Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Germany’s AfD leader questions NATO membership

RT | December 15, 2024

Germany must ask whether NATO membership “is still useful for us,” Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-leader Tino Chrupalla has said, arguing that the US-led military bloc forces Europe to act in America’s interests.

”Europe has been forced to implement America’s interests. We reject that,” Chrupalla told German daily Welt on Sunday.

”NATO is currently not a defense alliance,” he continued. “A defense community must accept and respect the interests of all European countries, including Russia’s interests. If NATO cannot ensure that, Germany must consider to what extent this alliance is still useful for us,” he explained.

West Germany joined NATO in 1955, at the height of the Cold War. Accession to the bloc meant that Bonn could focus its spending on post-WWII reconstruction and welfare while outsourcing defense to the US. However, NATO’s first secretary general, Britain’s Lord Ismay, reportedly remarked that the bloc’s purpose in Europe was to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

While the AfD’s platform has never called for an outright withdrawal from NATO, Chrupalla has previously argued that the bloc’s confrontational stance toward Russia was “driving a wedge into the continent of Europe” and precluding reconciliation with Moscow, which, he said, would be vital “to ensure lasting peace and prosperity” on the continent.

With snap elections in February looming, the AfD is currently polling at around 18%, ahead of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’ Social Democrats at 15% but behind the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) at 32%. However, even if the AfD were to emerge as the largest party after the vote, all of Germany’s other mainstream parties have ruled out entering a coalition with the right-wingers.

The AfD nominated co-leader Alice Weidel as its candidate for chancellor earlier this month, marking the first time in its 11-year history that the party has put a name forward for the position.

Speaking to reporters after the nomination, Weidel promised to introduce drastic immigration restrictions, to roll back Scholz’s climate policies, and to cut off military aid to Ukraine.

“We want peace in Ukraine,” she said. “We do not want any arms supplies, we do not want any tanks, we do not want any missiles.”

Speaking to Welt, Chrupalla said that “Russia has won this war,” and that “reality has caught up with those who claim to want to enable Ukraine to win the war.”

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

Hungary dismayed at ‘unprecedented gesture in diplomacy’ by Zelensky

RT | December 15, 2024

The Ukrainian leadership turned down a phone-call request from Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban in a manner that was “unprecedented” in nature, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has revealed. The rebuff followed an hour-long conversation between Orban and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In an interview with public broadcaster Kossuth Radio on Sunday, Szijjarto said that he had approached Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga and Vladimir Zelensky’s top aide Andrey Yermak, asking for the authorization of a telephone conversation between Orban and the Ukrainian leader.

”In a gesture that was quite unprecedented in diplomacy,” the request was refused in “a somewhat strained” manner, Szijjarto said, as quoted by the Magyar Nemzet newspaper. Hungary’s top diplomat did not elaborate on the exact wording used by the authorities in Kiev.

Hungary has tried “everything” during the past six months of its EU presidency to use it “for a good cause, to initiate a ceasefire and peace negotiations,” Szijjarto noted. Budapest has held the rotating presidency of the EU Council in the second half of this year.

Earlier this week Orban said he’d put forward a proposal for a Christmas ceasefire and a major prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine.

”One side accepted it, the other rejected it,” the Premier told Kossuth Radio on Friday.

Zelensky, in turn, claimed that the Hungarian leader was only trying to “boost personal image at the expense of unity” in the EU in terms of supporting Ukraine.

The authorities in Kiev have sent mixed messages about their readiness for negotiations with Russia.

On Wednesday, Zelensky’s top adviser Mikhail Podoliak said Kiev could engage in talks with Moscow if they are not based on Russia’s conditions.

Andrey Yermak said on Friday that Ukraine was not ready to start any talks with Russia as there is insufficient support from the West to conduct negotiations from a position of strength.

Moscow has repeatedly stressed that it’s ready to resume the negotiations. It has urged Kiev to accept the new realities “on the ground,” with President Vladimir Putin citing the complete withdrawal of all Ukrainian forces from all Russian territories as a key prerequisite for peace talks.

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

Can Europe be saved?

Professor Glenn Diesen interviewed by Dimitri Lascaris
Glenn Diesen | December 11, 2024

I was interviewed by Dimitri Lascaris about the future of Europe. I argue that Europe’s decline derives from its inability to adjust to a multipolar international system. Europe can become one of several centres of power by pursuing collective bargaining power based on common interests, diversifying economic partnerships to avoid excessive dependence on the US, and overcoming the Cold War legacy of zero-sum bloc politics.

The Europeans have done the exact opposite. The European security architecture has been built on the premise that expanding a military alliance ever closer to Russian borders would create peace and stability. Relations with Russia have subsequently collapsed and Europe is losing a costly proxy war against the world’s largest nuclear power. Countries in the shared neighbourhood (Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova) are destabilised and their democracy undermined to ensure pro-West/anti-Russia governments take power. These deeply divided societies have become the battleground for drawing new dividing lines in the new Cold War.

European economies are deindustrialising as they cut themselves off from the Russian market, and are also pressured by the US to decouple from the Chinese market. The US Inflation Reduction Act offers subsidies to what remains of struggling European industries if they relocate to the US. Excessive reliance on the US means that Europe cannot even criticise the US for destroying its energy infrastructure after the attack on Nord Stream. After centuries of a Europe-centric international system, the Europeans have not realised that they have been demoted from a subject to an object of security.

Governments that do not represent national interests will eventually be swept away, yet the political elites become increasingly authoritarian to keep their power. In France and Germany, their political opposition is pushed aside with undemocratic means. Hungary and Slovakia are punished by the EU for failing to fall in line. The election results in Romania were overturned after the electorate did not vote for the right candidate.

The continent desperately needs course correction, yet power structure and ideology prevent necessary changes from being implemented. More aggressive means to control the narrative also result in declining freedom of speech.

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

EU has failed to cut energy ties with Russia – commissioner

RT | December 12, 2024

The EU has failed to overcome its dependence on Russian energy, and needs a new plan to wean itself off Moscow’s supplies, the bloc’s new energy chief told Politico on Thursday.

In his first interview since taking the post, Dan Jorgensen highlighted the growth in Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) purchases.

The share of Russian LNG on the EU market reached 20% this year, according to the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, despite Brussels’ pledge to stop consuming Russian fuel by 2027.

“It’s obvious to everybody that something new needs to happen because… now it’s beginning to go in the wrong direction,” the EU Energy commissioner said, while pledging to present “a tangible roadmap that will include efficient tools and means for us to solve the remaining part of the problem.”

The new measures will target “gas primarily, but also oil and nuclear” and will be formulated by mid-March, Jorgensen said, noting that five EU countries still rely on Russia for nuclear fuel.

The EU declared its intention to end its dependence on Russian energy supplies following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Supplies of higher-cost US fuel have replaced much of the cheap pipeline gas that was previously delivered by Russia.

However, efforts have stalled in recent months, and the EU continues to buy billions of euros’ worth of Russian gas each month. In 2024, the bloc is expected to import 10% more LNG from Russia than in 2023, according to energy analytics firm Kpler.

Politico noted, however, that any plan to sever energy ties with Russia in the next few years would be strongly opposed by EU members that are still heavily reliant the imports, particularly Hungary and Slovakia, whose leaders Viktor Orban and Robert Fico have resisted energy sanctions on Russia.

Jorgensen’s proposal is also likely to come just weeks after a long-term contract for Russian gas transit via Ukraine is set to expire, on December 31. The EU still receives around 5% of its gas from Russia via Ukraine’s gas transit network, according to the latest data.

Last month, Bloomberg warned of an imminent energy crisis in Western and Central Europe due to the latest US sanctions against Russia’s Gazprombank, the primary bank for energy-related transactions. The outlet said that rapidly depleting gas reserves and potential supply cuts from Russia threaten to exacerbate an already difficult situation.

December 12, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Orban reveals Trump’s stance on Ukraine negotiations

RT | December 11, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They didn’t attack Crimea, however.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An approach based on honesty will have a better chance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine strikes Russia with US-made ATACMS missiles

RT | December 11, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syria, a pawn on the grand chessboard of global geopolitics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia’s Demands in Peace Negotiations

Dmitri Polyanskiy, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen on the Duran
Glenn Diesen | December 7, 2024

We had a conversation with Dmitri Polyanskiy, the First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. Polyanskiy shared the Russian perspective on recent escalations with NATO and the requirements for a peaceful settlement.

As Ukrainian frontlines are collapsing, the US can either escalate or start negotiations. The decision by the Biden administration to attack Russia with long-range ATACMS crossed Russia’s red lines, and the response was the Oreshnik missile. The Oreshnik missile was intended as a warning shot by not attaching a warhead. Russia demands an end to NATO expansion, territorial concessions, and restoring minority rights in Ukraine.

View video at Odysee

December 9, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

US Bill Would Reverse ATACMS Order

By Joe Lauria | Consortium News | December 7, 2024

Capitol Hill, Washington – A bill introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) would prohibit the U.S. from sending long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine to be fired into Russia.

As U.S. personnel and satellites are required to fire the missiles from Ukrainian territory, Moscow considers it a direct U.S. attack on Russia putting it in a state of war with the U.S. which could lead to nuclear conflict.

To remove the potential of nuclear war, the proposed legislation seeks to end ATACMS launches into Russia. The bill reads:

(a) Prohibition. —For the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending at the close of January 20, 2025, notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period for which a state of conflict exists between Ukraine and the Russian Federation—

1) no Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) may be transferred to Ukraine; and

(2) U.S. Military Services or intelligence agencies may not provide support to Ukrainian units operating High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HMARS) platforms utilizing ATACMS munitions to strike outside of internationally recognized Ukrainian territorial borders—

(A) targeting intelligence support;

(B) mission planning support; and

(C) any other type of support.

Several members of Congress and their staff said they were taken off guard by President Joe Biden’s reversal of his previous decision not to allow the use of ATACMS to be fired into Russia from Ukraine.

The members and their staff made these remarks during meetings on Thursday on Capitol Hill with former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter and activists of Code Pink, led by Medea Benjamin.

Biden Breaks With Realists

Biden had twice before sided with the Pentagon to avoid direct war with Russia. In March 2022 he overruled his Secretary of State Antony Blinken to scotch plans for a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, which could have lead to direct conflict with Russia.

Biden opposed the no-fly zone, he said at the time, because “that’s called World War III, okay? Let’s get it straight here, guys. We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”

Then in September Biden deferred to the realists in the Pentagon to oppose long-range British Storm Shadow missiles from being fired by Ukraine deep into Russia out of fear it would also lead to a direct NATO-Russia military confrontation with all that that entails.

Putin warned at the time that because British soldiers on the ground in Ukraine would actually launch the British missiles into Russia with U.S. geostrategic support, it “will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”

That was a clear warning that British and U.S. targets could be hit. Biden thus wisely backed off.

But after he was driven from the race and his party lost the White House last month, Biden suddenly switched gears allowing not only British, but also U.S. long-range ATACMS missiles to be fired into Russia. It’s not clear that the White House ever informed the Pentagon in advance.

Higgin’s bill was introduced as H.R. 10218 on Nov. 21, but none of the other House members that Ritter and Benjamin met with on Capitol Hill had heard of it. Nor was it reported in the mainstream media.

“We found that commonsense is actually alive and living here in the halls of Congress,” Ritter told Consortium News. “Members of Congress and their staffs understand the danger of nuclear war.  We found that there was a bill already written … that sought to achieve what we were trying to get them to do.”

Benjamin said: “We are excited to push this bill, which we just found out about. … It will not pass, but the idea is to get momentum for it so that message is coming out there that there are members of Congress who want to see this reversed and that in the next Congress, they will introduce it again with a lot more momentum.”

“To stop a nuclear war comes down to one issue,” Ritter said:

“The United States has to stop attacking Russian soil with American-made ATACMS missiles. Even though we use a Ukrainian cutout, it’s American provided, American targets and American intelligence. It’s the Americans attacking Russia. From the Russian perspective, the United States is at war with Russia … which has triggered their nuclear doctrine.”

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

Kiev reveals terms of $20 billion US loan

RT | December 9, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US admits much-hyped tanks failed in Ukraine

RT | December 8, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »