red line” for several countries.

Biden was expected to bring up the funds at a meeting with the Italian leadership and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky in Rome this week but canceled the trip due to the wildfires ravaging Los Angeles.

Zelensky demanded all of the frozen Russian funds for Ukraine, in an interview with podcaster Lex Fridman earlier this month.

“We will take it. Take money, what we need for our domestic production, and we will buy all the weapons from the US,” he told Fridman.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called Zelensky “completely out of his mind,” and described his interview as a “hellish mixture of neo-Nazism and terrorism with drug delirium.”

Moscow has denounced the blocking of its sovereign funds as “absolutely illegal” and said any attempt to confiscate them would be outright theft. In that case, Western assets inside Russia valued at more than $300 billion would be targeted in retaliation, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov has said.

January 14, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Why NATO’s Plan to Conscript Ukraine’s Youth Will Likely Fail

By Professor Glenn Diesen | January 14, 2025

NATO continues to pressure Ukraine to lower its conscription age to 18 as the huge casualties by Ukraine have resulted in a lack of manpower. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken is pressuring Ukraine into “getting younger people into the fight”, while NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has been more cautious in his language by arguing “We need probably more people to move to the front line”.[1] The incoming Trump administration also appears to take the same line, as Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Walz argued that lowering the conscription age could “generate hundreds of thousands of new soldiers”.[2]

While there is seemingly bipartisan support in the US for sacrificing Ukraine’s youth, the plan is deeply flawed. The Ukrainians are overwhelmingly in favour of immediate negotiations, the Ukrainian government resists the pressure from NATO, and there is very little chance that the new recruits will significantly improve the situation.

Bring Russia to the negotiation table & negotiate from a position of strength

NATO’s argument is seemingly reasonable: More Ukrainian soldiers are necessary to pressure Russia to the negotiation table and to negotiate from a position of strength.

The need to pressure Russia to the negotiation table is based on lies, as Russia has been open to negotiations over the past three years. NATO has rejected negotiations and even basic diplomacy with Russia for three years that may have prevented escalation and possibly led to peace. Russia contacted Ukraine already on the first day after the Russian invasion, to negotiate a peace agreement based on putting an end to NATO expansion. President Zelensky confirmed on 25 February 2022: “Today we heard from Moscow that they still want to talk. They want to talk about Ukraine’s neutral status”.[3] The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement to pursue a long war. In March 2022, Zelensky confirmed in an interview with the Economist: “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives”.[4] By rejecting any diplomacy and negotiations, NATO made it a war of attrition as Russia was left with the dilemma of either continuing the fight or capitulating.

The need to negotiate from a position of strength is a reasonable objective, yet there are reasons to doubt NATO’s sincerity. Is NATO attempting to strengthen Ukraine’s position in negotiations or to keep the war going? On 27 February 2022, the same day that Russia and Ukraine announced peace talks, the EU approved 450 million Euros in military aid to Ukraine, which reduced the incentives for Kiev to negotiate with Moscow.[5] The consistent argument has been that Ukraine must negotiate from a position of strength, yet it has been three years of intensive war and NATO countries still react with panic as Trump prepares to start negotiations to end the war.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, recognised in November 2022 that the Ukrainians were in an ideal situation to start negotiations after successes on the battlefield. Milley recognised that a military victory was impossible to achieve and that this was therefore the optimal time to negotiate.[6] Fearing that its long war would end, the Biden administration quickly intervened and Milley had to walk back his comments.

What will NATO and Ukraine achieve with their strengthened position at the negotiation table? Russia considers NATO’s incursion into Ukraine to be an existential threat and will not accept any peace agreement that does not result in restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. Both the Israeli and Turkish mediators during the peace negotiations in 2022 recognised that Russia was prepared to compromise on anything, besides the issue of NATO expansion. NATO’s continuous promise of membership for Ukraine in the military bloc after the war is over has made a peaceful settlement impossible and thus cemented the conditions for a long war. Strengthening Ukraine’s army will not soften Russia’s position.

What is the likely outcome?

Forcing hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians into the army will undoubtedly slow down the Russian advances, although it cannot stop or reverse the Russian military. The Ukrainian army has been exhausted, and a new army cannot simply be built from scratch. The losses on the battlefield and lies from their government have diminished morale, which will not be improved by sending less experienced young men into a battlefield dominated by Russia.

Trump will likely be able to pressure Zelensky to lower the conscription age, yet this will be incredibly unpopular among the Ukrainian population. The overwhelming majority of Ukrainians want negotiations to start immediately, not to sacrifice their youth in a lost war. Newsweek reports that “Over 6 million Ukrainians of conscription age haven’t complied with legislation introduced last year to boost dwindling troop numbers fighting Russia”. The public wants an end to the war, not to send their teenagers to die.

Conscription of Ukraine’s youth will cause great social upheaval in a society that is already fed up with watching their men being snatched from the streets and thrown into vans by “recruiters”. These young men are also important for the workforce to keep the economy going, which will be lost if they are conscripted or go into hiding. Once the war is finally over, these young men are indispensable to rebuilding Ukraine which is already facing a demographic crisis.

Ukraine cannot survive more “help”

Between 1991 and 2014, the US attempted to help Ukraine into NATO despite that only 20% of Ukrainians desired membership in the military alliance during this time. In 2014, NATO helped Ukrainians topple their government in an unconstitutional coup without majority support from Ukrainians. Rather than implementing the Minsk peace agreement, NATO helped Ukraine build a large army so it could instead change realities on the ground. When 73% of Ukrainians voted for Zelensky’s peace platform in 2019, NATO helped Ukraine avoid “capitulation” by pressuring Zelensky to reverse his position. In 2021, NATO helped Ukraine by refusing to give any security guarantees to Russia, even as Biden and Stoltenberg recognised that Russia would invade without security guarantees. In 2022, the US and UK helped Ukraine by pressuring Kiev to abandon a peace agreement in which the Russians committed to pulling troops back in return for neutrality. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have been killed, large parts of its territory have been lost and the nation may not survive – NATO is now attempting to help yet again by pressuring war-weary Ukrainians to also sacrifice their youth. Irrespective of any new soldiers entering the war, the position of Ukraine will only continue to get worse.

If NATO really wants to help Ukraine and strengthen its position at the negotiation table, NATO should offer Russia what it wants the most – a pan-European security agreement based on indivisible security that replaces the zero-sum bloc politics. This is the best option for the West, Russia and Ukraine.

[1] A. Medhani, ‘White House pressing Ukraine to draft 18-year-olds so it has enough troops to battle Russia’, AP News, 28 November 2024.

[2] B. Gaddy, ‘Rep. Waltz: Negotiations to release Hamas hostages are underway’, ABC News, 12 January 2025

[3] V. Zelensky, ‘Address by the President to Ukrainians at the end of the first day of Russia’s attacks’, President of Ukraine: Official website, 25 February 2022.

[4] The Economist. ‘Volodymyr Zelensky on why Ukraine must defeat Putin’ The Economist, 27 March 2022.

[5] J. Deutsch and L. Pronina, ‘EU Approves 450 Million Euros of Arms Supplies for Ukraine’, Bloomberg, 27 February 2022.

[6] O. Libermann, ‘Top US general argues Ukraine may be in a position of strength to negotiate Russian withdrawal’, CNN, 16 November 2022.

January 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

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

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 13.01.2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United States Always Knew NATO Expansion Would Lead to War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine attempted drone strike on Russian gas supply to NATO states – Moscow

RT | January 13, 2025

Ukraine has launched an unsuccessful drone attack on Russian energy infrastructure which delivers natural gas to Türkiye , the Defense Ministry in Moscow reported on Monday.

The attempted sabotage took place on Saturday and involved nine kamikaze drones, which Ukrainian forces launched at the Russkaya gas compressor station near the village of Gaikodzor in Russia’s Krasnodar Region, according to a statement from the ministry.

The site is crucial for the operation of the TurkStream pipeline, which delivers natural gas from Russia to Türkiye under the Black Sea. Several nations in southern Europe, including EU member Hungary, use the Turkish route to receive supplies. Kiev’s attack was “aimed at stopping the supply of gas to European nations” through the neutral intermediary, the Russian Defense Ministry stated.

The Ukrainian attack against the Russkaya station was largely thwarted, the military added. One fixed-wing drone crashed close to a gas meter and caused minor damage, which was swiftly fixed by the facility’s personnel, it said. The incident caused no interruption in supplies, the statement stressed.

Kiev has refused to renew a transit contract with Russia which expired at the start of this year, and which had involved Russian gas being supplied to EU countries through Ukrainian territory. Slovakia, one of the nations affected by the decision, has accused Ukraine of causing an energy crisis.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has described Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky as someone who “roams Europe begging and blackmailing” Western nations in the hope of extracting more military assistance to fight Russia.

Zelensky previously accused Fico of striking “shady deals” with Moscow and of undermining the EU’s “unity” in the confrontation with Russia. He also claimed the Slovak secret services should investigate Fico for corruption.

The TurkStream pipeline was launched in January 2020 and has an annual capacity of 31.5 billion cubic meters. Its underwater section extends for around 930km, while the Russkaya station serves as the point of exit on Russian soil. One of the pipeline’s two strings serves Turkish customers, while the other leads to consumers in Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Greece. Russian officials have accused Kiev of attempts to sabotage the energy link on multiple occasions in recent years.

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

Hungary brands attempted strike on Russian gas pipeline an attack on its sovereignty

RT | January 13, 2025

Budapest considers any attempts to sabotage its energy supply as undermining its national sovereignty, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on Monday, reacting to reports from Russia that Kiev had tried to disable the TurkStream pipeline with kamikaze drones.

According to the Russian military, Kiev used nine unmanned aircraft to target the Russkaya gas compressor station near the village of Gaikodzor in Russia’s Krasnodar Region last Saturday. The facility pumps natural gas under the Black Sea to Türkiye. Some of the fuel then goes to consumers in the EU.

The pipeline “is indispensable for the supply of natural gas” to Hungary and has been operating reliably for years, Szijjarto stated in a post on Facebook on Monday.

“We expect everyone to respect the safety and operability of this transport route,” he added.

Hungary’s relationship with Ukraine has become strained, as Budapest opposed Kiev’s demands for increasing military assistance in its conflict against Russia. The Hungarian government went against the predominant policy in the West, which called for Kiev to be supported for “as long as it takes” to defeat Moscow.

The approach has failed to alter the course of the Ukraine conflict, Budapest has pointed out. However, EU member states have inflicted economic damage on themselves by trying to punish Moscow with sanctions, as they lost access to the Russian market and the country’s raw materials.

Last year, Kiev refused to renew a multiyear contract with Russia, which allowed the transit of gas through its territory to Eastern Europe. Consumer nations criticized the decision, accusing the Ukrainian government of causing an energy crisis for its political goals.

“Ukraine is trying to join the EU as a candidate, it has once again put the European economy in a more difficult position with its latest decision,” Szijjarto said last week, commenting on the situation.

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has said it is willing to take Hungary’s place in the EU, accusing Budapest of “strengthening” Russia with its policies.

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

Swiss People’s Party Demands Resignation: Defense Minister Under Fire for Security Policy Failures

Sputnik – 12.01.2025

According to the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), Switzerland is incapable of guaranteeing internal and external security because of its arms deliveries to Ukraine and its rapprochement with NATO.

The Swiss People’s Party, Switzerland’s largest political force, has called on the head of the country’s Defense Ministry, Viola Amherd, to resign over her failed security policy.

“The fact that Switzerland can no longer guarantee its internal and external security is the result of political mistakes – and a consequence of wrong appointments,” a statement read.

Viola Amherd is also blamed for the country’s rapprochement with NATO.

“Those who are gradually tying Switzerland to NATO are accepting that young Swiss are dying abroad and that Switzerland is being dragged into foreign conflicts,” the Swiss People’s Party said.

According to the SVP, Amherd prefers to deal with gender issues in the armed forces rather than military equipment.

“She allows weapons ordered for Switzerland to be delivered to Ukraine. These are the wrong priorities, Federal Councillor,” the SVP said in a statement.

In late October 2024, Amherd said that Bern should ease restrictions on the re-export of Swiss weapons because of the country’s arms business. She cited the fact that the Netherlands had already decided to stop buying weapons from the nation because of the current ban on re-exports, and that Germany could follow suit.

Russia believes that arms supplies to Ukraine hinder a settlement and directly involve NATO countries in the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would be a legitimate target for Russia. According to Lavrov, the United States and NATO are directly involved in the conflict, not only by supplying weapons, but also by training personnel in the UK, Germany, Italy, and other countries. The Kremlin stated that the West pumping Ukraine with weapons does not contribute to negotiations and would have a negative effect.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Battle for Tech Metals: What Are 17 Rare Earth Elements and What Are They Used For?

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik -10.01.2025

Whether it’s Greenland, Ukraine, West Africa or East Asia, rare earths are an element of the global geopolitical competition hiding just below the surface. What are the rare earth elements, where are they concentrated, and what are their major uses? Check out our explainer for a detailed breakdown.

Basic Facts

Rare earth minerals are a group of 17 silvery-white soft heavy metals, mostly consisting of the lanthanides, a family of 15 elements grouped together in the Periodic Table, plus scandium and yttrium, which have similar chemical properties and are often found in deposits alongside the others.

Despite their name, rare earths aren’t especially rare, with one of the rarest – lutetium, some 200 times more common than gold. Rather, what makes the resources rare is finding them in large, easy to find and mine clusters.

Rare Earths and Their Uses

Lanthanum (La): Used in nickel-metal hydride batteries for hybrid vehicles, lighting, camera lenses and other special glass, and as a catalyst for petroleum refining.

Cerium (Ce): Added to an array of alloys for increased strength and corrosion protection, magnets, for burn treatments, glass polishing agents, lightbulbs and household wares including ceramics.

Praseodymium (Pr): Key component for aircraft engine-grade high-strength alloys, powerful magnets (including for use in wind turbines), tough didymium glass, and fiberoptic cables.

USGC data-based map of global rare earth element mines and known strategic reserves by country. © Photo : Stratfor

Neodymium (Nd): Used for everything from magnetotherapy to magnetic motors, microwave communications, microphones, headphones, loudspeakers, hard drives, automotive electronics, fluorescent and energy-saving lamps and lasers.

Promethium (Pm): Key component for luminous paint, portable X-rays, and atomic batteries for critical electronics, from the military and aerospace to pacemakers.

Samarium (Sm): Active ingredient in a popular cancer-cell killing agent; used in combination with other elements in magnets, lasers and nuclear reactor control rods for neutron absorption.

Europium (Eu): Another excellent neutron absorber, as well as red phosphor for TVs, blue color in LEDs, and therapeutics tool.

Gadolinium (Gd): Active ingredient for MRI drugs. Also used in nuclear propulsion systems, metallurgy, microwave and magnetic refrigeration.

Terbium (Tb): Key tool for chemical screening; green phosphor for TVs and monitors, used in lighting, military grade sonar and other sensors.

Dysprosium (Dy): Used to make powerful permanent magnets, lasers and lighting, electric drive motors for EVs and wind turbines, transducers, resonators, and dosimeters for measuring ionizing radiation.

Holmium (Ho): Another neutron-absorber useful for radioimmunotherapy, magnets, as well as optics, microwave, medical, dental and laser surgery equipment.

Erbium (Er): Added to lasers and optics used in medicine, as well as optical communications, with strong neutron-absorbing qualities. Also useful for chemical analysis and crystal growth.

Thulium (Tm): Used in military and industrial-grade lasers, as a source of radiation for portable X-rays, for meteorology and high-temperature superconducting tools, and popular anti-counterfeiting agent.

Ytterbium (Yb): Key element in X-ray components, memory devices, tunable lasers, amps and displays; metal-strengthening component and burnable poison for controlling nuclear reactions.

Lutetium (Lu): Used in petroleum refining, polymerization, lithography, tomography, as a phosphor for some light bulbs. Also used for tumor treatment, and to build the world’s most accurate atomic clocks.

Scandium (Sc): Key ingredient for high-grade lightweight alloys for everything from military and commercial aircraft to sporting equipment, small arms, high intensity discharge lamps, dentistry, and as an oil refinery tracing agent.

Yttrium (Y): Another metal-strengthening alloy. Also used for high-temperature superconducting, a surprising array of medical applications (from drug labeling and cancer treatment to surgical needles) as deoxidizer and nodulizer, the red color in cathode ray tubes, radar and synthetic gems.

January 10, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Slovakia faces energy crisis by next winter after Ukraine shut off Russian gas, president warns

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | January 10, 2025

Slovakia faces a looming energy crisis next winter unless an alternative method of gas importation is established, following the cessation of supplies through Ukraine, Slovak President Peter Pellegrini warned on Friday.

Speaking in the village of Nemecká, Pellegrini highlighted the gravity of the situation and called for urgent solutions to secure the nation’s energy stability.

While gas supplies for this winter are stable in terms of price and capacity, Pellegrini emphasized the underlying vulnerabilities. “We are currently consuming more gas than we are receiving, relying heavily on reservoirs filled to maximum capacity earlier this year,” he said. However, the president expressed concern that these reserves would not suffice for the next heating season if the supply deficit is not addressed.

The gas supply disruption stems from Ukraine’s decision on Jan. 1 to halt the transit of Russian gas to Slovakia. Kyiv justified the move as a measure to cut off revenue that could support Russia’s ongoing war effort, asserting that alternative suppliers had been made available and supplies to the European Union had been maintained. The move has enraged some member states heavily reliant on the gas route.

Pellegrini lamented the failure to reach a compromise with Ukraine, saying, “I regret that an agreement could not be found. Ukraine’s decision to shut off the gas has exposed Slovakia to a serious challenge in the coming months.”

The Slovak president revealed the challenges of importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from other countries, citing limited capacity at European terminals. “The import of LNG runs into significant bottlenecks in northern and southern Europe. These terminals cannot fully replace the current shortfall,” he noted, stressing the urgency of finding alternative sources to make up for the lost capacity.

Prime Minister Robert Fico, speaking after discussions with EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen on Thursday, hinted at retaliatory measures should the situation persist. Fico suggested that Slovakia might cut off aid to Ukraine and use its veto in the European Council to block further EU support for Ukraine’s war effort.

“There is nothing — neither international law nor sanctions — that prevents the transit of gas through Ukraine,” Fico stated in Brussels. He also warned of the broader implications for the European Union, noting that rising energy prices could undermine the bloc’s competitiveness. “If the damage to the EU and Slovakia becomes permanent, we will take reciprocal measures,” he added.

January 10, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Slovakia threatens to block Ukraine aid over gas transit dispute – media

RT | January 10, 2025

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has warned that Bratislava may block the European Union’s financial and humanitarian aid to Kiev if the cessation of Russian gas transit through Ukraine is not resolved, Reuters has reported. Fico made the statement after talks with EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen on Thursday.

Fico cited potential losses from the blocked transit as the reason for his threat.

“There is nothing – not international law or sanctions – that prevents the transit of gas through Ukraine,” Fico told reporters in Brussels, as quoted by Reuters.

Slovakia has seen the complete cessation of Russian gas flows via Ukraine, a route that previously provided Bratislava with significant transit fees and also provided the gas for its domestic consumption.

According to Fico, Slovakia stands to lose $515 million annually in transit fees and could face an additional $1 billion in increased gas prices due to the disruption.

“If this problem is not resolved, the government of the Slovak Republic will take strict reciprocal measures in the near future,” Fico said.

The prime minister outlined potential retaliatory measures, including exercising Slovakia’s veto power within the European Union on Ukraine-related issues.

He also threatened to suspend humanitarian aid to Ukraine, scaling back support for Ukrainian refugees in Slovakia, and halting emergency electricity supplies to the country.

Fico’s remarks follow recent discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, during which the Slovak leader secured assurances of direct gas supplies to Slovakia despite the transit halt.

A meeting initially scheduled between Slovak, Ukrainian, and European Commission officials to address the gas transit issue was canceled after Ukraine declined to participate. Slovakia and the European Commission have since agreed to form a working group to assess the crisis and explore potential EU interventions.

Ukraine has not yet publicly responded to Fico’s latest statements. When the Slovak PM first threatened to cut off electricity to Kiev last month, Ukrainian Energy Minister German Galushchenko said he didn’t think that Bratislava would go through with the threat.

Slovakia, which has a contract with Russia’s Gazprom, requires between 4 billion and 5 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas annually to meet its energy needs. Prior to the transit halt, it had been receiving around 3 billion bcm from Russia through Ukraine. In response to the disruption, SPP, Slovakia’s state-owned gas company, is now sourcing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from international suppliers, including BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, Eni, and RWE.

January 10, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

NATO pledges $2 billion in military aid for Ukraine at Ramstein meeting

By Ahmed Adel | January 10, 2025

Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin said in Germany that participants in the Ukraine Defense Contact Group had approved a plan for eight areas of military cooperation with Kiev until 2027. Austin’s announcement was followed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s claim that he had secured an additional $2 billion in military assistance to help continue the futile war effort against Russia.

As Zelensky said after the meeting in Ramstein, home to a NATO Airpower headquarters, 34 countries had pledged support in different aspects to continue the 34-month-old war, including covered air defence, information technology, demining, naval forces, air forces and artillery.

“We had a very good meeting, a very good result. There was $2 billion in additional packages of support to Ukraine,” he said in a video posted on the Telegram account. “Earlier today, a meeting of the coalition leaders’ group was held with the participation of representatives of 15 countries. They approved a plan for ‘coalitions of opportunity’ until 2027. This way, partner countries can continue to provide assistance to Ukraine on the battlefield.”

As revealed in a joint statement released by the Pentagon ahead of the Ramstein meeting, the Western allies and Kiev intended to define how to meet Ukraine’s goals and military needs in the short and long term through contributions, procurement, investments, and efforts to expand defence capabilities.

In this regard, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated ahead of the session’s start that the Atlantic Alliance should do everything in its power to allow Ukraine to continue fighting.

“We need to do everything possible to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs, in terms of training and equipment, to prevail in this fight,” Rutte stressed.

According to him, it is also important to demonstrate at the session the involvement of all NATO countries in providing support to Kiev.

“The global context is that we have to bring Ukraine in the best possible position. That one day, when talks would start, at the initiative of Ukraine, on how to resolve this conflict, that they are in the best possible position to do that. And then when these talks end, it will be looked at, in a sense, whether there’s a good deal or not […] The whole world is watching. So, we have to make sure that Ukraine is in the best possible position. And we should not forget that there is this geopolitical context at stake here,” said the NATO Secretary General.

For his part, Zelensky, during his address at the session, asked the allies for air defence systems and the deployment of a Western military contingent.

“Last year, France came up with the idea of ​​deploying a contingent of partners in Ukraine to bring peace closer […] That is why our goal is to find as many instruments as possible to force Russia to peace. I believe that such a deployment of partners’ contingents is one of the best instruments. Let’s be more practical in making this possible,” he said.

According to him, representatives of Great Britain have also spoken out in favour of deploying a foreign contingent in Ukraine. Zelensky did not mention any specific names or positions.

It is recalled that on February 26, 2024, after an international meeting on support for Ukraine held in Paris, Macron said he did not rule out the possibility of European troops being deployed in Ukraine. Then, three days later, during the grand opening of the Olympic Village, Macron emphasized that his position on the possibility of sending Western troops to Ukraine was balanced and well-thought-out. Nonetheless, nearly a year later, nothing has progressed from Macron’s suggestion, and it is unlikely that the British will act alone or convince partners to embark on such a reckless initiative.

Although Zelensky urged his Western allies to “not to drop the ball” and to continue providing long-term military support to his embattled country, he acknowledged that “a new chapter starts for Europe” once Donald Trump returns to the White House on January 20.

Zelensky securing only $2 billion in military aid once again demonstrates how Western support for Ukraine is waning, despite the rhetoric at the Ramstein meeting of supporting the country until victory over Russia is achieved.

Realistically, $2 billion will make absolutely no difference to Ukraine’s war effort, especially as Russia continues its slow but methodical advance across the front, with Ukrainian forces unable to mount any serious defence, making the whole meeting at Ramstein nothing more than performative that has achieved nothing substantial.

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

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »