Blinken alleges RT engaged in ‘covert info ops., military procurement’
Al Mayadeen | September 13, 2024
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken accused on Friday state media organization RT of possessing cyber capabilities and engaging in covert information, influence operations, and military procurement.
Blinken told reporters that the United States is imposing sanctions on three entities and two individuals over Russia’s alleged “covert influence operations in the media domain, including interference in Moldova’s democracy, and its upcoming elections.”
In response, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova mockingly told Sputnik she suggests “treating Blinken’s actions as a blockchain.”
‘There will be a response’
The news website’s Deputy Director of English-Language Information Broadcasting Andrey Kiyashko, Digital Media Projects Manager Konstantin Kalashnikov, and numerous other employees were also added to the sanctions list.
Zakharova said on Tuesday that Russia will respond to US sanctions targeting Russian media and all its other adversarial actions.
“They (US) will have to understand that no action against our country will remain unanswered,” Zakharova said on the Solovyev LIVE show.
US authorities charged Kalashnikov and her fellow colleague Elena Afanasyeva with money laundering conspiracy and Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) violations.
The US State Department also implemented stricter regulations for Rossiya Segodnya (RT) and its subsidiaries, deeming them “foreign missions.” With this measure, the organization is obligated under the Foreign Missions Act to notify the department of all employees working in the US and disclose all their owned properties.
US authorities also announced restrictions on issuing visas to individuals believed to be “acting on behalf of Kremlin-supported media organizations.” However, the Department of State did not reveal the names of the individuals subject to the new restrictions.
Free Speech Group Slams Pennsylvania Gov. Shapiro’s Gag Order on Public Employees
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 13, 2024
The Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) has condemned a new executive order issued in Pennsylvania as unconstitutional, where that pertains to the First Amendment speech protections.
Governor Josh Shapiro’s move, described by the group as a “sweeping gag order” targeting public employees, is believed to be so egregious that FIRE is at the same time urging those affected across the state to join forces and challenge it in court.
The executive order prohibits anyone in the public sector – teachers, librarians, those working for utility companies among them – from making statements that can be interpreted as “scandalous” or “disgraceful.”
These changes to the code of conduct were added in May, in an “under-the-radar” fashion, but with rather significant impact: the code of conduct was now being extended to cover speech as well.
And these amended rules apply both to employees while at work, and off duty, FIRE remarks, bringing up a key question: who will decide what’s scandalous and disgraceful to the point that it must be punished?
“Impossibly vague” is how FIRE treats the wording of the order, which it believes merits a class action suit to overturn what is condemned as unconstitutional government overreach.
“No elected official can slap a gag order like this on state workers,” said FIRE’s director of public advocacy, Aaron Terr, adding that the group regards it as an abuse of power and hopes to team up with those affected for a legal battle.
In August, FIRE tried to communicate to the Pennsylvania governor that the rules were violating the First Amendment, in the hope of avoiding a lawsuit.
The August letter was ignored by Shapiro’s office. Back in May, those behind the contested changes made it obvious what prompted them: a war in the Middle East.
We obtained a copy of the second letter for you here.
In order to bring “moral clarity” into the way people are allowed to speak about that, concepts like “antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate speech” are mentioned as being on the rise in Pennsylvania, the US, and the whole world.
But Tarr is unimpressed. “The state is strategically putting all the chess pieces in place to punish everyday Americans for nothing more than saying something the government doesn’t like,” is his take on the true nature of all this.
And, Tarr added, “Our job is to smack those pieces off the board before someone gets fired for speaking their mind.”
Four Americans convicted for ‘conspiring’ with Russia
RT | September 13, 2024
Four US black rights activists have been convicted of conspiring to act as unregistered Russian agents, the Justice Department has announced. They have been acquitted, however, of a more serious charge of acting as agents of a foreign government.
A Florida jury found four defendants – Omali Yeshitela, Penny Hess, Jesse Nevel, and Augustus C. Romain Jr. – guilty “of conspiracy to act as agents of a foreign government,” the Justice Department said on Thursday.
“Each defendant faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. A sentencing date has not yet been set,” it added.
The trial was part of longer-running US legal proceedings against Russian human rights activist Aleksandr Ionov, who heads the Russian Anti-Globalization Movement. According to prosecutors, the four defendants carried out actions in the US between 2015 and 2022 on behalf of the Russian government and received money and support from Ionov, who was allegedly in contact with Russian intelligence.
Yeshitela, Hess, and Nevel had also been charged with the more serious crime of acting as agents of a foreign government, although jurors cleared them of those charges.
The Justice Department claimed that the Americans all knew Ionov, who has also been indicted in the US in connection with the case but is not under arrest, worked for the Russian government.
All four of those convicted are or were affiliated with the African People’s Socialist Party and Uhuru Movement, which defends the rights of African people. They include the movement’s 82-year-old leader, Yeshitela, as well as members Hess, 78 and Nevel, 34. Former member Romain, 38, founded the Atlanta-based Black Hammer Party in 2018.
The defense, meanwhile, claimed that the government had prosecuted the accused simply for their pro-Russian views.
“This case has always been about free speech,” Hess’ attorney, Leonard Goodman, told the AFP news agency.
In an interview with RT last week, Ionov said that in the absence of any evidence, the US government had leveraged its foreign agents laws.
“Over two years, our counterparts have been unable to find any evidence” and used “the entire list of restrictions and limitations that could be imposed,” he claimed.
Yeshitela, speaking to a crowd outside the courthouse after the trial, said it was important that “they were unable to convict us of working for anybody except black people.” He stressed that he was “willing to be charged and found guilty of working for black people.”
The defense noted that none of the 12 jurors was black. After the dismissal of a black woman from the original line-up in week two of the trial, the judge refused the defense’s request to replace her with an alternate black juror.
Russian ‘Force Majeure’ on Resource Exports Could Clobber Western Economies: Here’s Why
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 12.09.2024
President Putin has asked the government to consider restrictions on the export of strategic materials like nickel, titanium and uranium in response to unfriendly countries’ actions. Sputnik asked investment experts specializing in resource markets how these restrictions would impact the world economy. In short: it wouldn’t be pretty for the West.
Investors and market experts are buzzing over the Russian president’s instructions to Prime Minister Mishustin to whip up a report on measures Russia could take to limit the export of certain strategic minerals in response to Western sanctions policy, with uranium stocks enjoying an immediate price surge, and observers warning of shortages and hefty price increases for strategic metals if were to Moscow move forward with restrictions.
Along with nickel, titanium and uranium, Putin hinted that “other” resources may be affected, while emphasizing that restrictions should be considered so long as “this does not harm us.”
A resource superpower, Russia is endowed with substantial reserves of virtually all the primary commodities required to keep a modern economy functioning.
- The country possesses up to 12% of the world’s oil reserves, 32% of its natural gas, 8% of all untapped uranium, and 11% of the planet’s coal.
- Russia accounts for 25% of global iron reserves, 33% of nickel, 15% of zinc and titanium, 11% of tin, 10% of lead and rhodium, 8% of chromium, 7% of copper, 3% of cobalt, 2% of bauxite and about 1% of gallium, plus substantial amounts of beryllium, bismuth, and mercury. Russia also has about 12% of global potash (used in an array of areas, from agriculture and industrial chemicals to pharmaceuticals).
- Up to 23% of the world’s gold, 12% of silver, up to a fifth of platinum group metals, and as much as 55% of diamonds are buried under Russia’s soil.
- Russia is also a potential world leader in the production of rare earth minerals (which are used in an array of modern high-tech devices, communications systems and advanced weaponry). While it only accounts for about 2% of rare earths production today, Russia has the second-largest reserves, constituting up to 28.7 million metric tons, and has committed to major investments in production and processing. Known rare earths possessed by Russia include samarium, europium, gadolinium, lanthanum, neodymium, promethium, and cerium.
World’s Dependence on Russian Resources
Russia’s detractors have often played up its resource exports as a sign of the country’s lagging development or low place in the global hierarchy of ‘developed vs. underdeveloped’ nations. However, the partial breakdown in ties with Western countries after 2022 showed that while Russia can definitely survive without Western technological and consumer goods, the same cannot be said of the West when it comes to Russian oil, gas, uranium, fertilizers and other materials.
The US, for instance, continues to rely on Russian uranium to fuel its nuclear power plants, vowing to wean itself off its dependency only by 2028. Europe, having largely cut itself off from Russia’s cheap and dependable pipeline-delivered natural gas, is currently buying record volumes of Russian LNG amid shortages of US and Gulf-sourced supplies. Furthermore, major Western agricultural producers including the US, Germany, France and Poland have carved out special exceptions for themselves to allow the continued purchase of Russia’s world-class nitrogen fertilizers, which are energy-intensive to produce.
“The pain” of a Russian freeze on strategic resource exports “would be felt by both the US and the EU, and all countries listed as ‘unfriendly’ to Russia, as they would have to source the required elements from third country suppliers, and that would entail an appreciable price increase for the commodity, and the extended supply chain costs that entails,” Paul Goncharoff, general director of consulting firm Goncharoff LCC, told Sputnik, commenting on Putin’s proposal.
“In this case, most if not all alternative suppliers would be countries listed as ‘friendly’ to Russia. This is a value-added benefit for those countries,” Goncharoff added.
“In every instance the end user pays this mandatory unlegislated tax bill in the form of even higher inflation,” Goncharoff said, hinting that the higher commodity prices would add to the pain already being experienced by producers and consumers in many Western countries as a consequence of the two-and-a-half-year-old hybrid war against Russia.
The US and Europe should expect a 15-20% bump in the costs of its strategic resource imports if Moscow moves ahead with the restrictions, especially since Russia is in a unique position globally in the production of high-quality nickel, aviation-grade titanium, and enriched uranium, says Maxim Khudalov, chief strategist at Vector X, a Moscow-based investment and brokerage firm.
For instance, while Russia today accounts for ‘only’ about 8% of total global nickel output, it accounts for about 20% of the production of “high-grade nickel used to produce high-quality stainless steel and nickel-containing alloys, which are needed for space, aviation and defense technologies,” Khudalov explained.
The same goes for high quality titanium, Khudalov said, pointing out Russia’s titanium giant VSMPO-AVISMA in Sverdlovsk region is “unique in the world” as far as its ability to produce vast amounts of aviation-grade titanium is concerned.
Finding a replacement supplier would take time, including running a gauntlet of quality and safety testing and recertification which could take years, and in the case of aviation-grade titanium be required to meet strict temperature, bending, pressure load and other requirements, the expert noted.
“In an airplane, you can’t just say ‘well, I don’t like this supplier of an element used for the wing, I’ll take it from somewhere else.’ Nothing of the kind. If you replace the element used in the wing, you change the airplane, and have to retest it, because it’s no longer safe for civilian use,” Khudalov explained. “The conclusion here is that it is very difficult to replace Russian supplies in the aviation industry, requiring significant recertification efforts.”
If Europe loses access to Russian aviation-grade titanium, that would add to Airbus’s production costs, affecting the aviation giant considerably in its high-stakes rivalry with Boeing.
Meanwhile, higher nickel costs would mean higher prices for virtually all of Europe’s high-tech products, from electronics to specialized mechanical engineering products, Khudalov said, emphasizing that “all of this will become more expensive in Europe and again allow their American ‘friends’ to grab the remainder of their markets.”
“In this sense, Europe is more vulnerable than the US, because the US, with all its capabilities, can afford to increase production costs, at least because their energy is cheap. Europe cannot afford any increase in production costs and will objectively lose,” Khudalov said.
In the case of enriched uranium, the situation is even more complex, according to Khudalov, because it is a restricted resource typically exported to a specific customer for a specific use, and planning for the replacement of suppliers is a long and painstaking process, since nuclear power plants can’t simply be turned on and off at will.
“The French are the second player after Russia in uranium enrichment, but Russian enrichment technology is head and shoulders above anyone else in the world, and our enrichment costs are 35-40% cheaper than anywhere in the world. So if a country is forced to switch to French-sourced material, it will have to pay a very hefty premium,” Khudalov emphasized.
In that sense, France could meet increased US demand over time, but not overnight, since it would have to ramp up its own enrichment capacity.
“The US themselves were planning on disconnecting from our uranium starting in 2028. Well, we could ‘help them’, so to speak, to implement their decision by making deliveries more regulated,” Khudalov suggested.
Short-Term Losses, Long-Term Win
Russia, over the short term, could lose a bit of its export revenues if resource exports to the West were suddenly curtailed, Khudalov noted.
“But on the other hand, what do we need export revenues for? Generally speaking, the whole point of international trade for us is to sell raw materials in exchange for technology. Western countries have refused to supply us with technology basically going back to 2014. Then the question is: why do we continue to supply them with strategic raw materials? To get some green pieces of paper which they then seize from us? This is a rather strange position. Therefore, here it is turning out that since they limit our access to technology, we are starting to limit their access to raw materials,” Khudalov said.
“It can’t be said that all these possible restrictions on the Americans and the Europeans are critical and would kill their industry. It won’t. But it will add very serious difficulties, first and foremost of an organizational nature, because they would have to look for a supplier of comparable quality, and of course, pay a price they’re not accustomed to paying. Because when a force majeure occurs on the market, and for them this would constitute a force majeure, any normal businessman will be obliged to take advantage of their status as an alternative supplier. Most of the alternative suppliers are located in China, with whom the Americans are in the process of kicking off a global trade war,” the observer stressed.
“The cherry on the cake is that the president’s proposal sounded like a proposal to limit the supply of strategic metals to unfriendly countries, but probably implies no restrictions for friendly countries. In that case, we would deliver a nice pass to China, whose entire industry is aimed at producing high-tech equipment, and would effectively get a 15-20% advantage on the cost of strategic materials over Western competitors,” benefiting Beijing in its push to put “pressure on Europe and the US in all markets” globally, Khudalov said.
Russia, meanwhile, will be able to reorient its strategic metals exports to other major alternative markets as well, including India, according to the expert.
‘Israel’s’ Bloody Negotiations Strategy in Gaza
By Jamal Kanj | Al Mayadeen | September 12, 2024
Fifty-two years ago, almost to the day, on September 8, 1972, I survived the first of many air and sea raids on my refugee camp in northern Lebanon. I was less than two hundred yards from the area across the river where a group of us young kids met every day, between 4 and 5 p.m., to play in the large field, swim in the river, or the Mediterranean Sea.
At first, I heard what sounded like a humming plane. Before I could even turn my head to look up at the sky, I was startled by the booming sound of low-flying fighter jets passing overhead, dropping massive rockets onto the open field. The first bomb exploded in the northwest area of the field, creating a massive fireball—a black column of smoke intertwined with a glowing red blaze. The shockwave threw me off my bike. Soot filled the air and fragments rained down like strafing bullets all around me.
In less than 15 minutes, the once grassy green play area of approximately 20 acres was transformed into a lunar landscape, pocked with craters. One pit was so large and deep that groundwater filled the hole.
If the Israeli air raid had occurred just five or ten minutes later, I would have been in the middle of the field, playing with other 14-year-old kids. My friend Barakat, who was already there and likely had been eagerly anticipating my arrival, was killed. The raid left many unexploded devices and time-delayed bombs, making it difficult to recover his body until the next day. Our neighbor Mahdi was also killed, buried under the plowed soil. Years later, his skeleton was discovered when the area was being graded.
I’m reminded of this today, September 10, 2024, as I watch footage of the huge crater left behind by an American-made 2,000-pound MK-84 bomb. The bombs were dropped in the middle of the night on 20 tents housing displaced civilians in an Israeli-designated “safe area” in al-Mawasi, southern Gaza.
Early in the morning, the Israeli army issued its disinformation boilerplate communiqué, declaring the raid was a “precise strike” on senior resistance members. But videos from the crater, where tents lay buried under the sand, suggest that “Israel” targeted civilians in a supposed safe area.
Reading about the “precise strike” on a BBC site took me back 52 years. Almost three hours after the raid on my camp, I remember my father and our neighbors gathering around the radio to listen to the 7 p.m. BBC Arabic news. I still recall how they stopped breathing, their eyes wide, mouths agape, as the BBC quoted an Israeli army spokesman claiming “Israel” had targeted a military base in Nahr el-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon.
While I don’t remember the exact number of the killed and injured that afternoon, I know for certain that 100 percent were civilians—mostly young boys and girls, with at least one elderly man among them. I felt then as helpless as many of those who were sleeping on September 10 in their “safe” tents, unable to tell their story to the world. The photos left behind by the US-manufactured 2,000-pound bombs, however, expose “Israel’s” lies and the complicity of the managed Western media.
It is utterly despicable that the lecterns at the White House and the State Department have become platforms to market such lies, emboldening “Israel’s” intransigence and whitewashing its genocide. Especially egregious is the disinformation spread by White House National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby, who blamed the Palestinians as “the main obstacle” to a ceasefire. This brazen lie comes less than a week after the leak of a document pointing to new conditions that were added in late July by Benjamin Netanyahu to Joe Biden’s proposal from May 27, which torpedoed the ceasefire agreement.
After the Palestinians rejected Netanyahu’s new conditions in late July, “Israel” intensified its systematic campaign of bombing displaced civilians in safe areas, including 16 UN schools converted into mass shelters. Unable to compel a ceasefire on its terms, “Israel” is using these attacks on designated safe areas as part of its bloody negotiation strategy to exert pressure by inflicting maximum suffering on civilians through murder and starvation.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration continues to supply “Israel” with the means to commit these war crimes, while using the White House platform to spread disinformation, making “Israel’s” “lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”
Debate Debacle: Our Bleak Foreign Policy Future
By Daniel Larison | The Libertarian Institute | September 12, 2024
The first presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump presented a bleak picture of the future of U.S. foreign policy no matter who wins in November. On the most urgent and important foreign policy issue of the year, the war and genocide in Gaza, Harris repeated empty platitudes about a “two-state solution” and Trump fell back on tired “pro-Israel” rhetoric. Neither candidate offered voters any hope that there would be a meaningful change from incumbent Joe Biden’s policy of unconditional support for the slaughter and starvation of Palestinians.
Trump absurdly said that Harris hates Israel, but aside from her perfunctory expression of support for Palestinian self-determination there was unfortunately very little to distinguish the two of them on this issue. Like Trump, Harris backs Israel to the hilt, and the main difference is that she pays lip service to Palestinian rights while doing nothing to protect them. She says some of the right things about the need for a ceasefire, but the Joe Biden administration isn’t willing to use its leverage to secure one and Harris refuses to call for the halt to U.S. arms transfers that U.S. law requires.
Harris has had many opportunities in the two months since Biden dropped out to separate herself from the president on this issue. She squandered them all by sticking to the official administration line. The vice president would rather tout her support from the likes of Dick Cheney than try and win the support of antiwar voters across the country. Harris has been catering mostly to hawks this summer, and she prefers attacking Trump for being “weak” instead of using his policy failures against him.
For his part, Trump returned to his old obsession with Iran and criticized the Biden administration because “they took off all the sanctions that I had.” Unfortunately for diplomacy with Iran, Biden never lifted any Iran sanctions, and the small amount of sanctions relief that he was prepared to grant was never delivered. Biden kept Trump’s dangerous Iran policy in place with similarly poor results, and there is no evidence so far that Harris is interested in pursuing a policy of diplomatic engagement.
The candidates had almost nothing to say about diplomacy during the debate. It was telling that the only time the word diplomacy was uttered during the debate was when Harris was criticizing the Trump administration’s negotiations with the Taliban that led to the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Trump mentioned negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine, but he offered no specifics on how he would bring the belligerents to the table or what he would do to secure an agreement.
Harris also repeated the president’s strange lie that the United States isn’t at war anywhere. She said, “There is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century.” That would come as a surprise to the soldiers recently injured during a raid in Iraq and to the sailors waging Biden’s war in Yemen. It would also be news to the American forces fighting in Somalia and the troops illegally stationed in Syria. The U.S. Navy has said that its ships have been engaged in the most intense combat since World War II in the Red Sea, but as far as Biden and Harris are concerned it isn’t even happening.
Meanwhile, the U.S.-backed war in Gaza continues to claim innocent lives. Israeli forces bombed yet another tent encampment filled with displaced civilians on Tuesday, killing dozens of them. According to analysis of the damage, they used 2,000-pound U.S.-made bombs to do it. These bombs are so large and so powerful that using them in a densely populated area is obviously criminal. That was just the latest in a string of attacks on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on at least sixteen schools where displaced people had taken shelter. The official death toll is now over 40,000, but informed estimates from doctors that have worked in the territory suggest that the real number is more than double that.
During the debate there was no mention of that massacre in a so-called humanitarian zone, nor did anyone bring up the name of Aysenur Eygi, the American citizen murdered by an Israeli sniper in the West Bank just last week. People watching the debate would have had no idea that one of the worst man-made famines in modern times is currently raging in Gaza, and they wouldn’t know that the famine is the result of an Israeli campaign of deliberate starvation. The victims of the monstrous bipartisan foreign policy consensus in Washington are usually invisible in American debates, and this was no exception.
How Britain Started the Vietnam War
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | September 12, 2024
On September 2nd 1945, within hours of Imperial Japan’s Emperor Hirohito formally signing an instrument of surrender and ending World War II in the Pacific, Ho Chi Minh, leader of the Viet Minh, proclaimed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam’s foundation. Liberally citing passages from the 1776 US Declaration of Independence, Ho pledged that his newly-created state would never again be subject to foreign domination or exploitation, and evermore remain governed solely by and for its people.
Vietnam’s radical post-war euphoria was palpably captured by French photographer Germaine Krull, a French photographer who visited the country mere days later. In her diary, she observed how in Saigon, “all the streets were hung with large banners and all the walls and official buildings” bore revolutionary inscriptions. They declared; “down with French imperialism; down with the colonials; the era of colonization is over; down with slavery.” The Communist-dominated Viet-Minh’s “big red [flag] with the yellow star” could also be seen in profusion.
Japanese soldier hands over his sword to the British, September 1945
This was quite some contrast from the scenes that greeted Krull at Saigon airport. There, “an unusual situation prevailed”:
“It was being serviced entirely by the Japanese. They were doing everything: driving trucks and cars, standing guard, carrying luggage and refuelling. The British were in command of them and kept order… The Japanese performed their duties faultlessly and were perfectly disciplined.”
Krull had flown in on one of several “transport planes carrying British troops,” among them a sizeable detachment of “handsome, impeccable” Gurkhas, along with “their Scotch commanding officer.” Unstated by the photographer, their mission was to comprehensively crush the country’s dreams of independence, and re-establish France’s control over her colonial holding. Under its auspices, the “unusual situation” of Vietnam’s recently vanquished Japanese occupiers taking orders from and working alongside the British, until mere days earlier their sworn adversaries, was not restricted to Saigon airport.
Many decades later, Britain’s immediate post-war intervention in Vietnam remains virtually unknown. Yet, despite lasting just six months, the bitter conflict cost many lives, and effectively ignited the three-decade-long Vietnam War, which ended in embarrassing defeat for Western powers. The impact on the region, and wider world, endures for untold numbers of people today. It is a sordid, secret chapter in London’s recent history, urgently demanding re-evaluation.
That the British meant grave business in Vietnam is amply underscored by their Indian Army’s entire 20th Division’s deployment to the country. As journalist George Rosie reported in 1970, this force had “been at the very heart of the fighting” against Japan over Burma, and in turn control over the whole subcontinent. Across countless brutal battles, its units fought off “ferocious” attacks, “inflicting terrible casualties” on the enemy.
The 20th Division was particularly central to these efforts. By the end of World War II, Rosie recorded, “there was no more skilful, experienced and battle-hardened” unit in Burma. The Division was “probably the best division in one of the best armies in Asia.” Now, its soldiers were to target their well-honed proficiency in the art of killing against the Vietnamese. In all, 26,000 British soldiers along with 2,500 military vehicles were airdropped into Saigon for the purpose.
Three artillery regiments also arrived, while the Royal Air Force was on hand with 14 spitfires and 34 Mosquito fighter bombers in support. Backing this vast invading army were Vichy French and Japanese troops, who were provided with new weapons by their British counterparts. The official objective was to “maintain law and order and ensure internal security” in Vietnam. Still, the British and their conquered underlings were given explicit orders to savagely crush any and all local resistance, even if innocent civilians were killed:
“There is no front in these operations: we would be dealing with bands of guerillas… We may find it difficult to distinguish friend from foe… Also beware of ‘nibbling’ at opposition. Always use the maximum force available to ensure wiping out any hostile we may meet. If one uses too much, no harm is done. If one uses too small a force and it has to be extricated [sic], we will suffer casualties and encourage the enemy.”
Japanese soldiers repair an airfield, while British troops observe
Quickly, the Vietnamese began dying in vast numbers. However, this bloodsoaked incursion initially went entirely unremarked upon in the British media, and parliament, for several months. As such, the public at home remained completely in the dark about their Army waging another grand foreign entanglement, let alone in tandem with its World War II enemies. This conspiracy of silence continued until December 1945, when a joint letter authored by British soldiers in Vietnam, sent to then-Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, was published by The Guardian:
“It appears that we are collaborating with Japanese and French forces against the nationalist forces of Viet Minh. For what purpose is this collaboration? Why are we not disarming the Japanese? We desire the definition of government policy regarding the presence of British troops in Indo-China.”
These bombshell disclosures attracted little interest, and were promptly forgotten. The signatories received a stern talking-to from a senior military official, and no further revelations about Britain’s covert war in Vietnam subsequently emerged. In the meantime, slaughter of innocent civilians continued apace. Much later, one of the signatories to the joint letter recalled of his time in the country:
“We saw homes being burned and hundreds of the local population being kept in compounds. We saw many ambulances, open at the back, carrying mainly – actually, totally – women and children, who were in bandages. I remember it very vividly. All the women and children who lived there would stand outside their homes, all dressed in black, and just grimly stare at us, really with… hatred.”
Come mid-January next year, the Viet Minh had learned lessons from launching large-scale attacks on British-led forces, which frequently ended with significant casualties due to their opponents’ superior firepower, and extensive use of machine guns. Hanoi’s freedom fighters thereafter adopted a raft of guerrilla tactics, including ambushes, assassinations, and hit-and-run raids on enemy patrols. It was the world’s first modern unconventional war. These strategies were devastatingly employed against French and US invaders over the next three decades.
Control of the mission was formally signed over by London to French generals at the end of March 1946, and most of her forces duly left Hanoi. France was emboldened by the perceived success of Britain’s intervention, believing Ho Chi Minh’s forces couldn’t withstand further onslaught from a “civilised”, professional army. This delusion led Paris to launch all-out war against Hanoi again in December that year. It ended in bitter defeat eight years later, and then the Americans stepped in.
For its part, in the post-World War II period, Britain waged a number of comparable, covert wars in every corner of the world, as its financial and military clout rapidly withered. In many cases, the US subsequently stepped in to fill London’s shoes, taking over management of far-flung crises and emergencies, and in the process Britain’s fallen empire. The past 80 years has been a neverending story of American struggle to master the dual legacies of colonialism and partition, bequeathed by its own former imperial overlord.
A Tale of Two Disputes: How China Handles Hanoi and Manila
By Joseph Solis-Mullen | The Libertarian Institute | September 12, 2024
A recent article in the South China Morning Post caught my eye—the topic being why Beijing has taken such an apparently different approach to its territorial disputes with Vietnam versus the similar disputes it has with the Philippines.
Given the now weekly near misses between competing claimants in the South China Sea, the topic is a timely one, and in analyzing Beijing’s contrasting responses to territorial claims by Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea, it becomes clear that China’s strategic calculations are shaped by varying historical, political, and diplomatic dynamics.
Historically, Vietnam’s claims to the South China Sea date back several centuries, although the exact extent and nature of these claims have evolved significantly over time.
Vietnamese records from the Nguyễn Dynasty (1802–1945) suggest that Vietnamese rulers asserted control over certain islands and features in the South China Sea. And references to the Spratly and Paracel Islands appear in historical texts from as early as the seventeenth century. These documents suggest that Vietnamese fishing fleets and merchant vessels regularly visited the islands and considered them within their traditional maritime territory.
When France colonized Vietnam in the late nineteenth century, it began asserting territorial claims on behalf of the Vietnamese protectorate in the South China Sea. In the 1930s, the French government formally claimed both the Paracel and Spratly Islands, citing historical Vietnamese sovereignty. The French established outposts and conducted surveys on some of the islands, mainly driven by the strategic importance of the South China Sea for naval dominance. These colonial claims are crucial because they form part of the modern Vietnamese argument that sovereignty was maintained through continuous occupation, even when the country was under colonial rule.
After the French withdrew in 1954, both North and South Vietnam laid claims to the islands, though South Vietnam maintained physical control over most of the features in the South China Sea. Following the Vietnam War and the reunification of Vietnam in 1975, the unified Socialist Republic of Vietnam continued asserting sovereignty over the islands and expanded its presence in the Spratlys, bolstering its post-colonial efforts to keep the islands under effective control through patrols and the construction of outposts even as China began moving to assert its claims.
The longstanding control of these features is one reason why Beijing has been relatively restrained in responding to Hanoi’s recent expansion activities.
Moreover, Vietnam’s strategy of managing maritime disputes with Beijing “quietly” contrasts sharply with the Philippines’ approach of publicizing clashes and appealing to international forums. Vietnam’s decision to handle disputes internally and seek “friendly consultations” has helped to de-escalate tensions with China, despite the fact that its island-building mirrors China’s own efforts over the past decade.
Indeed, the political relationship between China and Vietnam is arguably the key factor shaping Beijing’s measured response. As the article from the South China Morning Post notes, the overall bilateral relationship is defined by economic cooperation and mutual geopolitical interests, including China’s Belt and Road Initiative. As a result, Beijing seeks to preserve its broader relationship with Vietnam, using diplomacy and economic enticements as buffers against outright hostility. This is in contrast to the Philippines, whose defense ties with Washington have escalated tensions. The longstanding U.S.-Philippine alliance is viewed by Beijing as part of a broader strategy of “containment,” especially in light of the recently revived Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which gives the U.S. military access to more bases close to Taiwan and the South China Sea.
The Philippines has made headlines by consistently publicizing its maritime disputes with China. Videos of Chinese coast guard vessels colliding with Philippine boats and the use of water cannons have garnered international attention, forcing Beijing to defend its actions diplomatically. Furthermore, Manila’s close alignment with Washington, particularly under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has heightened tensions with China. This is exacerbated by joint military exercises between the Philippines, the United States, and other allies like Japan and Australia. For Beijing, this has elevated the Philippines to a higher priority in terms of countering what it perceives (correctly) as a U.S.-led containment effort in the region. Vietnam, by contrast, has avoided such provocative military cooperation with external powers, further explaining why Beijing’s approach has been comparatively restrained.
The American role in the region cannot be understated. Washington’s decision to interpret existing treaty obligations to defend Manila in the event of an armed attack under the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty raises the stakes significantly and decreases the likelihood that Manila will choose to deescalate. This brings into focus the risk of conflict between the United States and China in defense of territorial claims in the South China Sea, which would likely start with a confrontation over the Scarborough Shoal or Spratly Islands. Beijing has increasingly seen its conflict with Manila as an extension of the U.S.-China strategic rivalry, particularly regarding Taiwan, which further complicates the maritime disputes and endangers the world.
At the same time, as Beijing seeks to prevent a collective response from claimant states, recognizing that pushing too hard against Vietnam could drive Hanoi closer to the United States and its allies. While Vietnam has taken advantage of Beijing’s focus on the Philippines to accelerate its island-building activities, Beijing’s restraint towards Vietnam does not rule out future escalations, especially if Vietnam’s militarization of these features intensifies.
While much is uncertain, one thing seems clear: far from being a force for peace in the region, Washington’s intervention, far from America’s own shores, is a clear source of instability and potential danger.
Sowing the Seeds for War Machine’s Next Conflict? US Navy Seals Reportedly Train for Taiwan Conflict
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 12.09.2024
Amid the ongoing violence in the Middle East and the NATO-fueled proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, the US military is reportedly eying a new front amid Washington’s attempts to save the unipolar world order.
The US Navy’s elite Seal Team 6 is training for missions to “help” Taiwan if tensions between the island and the PRC go hot.
Sources told the Financial Times that planning and training for a Taiwan escalation has been underway “for more than a year” at Seal Team 6’s Dam Neck, Virginia Beach HQ.
The training, which coincides with increasingly systematized deployments of US special forces in Taiwan, comes amid the US military and intelligence community’s broader refocus on China.
Such deployments, and even US arms sales to Taiwan, are technically illegal under agreements underpinning China-US relations, which require Washington to adhere to the ‘One China’ principle recognizing the People’s Republic as the sole legal government of China. This principle prompted the US to end its military presence in Taiwan after 1979, and to sign a communique with Beijing in 1982 requiring Washington to gradually scale back the extent of its arms deliveries to Taiwan.
The US has reneged on both commitments, with internal Pentagon data released in 2021 revealing that small numbers of US troops have been stationed on Taiwan going back to at least 2008. In March 2024, Taipei confirmed the permanent presence of US troops on islands in the Taiwan Strait for ‘training purposes’, including Green Berets deployed as little as 10 km off the mainland.
“The US is manipulating the Taiwan question in various forms, which is a very dangerous gamble,” China’s Defense Ministry said of US moves in late 2023, after Congress authorized a “comprehensive training, advising and institutionalized capacity-building program” for Taiwan. “We urge the US to fully realize the severe harm of the China-related content in the NDAA, stop arming Taiwan under any excuses and by any means, stop its provocations by using Taiwan to ‘contain China’, and take concrete actions to maintain regional peace and stability,” Beijing urged.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, who has formally outlined a policy aiming at eventual peaceful reunification with Taiwan under the ‘One China, Two Systems’ principle, reportedly accused Washington of trying to “goad Beijing into attacking Taiwan” during talks with EU chief Ursula von der Leyen in 2023.
Will ‘Insane’ Biden Provoke World War III Before November Election?
By John Miles – Sputnik – 12.09.2024
The last several years have brought the United States closer to conflict with a nuclear-armed power than any time since the 1960s, one former CIA analyst claimed.
Lasting from the end of World War II until the early 1990s, the Cold War saw the United States and the USSR locked in a global competition for power and influence. Although the two superpowers never went to war directly, the 45-year period was marked by two proxy conflicts in Vietnam and Korea and a constant fear that a third World War was not far away.
Tensions were heightened by the fact that both the United States and the Soviet Union possessed nuclear weapons, dramatically raising the stakes of global conflict.
Both countries nearly saw their worst fears realized during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when it appeared the US and USSR were unwilling to back down over the issue of nuclear missiles being placed just miles from each country’s border in Cuba and Turkey. The incident led to the establishment of a special hotline for US and Soviet leaders to communicate directly, and caused US President John F. Kennedy to remark that tensions between nuclear powers must never again rise to such a level.
For decades, Kennedy’s maxim was dutifully observed as both countries worked to improve relations, finally culminating in the end of the Cold War.
The prospect for nuclear confrontation was avoided until recent years, claimed former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, when the United States rejected Russian overtures for a new European security architecture and stubbornly insisted Ukraine’s coup regime would be granted entry into NATO. The analyst joined Sputnik’s The Critical Hour program Wednesday to consider whether US President Joe Biden is willing to risk global conflict to reverse Kiev’s flagging fortunes on the battlefield.
“They want to provoke Putin [into] doing something really drastic before the election, before the [presidential] election here on November 5th,” suggested McGovern, a critic of neoconservative US foreign policy.
“They’re losing in Kursk [region],” he noted, referring to Ukraine’s stalled incursion into Russian territory. “What were they trying to do? They were trying to get the Russians to react in such a way as to bring the US in with both feet militarily.”
“What’s this business about [Ukraine] begging for longer range missiles?” McGovern continued. “Same objective.”
Ukraine’s Western sponsors have repeatedly escalated the country’s conflict with Russia, gradually providing Kiev with more powerful weapons and granting it permission to strike within Russian territory. This has increasingly culminated in attacks on Russian civilians; perhaps most provocatively a strike on a beach in the city of Sevastopol that injured 124 people, including 27 children, and killed three people, including two children.
Some 500 Russian civilians have been killed by the Ukrainian regime in 2024 alone as the country continues to rely on the support of neo-Nazi formations such as the notorious Azov Battalion*. Kiev’s provocative attacks seem tailor-maid to produce a harsh response, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has so far sought to avoid any attack likely to draw the United States or Ukraine’s European allies directly into the conflict.
“My fear is that [the United States] will try something really drastic like a false flag attack or maybe even a mini nuke,” said McGovern, concerned that the US could fabricate an episode such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident that drew the country into the Vietnam War. “Let’s see what happens the next couple of weeks. I think Putin is right. It’s only the smart thing to see who wins on the 5th of November. Till then, I’m still holding my breath.”
But McGovern warned that the consequences of the United States’ strategy in Ukraine could fall not on the US itself, but on its European allies.
“It’s really hard to know what Biden and [National Security Advisor Jake] Sullivan, who are running things, really think,” he claimed. “Some of my best friends and analysts think they’re insane. And it’s really, really hard to predict what they’re going to do if they’re insane.”
“The Europeans are being told by the Russians, ‘look, if Biden, Blinken and Sullivan opt for a tactical nuclear weapon, for God’s sake, please, please remember we got them too. And where will we use them? We’ll use them in Europe,’” McGovern said, summarizing Russia’s possible response.
“So I think when this is directed at the Europeans, saying, ‘look at what happened to your fellow country in Europe, Ukraine. You want the same thing to happen to you? So, please, rein these guys in.’”
Pentagon orders study of potential nuclear strike in Eastern Europe
RT | September 12, 2024
The US Defense Department has ordered a study which would simulate the impact of a nuclear conflict on global agriculture. According to a solicitation notice posted earlier this week on a government procurement platform, the study would focus on regions “beyond Eastern Europe and Western Russia,” which would appear to be the epicenter of the hypothetical nuclear weapons deployment in the simulation.
The project will be spearheaded by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC).
According to the notice, the ERDC has already chosen Terra Analytics, a Colorado-based company that specializes in advanced data visualization and analyses, as the contractor. However, it states that other potential contractors are invited to share their proposals if they are able to provide similar services.
The notice lists requirements for contractors to fulfill, such as providing personnel, equipment, facilities, supervision, and other items necessary to conduct the study. The contractor would, among other things, need to incorporate aerial mapping in the simulation and model a scenario in which a “non-destructive nuclear event” takes place. The cost of the contract has been set at $34 million.
It is unclear from the notice how the Pentagon intends to use the study. However, the order comes at a time when talk of a potential nuclear war has intensified in light of the Ukraine conflict and the growing discord between the NATO and Russia. Many experts have warned that a direct confrontation between Russia and the US-led bloc could result in a nuclear disaster. According to the Federation of American Scientists, Washington and Moscow control the largest atomic arsenals in the world, with around 5,000 and 5,500 warheads, respectively.
The New York Times reported last month that the US administration had approved a new version of its nuclear strategy. According to the newspaper, the document ordered US forces to prepare for possible coordinated nuclear confrontations with Russia, China, and North Korea.
Russia has often warned that the West’s military support of the Ukrainian government could exacerbate the current conflict, turning it into a world war. Russian policymakers have recently been considering making adjustments to the country’s own atomic doctrine to provide for pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Moscow has, however, consistently stated that a nuclear war must never be fought.
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Iran UN ambassador calls for destruction of all nuclear weapons
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo
Press TV – March 29, 2017
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo has called for the total eradication of nuclear weapons.
Khoshroo reiterated Iran’s call during a UN conference aimed at creating a nuclear weapons ban treaty in New York on Tuesday.
“Iran, as a victim of chemical weapons, strongly feels the danger posed by the existence of weapons of mass destruction and is determined to engage actively in international diplomatic efforts to save humanity from the menace of nuclear weapons,” he said.
Khoshroo stressed that Iran is committed to its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, which include negotiations based on effective nuclear disarmament measures.
He added that several countries continue to ignore international calls and treaties for nuclear disarmament and even continue to increase their nuclear stockpiles. “They do not have political determination to abandon doctrines of nuclear deterrence and nuclear terror,” he went on to say.
Iran’s UN ambassador noted that boycotting the talks by many countries, including the US, shows that the world’s nuclear powers are by no means committed to the eradication of nuclear arms. Britain and France were also among the some 40 countries that did not join the talks.
“We note that prohibition of nuclear weapons must be accompanied by the elimination of such weapons. There can be no doubt that without complete abolition of nuclear weapons, there will be no absolute guarantee against the danger of nuclear war and the use of such weapons,” Khoshroo added.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
- What Is SIDS?
- DHS docs: Govt bracing for nationwide anti-AI riots, preparing to crack down on dissent
- India signals rethink over West Asia
- Israeli Ex-Navy Chief admits massive damage from Iran missiles
- The strategic arsenal US lost in war against Iran – and why replenishment will take years
- Documents Suggest Fauci Knew COVID Was Created in Wuhan Lab, and mRNA Vaccines Wouldn’t Work
- No return to pre-war status for Strait of Hormuz – Iran’s top diplomat
- Ex-South Korean President sentenced for trying to provoke conflict with Pyongyang
- US publishes docs on ‘dangerous’ Ukrainian biolabs
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Firm Accused of Launching Smear Campaigns During US, European Elections
- As World Cup kicks off, Gaza amputee girls chase football dreams
- Oxfam: More Palestinians killed by Israel across West Bank in last 3 years than previous 17 years combined
- US-Iran ceasefire may be imminent, but will Israel blow it up? – Daily Update
- The Issue of Israel Is Ending Democracy In Michigan
- Israel is stealing homes, livelihoods, and lives in West Bank
- Gaza is not an aberration – Israel planned this genocide decades ago
- Israel is changing the face of Lebanon, mainstream media is normalizing it – 3 articles
- Genocide lobby benefits from EU anti-racist fund
- Watching the World Cup from Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
Aletho News 
