Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

“Our” Man in Israel

By Ted O’Keefe | The Occidental Observer | July 7, 2024

The issue of dual loyalty is an ancient one. As noted in a previous TOO article,

[Stephen] Walt points out that [Dennis] Ross has a long involvement with pro-Israel activist organizations, such as being director of WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank headquartered in Washington, DC].

But Ross’s ties to Israel are even deeper than that. Until his appointment as Middle East envoy in the Obama Administration, from 2002–2009 Ross was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. This organization has assumed the role of long term planning for the Jewish people, not only in Israel but also the Diaspora. The JPPPI is an independent think tank that reports to the Israeli government and has close ties with other Jewish organizations. Its mission is “to promote the thriving of the Jewish people via professional strategic thinking and planning on issues of primary concern to world Jewry. JPPPI’s work is based on deep commitment to the future of the Jewish people with Israel as its core state.”

The JPPPI’s report Facing Tomorrow 2008 is interesting because it focuses on the threat of Iran and but also because it sees people like Stephen Walt as a threat to Israel:

The Jewish people must, as the highest priority, develop an appropriate response to the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel and to global stability as a whole. While there is no ambiguity about the need to do so in Israel, it is necessary to mobilize Jewish opinion around the world as well. The American Jewish community cannot be intimidated either by a post Iraq syndrome in the United States, or by the false and pernicious allegations of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, or former President Carter.

In other words, Jews around the world are encouraged to mobilize to combat the threat to Israel represented by Iran. The assumption is that Jews have common interests as Jews no matter what country they happen to live in. Dennis Ross is doing his best to promote exactly this view within the Obama administration.

One might think that such a view would leave Jews in the Diaspora open to the charge of disloyalty, but the problem is easily finessed: Jews in the Diaspora are told to frame Israel’s concerns about Iran as a global threat, not simply as a threat to Israel.

Of course, that’s what we are seeing now. But we needn’t be naïve. Jews like Dennis Ross are clearly far more loyal to Israel than to the US. Speaking as a psychologist, they wouldn’t be able to see a conflict of interest between the US and Israel if it was staring them in the face. Indeed, as Gore Vidal said of Norman Podhoretz, they are unregistered agents of a foreign government.

In a sane society, there would be a huge groundswell of public opposition to Ross’s appointment–as there has been for a number of Obama’s appointments. But that won’t happen.

Since there has been no groundswell of media or public opposition to pro-Israel operatives like Ross at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it’s not surprising that the practice continues. Amos Hochstein is a good contemporary example. Israel and the powerful Lebanon-based Shiite Hezbollah militia are on the brink of open warfare, conflict that could trigger U.S. intervention and escalate to a regional or even a world war. To date these dangers have attracted little notice from the American mass media, ever eager to divert and dissemble from the direr consequences of the Washington regime’s one-sided support for Israel. Small wonder, then, that the media should evince the same reluctance in investigating the shadowy past and dubious allegiance of Hochstein, the emissary the U.S. recently dispatched to “mediate” between Hezbollah and Israel. The following is a brief foray into the workings of the Israel Lobby in the Biden Administration, as well as a primer on the perks of being Jewish in America.

Hochstein’s importance

To be sure, media reports have not slighted Hochstein’s great influence in the Biden White House or his meteoric career. He has been described as “one of President Biden’s closest confidantes [who] has worked with him for many years,” while another Washington insider calls Hochstein “the person who bridges State, Treasury, the White House and Energy”

Fittingly, one of Hochstein’s titles is “Special Presidential Coordinator.”

Yet the media have underplayed, and often ignored, a key fact about Hochstein in his role as an impartial arbiter between Hezbollah and Israel: his birth, youth, and military service in Israel.

Beyond those bare facts about his origins, Hochstein has been remarkably unforthcoming about his life before he arrived in the United States in 1974. While nearly every successful denizen of the D.C. is eager to brandish Ivy League/Seven Sisters (or the equivalent) educational credentials, one may scour the internet (including his page on the usually resume-rich LinkedIn job-hunting site) without finding anything about Hochstein’s education, college or secondary.

Just as murky are the circumstances by which Adam Hochstein, a 21-year-old immigrant with unknown credentials, became a congressional staffer within a year of his arrival in this country, working for Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-CT) who, like Hochstein, is a Jew.

Despite his youth and inexperience, Hochstein carried out important assignments for Gejdenson. Not yet 25, he traveled to North Korea in 1997 to report on its economic and military situation; still in his twenties, he undertook negotiations with the Iraqi government (against the advice of the U.S. State Department) aimed at “resettling” thousands of Palestinians there in exchange for loosening some of the crippling sanctions then in force there.

Well before 9/11, Hochstein advocated acting against Iraq for harboring “weapons of mass destruction” in a press release issued by Congressman Gejdenson, and soon afterward he was serving as senior advisor to a senator and a governor. Like many members of the permanent government, Hochstein has used hiatuses between his party’s dominance to work in lobbying and industries close to government, in his case capitalizing on energy policy expertise that he seems to have acquired with no expertise in the field. He’s evidently done well, at some point becoming a partner in two D.C. restaurants and a movie theater.

Under Obama, Hochstein (without known diplomatic training or experience) rapidly climbed the ladder at the State Department to become America’s chief energy negotiator, deeply involved in efforts to block Russian natural gas from Europe and to facilitate Israeli access to energy.

During the Trump presidency, Hochstein served on the board of Ukraine’s natural gas company, Naftogaz.

Hochstein’s knowledge of the ins and outs of Ukraine’s shady corrupt energy industry is evidently considerable. In his testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, Hunter Biden stated that Hochstein had advised him merely to be “very careful” in serving on the board of the notoriously corrupt Burisma corporation.

