Category: Russia

  • The following article is a comment piece from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

    The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) strongly condemns the decision by the Biden administration to allow Ukraine to use its Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

    CND: Biden’s weapons decision over Ukraine

    This move, which escalates the ongoing conflict, is a dangerous and reckless decision by the outgoing US President that risks drawing NATO into an all-out confrontation with Russia, increasing the likelihood of catastrophic nuclear use.

    Reports indicate that Keir Starmer is considering giving permission for Ukraine to use British long-range Storm Shadow missiles. We urge the British government not to follow the US down this dangerous path.

    In September, following lobbying by Starmer to secure Biden’s support for Ukraine’s use of its Storm Shadow missiles, Vladimir Putin announced changes to the conditions in which Russia would use nuclear weapons, to include conventional strikes by non-nuclear states that have the backing of nuclear powers.

    Diplomacy and dialogue, not military escalation, are the only viable paths to peace in the region. President Biden needs to reconsider this reckless decision, using his final months in office to de-escalate the conflict.

    CND general secretary Sophie Bolt said:

    This is an incredibly dangerous and reckless decision by Biden. The use of these long-range missiles risks drawing nuclear-armed NATO into an all-out confrontation with Russia. We urge the British government not to follow Biden down this dangerous path. De-escalation is the only way to end this conflict.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Fresh fears of escalation were expressed Tuesday after Ukraine struck territory deep inside of Russia using long-range missiles for the first time within hours of the Kremlin announcing changes to its nuclear weapons posture. In the pre-dawn hours, Ukraine reportedly used U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles to attack an ammunition depot in the Bryansk region of Russia, located less than 200 miles…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • While neocons from both sides of the proverbial political aisle welcomed what some described as President Joe Biden’s “long overdue” decision Sunday to allow Ukrainian forces to strike deep inside Russia with U.S.-supplied long-range missiles, antiwar voices sounded the alarm on what one senior Kremlin official called “a very big step towards the start of World War III.” “Biden has for the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Yulia Skripal communicated from her bedside at Salisbury District Hospital on March 8, 2018, four days after she and her father Sergei Skripal collapsed from a poison attack, that the attacker used a spray; and that the attack took place when she and her father were eating at a restaurant just minutes before their collapse on a bench outside.

    The implication of the Skripal evidence, revealed for the first time on Thursday, is that the attack on the Skripals was not perpetrated by Russian military agents who were photographed elsewhere in Salisbury town at the time; that the attacker or attackers were British agents; and that if their weapon was a nerve agent called Novichok, it came, not from Moscow, but from the UK Ministry of Defence chemical warfare laboratory at Porton Down.

    Porton Down’s subsequent evidence of Novichok contamination in blood samples, clothing, car, and home of the Skripals may therefore be interpreted as British in source, not Russian.

    This evidence was revealed by a police witness testifying at the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry in London on November 14. The police officer, retired Detective Inspector Keith Asman was in 2018, and he remains today  the chief of forensics for the Counter Terrorism Policing (CTPSE) group which combines the Metropolitan and regional police forces with the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Security Service (MI5).

    According to Asman’s new disclosure, Yulia Skripal had woken from a coma and confirmed to the doctor at her bedside that she remembered the circumstances of the attack on March 4. What she remembered, she signalled,  was not (repeat not) the official British Government narrative that Russian agents had tried to kill them by poisoning the front door-handle of the family home.

    The new evidence was immediately dismissed by the Sturgess Inquiry lawyer assisting Anthony Hughes (titled Lord Hughes of Ombersley), the judge directing the Inquiry. “We see there,” the lawyer put to Asman as a leading question, “the suggestion, which we now know not to be right, of course”.   — page 72.

    Hughes then interrupted to tell the witness to disregard what Skripal had communicated. “If the record that you were given there is right, someone suggested to her ‘Had you been sprayed’. She didn’t come up with it herself.” — page 73. Hughes continued to direct the forensics chief to disregard the hearsay of Skripal. “Anyway the suggestion that she had been sprayed in the restaurant didn’t fit with your investigations?  A. [Asman] No, sir. LORD HUGHES:  Thank you.”

    So far in in the Inquiry which began public sessions on October 14, this is the first direct sign of suppression of evidence by Hughes.

    Hearsay, he indicates, should be disregarded if it comes from the target of attack, Yulia Skripal. However, hearsay from British Government officials, policemen, and chemical warfare agents at Porton Down must be accepted instead. Hughes has also banned Yulia and Sergei Skripal from testifying at the Inquiry.

    The lawyer appointed and paid by the Government to represent the Skripals in the inquiry hearings said nothing to acknowledge the new disclosure nor to challenge Hughes’s efforts to suppress it.

    Asman described his career and credentials in his witness statement to the Inquiry, dated October 23, 2024. His rank when he retired from the regular police forces in 2009 was detective inspector. He was then promoted to higher ranking posts at the operations coordinating group known as Counter Terrorism Policing for the Southeast Region (CTPSE). By 2018 Asman says he was “head of the National Counter Terrorism Forensics Working Group since 2012, and was the UK Counter Terrorism Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) forensic lead.” In June 2015 Asman was awarded the Order of the British Empire (MBE) “for services to Policing.”

    At page 19 of his recent witness statement, this is what Asman has recorded for the evening of March 8, 2018:

    Source: Dawn Sturgess Inquiry — page 19.

    Asman’s went on to claim in this statement: “At this point Yulia Skripal was described as being emotional and fell unconscious. I made notes of my conversation with DI [Detective Inspector] VN104 in one of my notebooks, and in addition this information was confirmed to me in writing the next morning. The information she provided about being sprayed at the restaurant [Zizzi] was seemingly inconsistent with the presence of novichok at the Mill public house and 47 Christie Miller Road. On hearing this, I personally wondered whether Yulia Skripal knew more about it than she had alluded to and therefore whilst being fully cognisant of the SIO’s [Senior Investigative Officer] hypothesis and the need to be open-minded continued to prioritise her property.”

    The Scene of the Novichol Crime

    Source: Dailymail.co.uk

    The Evidence the Crime Was British

    Left: Yulia Skripal in May 2018, the scar of forced intubation still visible; read more here. Centre; Dr Stephen Cockroft who recorded the exchange with Skripal at her bedside on March 8, 2018; that was followed, Cockroft has also testified, by forced sedation and tracheostomy – read more. Right: read the only book on the case evidence.  

    Open-minded was not what the judge and his lawyers wanted from Asman when he appeared in public for the first time on Thursday, November 14. Referring precisely to the excerpt of Skripal’s hospital evidence, Francesca Whitelaw KC for the Inquiry asked Asman: “We can take that [witness statement excerpt] down, but this information as well, was it consistent or inconsistent with what you  had found out in terms of forensic about the presence of  Novichok at The Mill and 47 Christie Miller Road?  A. [Asman] It, I would say, was inconsistent on the basis that she said she was sprayed in the restaurant.” — page 73.

    Asman was then asked by Whitelaw to comment on Yulia Skripal’s exchange with Cockroft. “My question for you is: how, if at all, this impacted on your investigations?  A. It only very slightly impacted on it…It was information to have but not necessarily going to change my approach on anything.” — page 73.

    In the Inquiry record  of hearings and exhibits since the commencement of the open sessions on October 14, there have been eleven separate exhibits of documents purporting to record what Yulia and Sergei Skripal have said; they include interviews with police and witness statements for the Inquiry; they are dated from April 2018 through October 2024. Most of them have been heavily redacted. None of them is signed by either Skripal.

    Neither Yulia nor Sergei Skripal has been asked by the police, by the Inquiry lawyers, or by Hughes to confirm or deny whether Yulia’s recollection of March 8, 2018, of the spray attack in Zizzi’s Restaurant is still their evidence of what happened to them.

    The post Yulia Skripal Reveals the Biggest Secret of All at Novichok Show Trial first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • War criminal Joe Biden hasn’t just backed Israel’s genocide in Gaza to the hilt. He’s also overseen the disastrous escalation in hostilities between Ukraine and Russia. And now, he’s reportedly taken “an unprecedented step towards WW3 (World War Three)”.

    Biden WW3: “provocative” and potentially “catastrophic”

    Two US officials say Biden has finally given Ukraine permission to use long-range US weapons to hit targets inside Russia. Vladimir Putin had previously warned that such strikes could push him to use nuclear weapons, and that he would consider them ‘a joint attack’. A Biden-created WW3 if you like.

    Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov reacted to Biden’s apparent decision by saying “it means a whole new spiral of tension” that will add “fuel to the fire”. A Russian newspaper, meanwhile, insisted that it was “one of the most provocative, uncalculated decisions of [Biden’s] administration, which risks catastrophic consequences”. And one Russian senator called it “an unprecedented step towards World War Three”.

    It was always clear that Ukraine had no chance of winning militarily without dragging the West into the war or receiving even more Western money and weapons. And it looks like Biden’s team might be choosing those options, in a possible attempt to make a Russian deal with incoming president Donald Trump harder to achieve.

    Many in Ukraine know the war needs to end soon, as Russia advances further into its territory and shows no signs of backing down. In fact, some in Ukraine even suspect that a Trump presidency, which many expect will end the war, could be a good thing for the country.

    Stepping up a proxy war that has devastated Ukraine but filled the pockets of the war machine

    Ukraine has suffered tens of thousands of deaths and immense destruction as a result of Washington’s proxy war against Russia. It has also affected poor people elsewhere in the world as it has disrupted food and energy supplies and contributed to inflation. The US always had the power to either end or perpetuate the war, much as it does with Israel.

    US warhawks have cynically called the conflict “the best money we’ve ever spent”, as a way of fighting against Russia without losing US lives. In the first Donald Trump presidency, Washington was already funnelling weapons to fighters in the Ukrainian civil war, ignoring threats of consequences from Russia. Biden kept that going, and gave arms companies the special gift of doubling down when Russia finally invaded.

    There is significant evidence that Joe Biden and Boris Johnson pushed Ukraine away from signing a peace deal just months after Russia’s invasion. They preferred to take the opportunity to fight a proxy war with Russia. And up to August this year, the Kiel Institute records that $61.1bn in weapons and equipment has gone from the US to Ukraine. Germany and Britain, meanwhile, have sent $11.4bn and $10.1bn respectively.

    Biden’s legacy: running towards apocalypse in Gaza – and WW3?

    Joe Biden’s legacy is one of an almost-complete collapse of US credibility as a result of his willing participation in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. People around the world now understand more clearly than ever before that, whenever the US has preached about democracy, freedom, human rights, or the rule of law, it was lying. It simply uses those concepts as tools to criticise its opponents, as it did when Russia invaded Ukraine.

    While US warhawks will feed happily on the mess Trump is likely to cause elsewhere, they’re not ready to stop profiting from the war in Ukraine quite yet. And it seems they have Biden’s ear. Because he appears to be preempting a possible Ukraine deal between Trump and Putin (after the former assumes power in January) by taking a big, provocative step now.

    We may not see WW3 as a result. But we’re certainly closer to that prospect than we have been for a very long time – thanks once more to Biden.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On 25 July 1945, U.S. President Harry Truman accepted the advices from both his personal hero General Dwight Eisenhower and Winston Churchill, to 100% reverse his predecessor Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s carefully designed plan to prevent a WW3 by creating a fully armed democratic federal government of the world to create adjudicate and enforce international laws and NO national laws, and to outlaw and end the cause that had produced both World Wars, which was imperialism and the contests between them, and so he created the basis for what he named “the United Nations” to do that, but his immediate successor Truman’s version of the U.N. was/is instead a mere talking forum, with no such powers. This would allow him and Eisenhower to create the military-industrial complex to take over the entire world starting with Russia and all of its neighbors. His plan failed, but nonetheless then the Soviet Union itself failed, because of its Marxian economics and dictatorship; and, on 24 February 1990, Truman’s successor President GHW Bush started secretly to inform America’s European colonies that though the Soviet Union and its communism and its military alliance against America’s NATO, the Warsaw Pact, would likely all soon end, the U.S. side of the Cold War would secretly continue on until Russia itself will be defeated, because, as Bush said to Helmut Kohl, “We prevailed, they didn’t!” In other words, he was telling them to continue on until Russia itself becomes just another U.S. colony like they were, because “we” can do it. He was telling them that “we” will do it, because we can. And none of them objected, because they all would be cut in on the take. But all of this was in blatant violation of repeatedly made verbal promises that the U.S. regime and its agents had made to the Soviet leader Gorbachev that NATO wouldn’t be expanded and take in Warsaw Pact nations if the Soviet Union would break up.

    Fast-forward a few more decades, and the U.S. regime invaded a nation that was friendly toward Russia, Iraq, on 20 March 2003, and destroyed it.

    On 5 January 2020, Iraq’s Government ordered the U.S. out of Iraq. The Trump regime refused. A reporter for CNN, Manu Raju, tweeted from the Air Force 1 press pool, “Trump … tells pool he will slap Iraq with ‘very big sanctions’ if they force US troops to leave. ‘We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it.’ Trump added: ‘If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.’”

    The next day, on January 6, Sajad Jiyad of The Century Foundation blogged from Baghdad, “On the issue of US bases, Iraqi sovereignty and sanctions” and reported and presented the legal documents proving that (quoting now from the contract that both Iraq and U.S. had signed) “Iraq owns all the buildings and installations, the nontransferable structures on the ground that are located in the areas and installations agreed upon, including those the U.S. utilizes, constructs, changes or improves.” Furthermore, he noted that, “The US troops that are currently in Iraq are part of a request for assistance to combat ISIS that was sent in 2014. These troops are meant to advise, train and assist Iraqi troops. This request was sent by the Iraqi government and can be revoked at any time.”

    On 7 January 2020, Time magazine headlined “Iraq’s Outgoing Prime Minister Says U.S. Troops Must Leave.” Trump responded that only the U.S. Government will decide when to leave Iraq.

    On January 24, “The Chief of Police in Baghdad just estimated the number of Iraqis protesting against the US’ presence in Iraq today to be in excess of one million people.” The march in Baghdad was 5 miles long.

    On 17 February 2020, I headlined “Trump plans to keep US troops permanently in Iraq under NATO command.” On 24 November 2020, NATO headlined “Denmark assumes command of NATO Mission Iraq.” But Iraqis don’t want any alien military force occupying their country. On 24 February 2021, NATO headlined “NATO Mission in Iraq” and reported, based only upon Iraq’s having requested and received in October 2018 additional training so as to defeat ISIS — that temporary request for training became NATO’s excuse to extend permanently America’s occupation. That NATO report ignored the demand by Iraq’s parliament in January 2020 for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq immediately and ignored the millions of Iraqis who subsequently demonstrated against the U.S. and who demanded the U.S. to leave immediately. (Trump responded to that Iraqi demand by threatening to destroy Iraq if Iraq’s Government would continue its demand.)

    And, of course, America’s invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2023 was based totally on lies which the U.S.-and-allied press refused to expose at the time — or even now — to be lies, but instead trumpeted those lies to the public stenographically from the regime’s mouthpieces as being ‘news’. And, likewise, the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media hide from their public that the overthrow of Ukraine’s Government during 20-27 February 2014 was a U.S. coup intead of the ‘democratic’ ‘revolution’ they all trumpeted it as being. On 3 July 2023, I headlined “Comparing Two U.S.-Government Catastrophes: Bush’s 2003 Invasion of Iraq, and Obama’s 2014 Coup in Ukraine.”

    So: all of this is old news, which is never reported in the U.S.-and-allied press, which instead starts from assumptions that are false about both the Iraq and the Ukraine matters. And the U.S.-and-allied media never apologize to the public about their having lied, because they say that they make only mistakes, no lies. That’s a lie about their lying.

    The post The Dying — and Constantly Lying — U.S. Empire first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Russia’s arms exporter Rosoboronexport said it has signed contracts to provide the fifth-generation combat aircraft Sukhoi Su-57 to foreign buyers. However, some Western analysts have doubted the capabilities of the advanced combat jet.

    Alexander Mikheev, Rosoboronexport’s director general, told journalists at the Zhuhai Airshow in China last week that the company had secured

    “first contracts” with some “friendly” foreign countries without giving further details.

    Mikheev was quoted in an interview with the Rossyia-1 TV channel as saying “our partners want to buy reliable, proven Russian weapons.”

    The Su-57 is a multirole fighter aircraft developed by the Russian Sukhoi company and the first designed with stealth technology. It is known by the NATO reporting name Felon and first entered service with the Russian air force in 2022.

    The manufacturer says that this fifth generation stealth multirole fighter is capable of aerial combat as well as ground and maritime strikes. It has a supersonic cruising speed, internal weapons, a radio-absorbing coating, and the latest onboard equipment, according to Mikheev

    Rosoboronexport brought two Su-57s to the Zhuhai Airshow, one flown in by the company’s top test pilot, Sergey Bogdan, who showcased the aircraft’s claimed “super maneuverabilities” at the event.

    Andreas Rupprecht, an aviation blogger, told RFA that he was not impressed: “The Russians brought one flying old prototype and one static test specimen for the display, nothing special in fact.”

    “It seems there was a lot of exaggeration,” he said, referring to the aircraft’s capabilities.

    Some social media users in China also seemed to question the Su-57, with posts exposing its obvious design flaws.

    Potential buyers

    Peter Suciu, a U.S.-based writer specializing in military matters, said he questioned just how advanced the aircraft was.

    “From the open sources I’ve read, it isn’t likely as advanced as the hype suggests,” Suciu said.

    “The U.S. and its allies have used the F-35 in combat, and the U.S. has sent the F-22 in a warzone. Russia hasn’t really done the same with the Su-57. That says a lot about the aircraft.”

    Mikheev was quoted in Russian media as saying that his company was “holding technical consultations with a number of Russia’s strategic partners.”

    “We are discussing both deliveries of final products from Russia and cooperation within joint development and production projects,” Mikheev said.

    Suciu told RFA that he questioned the level of outside interest.

    “My opinion is that Rosoboronexport wants the world to believe there is more interest than there really is – in part to save face, but also to entice other potential buyers,” Suciu said.

    “In the past, India, Egypt, Turkey, Vietnam and Indonesia were mentioned as potential buyers, but we don’t know how far talks progressed,” he added.

    Vietnamese sources with knowledge of the matter told RFA they could not confirm news of a deal.

    Due to Western sanctions imposed on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, not many countries could be expected to publicly express an interest in buying Russian weapons.

    Analysts say Algeria is the most likely buyer of the Su-57 and may already be operating an aircraft. The Algerian air force has already bought nearly 60 heavyweight twin engine fighter Su-30MKA from Russia.

    China, which is also developing its fifth-generation fighter jet, the Chengdu J-20 Mighty Dragon, thought to be inspired by the American F-35 JSF, is clearly not interested in buying the Su-57.

    The biggest customer of the fighter jets remains the Russian air force, with 22 aircraft being supplied by the end of 2024 and 76 more expected by 2028, according to Russia’s Center for Arms Trade Analyses.

    RELATED STORIES

    Russia may have shared US arms info with China: lawmakers

    Russia condemns US revamp of military forces in Japan

    Russia urges South Korea to avoid provocations amid drone dispute with North

    Edited by Mike Firn.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • TAIPEI, Taiwan – The United States authorized the first use of U.S.-supplied long-range missiles by Ukraine for strikes into Russia, media reported, in a response to Russia’s decision to bring North Korean troops into its war on Ukraine.

    The U.S. and South Korea said last week that North Korean troops had been fighting against Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk region. The U.S. estimated more than 10,000 North Korean soldiers had been sent to Kursk and they had begun combat operations alongside Russian forces.

    The U.S. weapons are likely to be initially used against Russian and North Korean troops, in defense of Ukrainian forces in Kursk, The New York Times reported on Sunday, citing unidentified American officials.

    The newspaper said the decision to allow Ukraine to deploy long-range missiles, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems, was made in response to Russia’s decision to involve North Korean troops in the fight.

    The officials noted that although they didn’t believe the permission for Ukraine to use the weapons would significantly impact the direction of the war, one aim was to warn North Korea that their troops are at risk and discourage them from sending more.

    Both Moscow and Pyongyang had not responded to the report by the time of publication, but some senior Russian officials warned that Russia’s response would be immediate.

    “Strikes with U.S. missiles deep into Russian regions will inevitably entail a serious escalation, which threatens to lead to much more serious consequences,” said Leonid Slutsky, chairman of the State Duma lower house’s foreign affairs committee, as cited by TASS state news agency.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Sunday more important than lifting the restriction would be the number of missiles used to strike the Russians, without confirming the reports about the U.S. decision.

    “Today, many in the media are talking about the fact that we have received permission to take appropriate actions,” said Zelenskyy. “But blows are not inflicted with words. Such things are not announced. The rockets will speak for themselves.”

    Biden-Xi talks

    The reports about the U.S. decision to let Kyiv strike deep into Russia with long-range U.S. missiles came after U.S. President Joe Biden, during a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Peru, on Saturday, condemned North Korea’s decision to send its troops to Russia to assist in the war against Ukraine.

    “President Biden condemned the deployment of thousands of DPRK troops to Russia, a dangerous expansion of Russia’s unlawful war against Ukraine with serious consequences for both European and Indo-Pacific peace and security,” said the White House in a statement on Monday.

    The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK, is North Korea’s official name.

    China, one of North Korea’s few allies, faces pressure to act responsibly as the U.S. and its allies fear North Korean troop deployments could dangerously escalate the Ukraine conflict.

    Biden also “expressed deep concern over (China’s) continued support for Russia’s defense industrial base,” according to the White House.

    U.S. President Joe Biden meets with China's President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the APEC Summit in Lima, Peru, Nov. 16, 2024.
    U.S. President Joe Biden meets with China’s President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the APEC Summit in Lima, Peru, Nov. 16, 2024.

    During the meeting, Xi said that China’s position regarding the war had “always been fair and square,” China’s state-run Xinhua News Agency reported.

    Xi also said China would “not allow conflict and turmoil to happen on the Korean Peninsula” and that it would “not sit idly by” while its strategic interests are endangered, Xinhua added.

    North Korean leader’s message

    North Korean leader Kim Jong Un blamed the U.S. for “staging” a war against Russia using Ukraine as “shock troops”, but did not comment on reports about his country’s deployment of troops to Russia.

    “The U.S. and the West have been staging a war against Russia using Ukraine as shock troops in a bid to expand the scope of Washington’s military intervention into the world,” said Kim, as cited by the North’s state-run Korea Central News Agency, or KCNA, on Monday.

    Kim made the remark during the 4th Conference of Battalion Commanders and Political Instructors of the Korean People’s Army on Friday.

    Kim also said trilateral cooperation by the U.S, South Korea, and Japan was a “critical factor” that threatens peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, calling for bolstering his nuclear forces “without limitation” and completing war preparations.

    “U.S.-led military alliance has been expanding into more larger areas encompassing Europe and the Asia-Pacific region,” Kim said.

    “We will strengthen our self-defense power, centered on nuclear forces, without limitation, not being content [with our current level] and ceaselessly,” he added.

    RELATED STORIES

    North Koreans in Russia in place but not in combat: Ukraine official

    US vows ‘firm response’ to North Korea for sending troops to Russia

    US confirms North Korean troops joining Russia in combat against Ukraine

    Japan on Moscow, Pyongyang

    Japan is considering tightening sanctions against North Korea and Russia in response to their military co-operation, Japan’s public broadcaster NHK reported on Monday.

    Japan is considering measures such as expanding a freeze on North Korean and Russian assets, as it believes that their military co-operation had “seriously affected” peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region and violated international law.

    Japan already imposes various sanctions on North Korea for its nuclear and missile development, and Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, including import and export restrictions and asset freezes.

    Tokyo had also decided to coordinate with the G7 countries to strengthen sanctions against Moscow and Pyongyang, the broadcaster added.

    Edited by Mike Firn.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • TAIPEI, Taiwan – North Korean forces deployed to Russia’s Kursk have not yet been involved in Moscow’s attempts to dislodge Ukrainian troops from the region, said a senior official at Ukraine’s national security agency, contradicting reports from the United States and South Korea.

    Both Washington and Seoul said early this week that North Korean troops had been fighting against Ukrainian forces in Kursk. The U.S. estimated more than 10,000 North Korean soldiers had been sent to the region, and they had begun engaging in combat operations alongside Russian forces.

    “The North Korean military has not yet been involved in assault operations, but they are positioned in place,” said Andrii Kovalenko, head of Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation at the National Security and Defense Council, or NSDC, as cited by RBC Ukraine news agency.

    The NSDC is a state agency tasked with developing and coordinating security policy on domestic and international matters and advising the president.

    A recent probe by Russian forces against Ukrainian positions in Kursk was unsuccessful and they had lost equipment and troops, said Kovalenko.

    He added, however, that the Russian army still had the capacity for further assaults in Kursk.

    The contradictory accounts have emerged against a backdrop of silence from both Russia and North Korea about the North Korean deployment.

    The Kremlin has not commented on the presence of North Korean troops. At a meeting of the U.N. Security Council last week, Russia declined to answer questions from the U.S about its deployment of North Koreans.

    North Korea’s state media reported in October that its vice foreign minister in charge of Russian affairs, Kim Jong Gyu, said he had heard a “rumor” spread by foreign media that troops had been sent to Russia, but declined to confirm it.

    South Korea’s Ministry of Unification, which oversees inter-Korean relations, said on Thursday that the North has not informed its citizens about the deployment of troops to Russia.

    RELATED STORIES

    US vows ‘firm response’ to North Korea for sending troops to Russia

    US confirms North Korean troops joining Russia in combat against Ukraine

    Ukraine ‘holds back’ 50,000-strong force including North Koreans: Zelenskyy

    North Korean artillery system in Russia

    Photos showing what appeared to be a North Korean artillery system on a rail car have been posted in Russian media, and are circulating on social media, alongside a claim they were spotted in Russia.

    The photos show equipment that resembles a North Korean long-range 170 mm M1989 Koksan self-propelled artillery system.

    Screenshot of a photo posted on X that reportedly shows a North Korean artillery system spotted in Russia.
    Screenshot of a photo posted on X that reportedly shows a North Korean artillery system spotted in Russia.

    Radio Free Asia has not been able to independently verify the location of the photo or when it was taken but a reverse image search shows it was likely taken in Russia’s Krasnoyarsk, about 4,400 kilometers (2,700 miles) away from Kursk, where North Korean soldiers are reportedly amassed to assist Russian forces.

    The M1989 Koksan is a code name for a North Korean 40-ton self-propelled artillery system that was first seen at a parade in the North Korean city of Koksan in 1989. It is a development of the M1978 system, which was developed in the 1970s.

    Ukrainian partisans have previously said that Russian artillerymen were training on North Korean self-propelled artillery systems.

    It was also reported that Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu discussed the purchase of ammunition and M-1989s from the North when he visited Pyongyang in July last year.

    Russian embassy to Pyongyang’s fundraiser

    The Russian Embassy in North Korea announced a fundraiser on Thursday to support forces fighting in Kursk.

    In a Facebook post titled “Koreans going to the Kursk region,” the embassy highlighted the efforts of a sports utility vehicle named “Varyag,” that the embassy funded this year, which has been used to deliver food and water to the front lines and evacuate casualties.

    Screenshot of a photo posted on the official Facebook page of the Russian Embassy in North Korea that shows a Russia sports utility vehicle named “Varyag”.
    Screenshot of a photo posted on the official Facebook page of the Russian Embassy in North Korea that shows a Russia sports utility vehicle named “Varyag”.

    The embassy did not explicitly say North Korean forces were going to Kursk but said it was fitting to associate the proud name of “Koreans” with the heroic “Varyag.”

    The embassy said the Russian military needed new vehicles, but South Korean media speculated it was possible that the vehicles or donations the embassy raises could support North Korean troops fighting in Russia.

    Edited by Mike Firn.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Following the U.S. election, European foreign policy experts are reviving ideas about strategic autonomy from 2016. They fail to understand how much has changed in the last eight years.

    This post was originally published on Dissent Magazine.

  • Kremlin critics fear move is part of Russia’s efforts to whitewash Soviet past and shut independent cultural institutions

    Moscow’s award-winning Gulag History Museum announced its surprise closure on Thursday, a move critics attribute to the Kremlin’s ongoing efforts to whitewash Russia’s Soviet past.

    The closure was officially put down to alleged violations of fire safety regulations but comes amid an intense campaign by Russian officials against independent civil society and those who question the state’s interpretation of history.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • TAIPEI, Taiwan – The United States will respond strongly to North Korea’s deployment of troops to support Russia’s war against Ukraine, Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned after both the United States and South Korea confirmed that North Korean forces were engaged in combat against Ukrainian troops in Russia’s Kursk region.

    America’s top diplomat made an emergency trip to Brussels for a meeting with his NATO and European Union counterparts to solidify U.S. President Joe Biden‘s foreign policy plans for Ukraine, days after former President Donald Trump won a second term in the White House.

    “We had a very productive discussion today about our ongoing support for Ukraine in the face of an ongoing Russian aggression, as well this added element now of North Korean forces injected into the battle and now quite literally in combat, which demands, and will get, a firm response,” Blinken told media on Wednesday.

    “We’re counting on European partners and others to strongly support Ukraine’s mobilization,” said Blinken, calling for Washington’s allies to step up.

    He added that NATO countries must focus their efforts on “ensuring that Ukraine has the money, munitions and mobilized forces to fight effectively in 2025, or to be able to negotiate a peace from a position of strength.”

    Blinken also said U.S. President Joe Biden was “committed to making sure that every dollar we have at our disposal will be pushed out the door between now and January 20,” when Trump, who has questioned U.S. support for Ukraine, takes office.

    “The U.S. will adapt and adjust with the latest equipment it is sending,” he added, without providing details.

    RELATED STORIES

    US confirms North Korean troops joining Russia in combat against Ukraine

    Ukraine ‘holds back’ 50,000-strong force including North Koreans: Zelenskyy

    Ukraine reveals ‘intercepted’ radio communications of North Korean soldiers in Russia

    Separately, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte reiterated the crucial role played by China in helping Russia’s “war effort.”

    On Tuesday, he said Russia’s growing economic and military cooperation with China, North Korea and Iran was a threat to Europe, the Indo-Pacific and North America.

    China, one of North Korea’s few allies, faces pressure to act responsibly as the U.S. and its allies fear North Korean troop deployments could dangerously escalate the Ukraine conflict. The U.S. expressed concerns to China in October over North Korean and Russian “destabilizing” actions.

    China has not commented on North Korea’s deployment except to say the development of relations between Russia and North Korea was solely for them to decide.

    On Wednesday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine was progressing “very rapidly and fully,” without addressing reports of North Korean involvement.

    Russia has not commented on the presence of North Korean troops on its territory. At a meeting of the U.N. Security Council last week, Russia declined to answer questions from the U.S. about its deployment of North Koreans.

    The U.S. confirmed on Tuesday that more than 10,000 North Korean soldiers had been sent to eastern Russia, saying most of them have moved to far western Kursk Oblast, where they have begun engaging in combat operations with Russian forces.

    South Korea’s main security agency also confirmed that the North Koreans were “already engaging in combat operations” against Ukraine in Kursk.

    Ukrainian forces launched an incursion into Kursk on Aug. 6 and have captured more than two dozen settlements there.

    Edited by Mike Firn.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • A boy sits in rubble in Gaza. Photo Credit: UNICEF

    When Donald Trump takes office on January 20, all his campaign promises to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours and almost as quickly end Israel’s war on its neighbors will be put to the test. The choices he has made for his incoming administration so far, from Marco Rubio as Secretary of State to Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense and Elise Stefanik as UN Ambassador make for a rogues gallery of saber-rattlers.

    The only conflict where peace negotiations seem to be on the agenda is Ukraine. In April, both Vice President-elect JD Vance and Senator Marco Rubio voted against a $95 billion military aid bill that included $61 billion for Ukraine.

    Rubio recently appeared on NBC’s Today Show saying, “I think the Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and strong when standing up to Russia. But at the end of the day, what we’re funding here is a stalemate war, and it needs to be brought to a conclusion… I think there has to be some common sense here.”

    On the campaign trail, Vance made a controversial suggestion that the best way to end the war was for Ukraine to cede the land Russia has seized, for a demilitarized zone to be established, and for Ukraine to become neutral, i.e. not enter NATO. He was roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats who argue that backing Ukraine is vitally important to U.S. security since it weakens Russia, which is closely allied with China.

    Any attempt by Trump to stop U.S. military support for Ukraine will undoubtedly face fierce opposition from the pro-war forces in his own party, particularly in Congress, as well as perhaps the entirety of the Democratic party. Two years ago, 30 progressive Democrats in Congress wrote a letter to President Biden asking him to consider promoting negotiations. The party higher ups were so incensed by their lack of party discipline that they came down on the progressives like a ton of bricks. Within 24 hours, the group had cried uncle and rescinded the letter. They have since all voted for money for Ukraine and have not uttered another word about negotiations.

    So a Trump effort to cut funds to Ukraine could run up against a bipartisan congressional effort to keep the war going. And let’s not forget the efforts by European countries, and NATO, to keep the U.S. in the fight. Still, Trump could stand up to all these forces and push for a rational policy that would restart the talking and stop the killing.

    The Middle East, however, is a more difficult situation. In his first term, Trump showed his pro-Israel cards when he brokered the Abraham accords between several Arab countries and Israel; moved the U.S. embassy to a location in Jerusalem that is partly on occupied land outside Israel’s internationally recognized borders; and recognized the occupied Golan Heights in Syria as part of Israel. Such unprecedented signals of unconditional U.S. support for Israel’s illegal occupation and settlements helped set the stage for the current crisis.

    Trump seems as unlikely as Biden to cut U.S. weapons to Israel, despite public opinion polls favoring such a halt and a recent UN human rights report showing that 70% of the people killed by those U.S. weapons are women and children.

    Meanwhile, the wily Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is already busy getting ready for a second Trump presidency. On the very day of the U.S. election, Netanyahu fired his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, who opposed a lasting Israeli military occupation of Gaza and had at times argued for prioritizing the lives of the Israeli hostages over killing more Palestinians.

    Israel Katz, the new defense minister and former foreign minister, is more hawkish than Gallant, and has led a campaign to falsely blame Iran for the smuggling of weapons from Jordan into the West Bank.

    Other powerful voices, national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich, who is also a “minister in the Defense Ministry,” represent extreme Zionist parties that are publicly committed to territorial expansion, annexation and ethnic cleansing. They both live in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

    So Netanyahu has deliberately surrounded himself with allies who back his ever-escalating war. They are surely developing a war plan to exploit Trump’s support for Israel, but will first use the unique opportunity of the U.S. transition of power to create facts on the ground that will limit Trump’s options when he takes office.

    The Israelis will doubtless redouble their efforts to drive Palestinians out of as much of Gaza as possible, confronting President Trump with a catastrophic humanitarian crisis in which Gaza’s surviving population is crammed into an impossibly small area, with next to no food, no shelter for many, disease running rampant, and no access to needed medical care for tens of thousands of horribly wounded and dying people.

    The Israelis will count on Trump to accept whatever final solution they propose, most likely to drive Palestinians out of Gaza, into the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt and farther afield.

    Israel threatened all along to do to Lebanon the same as they have done to Gaza. Israeli forces have met fierce resistance, taken heavy casualties, and have not advanced far into Lebanon. But, as in Gaza, they are using bombing and artillery to destroy villages and towns, kill or drive people north and hope to effectively annex the part of Lebanon south of the Litani river as a so-called “buffer zone.” When Trump takes office, they may ask for greater U.S. involvement to help them “finish the job.”

    The big wild card is Iran. Trump’s first term in office was marked by a policy of “maximum pressure” against Tehran. He unilaterally withdrew America from the Iran nuclear deal, imposed severe sanctions that devastated the economy, and ordered the killing of the country’s top general. Trump did not support a war on Iran in his first term, but had to be talked out of attacking Iran in his final days in office by General Mark Milley and the Pentagon.

    Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, recently described to Chris Hedges just how catastrophic a war with Iran would be, based on U.S.military wargames he was involved in.

    Wilkerson predicts that a U.S. war on Iran could last for ten years, cost $10 trillion and still fail to conquer Iran. Airstrikes alone would not destroy all of Iran’s civilian nuclear program and ballistic missile stockpiles. So, once unleashed, the war would very likely escalate into a regime change war involving U.S. ground forces, in a country with three or four times the territory and population of Iraq, more mountainous terrain and a thousand mile long coastline bristling with missiles that can sink U.S. warships.

    But Netanyahu and his extreme Zionist allies believe that they must sooner or later fight an existential war with Iran if they are to realize their vision of a dominant Greater Israel. And they believe that the destruction they have wreaked on the Palestinians in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, including the assassination of their senior leaders, has given them a military advantage and a favorable opportunity for a showdown with Iran.

    By November 10, Trump and Netanyahu had reportedly spoken on the phone three times since the election, and Netanyahu said that they see “eye to eye on the Iranian threat.” Trump has already hired Iran hawk Brian Hook, who helped him sabotage the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran in 2018, to coordinate the formation of his foreign policy team.

    So far, the team that Trump and Hook have assembled seems to offer hope for peace in Ukraine, but little to none for peace in the Middle East and a rising danger of a U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

    Trump’s expected National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is best known as a China hawk. He has voted against military aid to Ukraine in Congress, but he recently tweeted that Israel should bomb Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities, the most certain path to a full-scale war.

    Trump’s new UN ambassador, Elise Stefanik, has led moves in Congress to equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, and she led the aggressive questioning of American university presidents at an anti-semitism hearing in Congress, after which the presidents of Harvard and Penn resigned.

    So, while Trump will have some advisors who support his desire to end the war in Ukraine, there will be few voices in his inner circle urging caution over Netanyahu’s genocidal ambitions in Palestine and his determination to cripple Iran.

    If he wanted to, President Biden could use his final two months in office to de-escalate the conflicts in the Middle East. He could impose an embargo on offensive weapons for Israel, push for serious ceasefire negotiations in both Gaza and Lebanon, and work through U.S. partners in the Gulf to de-escalate tensions with Iran.

    But Biden is unlikely to do any of that. When his own administration sent a letter to Israel last month, threatening a cut in military aid if Israel did not allow a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza in the next 30 days, Israel responded by doing just the opposite–actually cutting the number of trucks allowed in. The State Department claimed Israel was taking “steps in the right direction” and Biden refused to take any action.

    We will soon see if Trump is able to make progress in moving the Ukraine war towards negotiations, potentially saving the lives of many thousands of Ukrainians and Russians. But between the catastrophe that Trump will inherit and the warhawks he is picking for his cabinet, peace in the Middle East seems more distant than ever.

    The post Will Trump End or Escalate Biden’s Wars? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • TAIPEI, Taiwan – The United States confirmed that North Korean troops have been in combat against Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk region, as China declined to comment on military cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang saying it was their affair.

    The confirmation that the North Koreans were in combat, by Vedant Patel, principal deputy spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, will compound concerns that their deployment to help Russia fight its war against Ukraine risks ramping up the dangers from Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II.

    “Today, I can confirm that over 10,000 DPRK soldiers have been sent to eastern Russia, and most of them have moved to far western Kursk Oblast, where they have begun engaging in combat operations with Russian forces,” Patel told a press briefing on Tuesday.

    The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK, is North Korea’s official name.

    “Some of the challenges they would need to overcome are interoperability, the language barrier, command and control and communications,” Patel said, adding that Russian forces have been training North Korean troops in artillery, unmanned aerial vehicle and basic infantry operations, including trench clearing operations.

    “The United States is consulting closely with our allies and partners in other countries in the region on the implications of this, on these developments,” he added.

    Separately, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Russia’s growing economic and military cooperation with China, North Korea and Iran was threatening Europe, the Indo-Pacific and North America, stressing the importance of transatlantic unity and continued support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.

    “We need to raise the cost for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and his enabling authoritarian threats by providing Ukraine with the support it needs to change the trajectory of the conflict,” said Rutte.

    “We must recommit to stay the course of the war and we must do more than just keep Ukraine in the fight.”

    Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Monday that Ukrainian forces were holding off nearly 50,000 troops, including 11,000 North Koreans, in Kursk.

    Ukrainian forces launched an incursion into Russia’s southwestern Kursk region on Aug. 6 and have captured more than two dozen settlements there, according to Ukraine. While Russia has managed to reclaim some settlements, the front line has seen little change in recent months.

    The Kremlin has not commented on the presence of North Korean troops on its territory. At a meeting of the U.N. Security Council last week, Russia declined to answer questions from the United States about its deployment of North Koreans.

    ‘Matter for themselves’

    China’s foreign ministry, asked to comment on a military cooperation pact between Russia and North Korea, reaffirmed Beijing’s stance that the development of their relations was solely a matter for them to decide.

    “The DPRK and Russia are two independent sovereign states. How to develop their bilateral relations is a matter for themselves,” said the ministry spokesperson Lin Jian on Tuesday, without commenting on reports about North Koreans troops in Russia.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a landmark treaty on a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” on June 19 in Pyongyang after summit talks, which includes a mutual defense assistance clause that applies in the case of “aggression” against either of the signatories.

    RELATED STORIES

    Ukraine ‘holds back’ 50,000-strong force including North Koreans: Zelenskyy

    Ukraine reveals ‘intercepted’ radio communications of North Korean soldiers in Russia

    North Korean troops to battle Ukraine within days, US says

    China, one of North Korea’s few traditional allies, has recently been under growing pressure to serve as a responsible stakeholder as the U.S. and its allies worry that the deployment of said North Korean troops will dangerously escalate the Ukrainian war.

    The U.S. said in October that it had voiced concern to China over “destabilizing” actions by North Korea and Russia.

    “We have been making clear to China for some time that they have an influential voice in the region, and they should be concerned about steps that Russia has taken to undermine stability. They should be concerned about steps that North Korea has taken to undermine stability and security,” said the U.S. State Department’s spokesperson Matthew Miller at that time.

    Miller’s remarks came about a week after the Chinese foreign ministry said it did not have information on the North’s troop deployment to Russia and called for a multilateral solution to the conflict.

    Edited by Mike Firn.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • TAIPEI, Taiwan – The United States confirmed that North Korean troops have been in combat against Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk region, as China declined to comment on military cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang saying it was their affair.

    The confirmation that the North Koreans were in combat, by Vedant Patel, principal deputy spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, will compound concerns that their deployment to help Russia fight its war against Ukraine risks ramping up the dangers from Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II.

    “Today, I can confirm that over 10,000 DPRK soldiers have been sent to eastern Russia, and most of them have moved to far western Kursk Oblast, where they have begun engaging in combat operations with Russian forces,” Patel told a press briefing on Tuesday.

    The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK, is North Korea’s official name.

    “Some of the challenges they would need to overcome are interoperability, the language barrier, command and control and communications,” Patel said, adding that Russian forces have been training North Korean troops in artillery, unmanned aerial vehicle and basic infantry operations, including trench clearing operations.

    “The United States is consulting closely with our allies and partners in other countries in the region on the implications of this, on these developments,” he added.

    Separately, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Russia’s growing economic and military cooperation with China, North Korea and Iran was threatening Europe, the Indo-Pacific and North America, stressing the importance of transatlantic unity and continued support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.

    “We need to raise the cost for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and his enabling authoritarian threats by providing Ukraine with the support it needs to change the trajectory of the conflict,” said Rutte.

    “We must recommit to stay the course of the war and we must do more than just keep Ukraine in the fight.”

    Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Monday that Ukrainian forces were holding off nearly 50,000 troops, including 11,000 North Koreans, in Kursk.

    Ukrainian forces launched an incursion into Russia’s southwestern Kursk region on Aug. 6 and have captured more than two dozen settlements there, according to Ukraine. While Russia has managed to reclaim some settlements, the front line has seen little change in recent months.

    The Kremlin has not commented on the presence of North Korean troops on its territory. At a meeting of the U.N. Security Council last week, Russia declined to answer questions from the United States about its deployment of North Koreans.

    ‘Matter for themselves’

    China’s foreign ministry, asked to comment on a military cooperation pact between Russia and North Korea, reaffirmed Beijing’s stance that the development of their relations was solely a matter for them to decide.

    “The DPRK and Russia are two independent sovereign states. How to develop their bilateral relations is a matter for themselves,” said the ministry spokesperson Lin Jian on Tuesday, without commenting on reports about North Koreans troops in Russia.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a landmark treaty on a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” on June 19 in Pyongyang after summit talks, which includes a mutual defense assistance clause that applies in the case of “aggression” against either of the signatories.

    RELATED STORIES

    Ukraine ‘holds back’ 50,000-strong force including North Koreans: Zelenskyy

    Ukraine reveals ‘intercepted’ radio communications of North Korean soldiers in Russia

    North Korean troops to battle Ukraine within days, US says

    China, one of North Korea’s few traditional allies, has recently been under growing pressure to serve as a responsible stakeholder as the U.S. and its allies worry that the deployment of said North Korean troops will dangerously escalate the Ukrainian war.

    The U.S. said in October that it had voiced concern to China over “destabilizing” actions by North Korea and Russia.

    “We have been making clear to China for some time that they have an influential voice in the region, and they should be concerned about steps that Russia has taken to undermine stability. They should be concerned about steps that North Korea has taken to undermine stability and security,” said the U.S. State Department’s spokesperson Matthew Miller at that time.

    Miller’s remarks came about a week after the Chinese foreign ministry said it did not have information on the North’s troop deployment to Russia and called for a multilateral solution to the conflict.

    Edited by Mike Firn.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • WaPo Putin-Trump call claim ‘pure fiction’ – KremlinU.S. President-elect Donald Trump (L) and Russian President Vladimir Putin. ©  Chris McGrath/Getty Images

    US President-elect Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin did not have a phone conversation about the Ukraine conflict, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

    The Washington Post claimed on Sunday that Trump called Putin after winning a new term as US president to discuss his vision regarding how the Ukrainian crisis could be deflated. Peskov said on Monday that the article was a “vivid example of the quality of information published by even some respectable outlets.”

    “This absolutely does not correspond to reality. This is pure fiction. This information is simply false,” he told the press.

    Kiev previously denied the claim made by the Washington Post in its piece that the Ukrainian government was informed about the phone call beforehand and gave its consent to the US-Russian engagement.

    “Reports that the Ukrainian side was informed in advance of the alleged call are false,” the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman told Reuters on Sunday.

    Trump had claimed while on the campaign trail that he could end the Ukraine conflict “in 24 hours,” if US voters grant him a second term in office. He reportedly intends to leverage US military and financial aid to Ukraine to pressure both Moscow and Kiev to achieve a compromise.

    Russia, which currently has the advantage on the battlefield, has said that it will only accept an outcome that addresses the core causes of the Ukraine conflict. Those include NATO’s enlargement in Europe and Kiev’s discriminatory policies against ethnic Russians, according to Moscow.

    The Washington Post reported a phone call between Trump and Putin based on accounts by sources familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    The post WaPo Putin-Trump Call Claim “Pure Fiction” – Kremlin first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • TAIPEI, Taiwan – Ukraine has released an audio clip of what it says are intercepted radio communications between North Korean soldiers in Russia, as media reported that Russia had gathered 50,000 soldiers in its Kursk region, including North Korean troops, to attack Ukrainian positions there.

    In the audio, uploaded by the Defense Intelligence of Ukraine, or DIU, on YouTube on Sunday, soldiers can be heard exchanging coded terms in North Korean-accented Korean.

    “Mulgae hana, Mulgae dul,” was one exchange, which translates as “Seal one, Seal two”.

    In another recording, a soldier says, “wait,” apparently giving an instruction to a subordinate.

    The DIU said it intercepted the radio communications on Saturday, adding that the signals were about “ordering them to return immediately.”

    Ukraine and the United States estimate that North Korea has sent 11,000 troops to help Russia in its war against Ukraine, with these forces reportedly stationed in the Russian border region of Kursk, which Ukrainian forces aided in early August. Moscow has faced challenges in reclaiming territory from Ukrainian forces.

    Ukrainian troops have held parts of Kursk since then and Russia has struggled to re-take them.

    The Ukrainian military suggests that the North Koreans may engage in combat in the coming days. The Pentagon has also confirmed the presence of a “small number” of North Korean soldiers on the front lines, speculating they may be deployed in “some type of infantry role.”

    The New York Times, citing U.S. and Ukrainian officials, reported on Sunday that the Russian military has assembled about 50,000 soldiers, including North Koreans, to launch an assault to reclaim territory in Kursk.

    Similarly, CNN quoted an unidentified U.S. official as saying Russia has gathered a “large force of tens of thousands” of troops and North Korean soldiers to participate in an imminent assault.

    Strategic partnership

    Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law to ratify a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty with North Korea, which includes a mutual defense clause in the event of “aggression” against either signatory, Russia’s state news agency TASS said on Saturday.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech during a plenary session as part of the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, Krasnodar region, Russia, Nov. 7, 2024.
    Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech during a plenary session as part of the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, Krasnodar region, Russia, Nov. 7, 2024.

    The treaty was signed in Pyongyang on June 19 as Putin was visiting North Korea. Commenting on the treaty, Putin said on Thursday that it did not contain anything new but the two countries had returned to a similar arrangement that they had during the Soviet era.

    “The treaty we signed with North Korea was the one we’ve signed with other countries. It was with the Soviet Union, then of course it ceased to exist, and we actually returned to it. That’s all. There is nothing new there,” said Putin, as cited by TASS in a separate report.

    Putin also mentioned the possibility of Russia and North Korea holding joint military exercises.

    “Why not? We’ll see,” Putin was cited by TASS as saying, without commenting on reports about North Korean troops in Russia.

    Possible Russian support

    South Korea and its allies have speculated that North Korea could get Russian assistance with its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for its help for Russia to fight Ukraine, which has included large volumes of weapons including missiles and artillery shells.

    The South Korean military said that an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, that North Korea tested on Oct. 31, was launched without the test of a new engine, which could suggest Russian assistance.

    North Korea test fired what it said was a Hwasong-19, a new model, not an improved version of an existing missile. It was launched without testing a new engine, said South Korean lawmaker Yoo Yong-won, who was briefed by the South’s Defense Intelligence Agency.

    “Considering the increased length and diameter of the missile’s fuselage and the increased maximum altitude, we can say the Hwasong-19 is a new ICBM that is different from the Hwasong-18,” the agency said, cited by Yoo.

    The agency said that the fact that North Korea developed and launched the new missile without having to test its engine lent weight to the possibility of Russian technical assistance. Media also reported the possibility that Russia had provided North Korea with the engine.

    North Korea reported a ground-based engine test for a medium-range ballistic missile on Nov. 15 last year, and on March 20 this year disclosed a multi-stage engine ground-based test for a new medium- to long-range hypersonic missile.

    The South Korean military said that North Korea had not been confirmed as conducting any additional solid-fuel engine tests since March.

    “There is a possibility that the North is receiving technologies from Russia under the name of ‘cooperation in the field of space technology’ that could be used for ballistic missile development,” the agency said.

    RELATED STORIES

    North Korea says missile test shows ‘irreversible’ means to deliver nuclear bombs

    ICBM test ‘proves’ North Korea’s missile tech helped by Russia alliance, experts say

    Days before US election, North Korea stages record long missile test

    North Korea first tested an ICBM in July 2017. It tested two more that year, including one in November that traveled for 50 minutes and reached an altitude of 4,500 kilometers (2,800 miles).

    Over the next five years, the North did not test any ICBMs, but in March 2022, it launched one that blew up shortly after takeoff.

    North Korea tested four ICBMs in 2022 and 2023. The Oct. 31 test was the first this year.

    Edited by Mike Firn.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on VICE News and was authored by VICE News.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Ever since the November 5 defeat of the so-called ‘Democratic’ Party and of its unanimous neoconservative obsession to defeat Russia with the help of Ukrainians (claiming all the time that doing this is necessary in order to protect Americans and America’s ‘democracy’), the Bilderburg member Donald Graham, who at the 2013 Bilderburg meeting met privately with Jeff Bezos and agreed to sell him the Washington Post, has been instead using his Foreign Policy magazine in order to increase the pressure upon President Joe Biden to escalate the U.S. Government’s proxy-war in Ukraine against Russia up to and including World War Three (WW3).

    On November 5, the magazine headlined “The Biden Administration Now Has an Expiration Date — and a To-Do List,” and reported:

    As of late October, the Biden administration still had $5.5 billion it could throw into Ukraine’s war chest. In the past, that has come in the form of air-defense batteries, battle tanks, and long-rage U.S. firepower that can help Ukraine balance the playing field against a larger neighbor with seemingly inexhaustible manpower and ample assistance from allies in Asia. …

    With no reason to worry about spiking oil and gasoline prices, the United States may be more amenable not only to Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil infrastructure, but also to the unsheathing of additional sanctions on miscreant oil producers such as Iran and Venezuela, which skated clear of sanctions all year thanks to U.S. worries about the domestic impact of an energy war.

    On November 7, it headlined “Ukraine Now Faces a Nuclear Decision: Under a new Trump administration, Ukraine’s government can’t avoid considering a nuclear weapon,” and reported:

    Last month, with little fanfare, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made the stakes of the ongoing war in Ukraine as clear as possible…. “Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons and that will be our protection or we should have some sort of alliance,” he said. “Apart from NATO, today we do not know any effective alliances.”

    It was the first time the Ukrainian president had revealed an outcome that has become, for the war’s observers, increasingly inescapable. In this war for Ukraine’s survival, with Kyiv facing both declining men and materiel, the only surefire way of preventing Ukraine’s ongoing destruction is NATO membership—a reality that has gained more supporters since the war’s beginning but still remains years away. Barring such an outcome, as Zelensky outlined, only one option remains: developing Ukraine’s own nuclear arsenal and returning it to the role of a nuclear power that it gave up some three decades ago. …

    Putin, after all, has only grown increasingly messianic and monomaniacal in his efforts to shatter Ukraine. Previous designs on simply toppling Kyiv have given way to outright efforts to “destroy Ukrainian statehood,” especially following Ukraine’s successful occupation in Russia’s Kursk region [“Kyiv has secured a substantial political victory in Kursk whether it stays or decides to withdraw from this territory in the coming months. It has called Putin’s bluff and made a mockery of his stated “red lines” and nuclear bluster.”], as the Moscow Times recently reported. With Ukrainian statehood — and even Ukrainian identity, given Russia’s genocidal efforts — at stake, any nation would understandably pursue any option available for survival. …

    This reality has been made blindingly clear by recent archival work from a number of scholars, poring through overlooked U.S. and Ukrainian documents. For instance, Columbia University’s George Bogden has recently published extensively on the internal debates in both the United States and Ukraine surrounding Kyiv’s post-Soviet arsenal…

    In both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations, U.S. officials placed continued emphasis on reassuring Russia that Moscow could have regional primacy — and that the United States was not trying to take advantage of the power vacuum emerging in the Soviet rubble…

    The reason why the GHW Bush Administration agreed to this demand by Gorbachev was that during WW2, many Ukrainians in western Ukraine sided with Germany against Russia and participated eagerly not only in wiping out Jews but in assisting the Germans and Nazi-supporters such as the anti-Russian FInns to kill Russian troops. If Bush would have gone along with what Graham’s propaganda-magazine says he should have done, then Gorbachev would never have allowed the break-up of the Soviet Union, because it would quickly have meant war against Ukraine.

    Basically, Graham is propagandizing for Biden to cross all of Russia’s (or ‘Putin’s’ — as-if Putin doesn’t really represent the Russian people) national-security red lines. Graham’s basic argument is that though the U.S. and its colonies (‘allies’) have their national security to protect, Russia (China, and other countries that America’s billionaires demand to control) don’t. This gives the U.S. regime carte blanche to subterfuge, coup, sanction, and/or outright invade, wherever and whenever they want to; or like Elon Musk famously said, “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it.”  (Britain’s Guardian featured an article on 25 November 2023, “‘We will coup whoever we want!’: the unbearable hubris of Musk and the billionaire tech bros. Challenging each other to cage fights, building apocalypse bunkers – the behaviour of today’s mega-moguls is becoming increasingly outlandish and imperial”. However, it’s not ONLY “the billionaire tech bros.” but ALL of U.S.-and-allied billionaires who control the U.S. Government and tolerate, if not outright demand, further expansion of the U.S. empire, regardless of the national-security needs of other countries.)

    On 4 June 2024, the internationally well-known geostategic analyst Pepe Escobar headlined at youtube “Putin and China Issue a GRAVE Warning: Tensions Near Breaking Point”, and he reported that WW3 is wanted by Bilderberg=NATO because the billionaires who control Western Governments want to nullify Governments’ debts (such as America’s $36 trillion); they’re now desperate, and EU/NATO breakup will likely come soon. So: these post-Kamala-Harris articles from Donald Graham’s propaganda-mill Foreign Policy are clearly in line with that scenario by Escobar on June 4th, not because they are truthful or even realistic, but because they clearly display this desperation by the billionaires, to retain control over international institutions, and even their willingness to risk destroying the world in order to achieve it.

    I don’t know whether Escobar is correct that cancellation of debts is an objective — much less a main objective — in this, but the reality of the rest of his analysis is hard to refute; and, on 18 October 2024, I headlined an article documenting this, “The Collapsing U.S. Empire.” It opened:

    The neoconservative dream, ever since neoconservatism started on 25 July 1945, has been for the U.S. Government to take over the entire world, but this 79-year-old dream for them (nightmare for everyone else) has now practically ended, because after having played nuclear chicken against Russia ever since that date, the U.S. Government has finally — as-of 9 October 2024 (Biden’s cancellation then of his planned October 12th Ukraine-war victory summit at America’s Rammstein Air Force Base in Germany) — come to the painful realization that their plan (ever since at least 2006) to win a nuclear war against Russia, is unrealistic, and would only leave this planet virtually uninhabitable, a lose-lose war for both sides, instead of to produce the neocons’ ardently hoped-for win-lose war (in which, of course — as the neocons have imagined — the U.S. regime emerges victorious) against Russia.

    The neoconservative chorus (singing to the music of America’s billionaires) are trying to persuade the U.S. public to support what is, effectively, all-out U.S.-and-‘allied’ aggression against Russia. All of this is based upon the lie that Russia started Ukraine’s war on 24 February 2022, America didn’t start it on 20 February 2014.

    On October 10, I headlined “Biden’s plan calls for WW3 to start after Election Day.” People such as Donald Graham evidently want it to turn out to be true — notwithstanding that America’s Government — NOT Russia’s, had started this war. I still have some hope that it won’t. But if it won’t, then Biden will lose his most ardent supporters, neocons (which include virtually all U.S. billionaires — even the ones who prefer Trump). They will feel that he betrayed them. And, in that case, it will have been so — he did.

    However, in either case, a deluge will come soon. Because the collapse of the American empire will not be able to go smoothly. I agree with Escobar on that.

    The post How & Why the Washington Post‘s Former Owner Now Pushes Biden to Go Nuclear Against Russia first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • This content originally appeared on VICE News and was authored by VICE News.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Indigenous communities must have better political representations to ensure our rights are protected both constitutionally and in practice,‘ says Victoria Maladaeva, and Indigenous peoples’ rights defender from Russia. Victoria was also a participant in ISHR’s Women Rights Advocacy Week this year. She spoke to ISHR about her work and goals.

    Hello Victoria, thanks for accepting to tell us your story. Can you briefly introduce yourself and your work?

    Sure! I’m a Buryat anti-war decolonial activist, co-founder of the Indigenous of Russia Foundation.

    What inspired you to become involved in the defence of human rights?

    Since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, Indigenous peoples, particularly Buryat, have been hit the hardest. I wanted to help my people, fight the Russian propaganda and raise awareness about systemic colonial oppression and discrimination faced by Indigenous people and ethnic minorities in the Russian Federation.

    What would Russia and your community look like in the future if you achieved your goals, if the future you are fighting for became a reality?

    The country needs a large-scale transformation— political, economic, and cultural. Indigenous communities must have better political representations to ensure our rights are protected both constitutionally and in practice. Genuine democratic reforms involve fundamental rights for self-determination and autonomy where Indigenous peoples gain control of their land and resources. Putin’s constitution’s amendments to national Republics must be reversed, our languages must be mandatory in all schools, universities, and institutions where Indigenous communities live. 

    How do you think your work is helping make that future come true?

    I’m advocating for the rights of Indigenous peoples with international stakeholders and institutions to raise awareness about issues faced by our communities and spreading awareness, producing documentaries, and mobilising diasporas. 

    Have you been the target of threats or attempts at reprisals because of your work?

    Unfortunately, yes. There have been threats because of my anti-war activism and for shedding light on the disproportionate mobilisation in the Republic of Buryatia. For some reason, my colleagues and I were denied participation in the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. I would like to believe this was a mistake and that there was no influence from the Russian delegation at the UN.

    Do you have a message for the UN and the international community?

    Russia needs decolonisation and de-imperialisation. Without revising the past and acknowledging colonial wars (not only in Ukraine) and discrimination, there can be no bright future for Russia—free and democratic. The international and anti-imperialist community should acknowledge that the Russian government is not for any anti-colonial movement. Stand in solidarity with independent Indigenous activists!

    https://ishr.ch/defender-stories/human-rights-defenders-story-victoria-maladaeva-from-russia

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • I am always leery of hubris. It may be true that all people of good now want ‘the fall’ of Israel, after a century of lies, deceit, killing and more killing, first by the British and European Jews, then by the US and European Jews, now by Britain-US-EU-Israel and European and Arab Jews. But compassion does not pay the bills. The stakes keep mounting, along with high tech death toys, and it’s very hard to image Israel on the verge of collapse. It, and world Jewry, have never been so rich, so powerful in all history.

    The major world powers – the ‘collective West’, China, India, Russia – provide it with most of the death toys and the fuel to run them. None of these hard-nosed political schemers want to see Israel collapse, nor do any of them lose much sleep over the plight of the Palestinians. I, like many others today, am devoting my life to help free Palestine and really, really don’t want to be disappointed, so I’ll temper my enthusiasm, hold off on celebrating the end of the monstrosity. I am not counting any chickens yet. It’s a long way till the final act when the fat lady belts out her last hava nagila.

    Dan Steinbock has written a book titled The Fall of Israel: The Degradation of Israel’s Politics, Economy & Military (2025). Steinbock is a leading international economic expert who has put his chips on the side of BRICS and multipolarism. That’s where the future is and the ‘collective West’ better wake up soon as it is being left behind. And that includes Israel, as the West’s swan song to 19th century imperial glory. He is CEO and founder of Difference Group (Paul Krugman is a member of the board), its purpose: In the past, the West drove the global economic prospects. Today, that role belongs to the Global South. We help governments, institutions, businesses, and NGOs navigate in the new and complex, multipolar environment.

    The thesis of The Fall is simple: Aiming to turn a secular democracy into a Jewish autocracy/ theocracy, the most far-right government in the history of Israel has continued to push this judicial coup amid the fog of war. These cleavages in the Israeli society figure large in its political disintegration.

    Most analysis of the dilemmas Israel faces looks to the occupation of the Palestinian territories in the 1967 War and the subsequent expansion of Jewish settlements as the chief problem. They are its proximate effect; following directly on the ethnic expulsions of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948. Steinbock makes it clear the Israelis never had any interest in anything but one Jews-only state, which was sort of achieved in the 1950s. Everything thereafter is footnotes.1 A pro-forma future two-state solution with present de facto one-state realities.2

    The US is both the problem, having encouraged Israel in its expansion from 1948 on, feeding it with lethal weapons, financing settlements condoning ethnic cleansing and murder on a daily basis, and the solution, as the current genocidal monster Israel would indeed ‘fall’ at the ‘twinkling of an eye’ if the US closed the spigot.

    The last US president to try that was Bush I, whose feeble attempt to stop the settlement expansion led to his humiliating defeat from a vengeful Israel lobby a few months later in 1992. The penultimate protest, JFK’s stand against Israel acquiring nukes, led to his assassination and replacement by Israel sycophant LBJ. With both Republican and Democratic parties in lockstep today, supporting Israel’s textbook genocide, the only hope is public opinion, anti-apartheid activism, which is increasingly criminalized in the ‘collective West’.

    Steinbock points to the mid-50s as the moment of truth, though we can go back to Jabotinsky in the 1920s, or Ben Gurion in the fateful 1948, when the slaughter began in earnest and was clear, certainly to the Palestinians, if not to a still naive collective West. The ‘bilateral’ ties with Washington and massive US military aid kicked in then and have reached staggering proportions now, a virtual blank cheque to reak havoc, no end in sight.

    These ties led to such new-old doctrines as the Dahiya (suburb) doctrine of carpet bombing civilians, the Hannibal directive to murder Israelis stupid enough to be taken hostage, and mass assassination factories, backed by pioneering artificial intelligence. The socialism of labor Zionism was replaced by the hard-right coalitions driven by revisionist Zionism, thanks to US neoliberal economic policies, assertive neoconservatism and Jewish-American donors. It also explains the rise of the Messianic far-right, centrist parties, and the failure of the Left.

    The Fall of Israel covers the country’s political and ethnic divides, economic polarization, social and military changes, the shifts in the Palestinian struggle for sovereignty, the apartheid regime in the occupied territories, the genocidal atrocities, the regional and global reverberations, and the ensuing human and economic costs, both prior and subsequent to Israel’s fatal war on Gaza. Not to mention the domestic hell – the economic polarization, the collapse of innovative, high tech start-ups, the talent brain drain, the undermined welfare state, rising poverty and the subsidized religious sector.

    Steinbock documents the three waves of settlers from 1948, the last following the 1993 Oslo Accords, which should have ended the settlements, but was so flawed that it allowed their acceleration, now under policing by the Palestinian Authority, even as Hamas was elected in Gaza, and the PA totally discredited, but still the de facto ‘authority’, now just a fig leaf for creeping genocide. Israeli attacks on Palestinians increased, killing Palestinians on a daily basis, with occasional massive bombings of Gaza (2008, 2009, 2014, 2023) killing thousands each time.

    Steinbock documents the atrocities, the complicity of the US. His many charts show the massive increase in West Bank land seizures in 2023, clearly part of a push to fully steal all the West Bank, even as there is no ‘exit strategy’ for the millions of Palestinians still alive. We know what Netanyahu would like to do to each and every one of those vermin, and at this point US politicians are more or less united on letting him ‘finish the job’. Steinbock (and all of us) pin our hopes on world mass opinion. None of the world leaders apart from the Axis of Resistance can be counted on. Arab leaders loathe the pesky Palestinians almost as much as US-Israel does. It is only the revolting masses that stand between them and the Palestinians.

    Tactics? Strategy? Duh …

    Their only strategy to achieve Apartheid 2.0 is denial of the facts on the ground, starting from 1948, denying the ethnic ‘cleansing’, the mass slaughter, the erasure of hundreds of Palestinian villages. Israelis pay no attention to the current slaughter, most hoping that the IDF and settlers kill all Palestinians still breathing. Israelis tactics are violence, murder, theft. In short, terrorism. But this is also its strategy since 1948, along with ‘divide and conquer’ of its Arab neighbors.

    Steinbock doesn’t take seriously the option of total erasure of the Palestinians, though that is the stated goal of Israeli leaders. The victory of the dead. But even if they could dump the Palestinians in Sinai, that is not a strategy which can bring peace, which would require negotiating with your own dispossessed citizens, and neighbors. In good faith. Which is impossible for Israel, as it is terrorizing its own Arab and its neighbors. In short, Israel can only survive through 24/7 terror, which is very expensive and means 24/7 US military aid. This can continue only as long as the US can keep printing dollars to cover its own massive debt. 18% of government spending is just to pay interest on this debt. As this continues to increase, eventually the US will be bankrupt, unable to function under the mountain of debt. This inevitable bankruptcy of the US will finally hit Israel, bringing to an end the blank cheque on its daily horrors, but I keep reminding myself, it took Rome four centuries to finally collapse collapse.

    What is particularly creepy is how Israel has used Palestinians as guinea pigs for testing its weapons of crowd control, now touting itself as the leader in the technology of totalitarian mind-body control. The only growth industry now for Israel is producing weapons, spyware, i.e., anything disgusting and lethal. This also began in the 1950s as Israel settled in to its schizoid de facto one-state- Jews-only state. The Israel Military Industry (IMI) began collaboration with the IDF, aiming to develop the most technologically advanced small arms systems for troops fighting in urban areas and harsh environments. The state-owned IMI (i.e., socialized death toys) was privatized in 2018, when it was taken over by Elbit Systems. (Poor Elbit is now the victim of western activists, who forced it to close up shop in Britain. Elbit has become our calling card for smashing windows and splashing red paint.)

    Israel has had to work very hard to overcome its notoriety as terrorist and mass killer. And it worked! By the early 1980s, more than 50 countries on five continents had become customers for Israeli killing technology. Israel added some sugar to its military toys, famously bragging about its agricultural successes in ‘making the desert bloom,’ and uses that as PR abroad about how nice Israel really is. That and weapons, ‘butter and guns’, though its ‘butter’ is all milked from stolen land, and its guns are used not to defend, but to suppress popular uprisings in oppressive Israel-like regimes around the world.

    Yes, Dahiya and Hannibal, but these ‘doctrines’ are merely (disgusting, inhuman) tactics rather than winning long run strategies. Israel’s tactics/ strategy have been violence, denial, theft with the goal of a Jews-only state, ignoring the natives who lived there, and then more violence. Which apparently works for world elites, including not just the US, but Chinese, Indian and Russian. No one besides plucky South Africa, Colombia and Bolivia have broken relations with the monster, despite rivers of crocodile tears.

    The Palestinian strategy is primarily nonviolent resistance with a militant wing occasionally fighting back, which is fully legal for a nation under occupation but condemned as terrorism. Funny how the real terrorists call the shots. The militants address the egregious crimes of the occupiers; they do not target civilians, even medevac helicopters.3 This strategy of compassion for the wounded is based on Islam, where rules of engagement with the enemy are nonnegotiable. Another religious principle rejects assassination of enemy leaders.

    Such ethical behavior is alien to Israel, which has assassinated hundreds of Palestinian, Lebanese, etc leaders, ‘rationally’ reasoning that the enemy will collapse without them. When Israel assassinates Palestinian leaders, they are mourned, they become martyrs, inspiring the next generation. Whatever personal flaws Nasrallah may have had, he is now a saint, an inspiration to all freedom-loving people. His body parts were gathered and temporarily hidden to prevent Israel from bombing them, and eventually will be buried probably in Karbala. Sinwar’s body was captured by Israel and most likely will not be returned (maybe dumped from a plane over the ocean like Bin Laden) as it will be a potent sword hanging over Israel’s head.

    Israel’s mass murderers, such as Meir Kahane are gruesomely worshipped, but only by nutcase settlers. Israel has few such martyr-heroes, but then neither the Palestinians nor their Muslim allies target Israelis for assassination, not believing that it is a useful tactic or strategy, rather giving a romantic aura of martyrdom to any victim as indeed is the case when Israelis target Palestinians. The Palestinians’ goal is jannah, the path/ strategy is moral and ethical living, prayer, jihad, martyrdom. Tactics are waging war to the death against the enemy, picking up unexploded Israeli bombs and reusing them. All the time, appealing to humanity, to the basic decency of the outside world, calling on world opinion, boycotting, bringing criminal charges to bring peace.

    Steinbock introduces necrotization, which seeks to transform a world of life into a world of death, because that is what displacement, dispossession and devastation ultimately require. It is the collective psychological obliteration of those who have nothing to lose, and therefore fight for their homes, refuse to move away, risk nothingness for being.4 Is this a strategy, or again just a tactic meant to kill or so disillusion Palestinians, so that whoever remains alive will be glad to leave. Whatever. It ignores the ‘last stand’ psychology of the dispossessed, who prefer to die fighting for their homes than to flee to a desolate refugee camp, so it really just amounts to genocide. It just occurred to me that a crude policy of terror, dispossession and genocide doesn’t need any subtleties like tactics vs strategy. The victory of the dead.

    Jew vs Jew, Arab turmoil

    The real showdown should be between the more universalist Jewish diaspora and the nationalist, racist Israeli Jews. Even as Trump is showered with Adelson’s millions to complete the Israeli dream of total control of the Middle East, some Jews are protesting, but have made zero difference politicly as the Democrats and Republicans are still in lockstep. So much for that strategy. What’s left? The brain drain and increased emigration of Jews from Israel as the crisis deepens. But that leaves the Kahane-ites in control. So much for that strategy.

    He considers the rise of Islamic movements in particular the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt under al-Banna, which spread to all the Arab world, rivaled by Arab nationalism under Nasser and Hafez Assad. In all cases, the MBs were crushed by neocolonial regimes, and then attempts to promote Arab nationalism failed, descending into personal dictatorships. Muslims make poor nationalists. Islam rejects ideologies that interfere with being good Muslims. In Iraq the Baath party reformers finally ending in the humiliating defeat of atheistic Saddam Hussein (who called on Allah in a panic at the end). Though battered, the MBs remain the only survivors of a century of anti-imperialist struggle, still determined to face off against the Zionist occupiers.

    With Israel commanding everyone’s undivided attention, the Arab world remains shamefully ‘divided and conquered’, resentful, even hostile to Shia Iran’s lifeline to Gaza and Lebanon. Jordan and Saudi assistance to US-Israel to shoot down Iran’s missiles will never be erased. Jordan and Saudi leaders have a lot to account for before their people. Only when Israel is eventually brought to justice, can the Middle East develop more naturally. Islam remains the bedrock, and Islamic reforms will be the way forward, based now on the experience of the past century, including Egypti’s MB, Islamic Iran and Afghanistan. The Saudis and Gulf emirates are remnants of 19th century British imperialism and do not represent the future of the Egyptian, Iraqi, Palestinian, Jordanian, etc masses. But until the enemy is defeated, we must stand shoulder to shoulder (though the Saudis et al should keep a look out over theirs).

    Russia, China

    Steinbock doesn’t make predictions on their account. He puts his hopes on BRICS, especially China’s hint at engagement, its brokering Saudi-Iranian reconciliation, and Palestinian factions uniting. The latter was called the Beijing Declaration, calling for a larger-scale Israeli-Palestinian peace conference and a timetable to implement a two-state solution.

    I think it is a mistake to be too hopeful. Russia and Chinese have highly developed economic relations with Israel; Russia provides it with the oil to use to bomb Palestinians; China is Israel’s largest trade partner – 18% of trade vs 10% for US and 2.5% for Russia. Chinese investment is more than US$15b, spawning seed capital in Israeli startup companies, as well as the acquisition of Israeli companies by major Chinese corporations that incorporate Israel’s know how to help invigorate the development of the modern Chinese economy more efficiently. China ranked second in 2015 after the US on collaboration with Israeli high-tech firms that are backed by Israel’s Office of the Chief Scientist. Neither Russia nor China want to see Israel collapse. BRICS is not a coherent economic force. We are stuck with US-Israel, the Axis of Resistance, the Palestinian now scattered around the world, working with the handful of anti-Zionist diaspora Jews, until the US itself collapses. That seems to be our strategy.

    All countries listen to China, Israel included. It would be lost if China made an serious move to threaten its economic ties. China’s recent two-state proposals prompted Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority to move forward with plans to present a joint political vision for rehabilitating the Gaza Strip and establishing a Palestinian state after the Israel-Hamas war. To preempt such schemes, Netanyahu’s office presented its own vision of ‘Gaza 2035’ in May. The Israeli proposal labels Gaza as an ‘Iranian outpost’, taunting the quisling Arab leaders as ineffectual, traitors, allies of the hated Israel. So Gaza can be taken, as it isn’t really part of the Arab world, but an Iranian outpost which must be destroyed. More tactic than strategy and very silly. Israel would mobilize the emirates and Saudis to divvy out aid to Gazans and hunt down and eliminate Hamas, much like the Oslo Accords got the PA to police Palestinians as settlements proceeded. After 15 years, if things go well, some limited autonomy would be allowed, all the while under Israeli hegemony.

    Steinbock puts his eggs in China’s basket in his vision of any future Middle East peace. At each step, China is filling in where the US fears (or is too lazy) to tread. Re Egypt, in the absence of Israel’s full withdrawal from the occupied territories, the bilateral trust with Israel has been eroding for decades. Today it is sustained mainly by US aid, which is vital to bottomless-pit Cairo. Meanwhile China’s multibillion-dollar economic cooperation initiatives are fostering rather than undermining Egyptian development. Ditto Jordan, where China is building a national railway network, an oil pipeline to link Iraq and Jordan, and a new Jordan-China university. Egypt and Jordan, weak and corrupt, are throwing themselves at China’s feet, much like Iran did over the past decade. China is waging a positive-sum war against/ with the world, promising prosperity and Chinese hegemony as a package deal. (At least this is not the subtle Bretton Woods ‘prosperity and US imperialism’.)

    China’s Belt Road Initiative has reached around the world, despite US attempts to sabotage China with its own rail-ship road from India through the Middle East to Europe, but that assumes Saudi compliance, which is dead-on-arrival now. One can only laugh in disbelief as US hegemony is being K-Oed by the Chinese economic fist – everywhere. Unlike US-Israel, China has a clear strategy of nonzero sum cooperation with all, promising advantages where past ‘aid’ meant corruption, misuse of funds, more debt.

    The US-China economic rivalry is providing lots of brainstorming by potential participants in both hopeful outcomes, but China remains cautious, more or less abiding by US sanctions on Russia. BRICS at least has raised the profile of the South, given them collective clout though still much less than the collective West.

    With the Ukraine war unending, Russia is now unofficially joining all anti-US efforts, probably providing Iran and the Houthis with satellite information to keep the Suez Canal out of commission and for accurate bombing, possibly even providing a few missiles and drones. Why not? The world really is going to Hell in a handbasket, and the ride is rocky but exciting and even hopeful, considering the bad guys seem to be doing everything wrong, pushing Putin into the hands of enemy.

    Nuke time?

    The ongoing war on multiple fronts from the Axis of Resistance, with 100,000s of Hezbollah bombs ready, could push Israel to use its nukes.5 The Begin ‘doctrine’ was ‘formulated’ to justify bombing Iraq’s nuclear facilities and is still in play against Iran. Several nuclear sites were bombed in October, though not the main sites, and were accompanied by a promise to bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities after the election.

    Trump has already voiced his approval. But Iran’s success in bombing Israel twice in 2024 shows it has jumped ahead of Israel (and the US) in hypersonic missiles, which can be mobilized to really destroy little sitting-duck Israel. Israel is still loudly threatening Iran but my gut reaction is to imagine hundreds of hypersonic missiles reining down on Israel. Israelis are uniformly racist monsters now, so the civilian-military distinction is moot. When the whole world feels that way about you, all the king’s horse and all the king’s lackeys won’t be able to put Humpty-Dumpty together again.

    In the West, Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), and the Abraham Accords (2020–2021) with some Gulf states are often portrayed as steps toward a two-state solution. In Israel, they are seen more as bilateral “normalization” deals with individual Arab countries that will over time marginalize or exclude Palestinians from a final peace solution. The Gaza War has jeopardized the future of such normalization agreements, while severely shuttering the existing deals. The trouble is neither the US nor Israel ever took the negotiations seriously. No one believed then or now that the two-state solution is possible. Meanwhile even US presidents don’t control things, as congress is completely in thrall to Israel and will not allow any pressure to be put on Israel to negotiate. The Knesset voted unanimously against a Palestinian state for the nth time (68, 9 Arab Israelis voting for a Palestinian state).

    Given the likely Trump second term, funded by Adelson, probably none of this matters at all. Trump’s Project 2025 includes Project Esther, which plans to crush all anti-Israel dissent in the US and Europe and to create a Potemkin villlage of acceptable Palestinians, to be kept in line by Arab sheikhs with Israeli puppet masters. Netanyahu couldn’t have said it better.

    Steinbock is hopeful re Russia, with its offer to Iran of S-400 anti-missile defense (a decade after Iran paid for them), showing the US that it is not the only kid on the block with nukes. But Steinbock’s only real hope is that world opinion, backed by a Jewish diaspora, will somehow click in and bring the US to its senses. I would add the Palestinian diaspora, which is already larger (in 2003 9.6m) than the Jewish one (8.5m), working together, will be the driving force of change. And Islam. It is the fastest growing religion (always has been) and the Middle East is now multiple-birthing Ziophobia and Islamophilia. It’s never been a better time to be a Muslim. We have a huge diaspora in the House of War. And we have Boycott Divest Sanction as the secular version of jihad. When Jews, Christians6 and Muslims can join forces, we can do anything.

    The first real sign that South African apartheid would be dismantled was when (Jewish) MP Harry Schwarz met with ANC’s Mangosuthu Buthelezi to sign the Mahlabatini Declaration of Faith in 1974, enshrined the principles of peaceful transition of power and equality for all, the first such agreement by black and white political leaders in South Africa. But it took another 2 decades of struggle until de Klerk opened bilateral discussions with Nelson Mandela in 1993 for a transition of policies and government.

    It seems we have reached that first stage today. Ehud Olmert, who served as the Israeli prime minister from 2006 to 2009, and Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian foreign minister from 2005 to 2006, met Pope Francis October 17, 2024, to promote a peace plan that would see a Palestinian state existing alongside the state of Israel ‘on the basis of 1967 borders’ with a few territorial adjustments. Their plan calls for the city of Jerusalem to be the capital of both Israel and Palestine, with the Old City being ‘administered by a trusteeship of five states of which Israel and Palestine are part.’

    ENDNOTES:

    The post To Turn a Secular Democracy into a Jewish Autocracy first appeared on Dissident Voice.
    1    Dan Steinbock, The Fall if Israel: The Degradation of Israel’s Politics, Economy & Military, 2025</a>, p362.
    2    Israel has been in complete control of all lands since 1948. Palestinians who stayed were to be ethnically cleansed, killed or deported over time.
    3    There may be an implicit pact here: you let us retrieve our wounded soldiers and we will not starve you TO DEATH.
    4    Ibid., p126.
    5    Ibid., p350.
    6    I have given Christianity short shrift here, but ‘that’s life.’ The Palestinian Christians have been decimated already, hanging on only due to their Muslim friends.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.