Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ukraine’s Bill Outlawing Canonical Orthodox Church Fits West’s Globalist Agenda – Psyop Veteran

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 21.08.2024

The Verkhovna Rada parliament of Ukraine has adopted in the final reading a bill that allows the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) to be banned in the country.

The Kiev regime’s newly-adopted bill banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) conforms with the “globalist agenda” pursued by the West, ex-US Army psychological warfare officer Scott Bennett told Sputnik.

“The globalist EU, American agenda has always been to establish an atheistic government in Ukraine, and this is one of their strategies for doing so,” he emphasized.

This strategy involves outlawing religious institutions to prevent individuals from engaging in religious worship and specifically targeting churches, according to the former analyst from the State Department’s counterterrorism division.

“The Ukrainian leadership is using the tactic of a political witch-hunt and attempting to brand religious orthodoxy as somehow a Russian intelligence secret military operation,” he added.

On August 20, the Verkhovna Rada approved the final reading of a bill that bans the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) nationwide. The bill garnered 265 votes in favor, surpassing the 226 votes needed for passage. The law is scheduled to take effect in 30 days.

After such a “devastatingly stupid” move to reject its Orthodox Christian heritage, there is a great probability that Ukraine will “descend into complete moral disintegration, madness and immorality,” according to the psyop veteran. The only way for the country to avoid such a disastrous scenario would be to “build a political-social-military momentum to push out of Ukraine this NATO-led… impregnation of religious death into the society,” he maintained.

The law’s passage confirms the “absolute corruption of the Ukrainian parliament,” he said, recalling that Volodymyr Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May and so he can no longer ratify acts of parliament.

In closing, Ukraine adopting a bill outlawing the Ukrainian orthodox church opens the door for Russia to be the religious salvation-defender… and redefine Russia as country that is rising up to preserve the Ukrainian peoples right to worship God in the orthodox religious manner they have been practicing for hundreds of years,” Scott Bennet concluded.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

EU state calls for probe into Orthodox churches

RT | August 21, 2024

Czech intelligence services must investigate the country’s Orthodox churches for signs of Russian influence, the head of the EU state’s Senate Security Committee, Pavel Fischer, has reportedly demanded.

The politician claimed the republic’s current legislation does not allow the state to respond to security threats caused by abuse of churches, implying that institutions such as the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in the Czech Republic and the Czech Orthodox Church could be influenced by Moscow to act against the interests of the republic. He insisted that new laws are required to provide authorities with the necessary powers.

“Freedom of religion and association must not be abused for illegitimate influence by a hostile foreign state,” Fischer was quoted as saying by the Ceske Noviny news outlet.

He also called on the Ministry of Culture to review whether the two churches are operating in accordance with the law and the conditions of their registration, arguing that their operations should be shut down if they are found to be in violation.

As noted by Ceske Noviny, the ministry had already conducted a review of the churches after the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 and found no grounds to withdraw their registration.

Nevertheless, Fischer has insisted that the Czech branch of the ROC has direct ties with the Russian government. He also suggested that the Czech Orthodox Church, despite being independent, has come under growing influence of figures supposedly connected to the Russian security services since 2014.

The politician has also called on the Czech Interior Ministry to ensure that the police are focused on uncovering and investigating possible criminal activity by members of the two churches.

Ukrainian MPs passed a law on Tuesday that outright bans the operation of the ROC and all affiliated religious institutions in the country. It also provides grounds for the closure of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), the largest Orthodox church in the country, unless it proves that it has cut ties with Moscow.

The UOC, which had already declared full autonomy from the Moscow Patriarchate in 2022, now has nine months to comply with the new legislation.

Russia has condemned the new Ukrainian law, describing it as a “powerful blow against the whole of Orthodoxy.”

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Kursk: Fighting Russia to the Last Ukrainian

Kursk: Fighting Russia to the Last Ukrainian

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – 21.08.2024 

In the lead up to the Ukrainian military’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, even Western headlines were dominated by reports of Ukraine’s gradual demise. Ukraine is admittedly suffering arms and ammunition shortages, as well as facing an unsolvable manpower crisis. Russia has been destroying Ukrainian military power faster than Ukraine and its Western sponsors can reconstitute it.

Western headlines have also been admitting the scale on which Russia is expanding its own military power as its Special Military Operation (SMO) continues into its third year.

While the launch of Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk has diverted attention away from Ukraine’s collapsing fighting capacity, the incursion itself has not only failed to address the factors leading to this collapse, it is already accelerating it.

Politico in an August 15, 2024 article titled, “As Kyiv makes gains in Kursk, Russia strikes back in Donetsk,” cites the spokesman of Ukraine’s 110th Mechanized Brigade who would admit, “since Ukraine launched the Kursk offensive I would say things have become worse in our part of the front. We have been getting even less ammo than before, and the Russians are pushing.”

The same article would also cite “Deep State,” a mapping project Politico claims is “close” to Ukraine Ministry of Defense, claiming, “over the past 24 hours, Russia occupied the villages of Zhelanne and Orlivka and made advances in New York, Krasnohorivka, Mykolaivka and Zhuravka in Donetsk.”

Thus, while Ukraine claims gains in Kursk, it comes at the expense of territory everywhere else along the line of contact.

Because of the nature of the fighting in Kursk where Ukrainian forces have come out from behind extensive defensive lines and are operating out in the open, they are suffering much greater losses than Ukrainian units being pushed back along the line of contact, according to even the Western media.

Superficial Success, Strategic Suicide  

Despite this reality, the Western media has invested heavily in depicting Ukraine’s Kursk incursion as a turning point in the fighting.

CNN in its August 15, 2024 article, “Russia appears to have diverted several thousand troops from occupied Ukraine to counter Kursk offensive, US officials say,” attempts at first glance to portray the Ukrainian operation as having successfully diverted Russian forces from the front lines.

Buried deeper in the article, however, CNN reveals that whatever troops Russia is moving are relatively insignificant compared to the number of Russian forces still fighting along the line of contact primarily in Kherson, Zaporozhye, the Donbass, and Kharkov.

In the short-term, experienced forces utilized as a mobile reserve are likely being moved to Kursk until Russian reserves within Russia itself can be sufficiently mobilized and moved to the area of fighting. The vast majority of Russia’s forces not only remain along the actual line of contact, they continue making progress at an accelerated rate.

The same CNN article would quote US officials, saying:

Some officials also raised concerns that Ukraine, which one western official said has sent some of its more experienced forces into Kursk, may have created weaknesses along its own frontlines that Russia may be able to exploit to gain more ground inside Ukraine.

“It’s impressive from a military point of view,” the official said of the Kursk operation. But Ukraine is “committing pretty experienced troops to this, and they can’t afford to lose those troops.”

“And having diverted them from the front line creates opportunities for Russia to seize advantage and break through,” this person added.

Buried under optimistic headlines across the Western media regarding this latest incursion is an ominous truth – that an operation aimed at humiliating Russia, boosting morale, and raising the political, territorial, and military costs for Russia, has only brought Ukraine deeper into its growing arms, ammunition, and manpower crisis.

Toward what end does an incursion accelerating the collapse of Ukraine’s fighting capacity serve?

Washington’s, Not Kiev’s Ends  

CNN would also attempt to convince readers that the Kursk incursion took the US itself entirely by surprise. This is untrue.

The United States, following its political capture of Ukraine in 2014, admittedly took over Ukraine’s intelligence networks. These are the same networks that would have been required to organize this most recent incursion.

A New York Times article, “The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin,” not only admits to the CIA’s role in training, shaping, and directing Ukrainian intelligence operations, but also admits to a network of CIA bases along the Ukrainian-Russian border and the fact that the CIA stood up covert military units specifically for crossing over into Russian territory and conducting operations there.

The CIA and other US military and intelligence agencies have been involved in Ukrainian military operations leading up to and all throughout the duration of Russia’s SMO.  The Washington Post admits that the US worked with Ukraine to “build a campaign plan” ahead of the failed 2023 Ukrainian offensive.

It is inconceivable Ukraine moved multiple brigades of manpower and equipment, including US-European trained soldiers and Western military equipment to Sumy where the Kursk incursion was launched without Washington’s involvement, let alone without Washington’s knowledge.

Why then did the US organize such an incursion, one admittedly overstretching Ukrainian forces already crumbling under the growing weight of Russian military power? Why, amid Russia’s strategy of attrition, have US planners decided to launch an incursion that will accelerate the loss of Ukrainian manpower, arms, and ammunition it does not have to spare?

In a much wider geopolitical context – Washington’s geopolitical context – the incursion helps raise the cost of victory for Russia in Ukraine as the US seeks to place pressure on and overextend Russia elsewhere within and along its borders.

Years before the SMO even began, as far back as at least 2019, US policymakers openly sought to draw Russia into a costly conflict in Ukraine, just one among many other proposals meant to overextend Russia.

The RAND Corporation in its 2019 paper “Extending Russia” would explain the benefits of “providing lethal aid to Ukraine,” stating:

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

Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk has – at a minimum – raised the political cost of Russia’s ongoing SMO. This most recent incursion into Kursk almost certainly had hoped to reach the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, just 35 kilometers beyond the furthest extent the incursion has reached as of this writing. Had Ukrainian forces reached the power plant, the price would have been even higher.

In many ways, however, the Kursk incursion has created a much greater strategic dilemma for Ukraine than it has for Russia. While it has unfolded on the wrong side of the border, the outcome is the same as the Kharkov front Russia opened earlier this year.

Regarding the Kharkov front, the New York Times in its May 2024 article, “Facing Russian Advance, a Top Ukrainian General Paints a Bleak Picture,” would admit, “the Russian attacks in the northeast are intended to stretch Ukraine’s already thin reserves of soldiers and divert them from fighting elsewhere,” and that, “the Ukrainian army was trying to redirect troops from other front-line areas to shore up its defenses in the northeast, but that it had been difficult to find the personnel.” 

By committing thousands of Ukrainian troops and large amounts of Ukraine’s best military equipment to an incursion into Kursk, it is creating the same overextension of its own forces Russia had created in Kharkov last May, but with the added complication of needing to extend logistics and other means of supporting Ukrainian operations beyond Ukrainian territory itself.

The same RAND Corporation paper proposing to draw Russia into a costly conflict with Ukraine would also discuss the consequences this conflict would have for Ukraine itself, explaining:

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

The plan from the very beginning was to lure Russia into a costly conflict in the hopes of precipitating a Soviet-style collapse, but at the expense of Ukraine’s own survival. Thus, what we see unfolding in Ukraine today is simply the consequences predicted by the RAND Corporation in 2019.

Dangerous Escalation and the Long Game 

Perhaps most concerning of all is the looming prospect of the US intervening more directly, including in the form of a “buffer zone” similar to that created by the US and its Turkish allies in the east and north of Syria during Washington’s proxy war there.

For this intervention to succeed, Russia would have to be compelled to restrain itself from attacking Western forces arriving in Ukraine.

The possibility of this happening is difficult to predict.

On one hand, Russia has demonstrated immense patience amid other US proxy wars. Russian patience in Syria is finally paying off after almost a decade of enduring US provocations and the presence of US troops east of the Euphrates River. The US now finds itself isolated and vulnerable in Syria, its forces under regular attack there, and a disproportionate amount of US military hardware remains committed to both Syria and the surrounding region, limiting US combat power ahead of a potential conflict with Russia in Eastern Europe or China in the Asia-Pacific.

Moscow may determine that a Western intervention directly into Ukraine will, over time, collapse under its own weight in a similar manner. In the long term, the US is only going to grow weaker and more isolated as a result of its unsustainable, overreaching foreign policy. Initiating direct conflict with the US now, when it is inevitably going to be weaker later, would be permitting the US a potential and unnecessary advantage.

Instead, Russia and its allies may find an opportunity to exercise many of the means of escalation (short of direct conflict with the US itself) they have held in reserve throughout the duration of this conflict. This includes more open and direct military cooperation between Russia and China, including the arming of Russian forces with Chinese manufactured weapons and ammunition.

On the other hand, Russia may decide to restrain itself from attacking Western forces arriving in Ukraine’s westernmost regions, but continue military operations along the line of contact and obviously within Kursk itself to expel Ukrainian forces. The US would seek to test the limits of Russian resolve, seeking to constrain Russian operations as much as possible, just as the US did in Syria from 2015 onward.

Throughout this process, the potential for escalation and direct conflict between Russia and the US will grow.

Despite the continued collapse of Ukraine’s fighting capacity because Ukraine is ultimately a proxy of the United States, a difficult and dangerous transition period lies ahead dependent on the extent to which the US seeks to mitigate Ukraine’s subsequent political and territorial collapse.

Only time will tell whether the US cuts and runs as it did in Afghanistan, or doubles down as it did in Syria. It should be pointed out, however, that the US withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021 to redirect its resources ahead of Russia’s SMO in 2022. Were the US to cut Ukraine loose, it would only be because the US requires resources for a larger, more dangerous conflict elsewhere – namely in the Asia-Pacific region against China.

Either way, when Ukraine’s fighting capacity nears its end, it is likely only wider conflict awaits.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Britain’s Kursk Invasion Backfires?

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | August 21, 2024

British Challenger 2 tanks reached Ukraine with enormous fanfare, ahead of Kiev’s long-delayed, ultimately catastrophic 2023 “counteroffensive”. On top of encouraging other proxy war sponsors to provide Ukraine with armoured fighting vehicles, Western audiences were widely told the tank – hitherto marketed to international buyers as “indestructible” – made Kiev’s ultimate victory a fait accompli. As it was, Challenger 2 tanks deployed to Robotnye in September were almost instantly incinerated by Russian fire, then very quietly withdrawn from combat altogether.

Hence, many online commentators were surprised when footage of the Challenger 2 in action in Kursk began to circulate widely on August 13th. Furthermore, numerous mainstream outlets dramatically drew attention to the tank’s deployment. Several were explicitly briefed by British military sources that it marked the first time in history London’s tanks “have been used in combat on Russian territory.” Disquietingly, The Times now reveals this was a deliberate propaganda and lobbying strategy, spearheaded by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Prior to the Challenger 2’s presence in Kursk breaking, Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey had reportedly “been in talks about how far to go to confirm growing British involvement in the incursion towards Kursk.” Ultimately, they decided “to be more open about Britain’s role in a bid to persuade key allies to do more to help – and convince the public that Britain’s security and economic prosperity is affected by events on the fields of Ukraine.” A “senior Whitehall source” added:

“There won’t be shying away from the idea of British weapons being used in Russia as part of Ukraine’s defence. We don’t want any uncertainty or nervousness over Britain’s support at this critical moment and a half-hearted or uncertain response might have indicated that.”

In other words, London is taking the lead in marking itself out as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – will follow suit. What’s more The Times strongly hints that Kursk is to all intents and purposes a British invasion. The outlet records:

“Unseen by the world, British equipment, including drones, have played a central role in Ukraine’s new offensive and British personnel have been closely advising the Ukrainian military… on a scale matched by no other country.”

Britain’s grand plans don’t stop there. Healey and Foreign Secretary David Lammy “have set up a joint Ukraine unit,” divided between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence. The pair “held a joint briefing, with officials, for a cross-party group of 60 MPs on Ukraine,” while “Starmer has also asked the National Security Council to draw up plans to provide Ukraine with a broader range of support.” On top of military assistance, “industrial, economic, and diplomatic support” are also being explored.

The Times adds that in coming weeks, “Healey will attend a new meeting of the Ukraine Defence Coordination Group,” an international alliance of 57 countries overseeing the Western weaponry flooding into Kiev. There, “Britain will press European allies to send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.” The British Defence Ministry also reportedly “spoke last week to Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, and has been wooing Boris Pistorius, his German opposite number.”

Evidently, the new Labour government has an ambitious vision for the proxy war’s continuation. Yet, if the “counterinvasion” is anything to go by, it’s already dead in the water. As The Times notes, the imbroglio is primarily “designed to boost morale at home and shore up Zelensky’s position,” while relieving pressure on the collapsing Donbass frontline by forcing Russia to redirect forces to Kursk. Instead, Moscow “has capitalised on the absence of four crack Ukrainian regiments to press their attacks around Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar.”

Similarly, commenting on Starmer’s wideranging efforts to compel overt Western action against Russia, a “defence expert” told The Times: “if it looks as if the Brits [are] too far ahead of their NATO allies, it might be counterproductive.” This analysis is prescient, for there are ample indications London’s latest attempt to ratchet tensions and drag the US and Europe ever-deeper into the proxy war quagmire has already been highly “counterproductive”, and boomeranged quite spectacularly. Indeed, it appears Washington has finally had enough of London’s escalatory connivances.

In repeated press conferences and media briefings since August 6th, US officials have firmly distanced themselves from the Kursk incursion, denying any involvement in its planning or execution, or even being forewarned by Kiev. Empire house journal Foreign Policy has reported that Ukraine’s swoop caught the Pentagon, State Department, and White House off-guard. The Biden administration is purportedly not only enormously unhappy “to have been kept out of the loop,” but “skeptical of the military logic” behind the “counterinvasion”.

On top being a clear suicide mission, the eagerly advertised presence of Western weapons and vehicles on Russian soil “has put the Biden administration in an extremely awkward position.” Washington has since the proxy war erupted been wary of provoking retaliations against Western countries and their overseas assets, and the conflict spilling outside Ukraine’s borders. Adding to US irritations, the British-directed Kursk misadventure also torpedoed ongoing efforts to secure an agreement to halt “strikes on energy and power infrastructure on both sides.”

This comes as Kiev prepares for a harrowing winter without heat or light, due to devastating Russian attacks on its national energy grid. Putin has moreover made clear that Ukrainian actions in Kursk mean there is no longer scope for a wider negotiated settlement at all. Which is to say Moscow will now only accept unconditional surrender. The US has also seemingly changed course as a result of the “counterinvasion”.

On August 16th, it was reported that Washington had prohibited Ukraine’s use of British-made, long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory. Given securing wider Western acquiescence to such strikes is, per The Times, a core objective for Starmer, this can only be considered a harsh rebuke, before the Labour government’s escalatory lobbying efforts have even properly taken off. The Biden administration had in May granted permission for Kiev to conduct limited strikes in Russia, using guided munitions up to a 40-mile range.

Even that mild authorisation may be rescinded in due course. Berlin, which like Britain had initially proudly promoted the presence of its tanks in Kursk, is now decisively shifting away from the proxy war. On August 17th, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner announced a halt to any and all new military aid to Ukraine as part of a wider bid to slash federal government spending. The Wall Street Journal reporting three days earlier that Kiev was responsible for Nord Stream II’s destruction may be no coincidence.

The narrative of the Russo-German pipeline’s bombing detailed by the outlet was absurd in the extreme. Conveniently too, the WSJ acknowledged that admissions of “Ukrainian officials who participated in or are familiar with the plot” aside, “all arrangements” to strike Nord Stream “were made verbally, leaving no paper trail.” As such, the paper’s sources “believe it would be impossible to put any of the commanding officers on trial, because no evidence exists beyond conversations among top officials.”

Such an evidentiary deficit provides Berlin with an ideal pretext to step away from the proxy war, while insulating Kiev from any legal repercussions. The narrative of Ukraine’s unilateral culpability for the Nord Stream bombings also helpfully distracts from the attack’s most likely perpetrators. This journalist has exposed how a shadowy cabal of British intelligence operatives were the masterminds, and potential executors, of the October 2022 Kerch Bridge bombing.

That escalatory incident, like Nord Stream’s destruction, was known about in advance, and apparently opposed, by the CIA. Chris Donnelly, the British military intelligence veteran who orchestrated the Kerch Bridge attack, has privately condemned Washington’s reluctance to embroil itself further in the proxy war, declaring “this US position must be challenged, firmly and at once.” In December that year, the BBC confirmed that British officials were worried about the Biden administration’s “innate caution”, and had “stiffened the US resolve at all levels”, via “pressure.”

The determination of Washington’s self-appointed “junior partner” to escalate the proxy conflict into all-out hot war between Russia and the West has only intensified under Starmer’s new Labour government. Yet, the Empire gives every appearance of refusing to take the bait, while seeking to curb London’s belligerent fantasies. This may be an encouraging sign that the proxy war is at last reaching its end. But we must remain vigilant. British intelligence is unlikely to allow the US to withdraw without a fight.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

US, UK, Poland Took Part in Preparing Ukraine’s Operation in Kursk – Russian Foreign Intel

Sputnik – 21.08.2024

On August 6, Ukrainian forces launched an incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, which was slammed by President Vladimir Putin as a large-scale provocation. The Kiev regime planned the attack with the participation of the US and NATO, Russian presidential aide Nikolai Patrushev earlier said.

Ukraine’s operation in Russia’s Kursk region was prepared with the participation of the US, UK, and Polish intelligence services, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said.

“According to available information, the operation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk region was prepared with the participation of the US, British, and Polish intelligence services. The units involved in it underwent combat coordination in training centers in the UK and Germany. Military advisers from NATO countries are providing assistance in managing Ukraine’s units that have invaded Russian territory, and in using Western weapons and military equipment,” the agency told Russian media.

NATO countries are also providing the Ukrainian military with satellite reconnaissance data on the deployment of Russian troops in the area of ​​the operation, the SVR added.

As the situation on the front deteriorates for Ukrainian troops, Kiev’s Western handlers have been pushing it to move combat operations deep into Russian territory in recent months, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service said. One of the goals was to provoke an upsurge in anti-government sentiment and influence domestic policy in the country.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US PMC involved in Kursk invasion

By Lucas Leiroz | August 21, 2024

The US is directly involved in the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk – not only at the strategic level, but also at the tactical and operational sphere. Recent data confirm the participation of at least one US private military company (PMC), meaning that US troops are illegally operating within the 1991 Russian borders. This is likely to lead to a serious escalation of tensions between Moscow and Washington, with the Russian side already demanding formal explanations from US diplomats.

The presence of foreign mercenaries in Kursk is not new. The occurrence of foreigners among Ukrainian troops has been commonly reported, mainly Georgian, Polish and French citizens. However, so far, all reported mercenaries had been members of the Ukrainian Army’s “Foreign Legion”. It is now known that in addition to these individuals who have joined Kiev’s armed forces, there are also mercenary troops from at least one American PMC in Kursk, which represents a higher level of international aggression against Russia.

The American PMC Forward Observation Group (FOG) posted photos and videos on its Instagram showing some of its soldiers fighting on the Kursk front lines. In the photos, it is possible to see not only ordinary PMC members alongside Ukrainian soldiers, but also the founder of FOG himself, Derrick Bales – a well-known American mercenary who has participated in several conflicts. Bales is known for always using an M4A1 rifle in his operations, as well as for having a skull tattoo on his right arm. He has been in Ukraine since 2022, as FOG has been directly involved in training Ukrainian troops. However, this is the first time that a Western PMC has been reported inside the undisputed territory of Russia.

In fact, Western PMCs work together with Ukrainian troops quite often. However, the number of these groups has been decreasing over time. According to experts, Ukraine does not present desirable conditions for PMCs to accept contracts. Being a high-intensity conflict with a very high lethality rate, the Ukrainian scenario seems terrible for professional mercenaries, who see that it is clearly not worth fighting there.

Currently, most PMCs operating in Ukraine work only in activities that do not involve direct combat. Services such as logistics, intelligence, facility security and personnel training are some of their main activities. The fact that an American PMC is directly fighting on a highly lethal flank like the “Battle for Kursk” indicates that there may be direct intervention by the American state in the case – with Washington forcing the mercenaries to fight in Kursk, even though it does not seem like a profitable or interesting scenario.

Unlike classic mercenaries, who fought only for money and without any institutional loyalty, PMCs are a post-Cold War military phenomenon, formed from the reduction of personnel in regular armies’ special forces units. Despite fighting “for money”, these companies have the same mentality and ethics as the regular armed forces, since most of their members came from the ranks of state armies. These groups are loyal to their states and obey direct orders from their countries, being a kind of “semi-state force”. So, it is possible that FOG is following orders from the US state to fight in Kursk, even though the local military conditions did not make it worth the risk.

This possibility of direct American involvement at an institutional level has prompted the Russian Federation to ask Washington for clarification. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has summoned Washington’s charge d’affaires in Moscow to ask some questions about the direct involvement of American citizens in the hostilities in Kursk. The American responses are not yet clear, but an official statement on the matter is expected to be released soon.

Summoning diplomats for clarification is one of the most serious steps a country can take in the diplomatic sphere. This type of action usually precedes more serious moves, such as imposing sanctions, taking military action or cutting off diplomatic relations. It is unlikely that the Russians will take escalatory measures in retaliation against the US, since avoiding the escalation of tensions has been one of Moscow’s top priorities since the beginning of the special military operation. However, there will certainly be some effective response, despite the concern to avoid escalation.

Regardless of what is done in the diplomatic sphere, it is expected that the Russians will increase military action in Kursk, eliminating all foreigners involved. Mercenaries and PMCs are not protected by international law, which is why any military effort against these groups is absolutely legal.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

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

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Starmer calls for comprehensive assistance to Ukraine despite the decline of Britain

By Ahmed Adel – August 20, 2024

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer asked the country’s National Security Council to consider giving more support to Kiev, the British newspaper The Times reported on August 18. Starmer’s request comes as half of British citizens believe their country is heading in the wrong direction, according to a recently published survey.

“Starmer has also asked the National Security Council to draw up plans to provide Ukraine with a broader range of support,” The Times reported, adding that foreign policy adviser to the last three Tory prime ministers, John Bew, went last week to Kiev as part of this effort.

At the same time, a military source told the outlet that Starmer’s policy of supporting Ukraine would be comprehensive.

“It’s not just about the military support, but it’s about the industrial, economic, and diplomatic support,” the defence source said.

The Times added that a special group was created with the participation of the UK’s defence and foreign ministries to build a unified UK policy towards Ukraine.

This comes as the British newspaper The Independent reported on August 17 that the UK Ministry of Defense did not deny information that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had used British Challenger 2 tanks in the attack on the Kursk region, which Russia described as a terrorist act and called a provocation following the deaths of civilians.

The report quoted a Defense Ministry spokesman as saying that Kiev could use the supplied weapons in the attack on the Kursk region. However, this did not apply to the Storm Shadow cruise missiles, which London allowed to be used only inside “internationally recognised” Ukrainian territory.

In January 2023, the UK also announced the transfer of 14 Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine. At least two of them were destroyed by Russian troops in Kursk. It can be expected that Starmer’s new military package to Ukraine will face the same fate as the Challenger 2 battle tank – Russian forces destroying them.

Yet, despite British military equipment sent to Ukraine being destroyed effortlessly by Russian troops, in addition to the impossibility of Ukraine winning the war, Britain insists on maintaining a policy of trying to prolong the war despite massive domestic issues.

According to a survey by Ipsos published on August 19, 52% of citizens interviewed expressed a negative opinion about the direction the United Kingdom is taking, more than double the number who see the situation improving.

“22% said that they think things in Great Britain are heading in the right direction (-3 from Jul ’24), 52% wrong direction (+3), and 19% neither (N/C). This gives a net right direction of the country rating of -30, which is down from -24 last month,” Ipsos said of the survey results.

The poll found that the number of Britons with a favourable view of Keir Starmer has fallen to 38%, the same proportion as those without sympathy. Although Britons now view him with greater affinity, the article stresses that this is only the “honeymoon” period for the British leader.

Former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak only garnered the support of 20% of those interviewed, behind Nigel Farage, leader of the right-wing Reform UK party (25%), and Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats (22%). Respondents also ranked the Labour Party first, with 40% giving it a positive rating and 37% a negative rating. The Conservatives received 21% support, the Liberal Democrats 24%, and Reform UK 23%.

Britain’s economy has performed lacklustrely over the past decade. High living costs, elevated interest rates, and faltering productivity gains have particularly affected citizens, causing the British economy to enter recession in the second half of 2023 as households cut back on spending. Although the Bank of England earlier this month raised its growth forecast from 0.5% to 1.25% for 2024, it warned of a weaker medium-term outlook as high interest rates hit activity.

As Simon Pittaway, a senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, explained: “Britain’s medium-term record is far less impressive, and has been driven by a growing population rather than rising productivity. Without a return to productivity growth, living standards will continue to stagnate and Britain will continue to fall behind its peers.”

Yet, despite the grim economic situation, with most citizens believing the country is heading in the wrong direction and Starmer very far from enjoying popular support, the British prime minister has instead prioritised figuring out how to continue assisting Ukraine despite already providing support to the tune of £12 billion, rather than serving the interests of Britons and alleviating the growing poverty in the country.

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

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Zelensky lashes out at West

RT | August 20, 2024

The West should agree to Ukrainian requests for long-range weapons without concern for Russia’s potential reaction, Vladimir Zelensky has said. The Ukrainian leader claimed that Kiev’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region proves that Moscow has no “red lines.”

According to the Defense Ministry in Moscow, Russian forces have killed more than 3,400 Ukrainian troops and destroyed around 400 pieces of military hardware in Kiev’s ongoing cross-border attack. The assault began on August 6 and is the largest of its kind on Russian territory since hostilities erupted between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022.

Russia has alleged that Ukrainian troops have been using Western-supplied weapons in their operation – claims that have seemingly been supported by reports in the Western media. A number of Kiev’s backers have also publicly given it the green light to use weapons they have provided on Russian soil.

In an address to Ukrainian ambassadors on Monday, Zelensky urged them to “continue convincing our partners to support Ukraine – to the maximum” to make sure they are “in sync with us in their determination.”

“If our partners lifted all the current restrictions on the use of weapons on Russian territory, we would not need to physically enter particularly the Kursk region to protect our Ukrainian citizens in the border communities,” the Ukrainian leader insisted.

He went on to lament that “for now, we cannot use all the weapons at our disposal and eliminate Russian terrorists where they are.”

Zelensky also called on Kiev’s Western backers not to fear a potential escalation from Moscow. He cited Russia’s supposed inability to defend its territory after Kiev crossed the “strictest of all the red lines that Russia has.” According to the Ukrainian leader, this proves that all of Moscow’s other “red lines” are also “illusory.”

Last Friday, Zelensky took the UK to task for supposedly failing in its support. According to media reports, London has refused to allow Kiev to use Storm Shadow missiles in its offensive in Kursk.

Speaking the same day, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told journalists that “for the first time, Kursk Region was hit by Western-made rockets, most likely from an American HIMARS.”

On Monday, Moscow’s top diplomat, Sergey Lavrov, claimed that “Zelensky would never have decided [to attack Russian territory] if the United States had not instructed him to do this.”

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Germany about to decrease its aid to Kiev

By Lucas Leiroz | August 20, 2024

Support for Ukraine is increasingly showing signs of being reduced. The productive capacity of European countries no longer seems sufficient to meet Ukraine’s constant demand for weapons and military equipment, which is why a serious drop in supplies is likely to occur soon. Germany, which is currently experiencing an energy crisis and deindustrialization, seems to be one of the first countries to fail to fulfill its military aid agreements.

The German newspaper Bild recently reported that the “continuous supply” of weapons to the Kiev regime is at risk. The main reason for the production problems is the policy of budgetary restrictions. The article cites sources in the Ministry of Finance and communications between officials from different ministries and the German parliament. The sources state that there is no longer enough budget to continue supporting Ukraine, which is why a change in the military support policy is urgently needed.

According to the newspaper, Finance Minister Christian Lindner recently contacted Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock to discuss the issue. He emphasized the budget problems and the impossibility of continuing to finance arms production for Ukraine. According to Lindner, a solution could be found if the government submitted some kind of report justifying the need and urgency of providing new short-term funds for the military sector. However, since the government remains inactive, no special decision has been made by the Finance Ministry, which indicates that there will be a cut in military production soon.

There appears to be a conflict of interest between the ministries. Defense officials are unhappy with Lindner’s budget control and accuse him of “changing the rules of the game.” According to the defense industry, Lindner is responsible for destabilizing the budget for the military industry, thereby affecting the entire policy of supporting Ukraine. In fact, Lindner listed at least 30 German measures to support Kiev that “can no longer be carried out.” The Defense Ministry sees these initiatives as a sign that the Finance Ministry is simply no longer interested in continuing to fund pro-Ukrainian aid.

Earlier, the Defense Ministry had proposed a special package worth almost 4 billion euros for “unplanned spending” for Ukraine. The package included the urgent production of various equipment, such as artillery shells, drones, tanks and armored vehicles. However, within just three months, most of the package has already been spent and there is simply nothing left that can be produced with this funding, leaving few resources for the Finance Ministry to use in the assistance program.

Indeed, the officials responsible for finance are stating the obvious: there is no more money to finance the war. Meanwhile, the military, driven by anti-Russian paranoia and the fear that Germany will be the “next target”, claims that it must do whatever necessary to send even more weapons to Ukraine. In the midst of all this chaos, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other strategic sectors seem inert, not knowing what decision to make and unable to reach a consensus.

The crisis in Germany is nothing new. It had previously been reported that the country no longer had any funds to use in the war. Days before Bild published its article, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported that Berlin was about to end its support for Ukraine due to the absolute lack of money. At the time, sources close to Lindner said that there was no longer any chance of continuing the assistance.

“End of the event. The pot is empty (…) [Berlin has] reached a point where Germany can no longer make any promises to Ukraine,” an unnamed source told journalists at the time.

The defense sector’s complaints about the budget are also not new. In July, Pistorius had already expressed his indignation with Lindner’s management, stating that he had received a budget smaller than what had been requested to meet German military priorities. In practice, the economy and defense sectors are in constant conflict in German politics, and inter-ministerial dialogue is extremely difficult.

“I got significantly less than I registered for. That is annoying for me because I cannot initiate certain things at the speed that the historic turning point and threatening situation require,” Pistorius said at the time.

All this institutional chaos was to be expected, since Germany is maintaining a support program that does not correspond to the country’s social and economic reality. Going through a serious energy crisis and an accelerated process of deindustrialization, Berlin is simply not growing economically enough to pay for the billion-dollar aid packages to the Kiev regime.

At some point, Germany will have to choose between paying Ukraine’s bills or its own.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

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

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Lavrov accuses West of ‘childish babble’

RT | August 19, 2024

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky would not have attacked Russia’s Kursk Region unless he had direct orders from the US, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

Speaking to Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin on Monday, the foreign minister stated that throughout the Ukraine conflict, Washington’s attempts to deny responsibility for Kiev’s actions have “evolved” from claiming it has nothing to do with them to accusing Ukrainian military commanders of disobeying orders.

“Listen, this is childish babble,” Lavrov said. “Everyone understands perfectly well that Zelensky would never have decided on this if the United States had not instructed him to do this.”

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aide and former Security Council secretary, Nikolay Patrushev, also accused Washington of playing a role in Kiev’s incursion, stating in an interview with Izvestia that “the US leadership’s claims of non-involvement in Kiev’s actions in Kursk Region do not correspond to reality.”

“Without their participation and direct support, Kiev would not have ventured into Russian territory,” Patrushev said, adding that “the operation in Kursk Region was also planned with the involvement of NATO and Western special services.”

Kiev launched its incursion into Russia almost two weeks ago, reportedly deploying over 10,000 troops armed with Western-supplied heavy weapons. Zelensky has stated that the purpose of the attack is to establish a “buffer zone” in Russia and inflict military and economic damage on the country.

While Western officials have publicly expressed support for Ukraine’s incursion, none, including the US, have admitted to having prior knowledge. Washington has insisted that it was not informed or involved in the preparation of the cross-border attack.

Zelensky aide Mikhail Podoliak, however, has contradicted these claims, telling The Independent last week that Kiev had discussed the operation with partner forces, “just not on the public level.”

While Kiev’s forces continue to occupy several settlements in the border region, the Russian Defense Ministry has reported that the advance has been halted. Moscow has estimated that Kiev has lost more than 3,400 troops and around 400 armored vehicles in the operation.

August 19, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO’s War on Russia

From covert war in 2014 to the invasion of Russia in 2024

By Glenn Diesen | August 19, 2024

The use of NATO weapons to attack Russia is a controversial topic due to the ambiguity about the role of NATO. The common argument by the Western political-media elites is that Ukraine was attacked in an unprovoked Russian invasion, and NATO has every right to assist Ukraine with weapons to defend itself. This is an appealing narrative that serves the purpose of manufacturing consent from the public to send weapons worth billions of dollars to fight Russia. If one accepts this narrative, it is even seen to be immoral to put restrictions on Ukraine in terms of where these weapons are used as the country is correctly fighting for its survival. The problem with this narrative is that NATO is not a passive non-participant in this war.

The war began in February 2014 when Western governments backed the coup in Ukraine that removed the democratically elected President of Ukraine and replaced him with a government hand-picked by Washington.[1] On the first day of the new Ukrainian government, a partnership was established between the CIA, MI6 and the intelligence services of the new government in Ukraine installed by the US.[2] This happened before there were any conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, and it resulted in 12 secret CIA bases along the Russian borders. Over the next 8 years, the US instigated tensions with Russia, armed Ukraine, and sabotaged the Minsk peace agreement to extend and weaken Russia.[3]

The US developing Ukraine as a proxy against Russia was the reason for the Russian invasion in 2022. As reported by the New York Times : “Toward the end of 2021, according to a senior European official, Mr. Putin was weighing whether to launch his full-scale invasion when he met with the head of one of Russia’s main spy services, who told him that the C.I.A., together with Britain’s MI6, were controlling Ukraine and turning it into a beachhead for operations against Moscow”.[4]

When Russia invaded in 2022, it contacted Ukraine on the first day after the war to start negotiations to impose a peace agreement that would restore Ukraine’s neutrality.[5] The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement by promising Zelensky all the weapons he would need if he would walk away from the peace talks and fight. Both the Israeli and Turkish mediators confirmed that the US chose war as it saw an opportunity to fight Russia through a proxy and thus weaken a strategic rival. Numerous American leaders have since expressed that this is a great war as they get to weaken Russia without losing any American troops. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has dismissed diplomacy and insists that “Weapons are the way to peace”.

Niall Ferguson wrote in Bloomberg in March 2022 that US and UK officials had confirmed that the only acceptable outcome for the war was the military defeat of Russia and regime change in Moscow. The objective was for “the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin” as “the only end game now is the end of Putin regime”.[6] The US Helsinki Commission argued in March 2022 that peace must be achieved by “decolonising” Russia, the destruction of Russia by Balkanising it.[7] The President of Poland (Andrzej Duda) and the incoming Foreign Policy Chief of the EU (Kaja Kallas) have also defined victory in Ukraine in terms of breaking Russia into many small nations.

NATO is providing weapons, ammunition, training, war planning, intelligence, target selection, management of complex weapon systems, and mercenaries to fight Russia – all under the guise of “helping Ukraine” to defend itself. NATO has authorised the use of long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory and provides its support in the invasion of Russian territory. From Britain to Germany, the success of conquering Russian territory is openly used as an argument to send more weapons.

In this context, if we look at the actual objectives of the US and NATO, rather than the childish assertion that the US is merely attempting to protect democracy, then one can only conclude that NATO has gone to war against the world’s largest nuclear power.

Russia’s dilemma: Emboldening NATO or risking nuclear war

The insanity of NATO’s relentless escalations in the Ukraine proxy war rests on the narrative that Russia will not defend its red lines as it is deterred by NATO. This delusion exists because all Russian responses are presented as “unprovoked” and thus occur seemingly in a vacuum. Yet, when the Western government toppled the Ukrainian government in February 2014 and subsequently threatened the Russian naval base in Sevastopol, Russia responded by seizing Crimea. When Western governments sabotaged the Minsk agreement for 7 years and then refused to give Russia any security guarantees in December 2021, Russia responded by invading Ukraine in 2022. When NATO began to send weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia, Russia responded by annexing four oblasts – Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhiya, and Kherson.

How will Russia respond? Russia is faced with a dilemma: It has been restrained as retaliations could easily escalate into a NATO-Russia nuclear exchange, yet the failure to retaliate will only embolden NATO. Western media refers to the failure of Russia to respond as a reason for why NATO can continue to escalate, as Russia is not retaliating. Yet, with every step up the escalation ladder, the pressure mounts on Russia to restore its deterrent.

The retaliation will come, but Russia keeps its head cool to decide when, where and how it best serves Russian interests. The Western media is obsessed with the objective of humiliating Putin without considering the possible consequences. Anyone calling for a return to common sense is denounced as being soft on Russia, and the recognition of Russia’s nuclear deterrent is framed as accepting Russia’s “nuclear blackmail”. Consequently, warmongering is celebrated as morality while advocating for diplomacy is denounced as appeasement. In our narrative-driven media, even arguing that NATO has gone to war against Russia is deemed treasonous as it is depicted as “taking the side of Russia”.

The propaganda prevents us from asking the most important question: How exactly do we think this escalation will end? Irrespective of what narrative we have sold to our own public about defending democracy, from Moscow’s perspective, NATO has now placed itself in the same category as Napoleon and Hitler. Let’s pick up a history book and ask ourselves how Russia will likely respond: capitulation or a powerful response?

I was on the Indian TV channel WION discussing NATO weapons being used to target Russian territory.

[1] Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call – BBC News

[2] The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[3] Read the RAND report on how to overextend Russia: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

[4] The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[5] Address by the President to Ukrainians at the end of the first day of Russia’s attacks — Official website of the President of Ukraine

[6] Niall Ferguson: Putin and Biden Misunderstand History in Ukraine War – Bloomberg

[7] Decolonizing Russia: a Moral and Strategic Imperative – CSCE

August 19, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nord Stream 2: Is the Bus Coming for Zelensky and Duda?

By Hans Vogel | ARKTOS | August 17, 2024

Just a few days ago, a former German spy chief stated that the sabotage of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was planned and ordered by Ukrainian satrap Zelensky and Polish President Andrzej Duda.

Now that the elaborate US narrative on the war in the Ukraine is beginning to come apart at the seams, now that the ultimate defeat of the Ukraine puppet government is becoming ever more apparent, the hour is approaching to throw Zelensky, that talented little piano player in his green T-shirt, under the bus.

With some two thousand Ukrainian soldiers being sacrificed on a daily basis on the altar of the Wall Street Money Gods, the Ukraine will soon have to perish. Now that the Kursk operation, planned on the Potomac and carried out by Western mercenaries, has failed, now that the inferiority of Western arms can no longer be hidden from the public, something was needed to divert attention.

This was done by dusting off an older issue: Nord Stream 2. Joe Biden once threatened to blow it up. However, when it was actually blown up, all of Washington’s lackeys in Europe pointed their little fingers at Russia. It was Putin who did it! Although the German economy was hit the hardest when competitively priced Russian natural gas, vital for its industry and keeping warm in winter, stopped flowing, the German government seemed at a loss. What would their masters in Washington allow them to say and do?

The Scholz government also began to divert the public’s attention, relying chiefly on two apparently mentally retarded, but nonetheless vocal cabinet members. One is Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, a bimbo of unparalleled imbecility, who tours the world making utterly dumb statements. The other is Robert Habeck, the Minister of Economics, who at least seems to have one brain cell more.

After US media suggested it was the Ukrainians who destroyed the pipeline, the former German spy chief joined the chorus, adding that Zelensky did it together with Duda.

Since his reelection in 2020, Duda initially seemed quite OK on account of his unflinching support for the Ukraine, especially after the start of the Russian Special Military Operation in February 2022. With much of the Ukraine historically having been part of Poland at different moments in history, Polish support for a Ukrainian government is always just a bit suspicious. Especially since many Polish nationalists have a very strong historical awareness and continue to regard the Ukraine as part of Poland.

There is, however, another side to Duda: he is a devout Roman Catholic and as such not to be regarded as a complacent and cooperative adherent of gender lunacy. Since this gender lunacy, represented by the LGB-whatever rainbow flag flown at US embassies, is a cornerstone of US foreign policy, the leader of a US satrapy cannot be allowed to ignore this issue or to oppose it! God of Money forbid!

Yet this is precisely what Duda has done. Correctly branding gender lunacy a “foreign ideology,” he was set on changing the Polish Constitution in order to prohibit lesbian and gay couples from adopting children.

Another stain on Duda’s reputation is his failed attempt to make it illegal to blame the Polish nation for anything unpleasant that happened on Polish territory to Jews during the years 1939-1945.

The fact Duda has been indicated as an accomplice in the Nord Stream 2 sabotage provides a nice insight into the way the Empire works. When there is a problem somewhere out there in the imperial boondocks, the local underlings are instructed to take care of the issue, and that way the imperial leadership does not need to soil its own hands.

When the bus arrives, it will crush Zelensky, but quite likely the Polish President as well. Two birds with one stone.

One has to admit, that took some shrewd and refined planning!

August 19, 2024 Posted by | Economics, False Flag Terrorism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »