War and peace, NATO troops, sanctions & more | Hungarian FM’s interview
Sanctioning RT is ‘double standards and hypocrisy’
RT | December 3, 2024
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto gave an exclusive interview to RT on Monday. Here’s the full text of the conversation:
Host Saskia Taylor:
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary – it is a great honor to be able to sit down with you. Thank you so much for your time. I know that you are a very, very busy man. The first thing, let’s jump right in. I mean, in a recent interview, Prime Minister Viktor Orban, he said that Russia’s deployment of the missile Oreshnik, should be quote, “something to make us all think.” What was Budapest thinking that night, and do you think it will indeed compel your European counterparts to reassess their strategies when it comes to the war in Ukraine?
Hungarian FM Peter Szijjarto:
There has been a feeling with us for more than 1000 days now. And this feeling of ours becomes stronger and stronger every day. Especially when we experience such kind of events like launching that missile or when we experience decisions from others, which decisions should be considered as irresponsible. So day by day, our feeling that peace must be made is getting stronger and stronger. We understand that with every other day spent in this war, there are more people dying, more destruction taking place and more serious threat of escalation comes forward. So all these events show to us that the peace mission of ours must be strengthened, must be more and more active, and we have to do our best in order to help peace to come as soon as possible. Most likely starting with a ceasefire, which would give the chance to those who are involved to sit around the negotiating table and discuss about an agreement leading towards sustainable peace in our region.
Host:
I mean, one other soon-to-be leader, again, who has campaigned for peace in the way that the Hungarian prime minister has, is of course incoming US President Donald Trump. He’s beginning to pick his team, and Keith Kellogg has been tapped to be special envoy for Ukraine and Russia.
Now, I wonder, do you think that his appointment and his mediation could help bring a resolution to the conflict closer? And do you think that there will be sensitivity under a Trump administration to Moscow’s position? I only ask that because Keith Kellogg specifically has said on a number of occasions we need to, quote, “help Ukraine win.”
Szijjarto:
First of all, I think that it has to be put into consideration that a democracy must be built on the will of the people. And what happened on the presidential elections in the United States? There were two candidates with totally differing positions on many issues. But if I have to name the issue where the opinion of the two have totally been different, then I would name, of course, migration, but then the issue of the war in Ukraine. Donald Trump had a totally different vision compared to this war than Kamala Harris, because Kamala Harris was speaking about the continuation of the strategy of the American administration, impacts of which we are quite aware of, unfortunately. But President Trump represented a different approach, because he was speaking about making peace. And at the end of the day, the American citizens have made a very clear decision. So, to make peace in Ukraine, is basically a will of the American people as well. So what we have seen so far since the elections in the form of decisions of the still incumbent American administration is basically neglecting the will of the people, going against the will of the people. So in order to give the respect to the American citizens who made a clear decision in order to ensure safety, stability, and security in the central or eastern part of Europe, the only way to move forward is making peace. In this regard, the fact that the incoming president nominates a person, an experienced one, a respected one, with the aim of resolving the conflict, the war – I think it’s a good news on its own.
On the other hand, I have had the honor to accompany my prime minister on a number of meetings with President Trump, even after the war has broken out. And what I experienced during these meetings is that President Trump really believes in the necessity of making peace. And knowing him, because politics is a job of experience, so knowing him from his first term, whatever he would like to do, he makes his best in order to deliver.
I think that since the presidential election of the United States has taken place, we have the best hope for this war to come to an end since it had broken up. I would say that now we are faced with the most serious risk of escalation ever since this war has broken out, because the decisions made by the incumbent American administration and some Western European administrations since the US elections are very dangerous. We are living in the neighborhood, I don’t have the luxury to speak on behalf of a country an ocean away. I’m speaking on behalf of a country which is next door, and those measures which are bringing the danger of escalation are putting danger on us as well. We don’t want others to put danger on us. Therefore, we have now been strengthening our efforts when it comes to the peace mission. That’s why I came to Moscow today and I hope that my visit, my discussions today will contribute to peace to come as soon as possible.
Host:
Very interesting. You mentioned, of course, I don’t want someone else to put me at risk. But of course, when you’re part of a bloc like the European Union, it is a bit all for one and one for all – at least that’s the view from Brussels.
And I do want to get your take on something because President Putin believes, and actually, you know, I hear this from a number of guests on our programs – and what I am struck by is that they’re mainly actually from Germany – is that they say that Europe has lost its independence and has ceased to be a politically sovereign entity when it comes to international affairs specifically. And I just wondered, do you think that’s a reasonable assessment? And kind of just on a personal level, not just as a minister, but as an EU citizen, how that makes you feel?
Szijjarto:
Since this war has broken out it is obvious that most of the European leaders have lost their own voice in this regard. On many occasions I hear European leaders including my colleagues, foreign ministers or the high representative, speaking about speaking in a way that we always compare our contribution to the American one. I think it’s a very, very bad and harmful approach from the European perspective. Why? Because the war does take place here in Europe. There are European people dying, there is destruction taking place in Europe, and the European economy is faced with the impacts and the consequences of this war. Therefore, following the US policies without any kind of criticism, that’s a big mistake. I do believe that the strategy the European Union has been following in the recent 1000 days is a failed one, because Europe weakened a lot in the last almost three years.
I do believe that instead of globalizing the conflict, the right strategy would have been to localize it and to do everything in order to resolve it, to make peace, instead of pouring oil on the fire, which has been the case.
We are the only country in Europe or European Union which has not delivered weapons to Ukraine. We are the only country in NATO, almost the only one, which speaks openly about the red lines which must be kept seriously. We are the ones who speak openly about our assessment that NATO is a defense alliance and not an attack alliance.
In the upcoming days, we will have many debates in Europe, because we have OSCE ministerial coming, we have NATO ministerial coming. There will be tough debates and we are praying really hard that until the 20th of January nothing happens which would make things irreversible.
Host:
Well, you obviously talked there about how Budapest has become almost a lone voice in Europe and amongst many Western nations. When it comes to the Ukraine issue, I mean, Viktor Orban, he’s vehemently opposed to pumping Kiev with weapons. He’s also very, very critical of any idea of sending foreign troops to the country either as, quote, peacekeepers or actual combat units.
But then, like you all said, on the other hand, we do have players – and you didn’t say that, but I’ll say it – Baltic states, for example, or the UK, which they’ve gone down a different path.
They seem to be beating the drums of war, and they’ve even advocated for sending NATO troops there. When you’re in these meetings, what do you make of their arguments? And as we speak now, how great do you think the danger is of Europe being dragged into a full war with Russia? And I say full quite specifically because obviously many would argue that Russia is already at war with the West. I mean, Boris Johnson admitted it himself just a few days ago.
Szijjarto:
You might remember when our prime minister has visited Moscow during the summer, I was honored to accompany him on his meeting with President Putin and you might remember that huge attack on him. Huge attack on him, on his government, on our country for visiting Moscow and completing or trying to complete a peace mission. You see that there are many pro-war politicians in Europe. When I sit on the meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council with other foreign ministers and listen to some, I’m so sad that such kind of extreme pro-war positions are present that’s why we paid a lot of attention on what would be happening in the United States, because if President Trump had not won, now we might be involved in something which we would never want to be involved in. But with President Trump entering office, I think we have a good hope that peace will come instead of Europe would be dragged into a full-scale war. I think that even speaking about sending troops is extremely dangerous, because we have seen in the recent days, weeks and months, that even a piece of miscommunication or misunderstanding can be extremely dangerous. Therefore, the words of politicians have a weight even under peaceful circumstances, but in case of a war, it’s not just to wait, but it’s a risk as well. Everybody should be aware of that, and sometimes I have the feeling that it is not everybody who is aware of that, or even worse, they are aware, but they say this deliberately. That’s why I think that now everybody who is in favor of peace must increase the volume.
Host:
I mean, Hungary has become a bit of a rogue actor in Brussels, if you don’t mind me saying that.
Szijjarto:
Black sheep!
Host:
Black sheep. No, well, we love black sheep here, so we’re very happy about that. But advocating for economic neutrality, like you’re coming here, business is business, but also against bloc confrontation, whether that’s against Russia, whether that’s against China, for example, as well.
How difficult has it been to resist the pressure? And just from an insider’s perspective, I understand you can’t give us all the secrets of what goes on, but just a sense of really how much people demand that one toes the line?
Szijjarto:
It’s a huge hypocrisy there, because those who are advocating against us with those who usually compete for those investments which are coming from China to Europe. Currently, 44% of all Chinese investments targeting Europe are now targeting Hungary, and that makes a lot of other countries very, very jealous. Why? Because these investments are very modern ones, these investments are investments into the future, these are state-of-the-art, creating thousands of new jobs, offering good salaries. Other countries want that as well, so while the German foreign minister speaks about decoupling, de-risking, of Western and Eastern economies. If you come to Hungary, you see the Chinese and the German factories being constructed next to each other. You see the Chinese companies supplying the Germans, making them successful, vice versa, this is how it works normally on the field of everyday life. For us, economy and energy must not be a matter of political ideology, this is physical and mathematical reality. We don’t let ourselves to be dragged into a debate on philosophical basis, because, for example, energy.
I mean whether you can heat your house or flat, whether you can run your economy with a press conference, with a philosophical debate, with a press statement? It’s impossible. With gas, with oil, with nuclear fuel? Well, that’s the way. Therefore, for us, economic neutrality is common sense. Don’t confuse things which have nothing to do with ideology and political approach.
Host:
And of course, it’s usually the average person who pays the price of ideology. Look at Germany’s industrial…
Szijjarto:
Look at the sanctions, look at the sanction regimes. The sanction regimes of the European Union ended up in extremely high inflation, extremely high energy prices, food prices, and these are all paid by the citizens, by the people.
Host:
…Volkswagen shuttering three factories, laying off potentially tens of thousands, Ford moving some of its production facilities outside of the EU…
Szijjarto:
While Mercedes is building its second factory in Hungary, while BMW is constructing its new factory in Hungary, while the biggest electric battery manufacturers are constructing their factories in Hungary. It might make sense to think about why.
Host:
I’m sold on Hungary – I’m moving to Hungary. Turning now to another big story that I think I really would like to touch upon. Quite a violent one too, the events that are unfolding in Georgia, in Tbilisi. Four nights, four or five nights of terrible protests. What’s the view from Budapest on all of that?
Szijjarto:
Very simple. If it had been the opposition to win that election, there would be no protests, there would be no external pressure, and everybody would praise the fantastic shape of the Georgian democracy. But it’s not Brussels, it’s not Washington, it’s not Berlin, it’s not Paris to decide, but the Georgian people. The Georgian people made a very clear decision. High turnout, more than 50% support to the ruling party, that should be respected.
My problem is, that this is very general in Europe. In the case it is not the liberals to win an election, the democratic nature of the whole country and the whole political system is being questioned immediately. If it is liberals to win, everything’s fine. If it’s patriots to win, if it is conservatives to win, if it is right-wing to win, the nature of democracy is immediately questioned, and this is totally unacceptable. Look at our case, we have been under attack for the last 15 years in the European Union, we have been under financial sanctions. Why? Because we are not ready to speak according to the liberal mainstream, to act according to the liberal mainstream. We are conservative, patriotic, for us national interest is number one. For us, family consists of a mother and the father and the children, where father is a man, mother is a woman.
Host:
And now you’re in EU court because of it.
Szijjarto:
We protect our children, we protect our country, we protect our border, and we are under financial sanctions. If the opposition had won in Georgia, everybody would be so happy with the fantastic shape of the Georgian democracy. That’s the case.
Host:
And of course, with your eastern neighbor, Romania, an interesting situation there is also developing. It’s kind of election season. Parliamentary elections seem to have gone to the pro-EU, pro-Atlantic direction party, but the presidential vote is already a bit scandalous, the first round, because an anti-war NATO critic won and immediately we heard calls, “foreign interference, he’s pro-Russia,” a vote recount was ordered and we’re expecting a decision from the top Romanian court about whether the vote should be annulled at all.
I mean, what does that say about the state of democracy, but also, of course, the mood amongst Romanians?
Szijjarto:
First of all, for us Hungarians, the parliamentary elections were more important in this regard, and the party of the Hungarians has achieved fantastic results, above 6% of the votes, making a very strong representation and a strong voice of the Hungarians in the Bucharest parliament. That’s very, very important. I think we should leave it to the Romanians to decide in the second round whom they want. I think that mutual respect should come back to international political life, and I usually refrain from making comments on domestic issues of other countries because, they are their citizens. They have to make decisions, as there are Hungarian citizens making decisions about the future of Hungary, which should not be questioned and challenged by anyone. For us, the great news is that the Hungarians made a good performance on the parliament elections and the Romanians will decide soon on the second round of the presidential election.
Host:
And closer to home for you, something that’s kind of developing at the moment. Hungarian media citing intelligence services, they’ve reported that they’re in touch with their Slovak counterparts discussing possible threats of attacks to energy infrastructure. Of course, we saw on Sunday that a part of the Druzhba pipeline – very important of course for Hungarian energy security – but a part in Poland was damaged. I mean, who… I mean I know, I understand you don’t want to hypothesize, but fine, then I’ll ask you, what could possibly be the goal behind actors who are concocting these kinds of plots?
EU country investigating ‘sabotage plot’ targeting Russian oil supplies – media
Read more EU country investigating ‘sabotage plot’ targeting Russian oil supplies – media
Szijjarto:
Since the Nord Stream was blown up, we have to take the issue of protection of critical energy infrastructure extremely seriously, and it’s really outrageous, that even until the very day it was not investigated seriously who has committed a terrorist attack against critical European infrastructure.
Since then, we have to be aware of the risk being put on the energy infrastructure in our neighborhood, we have to be attentive, we have to be aware, we have to take care of this. And yes, Druzhba pipeline is vital from our perspective, no question. And I do hope that all countries where this pipeline runs through, do their best in order to prevent any such attacks.
Host:
And finally, I’m sure many would consider you a very brave man, Mr. Szijjarto, because here you are in Russia, the most sanctioned country on Earth, not just in the winter, which is always a brave move, but also of course at a time of war. And you’re talking to me, you’re talking to RT, which apparently is the global media pariah, so much so that the British Ministry of Defence apparently has got a special unit dedicated to trying to silence us. We’ve been banned, we’ve been blocked, we’ve been smeared. What was your reaction when Europe took RT off of the airwaves? And how did it tally with, of course, the principles of free speech, which Brussels claims at least to champion?
Szijjarto:
Of course, this is double standards and hypocrisy because those Europeans who love to teach everyone. They love to refer certain values, among them freedom of speech and freedom of media. And they usually attack others based on those principles. But when they look at themselves, they cannot be too self-confident either.
So for us sanctioning church, sports, media, energy always raises serious question marks. And I do hope that soon we will get rid of all these sanction measures because they have caused more harm to the European Union than to Russia, I guess.
Rheinmetall CEO Vows Increase of German Military Spending on Ukraine to $10.5Bln
Sputnik – 03.12.2024
BERLIN – Germany should spend 10 billion euros ($10.5 billion) from its state budget annually on military aid to Ukraine, otherwise there is a risk of suspension of the Rheinmetall ammunition plant, the company’s CEO, Armin Papperger, said in an interview.
In July, even before the government crisis, the German cabinet announced that the German government, as part of the draft budget for 2025, intended to halve aid to Ukraine to 4 billion euros from 8 billion euros.
According to Papperger, Germany should lay down a much larger budget for military support for Kiev, which will exceed 8 billion in annual expenditures.
“At least ten billion must be approved as further aid,” he said.
In this context, Papperger expressed concern that he would not be able to maintain the full capacity of the new enterprise in the community of Unterlues in Lower Saxony, where, among other things, ammunition for Ukraine is produced, without state funding — if Rheinmetall does not order raw materials in advance, the plant may shut down in a year or a year and a half, he noted.
The head of Rheinmetall also said that an additional 350-400 billion euros would be needed to modernize the Bundeswehr.
Earlier, the concern reported an increase in sales in the first half of the year, increasing to 3.8 billion euros, which is 33% higher than the same figure last year. This is due, among other things, to arms supplies to Ukraine, as stated in a Rheinmetall press release.
In August, German media reported that Berlin was forced to reduce military aid to Ukraine, since, according to the current budget planning of the German government, new funds were no longer allocated for these purposes. It was specified that already approved deliveries would still be carried out, but additional requests from the German Defense Ministry would no longer have to be approved, according to the order of the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who later assured that Germany would remain the largest donor of aid to Ukraine in Europe.
In November, Germany faced a serious government crisis after Finance Minister Christian Lindner was fired at the insistence of Scholz. Among the reasons for this decision, he named the latter’s reluctance to approve both an increase in spending on supporting Ukraine and investing in the future of Germany as part of the state budget planning.
Biden’s Parting Shot at America
By Ron Paul | December 2, 2024
The interim between a US presidential election and the swearing in of a new Administration has for most of our history been a non-eventful period where the outgoing Administration winds down operations and the incoming Administration ramps up new personnel before the inauguration.
The 20th Amendment to our Constitution was enacted in 1933 to reduce the “lame duck” period between election and inauguration to January 20th instead of March 4th. Increasing ease in travel and communications made such a long interim unnecessary. However long the transition period, it has been understood that with the new election came a new mandate from the American people and the “lame duck” outgoing administration was meant to quietly quack out its last few days in office without incident.
Then came Biden. In the period since the American people rejected Biden’s neocon interventionists in favor of Donald Trump’s promises to end the wars, the “lame duck” has run roughshod over the will of the American people. Whoever is running Biden – and the answer is unclear – has decided to “Trump proof” foreign policy to bring us to the literal brink of WWIII with Russia. And to top it off, Biden’s people this past week have again unleashed al-Qaeda linked rebels to wreak havoc in Syria!
After solidly opposing the neocon demand that Ukraine be given permission to fire US weapons deep into Russia, President Biden in the waning days of his presidency suddenly reversed course and granted permission. From back in 2022, when Russia first went into Ukraine, Biden had argued against sending offensive weaponry and US troops to fight on Ukraine’s behalf. “Make no mistake,” he said in March of that year, “that’s called World War III.”
Something about losing the popular and electoral vote has led Biden’s people to disregard the threat of WWIII and give the green light for attacks with US missiles deep into Russian territory. Why is this so different than providing tanks or bullets? These missile systems are highly complex and classified and can only be operated by US or NATO personnel. That means that American military officers are shooting American missiles into Russia – something unimaginable even in the depths of the Cold War!
Then, just days ago, we saw the sudden re-emergence of the US former proxies in Syria – extremists whose ties go back to al-Qaeda – sweep halfway through the country in what appears to be a return of Obama’s disastrous “Assad must go” policy. For five years the conflict in Syria had been more or less “frozen,” but Biden’s people have turned it up to a boil.
Why has the Biden Administration suddenly given a green light to these terrorists and how deeply is the CIA involved in stirring up new trouble in Syria? Make no mistake: these US-backed “rebels” would never have made their move without the approval of the Biden Administration.
The American people did not vote for an expansion of war, either in eastern Europe or the Middle East. A recent CBE News/YouGov poll has shown that a majority of Americans favor an end to all US military aid to Ukraine.
Upending the card table just because you lose the game not only shows blatant disregard for the “democracy” his party constantly preached on the campaign trail, but by pouring gasoline on these two very dangerous conflicts as he heads for the door President Biden puts each and every one of us in grave danger.
Boris Johnson admits Ukraine conflict is “proxy war” against Russia

By Ahmed Adel | December 2, 2024
Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson admitted that the West organized a proxy war against Russia, an effort that has not only caused untold deaths and apocalyptic carnage in Ukraine but has raised fears of a nuclear conflict, especially after Moscow announced its intentions to review its nuclear policy following Kiev regime missile attacks on Russian territory.
It is recalled that as prime minister (July 2019-September 2022), Johnson encouraged the Europeans to send more weapons to Ukraine after he urged the Kiev regime to abandon negotiations with the Kremlin and continue a futile war effort. In effect, the former prime minister saw an opportunity to use Kiev as a proxy to continue London’s centuries-old foreign policy tradition of hostility with Moscow.
“We’re waging a proxy war, but we’re not giving our proxies the ability to do the job. For years now, we’ve been allowing them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs and it has been cruel,” Johnson told The Telegraph.
The former British prime minister also said that a multinational group of European peacekeeping forces should be responsible for protecting any possible future ceasefire line in Ukraine.
“I don’t think we should be sending in combat troops to take on the Russians. But I think as part of the solution, as part of the end state, you’re going to want to have multinational European peace-keeping forces monitoring the border [and] helping the Ukrainians,” he said. “I cannot see that such a European operation could possibly happen without the British.”
However, while Johnson said that British troops should not be deployed to fight the Russians, he did stress that London was “morally responsible” for Ukraine and supported the use of British Storm Shadow missile against Russia.
“[Britain took] far too long [to] break the taboo” on providing Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine and the accompanying policy permission to fire the weapons into Russia, he said, adding: “We could have forced the pace.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on November 28 at a press conference in Kazakhstan that major “decision-making centres” in Kiev would be devastated by the powerful Oreshnik missile in response to Ukrainian strikes on Russia and warned that all weapons could be used if the Kiev regime were to acquire nuclear arms.
“We do not rule out the use of Oreshnik against the military, military-industrial facilities or decision-making centres, including in Kiev,” Putin said, adding that although the weapon was “comparable in strength to a nuclear strike” if used several times on one location, they were not currently fitted with nuclear warheads.
“The kinetic impact is powerful, like a meteorite falling,” the Russian president explained. “We know in history what meteorites have fallen where and what the consequences were.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky hypocritically accused Putin of a “despicable escalation” even though it was Kiev that had long been requesting permission from the US, Britain and France to fire long-range missiles provided by them against military targets inside Russia. Following the granting of permission, the Kiev regime launched British Storm Shadow missiles and American ATACMS to strike targets inside Russia for the first time, prompting anger from the Kremlin.
Zelensky had the audacity to accuse Moscow of a “despicable escalation” by not ruling out the use of the Oreshnik—a typical example of the Ukrainian president’s tendency to gaslight. Rather, Zelensky should be thankful that Moscow continues to show restraint and patience in the face of constant provocations.
In an interview with international media on November 30, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow is not very inclined to use nuclear weapons but that, due to the circumstances, things are changing.
“The Russian Federation has a very responsible stance on this issue. It is convinced that nuclear weapons should never be used by anyone. That’s why we do everything possible to ensure they are never used,” the Russian spokesman said.
“But the situation is changing drastically. That’s why changes were made to our concept that states if a nuclear power assists another country in attacking our territory, this could justify the use of nuclear weapons,” he added.
It is recalled that David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine’s ruling party, confirmed in November 2023 that peace talks between Moscow and Kiev in the first months of the broke down because of direct Western influence.
According to him, Kiev’s assurance of its neutrality and ending its NATO ambitions would have been enough for Russia to agree to withdraw beyond the pre-war frontlines. However, Boris Johnson arrived unexpectedly in Kiev on April 9, 2022, when negotiations were underway in Istanbul, and told Zelensky that he “shouldn’t sign anything with them at all—and let’s just fight.”
Johnson’s influence on Zelensky to continue the war instead of ending it has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people dying, millions of refugees, and billions of dollars in damages. Britain’s former prime minister is responsible for an incredible amount of bloodshed and destruction, with perhaps the most shocking aspect being that Ukraine, the proxy, has suffered the most rather than Russia.
Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Desperate Escalations in Middle East & Ukraine
Alastair Crooke, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | December 1, 2024
I had a conversation with Alastair Crooke about the escalating situation in the Middle East and Ukraine. Thousands of Turkish-backed jihadists invade Aleppo immediately after the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Russia’s Oreshnik missiles change NATO’s calculations. The commitment to deeply flawed narratives in the Middle East and Ukraine results in miscalculations and failure to pursue course correction.
Watch at Odysee
West covering up for Kiev on chemical weapons – Moscow
RT | December 1, 2024
Ukraine’s Western backers are concealing Kiev’s use of chemical weapons, Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s ambassador-at-large on the Kiev regime’s war crimes, told RT in an exclusive interview. He said Russia has documented proof of Kiev’s troops using toxins against Russian soldiers and civilians, but any attempts by Moscow to appeal to international watchdogs are stalled by the West.
“Ukraine has used various types of chemical weapons throughout the conflict, and this is documented and recorded by our relevant departments,” Miroshnik stated, adding that the findings have been repeatedly submitted to the Hague-based Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). He noted that the toxins Kiev uses are supplied by Western states, which also provide it with “so-called diplomatic cover,” hushing up its use of prohibited substances.
“[Kiev] sincerely believes that the West will in every possible way shield it from liability for the use of prohibited types of weapons. And, unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening within the framework of a number of international organizations, in particular, the OPCW,” the official stated, noting that Russia’s requests to probe incidents in which Kiev uses chemical weapons “are blocked with enviable regularity” and any data Moscow provides as evidence “is not considered” at all.
“Under pressure from the Americans, the British, this situation is simply hushed up, talked down, and [doesn’t] turn into a detailed investigation,” he stressed.
According to Miroshnik, as of this past summer, Russian experts had recorded more than 400 instances of prohibited chemical weapons being used by Kiev. They have also discovered a number of laboratories in Ukraine that produce chemical agents and toxic substances. The official noted that Kiev is “indiscriminate” when using prohibited types of weapons, targeting both Russian soldiers at the front and civilians via drone attacks.
Western support allows Kiev to keep using the banned toxins with impunity, Miroshnik claimed, “demonstrating that any red lines from the Ukrainian side can simply be crossed and nothing will happen to them for it.”
Moscow has repeatedly accused Ukraine of using chemical weapons on the battlefield and of hosting American biolabs on its territory. Earlier this fall, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, the head of Russia’s Radiological Chemical and Biological Defense Forces, warned that Kiev was preparing a false-flag chemical weapons attack with the aim of framing Russia.
He also accused Ukraine of deploying chemical weapons disguised as smoke bombs during its incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region, and said such munitions were used in the Russian town of Sudzha in August, with more than 20 people exposed to the toxins.
European elites are destroying Europe – again

Strategic Culture Foundation | November 29, 2024
One would think that having suffered two world wars only decades apart, European politicians might be more cautious about starting another one. Incredibly, however, the countries of Europe are being plunged into another conflagration.
Not much has changed over a century, it seems. War is still the result of imperialist intrigue and no accountability to the masses of citizens by arrogant politicians aided by relentless media propaganda lies.
European elitist rulers are a treasonous clique who are destroying Europe because of their abject servility to U.S.-led Western imperialism.
To put it crudely, Europe is being abused like a bondage plaything for the Washington and European elites. Shudder the thought of Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas in dominatrix garb or Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz as the gimps. But sometimes, the truth can be stranger than fiction.
Russian President Vladimir Putin nailed it this week when he slammed European political heads who are “dancing to the tune of the Americans.” In an address to the Collective Security Treaty Organization summit in Kazakhstan, Putin said the crisis over Ukraine showed that European so-called leaders have no independence or autonomy. They are non-entities as far as serving the democratic interests of their nations is concerned.
Instead of pushing for a diplomatic solution to the worst conflict on the European continent since World War Two, European political elites are slavishly going along with Washington’s criminal proxy war against Russia, which is in danger of spiraling into a nuclear Armageddon.
This week the buffoonish former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson openly admitted that the conflict in Ukraine was a proxy war against Russia. But that didn’t give Johnson pause for thought or shame. He urged the Europeans to send more weapons to Ukraine. Nor did his crass candidness elicit any outcry or condemnation. Johnson, the imbecile, was, in effect, confirming what Russia has been warning is the essence of the conflict in Ukraine – a U.S.-led war using Ukrainian cannon fodder.
Then, we had the chief of Britain’s intelligence agency MI6, “Sir” Richard Moore, holding forth to an audience in Paris that Russia’s Putin was causing “staggeringly reckless sabotage” across Europe. The British spymaster claimed that Russia was threatening the continent with nuclear weapons to weaken NATO support for Ukraine. He omitted the glaring fact that the U.S., Britain, and France have dramatically escalated the conflict by supplying a NeoNazi regime in Ukraine with long-range missiles to strike Russia.
Meanwhile, the governments in Germany and Nordic countries are issuing dire public warnings for people to “get ready for war” by building bomb shelters in their homes and stocking up on non-perishable foods.
You could hardly make this insanity up except in the dystopian novels of George Orwell. The continent is being led by the nose to disaster by politicians and corporate-controlled media who have lost their minds. They long ago lost any self-respect or independence and are simply acting as the most pathetic surrogates for U.S.-led imperialism.
Even without the ultimate catastrophe of war, Europe has been brought to ruination by elitist politicians who have unquestioningly followed the American agenda of trying to strategically defeat Russia through a proxy war.
Central to this U.S. strategic objective is vanquishing decades of mutually beneficial energy trade between Europe and Russia. The sanctions imposed on the Nord Stream gas pipelines by Trump during his first administration, followed by the blowing up of the pipes by the Biden administration in September 2022, are testimony to that bigger picture. None of the European governments or their news media properly investigated that huge crime of state-sponsored terrorism.
The proxy war and sanctions on Russian energy that the European leaders happily went along with have caused the European economies to implode. Critical commentators talk about the deindustrialization of Europe.
Even the Financial Times, in a recent in-depth report on Germany’s “broken economy”, sounded aghast at “the most pronounced downturn in Germany’s postwar history.” The report surveys auto, chemical and engineering sectors crucial to the German economy and cites “high energy costs” as the detrimental factor.
However, the Western media, even in supposed “in-depth reports” like the Financial Times, are careful not to spell out the obvious cause of Europe’s economic collapse: the U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine and the consequent damage in Europe’s relations with Russia.
Media reports deplore a “jobs massacre” in Germany’s industrial giants like Volkswagen and Thyssenkrupp without explaining the cause as if the calamity is somehow random misfortune.
As if that is not bad enough, the incoming Trump administration is lining up heavy tariffs on exports from Europe as well as China, Canada, and Mexico. That will be a coup de grâce for the European economies delivered by its American ally.
Europe is in this appalling predicament – facing economic ruin amid a potential military conflagration – all because it has been misled by people like Ursula von der Leyen, Josep Borrell, France’s Macron, Germany’s Scholz (and Angela Merkel before him), and Netherlands former premier Mark Rutte, who is now the gung-ho head of NATO calling for more European weapons to Ukraine. Many others can be named from the Nordic countries, Poland, and the Baltic states. Rather fittingly, the European elitist political class has a long and vile history of Russophobia, going back to collaboration with Nazi Germany in its genocidal aggression against the Soviet Union.
The tragedy of Europe is not something mysterious or ill-fated. It is the direct result of elitist rulers who have assiduously conducted policies that harm European citizens. These charlatan leaders are shameless in their Russophobia and surrogacy for U.S.-led Western imperialism – even to the point of killing their own people through economic devastation or worse – world war.
The conflict in Ukraine is solvable through negotiations and dialogue that acknowledges the historical causes. From Russia’s point of view that pertains to NATO’s treacherous expansionism since the end of the Cold War.
But this is the deep dilemma facing Europe. Not one of the politicians (apart from a few honorable exceptions) is capable of thinking or acting independently because they are ideological slaves.
Rational diplomacy and respect for democracy and peace are beyond these political degenerates. Their complicity in a bankrupt system of Western imperialism makes them incapable of doing the right thing for humanity. That’s why the vile history of wars keeps repeating. They and their corrupt, warmongering system must be swept aside.
Deception, manipulation, sabotage: What the UK does to keep the Ukraine war going
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | November 30, 2024
Unless you want to be blind, it is obvious that Ukraine under the Zelensky regime is not remotely a free country. In politics, after massive repression, there are only remnants of an opposition, which face continuing oppression and harassment by the government, as even the French newspaper Le Monde, generally naïve about the Zelensky regime, has reported.
Ukraine’s public sphere is stifled by nationalist propaganda, pressure, and demonstrative, intimidating terror. Before the escalation of 2022, even a robustly propagandistic tool of Western information warfare such as Freedom House could still acknowledge that much: its 2018 report, authored by Ukrainian researcher Vyacheslav Likhachev, identified Ukraine’s Far Right organizations as “a threat to democracy” and “aggressively trying to impose their agenda on Ukrainian society, including by using force against those with opposite political and cultural views.”
Regarding Ukraine’s media, expect not much resistance from there. They are tightly controlled and, often, pro-actively obedient, whether out of misguided conviction, fear, or careerism. Even Ukraine’s Western supporters, as well as some courageous critics in Ukraine, have voiced criticism of the crude propaganda habits of the Zelensky regime.
Make no mistake: The authoritarian features of the rule of Vladimir Zelensky – formerly the object of a veritable Western personality cult that, by now, at least some devotees must feel embarrassed about – are not the result of the large-scale war. The politics of Zelenskyism, to coin an ugly but handy term, were always unusually deceitful and manipulative and, by 2021 at the latest, openly bending toward authoritarianism, as many Ukrainian critics pointed out at the time.
And yet: Imagine a future trial, maybe to be held in Ukraine, of Zelensky and his team. The defense would not be able to do much about their record of corruption, but it would certainly at least try to blame some of the former leader’s underhanded and tyrannical tendencies on the war. It would be a stretch, but lawyers have to do their best, even for the worst of clients.
In the case of the Western users of the Zelensky regime, though, such a defense would not be merely far-fetched but completely absurd. Yet a defense some of them at least might come to need. Take for instance the case of Britain’s Lieutenant General Charlie Stickland and his shadowy but numerous associates.
The unfortunately important general – boasting of his pirate ancestors and in charge of “UK-led joint and multinational overseas military operations” – and his motley crew have just been the object of an investigative exposé by Grayzone reporter Kit Klarenberg. In, for now, two articles, the Grayzone has detailed how, in 2022, Stickland set up a below-the-radar network of “an assortment of leading academics, authors, strategists, planners, pollsters, comms, data scientists and tech.” Under the name Project Alchemy and overlapping and liaising with another group of wannabe keyboard Ninjas calling themselves – I kid you not – “the Elders,” this conspiratorial group has worked on, in essence, keeping the Ukraine war going at any price and by means foul and fouler.
Based on leaked documents, the Grayzone’s reporting is revealing in more ways than can be discussed here. Yet, as we are dealing with prose authored by militant bureaucrats and self-weaponizing intellectuals in the land of George Orwell, that old stickler for the English language, we would be remiss not to appreciate their bizarre lingo. It brings together a certain jejune rugby field boyishness – “mischief” is proudly being made – with a militarized sociolect of corporatese: “fusion players” and “sideways thinkers” get “badged” and “meshed in” to “move at pace,” and – greatest pride of the eminent executive – stand ready to work over the weekend!
Doing what exactly? All kinds of things, really, and all based on one stupid yet once immensely popular assumption: that the proxy war in Ukraine could be leveraged to defeat Russia, reduce it to geopolitical insignificance, impose regime change on it, and even break it up. Some, including the new de facto foreign minister of the EU, Estonia’s Kaja Kallas – imagine Annalena Baerbock, but without the brilliant intellect – still seem to be on that political equivalent of an LSD trip gone terribly wrong. What a hangover it will be one day, probably soon.
In Britain, highlights of Project Alchemy groupthink included hatching plans for stay-behind sabotage networks and recommending the example of the underground “Gladio” operations that NATO ran in Western – not, please note, Eastern – Europe during the Cold War. Strictly speaking, Gladio was an Italian label, while the same bad idea had different names in other countries. By now, though, Gladio stands for a whole plethora of clandestine organizations set up, ostentatiously, to engage in partisan resistance in case of a Soviet attack and occupation.
You may feel that, in principle at least, for generals, preparing for the possibility of future partisan warfare is not an objectionable activity. Yet the issue is that, in reality, the Gladio operations were not only extremely dubious in constitutional and legal terms, as being entirely beyond democratic control and oversight, as well as tied to foreign intelligence services. In addition, these networks served to fight a dirty war against the domestic left, including by terrorism, false-flag attacks, the systematic use of far-right conspirators and terrorists, and support for military coups.
An influential, black-ops-connected British general and his chums wanting to learn lessons from Gladio for underground networks in Ukraine? The country with the best-armed (compliments of the West), most whitewashed and naively underestimated (compliments of the Western media and self-weaponizing intellectuals of the Anne Applebaum/Tim Snyder variety), most aggressive, and most militarized far right in the world? Swimming in arms right next to an EU-NATO Europe they will soon feel bitterly disappointed by? What could possibly go wrong? But maybe Charlie ‘Pirate’ Stickland is “fusion”-”thinking” “sideways” in Churchillian terms: “Set Europe Ablaze!” Yet Stickland seems to have overlooked that Churchill wanted to set it ablaze against the Nazis, not with them.
All of this is, in and of itself, very bad, if unsurprising, news. But Project Alchemy has been prolific, producing lousy ideas the way Russian industry is churning out artillery shells and missiles. There also were: a frank emphasis on “creatively using” – let’s be honest: breaking – the law so as to get silly violent things done, including “deniable ops”; a daft idea to attack the Kerch Bridge, as if Russia would not strike back (both have by now happened, the militarily useless attack and the painful payback); an anticipatory strategy of how to manipulate the British public in case it should get tired of pumping money into the proxy war; attempts to undermine BRICS-plus (thinking big and bigger); plans to shut down Russian media in the West, obviously; and, last but not least, an aggressive strategy to use covert lawfare and deliberate financial pressure to bring down Western critical media as well, including, as it happens, the Grayzone. Say what you will, but Stickland and company seem to have had a foreboding from where exactly they would get their richly deserved come-uppance.
It would be tempting to think of this wave of disinformation and manipulation in the West as a kind of “Ukrainization.” As if the West had caught the contagion of the Zelensky regime’s very bad habits. But to be fair, the West has its own, well-established tradition of waging war by massive lying on the home front. In 2019, it was the Washington Post, usually hewing close to the American government line, that ran a series of in-depth stories detailing how, during the West’s long war in Afghanistan, started almost two decades before, the US had been “at war with the truth.” Suddenly, clearly in preparation of the impending Western retreat, readers were allowed to learn that while “officials constantly said they were making progress,” they “were not, and they knew it.”
And the name of that Washington Post series? The Afghanistan Papers. That, of course, was a reference to the famous Pentagon Papers, an internal and classified Defense Department review of US policy and warfare in Vietnam that was leaked to the New York Times by the historic whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who suffered severe, criminal attempts to silence, and in effect, destroy him. The long American intervention, begun indirectly in the 1940s and escalating into one of the most brutal US campaigns of the twentieth century in the 1960s, only ended with the total defeat of both Washington and its South Vietnamese proxy in 1975.
The New York Times began to publish the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Once again, as with the later bloody Western fiasco in Afghanistan, the moment of truth – some truth – came late, only toward the end of a policy catastrophe that had long been supported by compliant mainstream media. The Grayzone is considered alternative media, and its reporters are doing a much better job at real journalism than their competition in the mainstream version. As to the mainstream media, they clearly have not yet reached the stage of always-too-late revelation that, during the proxy wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, was marked by 1971 and 2019, respectively.
How do we know? They are ignoring the Grayzone’s sensational revelations about a military-think-tank-industry conspiracy to undermine the law, deliberately manipulate the public, and wage proxy war in a way that is both dirty and bound to backfire very badly on the West itself. One more sign that all too many in the West are not yet ready to face reality, even while the Ukrainians they claim to help but only use keep dying.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
Ugly Truth of Ukraine’s Criminal Use of Chemical Weapons
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 30.11.2024
Politicization of the work of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) by the US and its allies is illustrated by the situation around the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine, Vladimir Tarabrin, Russian Permanent Representative to the OPCW underscored at the 107th session of the organization’s Executive Council in October.
November 30 marks the Day of Remembrance for All Victims of Chemical Warfare, which is observed annually by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
This commemoration throws into focus how warnings about Ukraine’s use of toxic chemicals against Russia’s Armed Forces are being ignored by the West. Instead, fabricated allegations are being peddled against Moscow, noted Vladimir Tarabrin, Russia’s permanent representative to the OPCW.
Russia has sufficient expertise to identify facts of chemical weapons use in the zone of its special military operation in Ukraine. It is conducting investigations as required by OPCW provisions.
Unlike the unfounded accusations concocted by Ukraine and its Western patrons, Russia operates “exclusively with verified facts.”
Ukraine covertly used DM-105 chemical munitions under the guise of smoke shells in the city of Sudzha in Russia’s Kursk region in August, revealed Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov, head of Russia’s Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense Troops.
More than 400 cases of the use of chemicals such as BZ, prussic acid, chlorine cyanide, and riot-control chemical agents have been recorded in Ukraine since 2022.
Tests of wipe-samples from chemical equipment found in a lab near Avdeyevka in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) revealed it had been producing 3 kg of toxic substances per day.
Ready-to-use agents containing a toxic mixture based on thallium nitrate were found in a cache seized from Ukrainian troops in August 2024.
Washington boosted efforts to develop bioagents capable of selectively targeting specific ethnic groups, the Russian Defense Ministry said in August.
Ukraine procured hundreds of tons of toxic chemical precursors scheduled by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), according to the ministry.
Ukrainian forces are being trained to use chemical ammunition with Western artillery systems, captured documents and manuals show.
The US Pentagon, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and American biotech firms have been funding potentially illegal biological research in Ukraine in violation of international treaties.
A ‘position of strength’ for the West and Ukraine doesn’t exist anymore
As long as Kiev’s backers keep deluding themselves that Russia can be defeated or forced to accept unfavorable terms, the war will not end
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | November 28, 2024
“To negotiate from a position of strength” is a favorite cliché of the West. And understandably so, as that short phrase is quite handy: It serves to cover up the opposite of a genuine negotiation, namely vulgar blackmail and crude imposition of fait-accompli terms, backed up by force and threats of force.
The expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War, for instance, was handled in that manner: “Oh, but we are willing to talk,” the West kept saying to Russia, “and, meanwhile, we will do exactly as we please, and your objections, interests, and security be damned.”
This approach seemed to “work” – very much for want of a better term – as long as Russia was weakened by the unusually deep political, economic, social, military, and, indeed, spiritual crisis that accompanied the end of the Soviet Union and outlasted it for roughly a decade.
When, finally, Moscow tried to put the West on notice that Russia had recovered sufficiently to demand a healthier style of interaction, Western media informed their publics only in a biased and superficial manner. And Western elites reacted with irritation, while also failing to at least take seriously what irritated them. That is what happened, for instance, after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s now famous speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Yes, that long ago already.
In other words, Western elites obstinately kept insisting on believing in their own rhetoric, even while it was quickly losing whatever tenuous link to reality it had, for a short moment that was historically anomalous. While Russia’s (and not only Russia’s) “strength” was clearly increasing and that of the West decreasing, non-”negotiating” by force and fait accompli remained a Western addiction. That, obviously, is a large part of the very sad story of how Ukraine was turned into rubble.
Which brings us to the present. At this point, it takes clinical-grade delusion not to notice that “strength” is on Moscow’s side in the war in and over Ukraine. Russian troops are “advancing at the fastest rate” since early 2022, the gung-ho, pro-NATO British Telegraph admits. Ukraine’s forces remain over-aged, over-matched, over-burdened, and stretched thin. Units designed to hold a 5-kilometer line are frequently assigned to 10 or 15 kilometers. Russia has clear, even crushing superiority in artillery and sheer manpower as well: ordinary soldiers, NCOs, and officers – all are scarce on the Ukrainian side. Ukraine’s predictably wasteful August incursion into the Kursk Region of Russia, meanwhile, faces an intense Russian counterattack that, as the Wall Street Journal admits coyly, “appears to be working.” Russia’s pressure in an air war waged with various missiles and drones is relentless.
Unsurprisingly, the mood of Ukraine’s population is reflecting these difficulties. The Economist – only slightly more refined than the Telegraph in its stoutly Russophobic bellicosity – reports Gallup polls showing that a majority of Ukrainians want negotiations to end the war. Within a year, their share has risen from 27% to 52%, while those claiming that they would prefer to go on to the bitter end (misnaming that option as “victory” ) has declined from 63% to 38%. If those false “friends of Ukraine,” who apparently believe friendship consists in burning up your buddies in a proxy war, were serious about their once so fashionable rhetoric about Ukrainians’ “agency,” they would now be helping the Ukrainians to make peace by concessions.
All the more as Ukrainian pollsters confirm the Gallup data, according to Ukrainian semi-dissident news site Strana.ua. They found that almost two thirds of Ukrainians (64%) are ready for “freezing” the war along the current front lines, that is by giving up on all territories under de facto Russian control. Well over half (56%) think that “victory” should not be defined as retaking all territories within Ukraine’s 1991 borders. Meaning they, too, explicitly disagree with the long-held, if now perhaps quietly eroding, official position of the Zelensky regime and are prepared to concede territory for peace. And while reading such poll figures, always keep in mind that Ukraine is now a de facto authoritarian, media-streamlined, and oppressive country where voicing doubt takes special courage – or despair.
And then, there is Trump. Despite his campaign promises to rapidly shut down the proxy war, it remains impossible to predict what exactly president-elect Donald Trump will do once he is inaugurated in January. It would be imprudent to simply assume that he will force the Zelensky regime into a peace Moscow can agree to. Trump has chosen retired General Keith Kellogg as his special envoy for Ukraine. Kellogg, at this stage, represents the ambiguity of the Trumpist approach: He is the co-author of a think-tank paper published before the elections under the title “America First, Russia, & Ukraine.” While its policy proposals provide more reasons to worry for Kiev than Moscow, the paper also displays unrealistic assumptions, such as that Russia can still be coerced by threats of further escalation or will settle for a mere postponing – instead of complete elimination – of Ukraine’s NATO perspective.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, for one, has just articulated a certain skepticism, declaring that a settlement is still far off, in essence, because the West is not yet ready to face reality. This, again, is all the more likely as Moscow insists not only on territorial changes but also real neutrality for Ukraine, taking NATO membership – whether official or by stealth – off the table forever.
And yet, there can be no doubt that from Kiev’s perspective, Trump and at least part of his team look and very well could be dangerous. Not, really, for Ukraine and ordinary Ukrainians, who need this initially avoidable war to end, but for the Zelensky regime and the often corrupt, war-profiteering elites tied to it. In addition, reports are emerging that Trump’s team is also considering opening direct contact with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un. That as well could be a sign that Trump’s inauguration may really be followed by a political turn against continuing the proxy war, insofar as claims that North Korean combat troops have entered the war on Russia’s side have served to justify the Western escalation of helping Ukraine fire Western missiles into Russia.
In short, the West and Ukraine’s Zelensky regime are on the back foot, militarily, geopolitically, and in terms of popular support inside Ukraine as well. And what is their reaction? This is where there’s another perverse twist as only Western elites can come up with: With its proxy war project of using Ukraine to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia in tatters, instead of signaling a willingness to change course, the West – whether sincerely or as a bluff – is outdoing itself in militant rhetoric and some serious escalatory action, too.
In Washington, the outgoing Biden administration’s decision not simply to permit but to assist in the launching of Western missiles into Russia is only the tip of the iceberg. Crushingly defeated in the elections and clearly without a real mandate, the Democrats are doing everything they can to heap up more combustible material between the West and Russia: Moscow is facing yet more sanctions affecting its banking and energy sector, the delivery of US land mines to Ukraine, and Washington’s official lifting of restrictions on US mercenaries getting active in Ukraine (not that that makes much of a real-life difference; they are, of course, already there). US secretary of state Antony Blinken has been explicit that the aim is to release a maximum amount of aid before Trump comes into office with the intention – unrealistic yet destructive – of making Ukraine fit to fight next year.
In Europe, the UK has already rapidly followed the US lead – as is its wont – and also helped Ukraine fire missiles into Russia. With France, things seem a little murkier in that regard, but that may only be due to Paris preferring to do things a little more quietly. In any case, London and Paris have come together, if in a haphazard way, in once again publicly toying with the harebrained notion of bringing Western ground forces – including officially, not black-ops/mercenary style as of now – into the war. The ideas reported are vague and contradictory, it is true: the spectrum of potential deployment seems to reach from sending NATO-Europeans – for instance, French, British, or Polish troops – to die on the frontlines in a direct clash with a battle-hardened, well-equipped, and highly motivated Russian army to much more modest schemes, involving stationing them in what will be left of Ukraine after the fighting ends.
It is also unclear whether the reports of such plans – if that is the word – first surfacing in the French newspaper Le Monde are to be taken seriously at all. We may be looking at another hapless attempt to produce “strategic ambiguity,” i.e. to try to impress Moscow with things Moscow knows the West cannot really do. If so, the West can’t even keep up a poker face: British Foreign Secretary David Lammy has already come out to reassure the British public that his country will not send ground troops. Even tiny Estonia felt a need to chime in: Its defense minister Hanno Pevkur has publicly argued against sending ground troops, too. Instead, he suggested, the West should ramp up its financial and military-industrial support for Ukraine.
And that, it seems, may be where things are really going. Or, at least, where the West’s most stubborn bellicists want to take them. In the case of the UK and France as well, not all discussions have focused on troops. Instead, the military enterprises DCI (in France) and Babcock (in Britain) are a key part of the debates. In addition, there are, of course, ongoing training efforts. The UK has by now pre-processed over 40,000 Ukrainian troops for the proxy war meat grinder. France is setting up a whole brigade.
It is a wide-open question if European NATO members, economically squeezed and soon to be at least semi-abandoned by the US, will be able to afford such a strategy. Most likely, not. And yet, what matters for now are elite illusions that it could. Trying alone will be extremely destructive, for the people of Europe as well as of Ukraine.
If I were Ukrainian, I would look at all of this with dread, because if that is the NATO-European approach to keeping the war going – boosting equipment and training – then it, of course, means that even more Ukrainians will have to be mobilized and sacrificed. Indeed, the Biden desperados have just put fresh pressure on Kiev to lower the conscription age to 18 and sacrifice even more Ukrainians in a lost war. Their prospects are grim, and by now, they are openly told so, by no one less than Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief. Speaking to Ukrainian troops training in Britain, Valery Zaluzhny has just stressed that dying is their most likely fate. The West and its Ukrainian servants have reached the “Banzai!” charge stage of the war. But then, Zaluzhny also believes that World War Three has already started. So, nothing to lose, it seems.
Yet here is the final irony of this bleak picture: In the US, Joe Biden is the lamest of ducks, discredited in every way conceivable, including his de facto participation in Israel’s Gaza genocide. Emmanuel Macron in France must be the least popular president since the Fifth Republic started in the late 1950s, kept in office by constitutional mis-design and manipulation; Britain’s Keir Starmer has alienated his people to such an extent that an unprecedented de facto plebiscite is on its way to get rid of him. It won’t be able to actually push him out, but it certainly signals the depth of the public’s contempt. And Valery Zaluzhny, from Ukraine, but currently a misfit of an ambassador in London? He may actually have quite a future in Ukrainian politics, which is precisely why he was exiled to Britain. But for now, he, too, is a marginalized, sometimes slightly comical figure.
Acting “from a position of strength”? It is striking: Not only is the West in general no longer in that position. The most belligerent figures in the West now often are the ones with the weakest popular mandates at home. Compensatory behavior? A desperate attempt to distract from or to overcome that weakness? Sheer arrogance reaching delusional loss-of-reality level? Who knows? What is certain is that as long as the West is under this kind of management, Lavrov will be right and peace will remain remote.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
Atlanticists mobilise to salvage NATO as Russia toughens its stance
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | November 28, 2024
The American film maker and philanthropist who created the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises, George Lucas, once said, “Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.” Within a week of Russia “testing” the Oreshnik hypersonic missile in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, against which the NATO has no defence, the Western alliance is already transiting through the Dark Side from fear to hatred and hurtling toward unspeakable suffering.
The Russian Defence Ministry has disclosed that since the Oreshnik’s appearance in the war zone, Ukraine carried out two more attacks on Russian territory with ATACMS missiles. In the first attack on November 23, five ATACMS missiles were fired at an S-400 anti-aircraft missile division near the village of Lotarevka in Kursk Region. The Pantsir missile defense system, which provided cover for this division, destroyed three of them while two missiles reached the target damaging the radar. There are casualties among the personnel.
In the second attack by 8 ATACMS missiles at the Kursk-Vostochny airfield on Monday, seven were shot down while one missile reached the target. The falling debris slightly damaged the infrastructure facilities and two servicemen suffered minor injuries. The Russian MOD stated that “retaliatory actions are being prepared.”
The Russian military experts estimate that the attacks were planned for some time and the Americans handled the targeting. On November 25, the White House acknowledged for the first time the shift in policy allowing the use of ATACMS to attack Russian territory. Admiral John Kirby, coordinator for strategic communications at the White House National Security Council, revealed during a press gaggle on Monday, inter alia, saying that “well, obviously we did change the guidance and gave them [Kiev] guidance that they could use them, you know, to strike these particular types of targets.”
Following the attack on Monday, Ukraine sought an emergency meeting of the NATO–Ukraine Council in Brussels at the level of permanent representatives. Oreshnik was the main topic, and the need to strengthen the air defence system. The NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said later, “Our support for Ukraine helps it fight, but we need to go further to change the trajectory of this conflict.”
No doubt, NATO is very concerned about the emergent situation but still won’t accept a Russian victory. Hotheads in the West are once again talking about the deployment of troops by NATO countries to Ukraine for combat operations, which was originally mooted by French President Emmanuel Macron in February.
But plainly put, unless the US is willing to put boots on the ground, the rest of NATO will simply run around like a headless chicken. The UK with an 80,000-strong army has very few combat units; the 175,000-strong German army has forgotten how to fight; and France is in deep political and economic crisis. As for the US, public opinion opposes wars and president-elect Donald Trump cannot ignore it.
However, petrified that Trump may turn his back on the war, there is a school of thought in Europe that they could offer something interesting to incentivise him other than the carrot of Ukraine’s vast stores of critical minerals that Americans lack — eg., more trading incentives for America; greater spending on NATO; more pressure on Iran; “peacekeeping boots on the ground” inside Ukraine; help in Trump’s upcoming economic skirmishes with China and so on. Meanwhile, much brainstorming is going on in the US too as to how to save NATO from Trump’s scalpel.
A Guardian columnist wrote, “If the EU and UK seize the $300bn of Russian state assets sitting in Euroclear, money Putin has long written off, we can bring serious funding to the table. Trump does not need to spend any more money on Ukraine – we can buy the weapons. America can even make a profit while securing peace in Europe. Trump would be able to show how he got those parasitic Europeans to cough up, prove his detractors wrong by rebooting America’s most traditional alliances – all while putting “America first”.”
All this testifies to the angst in the European mind that Oreshnik has forced a paradigm shift in the Ukraine war. The triumphalist betting that Russia would be bluffing on nuclear deterrence has given way to fear, since Russia now may not need nuclear weapons to retaliate against attacks on its territory. Oreshnik is a non-nuclear weapon, it is by no means a weapon of mass destruction but is a high-precision weapon of immense destructive power that annihilates its targets — and Europeans have no means to defend against it.
Succinctly put, if Biden’s plan to “Trump-proof” the Ukraine war has put Europe and Ukraine in a royal fix making them a punch bag for Russia. Make no mistake, Oreshnik will soon make sure that there won’t even be a proxy regime in Ukraine for the West to “support”. It is humiliating to watch the proxy’s nose being rubbed in the dust.
A punishing Russian retaliation is imminent for the two latest ATACMS attacks. The sharp deterioration in Russia’s ties with the UK suggests a high probability that Britain could be in Moscow’s crosshairs. The station chief of the British intelligence in the embassy in Moscow has been expelled; western reports cite significant supplies of Storm Shadow missiles (numbering 150) to Ukraine lately after the election of Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
The top Russian military expert Alexei Leonkov told Izvestia newspaper, “Here is the fact of the US targeting, here are the fragments of the ATACMS missile, by which it can be clearly identified. We have the right to strike back. Where and how will be decided by the Ministry of Defence and the Supreme Commander—in-Chief. He [Putin] said that they would be warned about the impact. Our enemies must prepare for an answer.
The big question is at what point Russia may strike the NATO military hubs in Romania and Poland. The former Russian President and Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev said yesterday that all bets are off. “If the conflict develops by the escalation scenario, it is impossible to rule out anything, because the NATO member states have effectively got fully involved in this conflict,” he said in an interview with Al Arabiya.
Medvedev added in chilling words, “The Western states must realise that they fight on Ukraine’s side… Meanwhile, they fight not only by shipping weapons and providing money. They fight directly, because they provide targets on Russian territory and control American and European missiles. They fight with the Russian Federation. And if this is the case, nothing could be ruled out… even the most difficult and sad scenario is possible.
“We would not want such scenario, we have all said that repeatedly. We want peace, but this peace must take Russia’s interest into consideration in full.”
Indeed, the only logical explanation for Biden’s brinkmanship in collusion with the Atlanticists in Europe in the lame duck phase of his presidency is that Oreshnik has upstaged his best-laid plans. Saner voices in Europe are speaking up. In a hugely symbolic act of defiance, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico disclosed on Wednesday that he has accepted an official invitation from Putin to the events in Moscow in May commemorating the 80th anniversary of Victory in World War II. Slovakia is a member country of both EU and NATO.
Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer in a telephone conversation with Trump, reaffirmed Austria’s readiness to serve as a platform for international peace talks on Ukraine. During the conversation, Trump reportedly evinced interest in Nehammer’s previous exchanges with Putin on Ukraine.
Trump Picks Russia Hawk as Envoy to Ukraine Conflict
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | November 27, 2024
On Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump tapped retired General Keith Kellogg as his envoy to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Kellogg advocated for the Joe Biden administration strategy in Ukraine and even called for implementing a no-fly zone over the war-torn country.
“I am very pleased to nominate General Keith Kellogg to serve as Assistant to the President and Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia. Keith has led a distinguished Military and Business career, including serving in highly sensitive National Security roles in my first Administration,” Trump posted on TruthSocial, adding, “Together, we will secure PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, and Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN!”
While Kellogg served in the first Trump administration, his views on Ukraine are starkly different from what Trump said on the campaign trail. As a candidate, Trump promised, on day one, to end the Ukraine war. Though, he never explained how he would accomplish that ambitious goal.
In March of 2022, in an interview on Fox News, Kellogg suggested that Biden and NATO leadership were wrong to dismiss the idea of a no-fly zone over Ukraine. If implemented, that policy would have required the US to shoot down Russian planes over Ukraine, a major escalation that would have meant direct war with Russia.
A year later, in March of 2023, Kellogg endorsed Biden’s Ukraine policy to Congress. “I believe that if you can defeat a strategic adversary without using any US troops, you are at the acme of professionalism.” He continued, “Because letting Ukraine defeat [Russia] it takes a strategic adversary off the table. And we can focus where we should be focusing against, our primary adversary, which is China.”
In a paper published by the America First Policy Institute in April, Kellogg and coauthor Fred Flietz argue that Putin invaded Ukraine because Biden was not aggressive enough in his approach towards Moscow. Kellogg highlighted Trump’s willingness to kill Russian mercenary troops in Syria in 2018, that he “revitalized the NATO alliance,” and sanctioned the Nord Stream 2 Pipelines as examples of his aggressive policies.
“Trump also had a Russia policy that demonstrated American strength. For example, in 2018, after the Russian mercenary Wagner Group advanced on U.S. bases in Syria, they were met with immediate and decisive action when President Trump authorized punitive airstrikes against them,” they wrote. “Russia never retaliated against the United States over that attack—which reportedly killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries—likely because Putin did not know how Trump would respond.”
Kellogg and Fleitz go on to explain that Biden’s crucial failure in the war was not giving enough support to Kiev at the start of the conflict. “Nevertheless, Ukraine’s counteroffensive against Russia ran out of steam by the fall of 2022 because the United States and its allies failed to provide the country with the weapons it needed to continue the fight to reclaim its territory.” They add, “Biden failed to recognize until it was too late, however, that it was in America’s interests and the interests of global security for the United States to do everything possible short of direct US military involvement to help Ukraine.”
The authors propose no workable plan to end the war as they are only willing to offer the Kremlin a postponement regarding Kiev’s prospective NATO membership. Putin was opposed to Washington’s plans seeking Ukraine’s NATO membership when they were announced in 2008, and it is unlikely that taking the issue off the table for a few decades will appease the Kremlin.