Hochstein also seems to have had a role in the “whistle blowing” that led to Trump’s first impeachment resulting from a phone call interpreted by Democrats as pressuring Zelensky to investigate Biden family corruption in Ukraine, and to have been advising Zelensky before his election.

It’s also interesting that there is a lack of definitive information on Hochstein’s current citizenship:

According to one report, a State Department source has claimed that he is “not a dual national,” but refused to state if he has renounced his Israeli citizenship, and in fact gave no [details as to Hochstein’s American citizenship.] So the question raised, unanswered— Hochstein’s citizenship is evidently a “carefully guarded secret.” Not acknowledging Hochstein’s Israeli citizenship would be useful because, for example, in Lebanon, where Hochstein has been involved as an American negotiator on the Israeli conflict with Hezbollah, “it is normally illegal for an Israeli” to visit Lebanon.

Even Hezbollah at the time did not comment on the mediator’s nationality or military past, with leader Hassan Nasrallah saying they will “not express an opinion or position related to the demarcation of borders”.

Given all this, it’s hard to disagree with this quote originally from Ha’aretz:

… the American brokerage farce, whose players are almost all American Jews, some of them former or future Israelis. If the United States is a side in the conflict, then it should say so and conduct the negotiation as though Israel is its protégé. And if it really wants to be an honest broker, then come on – Amos Hochstein?…

July 7, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine asks West for submarines

RT | July 7, 2024

Ukraine needs Western submarines to bolster its military capabilities in the Black Sea, Navy chief Admiral Aleksey Neizhpapa, has said.

He argued that deploying underwater craft could strategically improve Ukraine’s positions across the Black Sea during the conflict with Russia.

“We are thinking about it, submarines are necessary for us, they should be part of the navy,” Neizhpapa said in an interview with journalist Natalya Moseychuk, posted on her YouTube channel on Saturday.

The head of the Ukrainian navy added that the country does not need large submarines, as “they are useless in the Black Sea.”

“Locating only near Odessa means having nothing, we should look further, spread the fleet throughout the Black Sea and use its entire area,” he said, expressing hope that Ukraine would turn “from a coastal state into a maritime power.”

Since the Russia-Ukraine conflict erupted in February 2022, Western states have supplied vast quantities of weapons to Kiev, while denying direct involvement in the hostilities. However, with the fighting well into its third year, there have been numerous reports of dwindling support, with delays in arms and ammunition deliveries.

Earlier this week, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky said in an interview with Bloomberg that US weapons were taking too long to reach the country, despite Congress approving a $61 billion assistance package in April.

NATO diplomats told the agency that the US-led military bloc had agreed to provide at least €40 billion ($43 billion) in military aid for Ukraine per year, without specifying how long the aid would continue.

July 7, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Zelensky owes Orban an explanation

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 5, 2024

Instead of an improvement in bilateral relations, the recent meeting between Vladimir Zelensky and Viktor Orban only intensified tensions between both countries. The Hungarian Prime Minister’s visit to Kiev appears to have been a kind of ultimatum for the Ukrainian regime to stop its irresponsible actions and accept a peace negotiation. Given Zelensky’s insistence on war, Hungary is expected to take increasingly tough actions to boycott military support for Ukraine within the Western organizations in which it is part (NATO and EU).

Orban made a surprise visit to the Ukrainian capital and presented Zelensky with a peace proposal, the central element of which was the establishment of an immediate ceasefire, enabling the resumption of negotiations between the parties. On the same day, the Ukrainian authorities rejected the Hungarian proposal, remaining firm in their desire to continue the war to the last consequences. Orban has repeatedly clarified that the West wants war with Russia, which will not benefit Europe at all and could lead to a major continental conflict. Zelensky and the entire Kiev Junta, however, are not aligned with European interests, preferring to obey American orders directly.

Orban’s words in Kiev can be seen as a genuine call for peace – while also sounding like a final warning. The Hungarian leader often tried to prevent the advance of Western military support to Ukraine, thus aiming to promote a de-escalation of the conflict. Due to its dissident stance in the EU, Hungary has suffered economic blackmail, boycotts and even attempts at color revolution. The country appears to be a target for NATO and EU strategists, even though it is a member of both groups.

The reasons why Hungary tries to de-escalate the war are many and go beyond the interest of avoiding a continental war. Orban is a conservative leader who has as one of his main political agendas the defense of Christianity and traditional values – a topic on which he sympathizes with the Russian Federation and is in total disagreement with Ukrainian woke Nazism. The West’s promotion of an anti-traditional cultural agenda has created significant tensions between Hungary and its partners, making the country actually isolated from other NATO and EU members.

One of the most important points for Orban’s skepticism towards Kiev, however, is the ethnic persecution promoted against Hungarian citizens in the western regions of Ukraine, mainly in Transcarpathia. Cities with an ethnic Hungarian majority have suffered from racist policies in a similar way to what Russians in Donbass have suffered since 2014. Just as the Russian language has been banned from being taught in schools and used in official documents, the Hungarian language is also being banned, affecting the ethnic and cultural identity of thousands of Hungarians.

One of the most shocking practices of the Kiev regime is the ethnic instrumentalization of forced recruitment policies. The Ukrainian armed forces constantly forcibly capture non-Ukrainian ethnic citizens from the country’s streets, sending them to the front lines without proper training, making death a mere matter of time. Ethnic Russians and Hungarians have been constantly recruited to certain death at the front, with local authorities trying to “spare” Ukrainian soldiers as much as possible.

During the Battle of Artymovsk (known in Ukraine as “Bakhmut”), several reports emerged from local observers denouncing the forced recruitment of hundreds of Hungarians from Transcarpathia. The battle became known as the “meat grinder”, due to the high rate of casualties among Ukrainian troops during clashes with the Russian private military company Wagner Group. Apparently, Kiev used the “meat grinder” as a tool to accelerate the process of ethnic cleansing in Transcarpathia, sending ethnic Hungarian citizens to certain death.

Hungary has repeatedly denounced the Kiev Junta’s racist policies against Hungarians who are under Ukrainian jurisdiction. The inaction of international organizations – mainly NATO and the EU, of which Hungary is a part – has only increased Hungarian impatience. Kiev has not changed its practices. Zelensky also did not use the last meeting with Orban to give him an “explanation” – if that is even possible – or at least promise to change his policies. So, given the certainty that Kiev will continue the war and the extermination of Hungarians, perhaps Orban’s peace proposal will become a true ultimatum.

Without any goodwill on Ukraine’s part, Orban now has no alternative but to actually do everything he can to thwart Kiev’s plans. It is possible that he will harden his positions within NATO and the EU, vetoing pro-Ukraine proposals even under economic blackmail. More than that, Orban could even launch a policy of seeking strategic partnerships with emerging countries, and discussions about leaving NATO and the EU will inevitably begin to advance on the Hungarian domestic scenario.

It is also necessary to remember that since 2022 there have been rumors that Hungary might eventually intervene militarily in Ukraine to stop ethnic cleansing in Transcarpathia. Even though these rumors have no proof so far, with Ukrainian insistence, it is possible that at some point there will be internal pressure in Hungary for these rumors to become reality.

Hungary is realizing, before all NATO and EU members, that membership in these organizations is a real trap. Orban does not seem willing to accept that his country become a victim of a continental war initiated by Ukraine, nor does he want to continue seeing his Hungarian compatriots dying in hostilities with Russia. He will certainly do everything possible to make the Hungarian future different from the Ukrainian one.

July 5, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

The Bankers War in Ukraine – Part Seventeen of The Anglo-American War on Russia

Tales of the American Empire | July 4, 2024

Western corporate media and our corporate sponsored political leaders proclaim the war in Ukraine is about stopping Russian aggression. As this series has explained, this war was an American neocon effort to ignite a proxy war in Ukraine to destabilize and fragment Russia into smaller states that western corporations can control. This has failed horribly as Russia became stronger and more united than before war began. Even worse, the effort backfired after Russian efforts to make peace were rejected. Russia determined that it must conquer all of Ukraine to expel foreign troublemakers and protect itself, so its armies are slowly conquering all of Ukraine.

This has caused panic in the west since it had already taken control of Ukraine and began to exploit its vast resources. When war began, more farmland and factories were snatched up by western vulture capitalists at deep discounts as Ukrainian’s economy shut down and millions of Ukrainians fled aboard. Ukraine owes the west $300 billion that it can never repay unless it sells state assets, which is what the west wants. If Russia wins, none of this may be repaid and banks and governments will be forced to write off massive loans.

This explains the panic among western leaders who declare that Ukraine cannot be allowed to lose the war. Some now proclaim that NATO troops must be sent. Most citizens say that Ukraine is not worth World War III nor the death of hundreds of thousands of NATO soldiers, but their lords will lose billions of dollars!

________________________________

“All Wars are Bankers Wars”; YouTube; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEB…

Related Tale: “The Genocide Called World War I”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psXYM…

“Disaster Capitalists Ready to Descend on Ukraine”; Jeremy Kuzmarov; Covert Action; January 31, 2024; https://covertactionmagazine.com/2024…

“Zelensky to sell Ukraine off to BlackRock, Goldman Sachs”; The Grayzone; January 30, 2023; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y32lO…

Related Tales: “The Anglo-American War on Russia”; https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…

July 5, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Is stopping World War Three the Donald’s ‘trump card’ for winning the White House?

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 4, 2024

Donald Trump seems to have hit on a winning plan for returning to the White House – by convincing voters he is the candidate to prevent World War Three.

The Republican candidate is lately pitching the importance of ending “the horrible war” in Ukraine to prevent the United States from sliding toward a nuclear conflagration with Russia.

Trump is slamming Democrat rival Joe Biden for fueling the conflict by recklessly supplying U.S. weapons that are provoking Russia and risking the start of World War Three. That’s true enough.

After Biden’s disastrous TV debate with Trump last week, the polls are showing Trump slightly pulling ahead. The Democrat campaign is in panic mode after the incumbent president’s shaky performance confirmed public misgivings about his deteriorating mental health.

Still, however, Trump has not capitalized on taking a decisive lead in the polls. The Republican is at most a couple of points ahead of Biden –  even after the latter’s slow-motion car-crash TV debate.

Trump could pick up a lot of ballots among large numbers of undecided voters and propel his return to the White House by posing as the “anti-war candidate”.

At election rallies, the former president is touting his supposed ability to bring an immediate end to the war in Ukraine. Trump is saying he would cut off military aid to Ukraine and call on the Kiev regime to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump is boasting that he could broker an immediate peace deal if he wins the election in November and implement a settlement even before his inauguration in the Oval Office in January 2025. Thereby preventing World War Three between the nuclear-armed U.S. and Russia.

That might seem like a sound campaign plan. A large majority of Americans – some 70 percent – want their government to find a diplomatic solution to the two-and-a-half-year war in Ukraine. This reflects public opposition to the perception of another endless American war and the growing apprehension over an escalation in the conflict between nuclear powers.

Astutely, Trump is tapping into those legitimate concerns.

On the other hand, Biden’s administration is pushing ahead with military support for the Kiev regime in a way that seems insanely reckless. This week, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced another $2.3 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Biden has said he will support Ukraine for as long as it takes and shows no sign of backing away from military confrontation. The president has approved the supply of longer-range missiles to Ukraine and given his permission to strike Russia.

The issue of war and peace – and without exaggeration the issue of world peace and survival of the planet – could be the one that wins the White House for Trump.

Biden does not have a reverse gear when it comes to his policy of supporting Ukraine in a futile war that it is losing badly and only provoking Russia.

Such madness is bound to be a vote loser and yet Biden and his administration appear to have no way back from the abyss. Combined with Biden’s appalling policy of supporting Israel – especially for younger American voters who would normally lean toward a Democrat – Trump could exploit the anxiety over Ukraine to his electoral advantage.

It’s not just about the danger of an all-out war with Russia. The American public is rightly incensed by the vast amounts of taxpayer money – over $100 billion at least – being shelled out for a corrupt regime in Kiev while so much public need is neglected at home.

The trouble is Trump’s lack of credibility. Ordinarily, a presidential candidate declaring his opposition to starting World War Three would be a clear winning platform, one would think.

Recall the first time Trump ran for the White House back in 2016 when he promised all sorts of splendid things about making America great again by stopping endless U.S. wars around the world and putting an end to “American carnage” at home.

Trump did not deliver then despite all his braggadocio about “draining the swamp”. During his presidency, Trump broke the taboo of supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine. In 2018, he approved sending $47 million worth of Javelin anti-tank missiles to the Kiev regime while it was attacking the ethnic Russian population in the former Ukrainian territory of Donbass. That military backing of the Kiev regime led to the current conflict after Moscow intervened in February 2022 to stop the merciless killing of the Russian population.

On Trump’s recent bragging about how he would quickly end the war in Ukraine, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, dismissed it as empty “subjective” talk. That’s a diplomatic way of saying Trump hasn’t a clue about resolving the conflict.

Trump is all about the expedient winning of votes, not about winning genuine peace. The only way to create a peaceful resolution in Ukraine and elsewhere is for the U.S.-led NATO military bloc to scale back from Russia’s borders and eventually disband in conformity with international law. NATO is a self-appointed war machine to serve Western imperialist power and one that is in flagrant violation of the UN Charter and the upholding of international law. NATO exists to enforce U.S. power unilaterally without any respect for international law – despite the American and European rhetoric about “rules-based order”.

The war in Ukraine is but one symptom of the United States as a failing and frustrated imperialist power. Washington’s hostility towards Russia is consonant with its relentless belligerence towards China and its support for Israel’s genocide in a desperate bid to control the Middle East. Trump is on board with U.S. imperialist power projection against China and slavishly supporting the Israeli regime. His talk about criticizing NATO expenditures is just carping to get Europeans to pay more for the American protection racket. The only thing different from Biden is a superficial matter of style and a seemingly more reasonable view of the conflict in Ukraine.

Posing as a candidate to avert World War Three over Ukraine might be enough to get Trump back to the White House. It might work as an electioneering ploy. But it won’t change a damn thing about stopping U.S. imperialist violence and the constant threat to world peace that Washington and its NATO war machine engender. The Donald’s “trump card” for peace in Ukraine is another worthless deuce.

July 4, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

‘Doing Everything to Reelect Biden’: Duped Hillary Clinton Spills Cringy Details to Prankster Duo

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 03.07.2024

After conning British Foreign Secretary David Cameron into divulging that Ukraine won’t be invited to join NATO at the alliance’s next summit, the Russian prankster duo of Vovan and Lexus have successfully duped Hillary Clinton.

Despite her crushing defeat to Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential elections, Hillary Clinton has adamantly refused to be put out to pasture or written off from big politics. Hence, her current bid to dabble in the ongoing proxy conflict in Ukraine.

It comes as no surprise that the former US Secretary of State eagerly accepted the offer to speak with ‘former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’. Little did she realize that she was divulging her political game regarding the US and Ukraine to the well-known Russian prankster duo, Vovan (Vladimir Kuznetsov) and Lexus (Alexey Stolyarov).

Clinton jumped right into the conversation, assuring ‘Poroshenko’ that US aid has been positioned to reach Ukraine “very quickly”.

At this point, her conversational partner lamented over another looming “threat”, in the face of presidential hopeful Donald Trump, who could “give us some problems” if elected, since he “hates Ukraine”, she piped up:

“You’re right. It is terrible. And I am doing everything I can to reelect President Biden. And I am very hopeful that that will be the outcome in November.”

Clinton took a swipe at Trump, calling him a “very dangerous candidate,” and said he would be “bad for the United States, as well as for the rest of the world, including Ukraine.”

But despite Joe Biden’s disastrous first debate against his main opponent, Clinton is confident that Trump will lose. Moreover, she appeared to indicate that Biden’s path to a second term should be paved with the bodies of Ukrainian soldiers. She assured that Washington would be “giving you the means you need to support yourself to try to not only hold the line but engage in an offensive. And then obviously many of us in this country will do everything we can to reelect President Biden.”

“The more that Ukraine could continue to demonstrate its resilience and its resolve and do what you’re doing on the battlefield, do what you’re doing in a very strong message to the rest of the world, […] go forward as best you can… the rest of us will do everything we can to continue supporting you, and to support President Biden,” reiterated Hillary Clinton.

Hillary also wholeheartedly “supports” Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations, saying that “We are working very hard to persuade the Germans and the Americans to move on this. I don’t know what the final decision will be, but as you say, Rasmussen and Yermak, and others, are working very hard.” This was a reference to former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Zelensky’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak, who have been spearheading a working group to gain support for Kiev’s NATO bid across the alliance.

Clinton emphasized that “everyone has a stake in making sure that you are successful in pushing the Russians out as far as you can.”

‘Porshenko’ bantered at this point that “dictators didn’t learn their lesson after Gaddafi,” in a reference to the former Libyan leader ousted and killed in the wake of NATO’s bombardment of the North African country in 2011. During that time, as Barack Obama’s foreign policy chief, Hillary Clinton, she was the public figure of the project and had cackled with laughter during a TV interview after rebel forces backed by NATO had captured and brutally killed Muammar Gaddafi. Clinton famously quipped, “We came, we saw, he died!”

“Yeah, I think that’s true,” replied Clinton to the Poroshenko imposter.

Turning the conversation back to the “main threat” namely, Trump, the pranksters warned that “he will ask for money back, and it will be a disaster,” as he “wants to end the conflict on Russia’s terms.”

“He’s a very bad guy, as I know personally from having to run against him,” reiterated Hillary Clinton, and applauded an offer of help from the Ukrainian side to dig up some new dirt on Trump.

“Well, anything you can do to attack him, I’m all for it. Because he’s a very dangerous man,” reiterated Clinton.

She eagerly rounded off the conversation with “Slava, Ukraina” (“Glory to Ukraine”), a wartime fascist salute originally adopted by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), an infamous nationalist militant group that collaborated with the Nazis during World War II, and now widely used by Ukrainian paramilitary groups, promoted by the Kiev regime.

July 3, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Russian nuclear power plant workers injured in Ukrainian attack – officials

RT | July 3, 2024

A Ukrainian attack on a substation used by the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant has injured eight employees of the facility, officials reported on Wednesday.

Kiev allegedly launched three quadcopter-type kamikaze drones at the Raduga facility in Energodar, the city hosting Europe’s largest nuclear power station. The injured workers were part of a crew that was repairing the damage caused by a previous Ukrainian attack, the statement claimed. At least one worker is said to be in a serious condition.

The initial strike on the Raduga substation happened two weeks ago and was confirmed by a monitoring mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog. Another site called Luch was hit in a separate strike.

Neither station is critical for the work of the nuclear power plant, but its secondary facilities depend on them for power supplies. The strike on Wednesday once again disrupted the grid after both Raduga transformers were damaged.

The IAEA has declined to attribute the attacks on substations in Energodar, but its chief, Rafael Grossi, has stressed that “whoever is behind this, it must stop.”

“Drone usage against the plant and its vicinity is becoming increasingly more frequent. This is completely unacceptable and it runs counter to the safety pillars and concrete principles which have been accepted unanimously,” the official said.

Last week, a reported Ukrainian artillery strike destroyed one of the automatic radiation monitoring posts near the nuclear site.

Energodar is located in Zaporozhye Region, which became part of Russia following a referendum in 2022. The power plant is operated by Russian personnel, although Kiev still claims sovereignty over the area.

Moscow has criticized the US and its allies for failing to pressure Ukraine to stop the military attacks on the plant, which pose the threat of a major environmental disaster.

July 3, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Orban reveals Zelensky’s reaction to ceasefire proposal

RT | July 3, 2024

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky was not receptive to Budapest’s proposal to establish a temporary ceasefire with Russia, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who recently traveled to Kiev.

During his surprise visit on Tuesday, which was his first trip to Ukraine in over a decade, Orban proposed that Zelensky think about “whether it would be possible to take a break. To reach a ceasefire and start negotiations [with Russia] since a quick ceasefire could speed up these negotiations.”

Ahead of the trip, Orban stated that he hoped to explain to Zelensky that “time is running out and it is important to establish peace, as hundreds of soldiers are dying on the front every day and we do not see how a solution can be found on the battlefield.”

However, following his conversations with Zelensky, Orban told the Swiss Die Weltwoche news outlet, that the Ukrainian leader “had some doubts” about the ceasefire proposal and “didn’t like it very much.” He explained that Zelensky “had a bad experience in the past with ceasefires, which, in his opinion, did not benefit Ukraine” and because of this believed there were “limits” to what could be achieved.

While Zelensky himself has not yet commented on Hungary’s proposal, his deputy chief of staff, Igor Zhovka has stated that Ukraine is not interested in Orban’s proposal and claimed that a ceasefire “cannot be considered in isolation.”

Instead, Zhovka said that Kiev will continue to seek a resolution to the conflict based on Zelensky’s own ‘peace formula’. The ten-point program, initially floated in late 2022, calls for a complete withdrawal of Russian forces from territories Kiev claims as its own, reparation payments and an international war crime tribunal for Russia’s leadership.

Moscow has vehemently rejected Zelensky’s plan as a non-starter and has stressed that any peace talks with Kiev must be based on “realities on the ground.”

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has presented his own set of terms for starting ceasefire talks, which include a full Ukrainian withdrawal from the regions that voted to be part of Russia, as well as legally binding guarantees that ensure Ukraine will never become a member of NATO.

July 3, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

NATO chief’s push for Ukraine funding fails – report

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Paris, France on June 24, 2024. © AFP / Bertrand GUAY/AFP
RT | July 3, 2024

NATO member states have rejected a proposal by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to spend €40 billion ($43 billion) a year on aid for Ukraine, several media outlets have reported. The constituent countries, however, have agreed to earmark this sum for Kiev’s needs next year, Reuters claimed.

Since late May, the outgoing secretary general has on multiple occasions urged member states to make a long-term funding commitment at the upcoming NATO summit in Washington, DC on July 9-11.

During a press conference last month, Stoltenberg claimed that “allies have provided around €40 billion worth of military support to Ukraine each year” since 2022. The NATO chief said he wanted to “maintain this level of support for as long as necessary,” securing “fresh funding every year.”

On Wednesday, Germany’s Deutsche Presse-Agentur, citing unnamed sources from several delegations present at NATO consultations, claimed that Stoltenberg’s proposal had fallen through due to opposition from member states.

Reuters also reported that Stoltenberg’s original request had been turned down, with member states merely stating their intention to re-evaluate allied contributions at future NATO summits.

They also vowed to prepare two reports over the course of the next year to clearly establish each nation’s area of responsibility in terms of aid for Ukraine. The mechanism would supposedly be based on the GDP of member states, with more affluent nations expected to foot most of the bill.

Speaking during a press conference in mid-June, Stoltenberg recounted how the “United States spent six months agreeing to a supplemental for Ukraine.” He also lamented that “some of the promises that the European allies have made have not been delivered.”

“And if we turn this into not voluntary contributions, but NATO commitments, of course it will become more robust, it will become more reliable,” he argued at the time.

Stoltenberg also touted the creation of a Security Assistance Group for Ukraine, which would be based in Wiesbaden, Germany. The structure is expected to coordinate NATO military assistance for Ukraine, with the chief of the US European Command, General Christopher Cavoli, at the helm.

Some observers have speculated that the new, less-US-centered infrastructure is meant as a substitute, should the existing Ramstein group begin to falter. These concerns are understood to have been growing within NATO as a second Trump term stateside appears more likely.

The Republican hopeful has repeatedly criticized the Biden administration’s generous handouts to Kiev, and vowed to end the Ukraine conflict in short order if elected.

July 3, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian insistence on war might seriously irritate Hungary

By Lucas Leiroz | July 3, 2024

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban made a surprise visit to Kiev on July 2 and spoke with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky about the possibility of a ceasefire. The Kiev authorities rejected Orban’s proposal almost immediately, making it clear that there will be no peace and that the country plans to follow the Western directive of fighting “to the last Ukrainian.”

Orban proposed to Zelensky that he take the initiative to establish a ceasefire and then resume peace talks with Russia. In the Hungarian leader’s opinion, a ceasefire would be a fruitful gesture of goodwill for dialogue with Moscow, showing that Kiev is willing to resolve the conflict diplomatically. He believes that, with hostilities stopped, negotiations could advance more appropriately, having more chances for the sides to finally reach a deal.

This was Orban’s first visit to Kiev in more than a decade, which shows how the Hungarian politician was genuinely willing to propose a peace dialogue. However, Ukrainian authorities did not even consider Orban’s proposal, with Zelensky’s aide Igor Zhovkva almost immediately speaking out to reject the initiative.

“[Orban] voiced his opinion (…) This is not the first country that talks about such possible developments (…) [However] Ukraine’s position is quite clear, understandable and well-known (…) [For Kiev, a ceasefire] cannot be considered in isolation,” he said during an official statement.

Zhovkva is wrong when he says that Orban proposed an “isolated” ceasefire. The initiative he proposed is aimed at resuming peace negotiations. Obviously, ceasing hostilities before the talks would be seen by Moscow as a gesture of goodwill, regardless of the final outcome of the discussions. However, this Ukrainian diplomatic impoliteness was really expected.

The neo-Nazi regime has repeatedly made it clear that it is not willing to negotiate peace except on its own terms – which include precisely the regaining of territorial control over the areas liberated by Russian forces. Moscow is obviously not willing to hand over to the enemy territories that have already been reintegrated into the Russian Federation, so dialogue with the Kiev junta is impossible.

In fact, from a realistic point of view, only the Russians can really propose a peace agreement. As the victorious side in the conflict, it is Moscow that decides when to end military action. Kiev can only accept Russia’s conditions or continue fighting even without any chance of victory. For its part, Russia has already proposed a peace agreement, the main points of which are the recognition of the New Regions and Kiev’s promise not to join NATO. Ukraine continues to refuse these conditions, unnecessarily prolonging the conflict.

It is possible to say that Orban did what he could, but his plans were frustrated by the Ukrainian thirst for war. The Kiev junta is obstinate in carrying out all Western orders, with any peace initiatives being fruitless. However, it is important to emphasize how Ukraine’s harsh attitude towards Orban could have serious consequences, since tensions between Kiev and Budapest have been rising steadily in recent times.

Orban has a sovereigntist stance, being a dissident leader in the EU and NATO. He is against arms supplies to Kiev and in favor of peace between Russia and Europe. Recently, Orban accused “EU bureaucrats” of wanting war with Russia and made it clear that he does not want Hungary to be involved in such a situation.

Orban is also deeply concerned about his ethnic Hungarian compatriots under Ukrainian jurisdiction. Just as it does with Russians in Donbass, Kiev is promoting ethnic cleansing in the Hungarian-majority region of Transcarpathia. The Hungarian language has been banned from Transcarpathian schools, and local citizens have been massively sent to certain death on the front lines, being a priority in the forced conscription policy.

Hungary has repeatedly denounced the situation in Transcarpathia, but international organizations remain inactive. Zelensky did not give Orban any explanation on this issue at the recent meeting. This is highly expected to anger the Hungarian leader and encourage him to take increasingly tough measures against Kiev, perhaps by sanctioning it or encouraging the mass emigration of ethnic Hungarians from Ukraine.

In addition, Orban could pursue an even more sovereigntist policy from now on. The Hungarian prime minister has already understood that there is no future in cooperating with the EU and NATO, which is why Hungary may seek strategic partnerships with emerging powers, including Russia.

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

July 3, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

The Debate Should Be a Wake-Up Call For Americans

By Ron Paul | July 1, 2024

There were plenty of surprises in last week’s presidential debate. For one, Americans who rely on the mainstream media for their news learned that they had been lied to for the past three years about President Biden’s capability to do the job he was elected to do.

The realization that the media has been lying for years about Biden is a positive development, as, hopefully, thoughtful Americans might begin wondering what else the media has been lying about. For example, they will find out that the media has been lying to them for years about Russia and Ukraine and about the Middle East and elsewhere. They will find out that our hyper-interventionist foreign policy does not make us safer and more free, but the opposite.

Unfortunately for most Americans, foreign policy is something that happens “over there,” with few direct effects back home. Dumping nearly $200 billion into the lost cause called “Ukraine” may at most seem like an annoyance to many Americans, but it’s not like they are being snatched up by gangs of military recruiters and sent to the front line as is happening to Ukrainian men.

However, $200 billion is real money and the effect on our economy is also real. The bill will be paid by each American family indirectly through the inflation “tax.” Each dollar created out of thin air and spent on the Ukraine debacle devalues the rest of the dollars in circulation.

The danger posed by our foreign policy seemed to escape both candidates, who each tried to convince us they were “tougher” than the other. Despite Donald Trump’s sober and accurate warning that Joe Biden has taken us to the brink of World War III, his solution to the problem is doing more of the same. His stated foreign policy seems to be that were he in office the rest of the world would not dare do anything against his will.

He would have been so tough that Russian president Vladimir Putin would never have dared to invade Ukraine, he claimed. He would have been so tough that Hamas would never have dared attack Israel on October 7th. It’s only Joe Biden’s “weakness” that leads to these disastrous foreign policy outcomes.

But the world does not work that way. Decades of US sanctions placed on any country that fails to do what Washington demands have backfired and led to the emergence of a block of countries united in their resistance to American dictates. Being “tough” on less-powerful countries may work… until it doesn’t. That’s where we are today.

Neither candidate seems to realize that the world has changed.

I have always said that real strength in foreign policy comes from restraint. To prevent these bad outcomes everywhere, stop intervening everywhere. It is not “toughness” that would have prevented Russia from taking action against Ukraine. It is restraint. Not launching a coup in Ukraine in 2014 would have prevented the disastrous war in Ukraine. Just like not stirring up trouble in the South China Sea would prevent a war with China. Not continuing to occupy and intervene in the Middle East would prevent a major regional war which might include Iran and other big players in the region.

Restraint is the real toughness. Non-intervention is the only foreign policy that will keep us safe and free. We’ve tried it the other way and it does not work. Let’s try something different.

July 2, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Destroying Ukraine with Idealism

Why Ukraine should not have the “right” to join NATO

BY GLENN DIESEN | JULY 2, 2024

Political realism is commonly and mistakenly portrayed as immoral because the principal focus is on the inescapable security competition and it thus rejects idealist efforts to transcend power politics. However, because states cannot break with security competition, morality for the realist entails acting in accordance with the balance of power logic as the foundation for stability and peace. Idealist efforts to break with power politics can then be defined as immoral by undermining the management of security competition as the foundation of peace. As Raymond Aron expressed in 1966: “The idealist, believing he has broken with power politics exaggerates its crimes”.[1]

Ukraine’s Sovereign Right to join NATO

The most appealing and dangerous idealist argument that destroyed Ukraine is that it has the right to join any military alliance it desires. It is a very attractive statement that can easily win support from the public as it affirms the freedom and sovereignty of Ukraine, and the alternative is seemingly that Russia should be allowed to dictate Ukraine’s policies.

However, arguing that Ukraine should be allowed to join any military alliance is an idealist argument as it appeals to how we would like the world to be, not how the world actually works. The principle that peace derives from expanding military alliances without taking into account the security interests of other great powers has never existed. States such as Ukraine that border a great power have every reason to express legitimate security concerns, but inviting a rival great power such as the US into its territory intensifies the security competition.

Is it moral to insist on how the world ought to be when war is the consequence of ignoring how the world actually works?

The alternative to expanding NATO is not to accept a Russian sphere of influence, which denotes a zone of exclusive influence. Peace derives from recognising a Russian sphere of interests, which is an area where Russian security interests must be recognised and incorporated rather than excluded. It did not use to be controversial to argue that Russian security interests must be taken into account when operating on its borders.

Mexico has plenty of freedoms in the international system, but it does not have the freedom to join a Chinese-led military alliance or host Chinese military bases. The idealist argument that Mexico can do as it pleases implies ignoring US security concerns, and the result would likely be the US destruction of Mexico. If Scotland secedes from the UK and then joins a Russian-led military alliance and hosts Russian missiles, would the English still champion the principle that it has no say? Idealists who sought to transcend power politics and create a more benign world would instead intensify the security competition and instigate wars.

The Morality of Opposing NATO Expansionism

To argue that NATO expansionism provoked Russia’s invasion is regularly condemned by idealists as immoral because it allegedly legitimises both power politics and the invasion. Is objective reality immoral if it contradicts the ideal world we would like to exist?

The former British ambassador to Russia, Roderic Lyne, warned in 2020 that it was a “massive mistake” to push for NATO membership for Ukraine: “If you want to start a war with Russia, that’s the best way of doing it”.[2] Angela Merkel acknowledged that Russia would interpret the possibility of Ukrainian NATO membership as a “declaration of war”.[3] CIA Director William Burns also warned against drawing Ukraine into NATO as Russia fears encirclement and will therefore be under enormous pressure to use military force: “Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face”.[4] The advisor to former French President Sarkozy argued that the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership in November 2021 “convinced Russia that they must attack or be attacked”.[5] None of the aforementioned people sought to legitimise an invasion, rather they sought to avoid a war.

When great powers do not have a soft institutional veto, they use a hard military veto. The idealists insisting that Russia should not have a veto on NATO expansion pushed for the policies that predictably resulted in the destruction of a nation, the loss of territory, and hundreds of thousands of deaths. Why do the idealists get to present themselves as moral and “pro-Ukrainian”? Why are the realists who for more than a decade warned against NATO expansion immoral and “anti-Ukrainian”? Are these labels premised on the theoretical assumption of the idealists?

NATO as a Third Party?

Suggesting that Ukraine has the sovereign right to join NATO presents the military bloc as a passive third party that merely supports the democratic aspiration of Ukrainians. This narrative neglects that NATO did not have an obligation to offer future membership to Ukraine. Indeed, the Western countries signed several agreements with Moscow after the Cold War, such as the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, to collectively construct a Europe without dividing lines and based on indivisible security. NATO broke these agreements by pushing for expansion and refusing to offer Russia security guarantees to mitigate the security competition. By offering future membership to Ukraine, the NATO-Russia conflict became a Russia-Ukraine conflict as Russia had to prevent Ukraine from joining the military bloc and hosting the US military on its territory.

NATO’s support for Ukraine’s right to choose its own foreign policy is also dishonest as Ukraine had to be pulled into the orbit of the military bloc against its will. The Western public is rarely informed that every opinion poll between 1991 and 2014 demonstrates that only a very small minority of Ukrainians ever wanted to join the alliance. NATO recognised the lack of interest by the Ukrainian government and people as a problem to be overcome in a report from 2011: “The greatest challenge for Ukrainian-NATO relations lies in the perception of NATO among the Ukrainian people. NATO membership is not widely supported in the country, with some polls suggesting that popular support of it is less than 20%”.[6]

The solution was to push for a “democratic revolution” in 2014 that toppled the democratically elected government of Ukraine in violation of its constitution and without majority support from Ukrainians. The leaked Nuland-Pyatt phone call revealed that the US was planning a regime change, including who should be in the post-coup government, who had to stay out, and how to legitimise the coup.[7] After the coup, the US openly asserted its intrusive influence over the new government it had installed in Kiev. The general prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, complained that since 2014, “the most shocking thing is that all the [government] appointments were made in agreement with the United States” and Washington “believed that Ukraine was their fiefdom”.[8] A conflict with Russia could be manufactured that would create a demand for NATO.

What were the first decisions of the new government hand-picked by Washington? The first decree by the new Parliament was a call for repealing Russian as a regional language. The New York Times reports that on the first day following the coup, Ukraine’s new spy chief called the CIA and MI6 to establish a partnership for covert operations against Russia that eventually resulted in 12 secret CIA bases along the Russian border.[9] The conflict intensified as Russia responded by seizing Crimea and supporting a rebellion in Donbas, and NATO sabotaged the Minsk peace agreement that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians voted to have implemented. Preserving and intensifying the conflict gave Washington a dependent Ukrainian proxy that could be used against Russia. The same New York Times article mentioned above, also revealed that the covert war against Russia after the coup was a leading reason for Russia’s invasion:

“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”.[10]

The Immorality of Peace vs Morality of War?

After Russia’s “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine, the idealists insist that Ukraine must become a member of NATO as soon as the war is over. It is intended as an appealing and moral statement to ensure that Ukraine will be protected and such a tragedy will not be repeated.

Yet, what does it communicate to Russia? Whatever territory Russia does not conquer will fall into the hands of NATO, which can then be used as a frontline against Russia. The threat of NATO expansion incentivises Russia to seize as much territory as possible and ensure what remains is a deeply dysfunctional rump state. The only thing that can bring peace to Ukraine and end the carnage is to restore its neutrality, yet the idealists denounce this as deeply immoral and thus unacceptable. To repeat Raymond Aron: “The idealist, believing he has broken with power politics exaggerates its crimes”.[11]

 

NATO allies divided on what happens after the Ukraine war : NPR

[1] Aron, R., 1966. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. Doubleday, Garden City, p.584.

[2] R. Lyne, ‘The UC Interview Series: Sir Roderic Lyne by Nikita Gryazin’, Oxford University Consortium, 18 December 2020.

[3] A. Walsh, ‘Angela Merkel opens up on Ukraine, Putin and her legacy’, Deutsche Welle, 7 June 2022.

[4] W.J. Burns, ‘Nyet means nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines’, Wikileaks, 1 February 2008.

[5] C. Caldwell, ‘The War in Ukraine May Be Impossible to Stop. And the U.S. Deserves Much of the Blame’, The New York Times, 31 May 2022.

[6] NATO, ‘‘Post-Orange Ukraine’: Internal dynamics and foreign policy priorities’, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, October 2011, p.11.

[7] BBC, ‘Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call’, BBC, 7 February 2014.

[8] M.M. Abrahms, ‘Does Ukraine Have Kompromat on Joe Biden?’, Newsweek, 8 August 2023.

[9] A. Entous and M. Schwirtz, 2024. ‘The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin’, The New York Times, 25 February 2024.

[10] A. Entous and M. Schwirtz, 2024. ‘The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin’, The New York Times, 25 February 2024.

[11] Aron, R., 1966. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. Doubleday, Garden City, p.584.

July 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »