The agreement between Washington and Kyiv to create an investment fund to search for rare earth minerals has been seen as something of a turn by the Trump administration. From hectoring and mocking the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky before the cameras on his visit to the US capital two months ago, President Donald Trump had apparently softened. It was easy to forget that the minerals deal was already on the negotiating table and would have been reached but for Zelensky’s fateful and ill-tempered ambush. Dreams of accessing Ukrainian reserves of such elements as graphite, titanium and lithium were never going to dissipate.
Details remain somewhat sketchy, but the agreement supposedly sets out a sharing of revenues in a manner satisfactory to the parties while floating, if only tentatively, the prospect of renewed military assistance. That assistance, however, would count as US investment in the fund. According to the White House, the US Treasury Department and US International Development Finance Corporation will work with Kyiv “to finalize governance and advance this important partnership”, one that ensures the US “an economic stake in securing a free, peaceful, and sovereign future for Ukraine.”
In its current form, the agreement supposedly leaves it to Ukraine to determine what to extract in terms of the minerals and where this extraction is to take place. A statement from the US Treasury Department also declared that, “No state or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine.”
Ukraine’s Minister of Economy, Yulia Svyrydenko, stated that the subsoil remained within the domain of Kyiv’s ownership, while the fund would be “structured” on an equal basis “jointly managed by Ukraine and the United States” and financed by “new licenses in the field of critical materials, oil and gas – generated after the Fund is created”. Neither party would “hold a dominant vote – a reflection of equal partnership between our two nations.”
The minister also revealed that privatisation processes and managing state-owned companies would not be altered by the arrangements. “Companies such as Ukrnafta and Energoatom will stay in state ownership.” There would also be no question of debt obligations owed by Kyiv to Washington.
That this remains a “joint” venture is always bound to raise some suspicions, and nothing can conceal the predatory nature of an arrangement that permits US corporations and firms access to the critical resources of another country. For his part, Trump fantasised in a phone call to a town hall on the NewsNation network that the latest venture would yield “much more in theory than the $350 billion” worth of aid he insists the Biden administration furnished Kyiv with.
Svyrydenko chose to see the Reconstruction Investment Fund as one that would “attract global investment into our country” while still maintaining Ukrainian autonomy. Representative Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House of Foreign Affairs Committee, thought otherwise, calling it “Donald Trump’s extortion of Ukraine deal”. Instead of focusing on the large, rather belligerent fly in the ointment – Russian President Vladimir Putin – the US president had “demonstrated nothing but weakness” towards Moscow.
The war mongering wing of the Democrats were also in full throated voice. To make such arrangements in the absence of assured military support to Kyiv made the measure vacuous. “Right now,” Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on MSNBC television, “all indications are that Donald Trump’s policy is to hand Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, and in that case, this agreement isn’t worth the paper that it’s written on.”
On a certain level, Murphy has a point. Trump’s firmness in holding to the bargain is often capricious. In September 2017, he reached an agreement with the then Afghan president Ashraf Ghani to permit US companies to develop Afghanistan’s rare earth minerals. Having spent 16 years in Afghanistan up to that point, ways of recouping some of the costs of Washington’s involvement were being considered. It was agreed, went a White House statement sounding all too familiar, “that such initiatives would help American companies develop minerals critical to national security while growing Afghanistan’s economy and creating new jobs in both countries, therefore defraying some of the costs of United States assistance as Afghans become more reliant.”
Ghani’s precarious puppet regime was ultimately sidelined in favour of direct negotiations with the Taliban that eventually culminated in their return to power, leaving the way open for US withdrawal and a termination of any grand plans for mineral extraction.
A coterie of foreign policy analysts abounded with glowing statements at this supposedly impressive feat of Ukrainian diplomacy. Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Atlantic Council think tank’s Eurasia Centre, thought it put Kyiv “in their strongest position yet with Washington since Trump took office”. Ukraine had withstood “tremendous pressure” to accept poorer proposals, showing “that it is not just a junior partner that has to roll over and accept a bad deal”.
Time and logistics remain significant obstacles to the realisation of the agreement. As Ukraine’s former minister of economic development and current head of Kyiv school of economics Tymofiy Mylovanov told the BBC, “These resources aren’t in a port or warehouse; they must be developed.” Svyrydenko had to also ruefully concede that vast resources of mineral deposits existed in territory occupied by Russian forces. There are also issues with unexploded mines. Any challenge to the global rare earth elements (REEs) market, currently dominated by China (60% share of production of raw materials; 85% share of global processing output; and 90% manufacturing share of rare earth magnets), will be long in coming.
The governing regime in Kiev is desperately trying to maintain its US support, as a defeat of the US-led, NATO proxy war in Ukraine looms. It is citing the collapse of the government in South Vietnam in April 1975 as a warning, saying that something similar could happen in Ukraine. At the time, the US defeat in Vietnam was a huge blow to the image and standing of US imperialism in the world.
Such pronouncements by the Kiev regime reveal a recognition that ‘its’ Ukraine has become a satellite of the United States – much as South Vietnam was widely recognized to be half a century ago. Then as now, Washington and its allies are desperately seeking to maintain their economic and military dominance over the world and to stop rising movements of liberation by the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Now that Phil Goff has ended his term as New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, he is officially free to speak his mind on the damage he believes the Trump Administration is doing to the world. He has started with these comments he made on the betrayal of Ukraine by the new Administration.
By Phil Goff
Like many others, I was appalled and astounded by the dishonest comments made about the situation in Ukraine by the Trump Administration.
As one untruthful statement followed another like something out of a George Orwell novel, I increasingly felt that the lies needed to be called out.
I found it bizarre to hear President Trump publicly label Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator. Everyone knew that Zelenskyy had been democratically elected and while Trump claimed his support in the polls had fallen to 4 percent it was pointed out that his actual support was around 57 percent.
Phil Goff speaking as Auckland’s mayor in 2017 on the nuclear world 30 years on . . . on the right side of history. Image: Pacific Media Centre
Trump made no similar remarks or criticism of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and never does. Yet Putin’s regime imprisons and murders his opponents and suppresses democratic rights in Russia.
Then Trump made the patently false accusation that Ukraine started the war with Russia. How could he make such a claim when the world had witnessed Russia as the aggressor which invaded its smaller neighbour, killing thousands of civilians, committing war crimes and destroying cities and infrastructure?
That President Trump could lie so blatantly is perhaps explained by his taking offence at Zelenskyy’s refusal to comply with unreasonable and self-serving demands such as ceding control of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to the US. What was also clear was that Trump was intent on pressuring Ukraine to capitulate to Russian demands for a one sided “peace settlement” which would result in neither a fair nor sustainable peace.
It is astonishing that the US voted with Russia and North Korea in the United Nations against Ukraine and in opposition to the views of democratic countries the US is normally aligned with, including New Zealand.
Withdrew satellite imaging
It then withdrew satellite imaging services Ukraine needed for its self defence in an attempt to further pressure Zelenskyy to agree to a ceasefire. No equivalent pressure has yet been placed on Russia even while it has continued its illegal attacks on Ukraine.
Trump and Vance’s disgraceful bullying of Zelenskyy in the White House as he struggled in his third language to explain the plight of his nation was as remarkable as it was appalling.
What Trump was doing and saying was wrong and a betrayal of Ukraine’s struggle to defend its freedom and nationhood.
Democratic leaders around the world knew his comments to be unfair and untrue, yet few countries have dared to criticise Trump for making them.
Like the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, everyone knew that the emperor had no clothes but were fearful of the consequences of speaking out to tell the truth.
As New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, I had on a number of occasions met and talked with Ukrainian soldiers being trained by New Zealanders in Britain. It was an emotionally intense experience knowing that many of the men I met with would soon face death on the front line defending their country’s freedom and nationhood.
They were extremely grateful of New Zealand’s unwavering support. Yet the Trump Administration seemed to care little for that country’s cause and sacrifice in defending the values that a few months earlier had seemed so important to the United States.
The diplomatic community in London privately shared their dismay at Trump’s treatment of Ukraine. The spouse of one of my High Commissioner colleagues who had been a teacher drew a parallel with what she had witnessed in the playground. The bully would abuse a victim while all the other kids looked on and were too intimidated to intervene. The majority thus became the enablers of the bully’s actions.
Silence condoning Trump
By saying nothing, New Zealand — and many other countries — was effectively condoning and being complicit in what Trump was doing.
The lesson of history, going back to the Munich Conference in 1938, when British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his French counterpart Daladier ceded the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, was clear.
Far from satisfying or placating an aggressor, appeasement only increases their demands. That’s always the case with bullies. They respect strength, not weakness.
Czechoslovakia could have been part of the Allied defence against Hitler’s expansionism but instead it and the Czech armaments industry was passed over to Hitler. He went on to take over the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland.
As Churchill told Chamberlain, “You had the choice between dishonour and war. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”
The question needed to be asked because Trump was using talking points which followed closely those used by the Kremlin itself and was clearly setting out to appease and favour Russia.
A career diplomat, trained as a public servant to be cautious, might have not have asked it. I was appointed, with bipartisan support, not as a career diplomat but on the basis of political experience including nine years as Foreign, Trade and Defence Minister.
Question central to validity, ethics
“The question is central to the validity as well as the ethics of the United States’ approach to Ukraine. It is also a question that trusted allies, who have made sacrifices for and with each other over the past century, have a right and duty to ask.
The New Zealand Foreign Minister’s response was that the question did not reflect the view of New Zealand’s Government and that asking it made my position as High Commissioner untenable.
The minister had the prerogative to take the action he did and I am not complaining about that for one moment. For my part, I do not regret asking the question which thanks to the minister’s response subsequently received international attention.
Over the decades New Zealand has earned the respect of the world, from allies and opponents alike, for honestly standing up for the values our country holds dear. The things we are proudest of as a nation in the positions we have taken internationally include our role as one of the founding states of the United Nations in promoting a rules-based international system including our opposition to powerful states exercising a veto.
They include opposing apartheid in South Africa and French nuclear testing in the Pacific. We did not abandon our nuclear free policy to US pressure.
In wars and in peacekeeping we have been there when it counted and have made sacrifices disproportionate to our size.
We have never been afraid to challenge aggressors or to ask questions of our allies. In asking a question about President Trump’s position on Ukraine I am content that my actions will be on the right side of history.
Phil Goff, CNZM, is a New Zealand retired politician and former diplomat. He served as leader of the Labour Party and leader of the Opposition between 11 November 2008 and 13 December 2011. Goff was elected mayor of Auckland in 2016, and served two terms, before retiring in 2022. In 2023, he took up a diplomatic post as High Commissioner of New Zealand to the United Kingdom, which he held until last month when he was sacked by Foreign Minister Winston Peters over his “untenable” comments.
Ironically, it was the US under President Trump which has broken with the US national security establishment’s bi-partisan strategy of incremental encirclement and escalation against Russia. That break offered Europe the opportunity to escape the trap created by its past lack of policy vision. Instead, Europe has proved plus royaliste que le roi (more royal than the King) and has remained loyal to the US national security Deep State.
In her recent “Threat Assessment” testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reasonably described Russia as a “formidable competitor.” However, in keeping with Trump’s desire for improved diplomatic and economic relations with Moscow, she avoided the word “adversary.” And, in a thinly disguised reference to Biden’s “Ukraine Project,” Gabbard said that Russia has gained significant information about US intelligence and weapons from the Ukraine war. As for Biden’s plan to weaken or overthrow Putin, Gabbard concluded that the Russian leader “is presently less likely to be replaced than at any point in his quarter-century rule.” Gabbard’s assessment was considerably at odds with those under Biden, which referred to Russia’s “malign influence” and a threat to the United States and its allies. Most important is the conclusion that “This grinding war of attrition will lead to a steady erosion of Kyiv’s position on the battlefield, regardless of any U.S. or allied attempt to impose new and greater costs on Moscow.” This is not an equivocal statement, and Trump surely knows it’s true.
One encouraging consequence of the report is that it leaves Democrats and liberals in the awkward position of supporting not just a lost cause but one that’s increasingly becoming known as a war provoked by the United States. Those who’ve long asserted that Ukraine was used as a proxy have been provided further vindication — as if any was needed — by the “expose” in the New York Times, titled “The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine.” The roughly 13,000-word piece is “secret” only if one relies on the Times as their only source of information. In any event, the article details how American military and intelligence officers shaped Ukraine’s strategy. Planning began with the US and Ukraine at a clandestine meeting in Wiesbaden, Germany, in 2022, a gathering known “only to a small circle of American and allied officials.” As the war progressed, “One European intelligence chief recalled being taken aback by how deeply enmeshed his N.A.T.O. counterparts had become in the Ukraine operation. They are part of the kill chain now.”
One surely unintended takeaway for the reader from the Times’ investigation is US hubris. According to the authors, the Biden administration provided everything to Ukraine but boots on the ground, and the effort was succeeding until the Spring of 2023. At that point, Ukrainian generals went rogue, became disobedient, and denied their US overlords a devastating victory over Russian forces. The latter are barely stick figures waiting to be chopped down by Ukrainian forces, who the omniscient American advisors have been giving every advantage. Zelensky also receives his share of the blame because he was too obsessed with good PR to be an effective wartime leader.
Notably, none of the 300 (mostly anonymous) interviewees were Russian, so that perspective is absent. Not surprisingly, there’s neither a scintilla of remorse nor even a tacit admission of the price Ukrainians paid for allowing their country to be used by the United States in this manner. Finally, one is forced to wonder whether this duplicitous account of the war will be the “blame game” narrative for the Democrats when the war is lost.
Checkmate in Ukraine isn’t imminent, but nothing can be done to prevent the loss of this US-initiated war. Putin has a strong hand to play, and all indications point toward the conclusion that the longer the fighting continues, the more territory will fall to Russian advances. Whether Trump will be able to end the war remains an open question. We know that Starmer, Macron, Mertz (once he assumes the German chancellorship), and Zelensky all seek to sabotage peace. And in Kyiv, the Azov Battalion has morphed into the Third Army Brigade, and its leader is Andriy Biletsky, today’s Stephan Bandera. He and his Hitler-worshipping Nazi followers oppose any negotiations with Russia and will continue some rearguard action until they are finally vanquished.
Trump also faces strong opposition from neoliberal warhawks like Waltz and Rubio. I sense that if Trump wants an actual peace settlement—and I believe he does—he must instruct more capable and trustworthy negotiators that Moscow sees Ukraine as an existential threat and its demands are non-negotiable. Russia is clearly winning and continues to absorb more territory. Finally, I wouldn’t bet against Trump going back on his promise and walking away from the Ukraine Project, leaving the remaining parties to resolve matters.
Because the billionaire sector of the US ruling class behind Trump has a different world order in mind, the present iteration of European oligarchs find themselves up that proverbial creek without paddles. Trump isn’t even bothering to say, “Thank you for your service in fighting Russia” because he knows these vassals enthusiastically cooperated with a doom-to-fail war that killed well over a million soldiers. In a final desperate attempt to save themselves, Europe’s soon-to-be politically extinct vassals want Trump to give them a “security guarantee” before inserting their own “peacekeepers” into Ukraine. That will never happen
Some critics have employed words like delusional, crazy, and stupid to describe European leaders. However, it’s more accurate to say that these heads of state are so heavily invested in the fable, the fiction of the “Russian threat,” for over seventy years in order to maintain their junior accomplice role with Washington. Thomas Palley argues they have become a “US foreign policy satrap, a condition which still endures.” These leaders are certainly not “stupid,” and they know that if the truth about the “Ukraine project” gains traction — and Trump seeks closer relations with Russia — suspicions will rise within the European public that Russophobia was manufactured and remains a hoax.
Finally, as I have argued in the past, what makes Ukraine so difficult to grasp is the edifice of lies, the false narrative about the “Russian threat” that is so pervasive in the popular mindset and used to disguise the actual motives behind US imperialism. Political scientist Michael Parenti once characterized this as “suppression by omission,” in this case, the entire context of the war in Ukraine. We must use every means to bring those omissions to light.
At the rural orphanage where I volunteered, the place resembled a Dickensian workhouse. The staff’s main tools were antipsychotics and violence. The experience gave me a window into Putin’s Russia
For the record, it was the U.S., from Bill Clinton to Joe Biden, that provoked the Ukrainian tragedy. And now it is the Europeans who can stop it.
NATO’s Eastern expansion led to the bloodiest military conflict in Europe since the Second World War, one that could lead to a Third.
Donald Trump in his first term tried to exit this crisis, only to be subjected to the Russiagate “scandal” and two unsuccessful impeachment efforts led the bipartisan U.S. War Party.
Eventually, they succeeded and took back power, facilitating Joe Biden’s 2020 victory with various manipulations, including producing a letter signed by 51 top, retired U.S. intelligence officers falsely blaming Russia for the criminal contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop that included his father’s involvement.
Hours after President Donald Trump announced an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to avoid attacks on energy infrastructure in Ukraine, Russia conducted an attack on said infrastructure. The attack was reciprocated by a Ukrainian attack on Russian energy facilities shortly after. Trump touted the limited ceasefire agreement — technically a retreat from his previous aim to have a…
May 18, 2015: Remains of an Eastern Orthodox church after shelling by the Ukrainian Army near Donetsk International Airport. Eastern Ukraine. (Mstyslav Chernov. CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
The way to prevent the Ukraine war from being understood is to suppress its history.
A cartoon version has the conflict beginning on Feb. 24, 2022 when Vladimir Putin woke up that morning and decided to invade Ukraine.
There was no other cause, according to this version, other than unprovoked, Russian aggression against an innocent country.
Please use this short, historical guide to share with people who still flip through the funny pages trying to figure out what’s going on in Ukraine.
The mainstream account is like opening a novel in the middle of the book to read a random chapter as though it’s the beginning of the story.
Thirty years from now historians will write about the context of the Ukraine war: the coup, the attack on Donbass, NATO expansion, rejection of the Minsk Accords and Russian treaty proposals — without being called Putin puppets.
It will be the same way historians write of the Versailles Treaty as a cause of Nazism and WWII, without being called Nazi-sympathizers.
Providing context is taboo while the war continues in Ukraine, as it would have been during WWII. Context is paramount in journalism.
But journalists have to get with the program of war propaganda while a war goes on. Journalists are clearly not afforded these same liberties as historians. Long after the war, historians are free to sift through the facts.
The Ukraine Timeline
World War II— Ukrainian national fascists, led by Stepan Bandera, at first allied with the German Nazis, massacre more than a hundred thousands Jews and Poles.
1950s to 1990 – C.I.A. brought Ukrainian fascists to the U.S. and worked with them to undermine the Soviet Union in Ukraine, running sabotage and propaganda operations. Ukrainian fascist leader Mykola Lebed was taken to New York where he worked with the C.I.A. through at least the 1960s and was still useful to the C.I.A. until 1991, the year of Ukraine’s independence. The evidence is in a U.S. government report starting from page 82. Ukraine has thus been a staging ground for the U.S. to weaken and threaten Moscow for nearly 80 years.
November 1990: A year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe (also known as the Paris Charter) is adopted by the U.S., Europe and the Soviet Union. The charter is based on the Helsinki Accords and is updated in the 1999 Charter for European Security. These documents are the foundation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The OSCE charter says no country or bloc can preserve its own security at another country’s expense.
Dec. 25, 1991: Soviet Union collapses. Wall Street and Washington carpetbaggers move in during the ensuing decade to asset-strip the country of formerly state-owned properties, enrich themselves, help give rise to oligarchs, and impoverish the Russian, Ukrainian and other former Soviet peoples.
1990s: U.S. reneges on promise to last Soviet leader Gorbachev not to expand NATO to Eastern Europe in exchange for a unified Germany. George Kennan, the leading U.S. government expert on the U.S.S.R., opposes expansion. Sen. Joe Biden, who supports NATO enlargement, predicts Russia will react hostilely to it.
1997: Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. national security adviser, in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, writes:
“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.”
New Year’s Eve 1999: After eight years of U.S. and Wall Street dominance, Vladimir Putin becomes president of Russia. Bill Clinton rebuffs him in 2000 when he asks to join NATO.
Putin begins closing the door on Western interlopers, restoring Russian sovereignty, ultimately angering Washington and Wall Street. This process does not occur in Ukraine, which remains subject to Western exploitation and impoverishment of Ukrainian people.
Feb. 10, 2007: Putin gives his Munich Security Conference speech in which he condemns U.S. aggressive unilateralism, including its illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq and its NATO expansion eastward.
He said: “We have the right to ask: against whom is this [NATO] expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them.”
Putin speaks three years after the Baltic States, former Soviet republics bordering on Russia, joined the Western Alliance. The West humiliates Putin and Russia by ignoring its legitimate concerns. A year after his speech, NATO says Ukraine and Georgia will become members. Four other former Warsaw Pact states join in 2009.
2004-5: Orange Revolution. Election results are overturned giving the presidency in a run-off to U.S.-aligned Viktor Yuschenko over Viktor Yanukovich. Yuschenko makes fascist leader Bandera a “hero of Ukraine.”
April 3, 2008: At a NATO conference in Bucharest, a summit declaration “welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO”. Russia harshly objects. William Burns, then U.S. ambassador to Russia, and presently C.I.A. director, warns in a cable to Washington, revealed by WikiLeaks, that,
“Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains ‘an emotional and neuralgic’ issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. … Lavrov stressed that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military threat.”
A crisis in Georgia erupts four months later leading to a brief war with Russia, which the European Union blames on provocation from Georgia.
November 2009: Russia seeks new security arrangement in Europe. Moscow releases a draft of a proposal for a new European security architecture that the Kremlin says should replace outdated institutions such as NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The text, posted on the Kremlin’s website on Nov. 29, comes more than a year after President Dmitry Medvedev first formally raised the issue. Speaking in Berlin in June 2008, Medvedev said the new pact was necessary to finally update Cold War-era arrangements.
“I’m convinced that Europe’s problems won’t be solved until its unity is established, an organic wholeness of all its integral parts, including Russia,” Medvedev said.
2010: Viktor Yanukovich is elected president of Ukraine in a free and fair election, according to the OSCE.
2013: Yanukovich chooses an economic package from Russia rather than an association agreement with the EU. This threatens Western exploiters in Ukraine and Ukrainian comprador political leaders and oligarchs.
February 2014: Yanukovich is overthrown in a violent, U.S.-backed coup (presaged by the Nuland-Pyatt intercept), with Ukrainian fascist groups, like Right Sector, playing a lead role. Ukrainian fascists parade through cities in torch-lit parades with portraits of Bandera.
Protesters clash with police in Kiev, Ukraine, February 2014. (Wikimedia Commons)
March 16, 2014: In a rejection of the coup and the unconstitutional installation of an anti-Russian government in Kiev, Crimeans vote by 97 percent to join Russia in a referendum with 89 percent turnout. The Wagner private military organization is created to support Crimea. Virtually no shots are fired, and no one was killed in what Western media wrongly portrays as a “Russian invasion of Crimea.”
April 12, 2014: The Coup government in Kiev launches war against anti-coup, pro-democracy separatists in Donbass. Openly neo-Nazi Azov Battalion plays a key role in the fighting for Kiev. Wagner forces arrive to support Donbass militias. U.S. again exaggerates this as a Russian “invasion” of Ukraine. “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext,” says U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who voted as a senator in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 on a completely trumped up pre-text.
May 2, 2014: Dozens of ethnic Russian protestors are burnt alive in a building in Odessa by neo-Nazi thugs. Eight days later, Luhansk and Donetsk declare independence and vote to leave Ukraine.
Sept. 5, 2014: First Minsk agreement is signed in Minsk, Belarus by Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE, and the leaders of the breakaway Donbass republics, with mediation by Germany and France in a Normandy Format. It fails to resolve the conflict.
Feb. 12, 2015: Minsk II is signed in Belarus, which would end the fighting and grant the republics autonomy while they remain part of Ukraine. The accord was unanimously endorsed by the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 15. In December 2022 former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admits West never had intention of pushing for Minsk implementation and essentially used it as a ruse to give time for NATO to arm and train the Ukraine armed forces.
2016: The hoax known as Russiagate grips the Democratic Party and its allied media in the United States, in which it is falsely alleged that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to get Donald Trump elected. The phony scandal serves to further demonize Russia in the U.S. and raise tensions between the nuclear-armed powers, conditioning the public for war against Russia.
May 12, 2016: The US activates missile system in Romania, angering Russia. U.S. claims it is purely defensive, but Moscow says the system could also be used offensively and would cut the time to deliver a strike on the Russian capital to within 10 to 12 minutes.
June 6, 2016: Symbolically on the anniversary of the Normandy invasion, NATO launches aggressive exercises against Russia. It begins war games with 31,000 troops near Russia’s borders, the largest exercise in Eastern Europe since the Cold War ended. For the first time in 75 years, German troops retrace the steps of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union across Poland.
German Foreign Minister Frank Walter-Steinmeier objects. “What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering,” Steinmeier stunningly tells Bild am Sontag newspaper. “Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken.”
Instead, Steinmeier calls for dialogue with Moscow. “We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation,” he warns, adding it would be “fatal to search only for military solutions and a policy of deterrence.”
December 2021: Russia offers draft treaty proposals to the United States and NATO proposing a new security architecture in Europe, reviving the failed Russian attempt to do so in 2009. The treaties propose the removal of the Romanian missile system and the withdrawal of NATO troop deployments from Eastern Europe. Russia says there will be a “technical-military” response if there are not serious negotiations on the treaties. The U.S. and NATO essentially reject them out of hand.
February 2022: Russia begins its military intervention into Donbass in the still ongoing Ukrainian civil war after first recognizing the independence of Luhansk and Donetsk.
Before the intervention, OSCE maps show a significant uptick of shelling from Ukraine into the separatist republics, where more than 10,000 people have been killed since 2014.
Ukrainian troops in the Donbass region, March 2015. (OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
March-April 2022: Russia and Ukraine agree on a framework agreement that would end the war, including Ukraine pledging not to join NATO. The U.S. and U.K. object. Prime Minister Boris Johnson flies to Kiev to tell Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to stop negotiating with Russia. The war continues with Russia seizing much of the Donbass.
March 26, 2022: Biden admits in a speech in Warsaw that the U.S. is seeking through its proxy war against Russia to overthrow the Putin government. Earlier in March he overruled his secretary of state on establishing a no-fly zone against Russian aircraft in Ukraine. Biden opposed the no-fly zone, he said at the time, because “that’s called World War III, okay? Let’s get it straight here, guys. We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”
September 2022: Donbass republics vote to join the Russian Federation, as well as two other regions: Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
May 2023: Ukraine begins a counter-offensive to try to take back territory controlled by Russia. As seen in leaked documents earlier in the year, U.S. intelligence concludes the offensive will fail before it begins.
June 2023: A 36-hour rebellion by the Wagner group fails, when its leader Yevegny Prigoshzin takes a deal to go into exile in Belarus. The Wagner private army, which was funded and armed by the Russian Ministry of Defense, is absorbed into the Russian army. The Ukrainian offensive ends in failure at the end of November.
September 2024: Biden deferred to the realists in the Pentagon to oppose long-range British Storm Shadow missiles from being fired by Ukraine deep into Russia out of fear it would also lead to a direct NATO-Russia military confrontation with all that that entails.
Putin warned at the time that because British soldiers on the ground in Ukraine would actually launch the British missiles into Russia with U.S. geostrategic support, it “will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”
November 2024: After he was driven from the race and his party lost the White House, a lame duck Biden suddenly switched gears, allowing not only British, but also U.S. long-range ATACMS missiles to be fired into Russia. It’s not clear that the White House ever informed the Pentagon in advance of a move that risked the very World War III that Biden had previously sought to avoid.
February 2025: The first direct contact between senior leadership of the United States and Russia in more than three years takes place, with a phone call between the countries’ presidents and a meeting of foreign ministers in Saudi Arabia. They agree to begin negotiations to end the war.
*****
This timeline clearly shows an aggressive Western intent towards Russia, and how the tragedy could have been avoided if NATO would not allow Ukraine to join; if the Minsk accords had been implemented; and if the U.S. and NATO negotiated a new security arrangement in Europe, taking Russian security concerns into account.
If there is one thing we can thank US President Donald Trump for, it is this: he has decisively stripped away the ridiculous notion, long cultivated by western media, that the United States is a benign global policeman enforcing a “rules-based order”.
Washington is better understood as the head of a gangster empire, embracing 800 military bases around the world. Since the end of the Cold War, it has been aggressively seeking “global full-spectrum domination”, as the Pentagon doctrine politely terms it.
You either pay fealty to the Don or you get dumped in the river. Last Friday Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was presented with a pair of designer concrete boots at the White House.
The innovation was that it all happened in front of the western press corps, in the Oval Office, rather than in a back room, out of sight. It made for great television, Trump crowed.
Pundits have been quick to reassure us that the shouting match was some kind of weird Trumpian thing. As though being inhospitable to state leaders, and disrespectful to the countries they head, is unique to this administration.
Take just the example of Iraq. The administration of Bill Clinton thought it “worth it” – as his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, infamously put it – to kill an estimated half a million Iraqi children by imposing draconian sanctions through the 1990s.
Under Clinton’s successor, George W Bush, the US then waged an illegal war in 2003, on entirely phoney grounds, that killed around half a million Iraqis, according to post-war estimates, and made four million homeless.
Those worrying about the White House publicly humiliating Zelensky might be better advised to save their concern for the hundreds of thousands of mostly Ukrainian and Russian men killed or wounded fighting an entirely unnecessary war – one, as we shall see, Washington carefully engineered through Nato over the preceding two decades.
Henchman Zelensky
All those casualties served the same goal as they did in Iraq: to remind the world who is boss.
Uniquely, western publics don’t understand this simple point because they live inside a disinformation bubble, created for them by the western establishment media.
Henry Kissinger, the long-time steward of US foreign policy, famously said: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”
Zelensky just found that out the hard way. Gangster empires are just as fickle as the gangsters we know from Hollywood movies. Under the previous Joe Biden administration, Zelensky had been recruited as a henchman to do Washington’s bidding on Moscow’s doorstep.
The background – the one western media have kept largely out of view – is that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US tore up treaties crucial to reassuring Russia of Nato’s good intent.
Viewed from Moscow, and given Washington’s track record, Nato’s European security umbrella must have looked more like preparation for an ambush.
Keen though Trump now is to rewrite history and cast himself as peacemaker, he was central to the escalating tensions that led to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
In 2019, he unilaterally withdrew from the 1987 Treaty on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces. That opened the door to the US launching a potential first strike on Russia, using missiles stationed in nearby Nato members Romania and Poland.
He also sent Javelin anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, a move avoided by his predecessor, Barack Obama, for fear it would be seen as provocative.
Repeatedly, Nato vowed to bring Ukraine into its fold, despite Russia’s warnings that the step was viewed as an existential threat, that Moscow could not allow Washington to place missiles on its border, any more than the US accepted Soviet missiles stationed in Cuba back in the early 1960s.
Washington pressed ahead anyway, even assisting in a colour revolution-style coup in 2014 against the elected government in Kyiv, whose crime was being a little too sympathetic to Moscow.
With the country in crisis, Zelensky was himself elected by Ukrainians as a peace candidate, there to end a brutal civil war – sparked by that coup – between anti-Russian, “nationalistic” forces in the country’s west and ethnic Russian populations in the east. The Ukrainian president soon broke that promise.
Trump has accused Zelensky of being a “dictator”. But if he is, it is only because Washington wanted him that way, ignoring the wishes of the majority of Ukrainians.
Reddest of red lines
Zelensky’s job was to play a game of chicken with Moscow. The assumption was that the US would win whatever the outcome.
Either Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bluff would be called. Ukraine would be welcomed into Nato, becoming the most forward of the alliance’s forward bases against Russia, allowing nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to be stationed minutes from Moscow.
Or Putin would finally make good on his years of threats to invade his neighbour to stop Nato crossing the reddest of red lines he had set over Ukraine.
Washington could then cry “self-defence” on Ukraine’s behalf, and ludicrously fear-monger western publics about Putin eyeing Poland, Germany, France and Britain next.
Those were the pretexts for arming Kyiv to the hilt, rather than seeking a rapid peace deal. And so began a proxy war of attrition against Russia, using Ukrainian men as cannon fodder.
The aim was to wear Russia down militarily and economically, and bring about Putin’s overthrow.
Zelensky did precisely what was demanded of him. When he appeared to waver early on, and considered signing a peace deal with Moscow, Britain’s prime minister of the time, Boris Johnson, was dispatched with a message from Washington: keep fighting.
That is the same Boris Johnson who now breezily admits that the West is fighting a “proxy war” against Russia.
His comments have generated precisely no controversy. That is particularly strange, given that critics who pointed this very obvious fact out three years ago were instantly denounced for spreading “Putin disinformation” and Kremlin “talking points”.
For his obedience, Zelensky was feted a hero, the defender of Europe against Russian imperialism. His every “demand” – demands that originated in Washington – was met.
Ukraine has received at least $250bn worth of guns, tanks, fighter jets, training for his troops, western intelligence on Russia, and other forms of aid.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian men have paid with their lives – as have the families they leave behind.
Mafia etiquette
Now the old Don in Washington is gone. The new Don has decided Zelensky has been an expensive failure. Russia isn’t lethally wounded. It’s stronger than ever. Time for a new strategy.
Zelensky, still imagining he was Washington’s favourite henchman, arrived at the Oval Office only to be taught a harsh lesson in mafia etiquette.
Trump is spinning his stab in the back as a “peace agreement”. And in some sense, it is. Rightly, Trump has concluded that Russia has won – unless the West is ready to fight World War III and risk a potential nuclear war.
Trump has faced up to the reality of the situation, even if Zelensky and Europe are still struggling to.
But his plan for Ukraine is actually just a variation of his other peace plan – the one for Gaza. There he wants to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population and, on the bodies of the enclave’s many thousands of dead children, build the “Riviera of the Middle East” – or “Trump Gaza” as it is being called in a surreal video he shared on social media.
Similarly, Trump now sees Ukraine not as a military battlefield but as an economic one where, through clever deal-making, he can leverage riches for himself and his billionaire pals.
He has put a gun to Zelensky and Europe’s head. Make a deal with Russia to end the war, or you are on your own against a far superior military power. See if the Europeans can help you without a supply of Washington’s weapons.
Not surprisingly, Zelensky, Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron huddled together at the weekend to find a deal that would appease Trump. All Starmer has revealed so far is that the plan will “stop the fighting”.
That is a good thing. But the fighting could have been stopped, and should have been stopped, three years ago.
Money, not peace
It is deeply unwise to be lulled into tribalism by all this – the very tribalism western elites seek to cultivate among their publics to keep us treating international affairs no differently from a high-stakes football match.
No one here has behaved, or is behaving, honourably.
A ceasefire in Ukraine is not about peace. It’s about money, just as the earlier war was. As all wars are, ultimately.
An acceptable ceasefire for Trump, as well as for Putin, will involve a carve-up of Ukraine’s goodies. Rare earth minerals, land, agricultural production will be the real currency driving the agreement.
Zelensky now understands this. He knows that he, and the people of Ukraine, have been scammed. That is what tends to happen when you cosy up to the mafia.
If anyone doubts Washington’s insincerity over Ukraine, look to Palestine for clarity.
In his earlier presidency, Trump tried to bring about what he termed the peace “deal of the century” whose centrepiece was the annexation of much of the Occupied West Bank.
The hope was that the Gulf states would ultimately fund an incentivisation programme – the carrot to Israel’s stick – to encourage Palestinians to make a new life in a giant, purpose-built industrial zone in Sinai, next to Gaza.
That plan is still simmering away in the background. At the weekend, Israel received a green light from Washington to revive its genocidal starvation of Gaza’s population, after Israel refused to negotiate the second phase of the original ceasefire agreement.
The Trump administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are now spinning their own bad faith as Hamas “rejectionism”.
They and the echo chamber that is the western media are blaming the Palestinian group for refusing to be gulled into an “extension” of what was never more than a phoney ceasefire – Israel’s fire never ceased. Israel wants all the hostages back, without having to leave Gaza, so that Hamas has no leverage to stop Israel reviving the full genocide.
The people of Gaza are still being fed into the Washington mafia’s meatgrinder, just as the Ukrainian people have been.
Trump wants them out of the way so he can develop a Mediterranean playground for the rich, paid for with Gulf oil money and the so-far untapped natural gas reserves just off Gaza’s coast.
Unlike his predecessors, Trump doesn’t pretend that Ukraine and Gaza are anything more than geostrategic real estate for Washington.
The big shakedown
Zelensky’s shakedown did not come out of the blue. Trump and his officials had been flagging it well in advance.
Two weeks ago, the industrial correspondent for Britain’s Daily Telegraph wrote an article headlined “Here’s why Trump wants to make Ukraine a US economic colony”.
Trump’s team believes that Ukraine may have rare-earth minerals under the ground worth some $15 trillion – a treasure trove that will be critical to the development of the next generation of technology.
In their view, controlling the exploration and extraction of those minerals will be as important as control over the Middle East’s oil reserves was more than a century ago.
And most important of all, the US wants China, its chief economic – if not military – rival excluded from the plunder. China currently has an effective monopoly on many of these critical minerals.
Or as the Telegraph puts it, Ukraine’s “minerals offer a tantalising promise: the ability for the US to break its dependence on Chinese supplies of critical minerals that go into everything from wind turbines to iPhones and stealth fighter jets”.
A draft of the plan seen by the Telegraph would, in its words, “amount to the US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity”.
Washington wants first refusal on all deposits within the country.
At their Oval Office confrontation, Trump reiterated this goal: “So we’re going to be using that [Ukraine’s rare earth minerals], taking it, using it for all of the things we do, including AI, and including weapons, and the military. And it’s really going to very much satisfy our needs.”
All of this means that Trump has a keen incentive to get the war finished as quickly as possible, and Russia’s territorial advance halted. The more territory Moscow seizes, the less territory is left for the US to plunder.
Self-sabotage
The battle against China over rare-earth minerals isn’t a Trump innovation either – and adds an additional layer of context for why Washington and Nato have been so keen over the past two decades to prise Ukraine away from Russia.
Last summer, a Congressional select committee on competition with China announced the formation of a working group to counter Beijing’s “dominance of critical minerals”.
The chairman of the committee, John Moolenaar, noted that the current US dependence on China for these minerals “would quickly become an existential vulnerability in the event of a conflict”.
Another committee member, Rob Wittman, observed: “Dominance over global supply chains for critical mineral and rare earth elements is the next stage of great power competition.”
What Trump appears to appreciate is that Nato’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine has, by default, driven Moscow deeper into Beijing’s embrace. It has been self-sabotage on a grand scale.
Together, China and Russia are a formidable opponent, and one at the centre of the ever-growing Brics group – comprised of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. They have been seeking to expand their alliance by adding emerging powers to become a counterweight to Washington and Nato’s bullying global agenda.
But a deal with Putin over Ukraine would provide an opportunity for Washington to build a new security architecture in Europe – one more useful to the US – that places Russia inside the tent rather than outside it.
That would leave China isolated – a long-time Pentagon goal.
And it would also leave Europe less central to the projection of US power, which is why European leaders – led by Keir Starmer – have been looking and sounding so unnerved over the past few weeks.
The danger is that Trump’s “peacemaking” in Ukraine simply becomes a prelude to the fomenting of a war against China, using Taiwan as the pretext in the same way Ukraine was used against Russia.
As Moolenaar implied, US control over critical minerals – in Ukraine and elsewhere – would ensure the US was no longer vulnerable in the event of a war with China to losing access to the minerals it would need to continue the war. It would free Washington’s hand.
Trump may be behaving in a vulgar manner. But the gangster empire he now heads is conducting the same global shakedown as ever.
Kenneth Roth, visiting professor at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and former executive director of Human Rights Watch, responds to the shocking Oval Office meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Vice President JD Vance, in which Vance and Trump publicly admonished Zelensky over the Russia-Ukraine war and accused him…
At the rural orphanage where I volunteered, the place resembled a Dickensian workhouse. The staff’s main tools were antipsychotics and violence. The experience gave me a window into Putin’s Russia
In the summer of 2007, I joined a group of 30 Russian and English students to work on a month-long summer camp at a state orphanage for mentally and physically disabled children in the Pskov region, south of St Petersburg. We lived in a house nearby, or in tents pitched in the garden. Every day, we walked up to the orphanage to put on developmental activities, sporting events, solve puzzles, play games, stage shows and go on camping trips.
I volunteered at the orphanage, in the village of Belskoye Ustye, for almost a decade, but it was the first visit that made the biggest impression. I had seen nothing like it. My closest reference point was probably workhouses or orphanages from a Charles Dickens novel. I vividly remember the smells – cooked food, unwashed bodies, chlorine and urine – and how the children crowded you, grabbing hands and clothes, pinching, pulling hair, jostling and asking questions. Dressed in an odd collection of what seemed to be adult castoffs, the kids spent most of their waking hours in rooms furnished with just a few scuffed tables and chairs, a bookcase and television. At night, and for long periods during the day, cast-iron metal grilles across corridors were locked, confining the older teenagers to their dormitories at one end. Children vulnerable to self-harm were tied up.
Wow. In a series of rapid-fire developments last week, the new Trump regime has decisively joined the battle with the deep state on the national security side. This is big, or could be. Either Donald Trump will begin to exert political control over the invisible government or the invisible government will sink Donald Trump just as it did during his first term as president. Let us be attentive.
The attack on USAID, the telephone call with Vladimir Putin, the incipient alienation of the Kiev regime, new talk of talks with the Islamic Republic, Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation as director of national intelligence: I don’t know if these events and their timing reflect a concerted plan, back-of-an-envelope inspirations, or the president’s thinking but not necessarily the thinking of those around him.
I deplore Trump’s actions domestically and also, so far, on Gaza. However, I trust you’re also experiencing a rare morale boost regarding what Trump has begun doing on Ukraine. One consequence we can expect is hysterical, excoriating commentary from the European and US media as they condemn Trump for “betraying Ukraine and appeasing Putin.” On the front page of New York Times (2/15/2025) we read about the “rising Russian threat.” Also, there may well be false flags from Zelensky as he attempts to disrupt and delay productive talks — and save his own ass. Given the absence of an independent media all this will be confusing to the public because they’ve been so heavily propagandized about the war’s background and learned nothing about US motives in starting it. For example, how many Americans know that the Ukraine war was initiated in February 2014 by President Barack Obama? At that juncture, the Euromaiden coup was portrayed in the American news media as a spontaneous, “democratic” transition.
I’m also enjoying watching Washington’s EU lackeys squeal and squirm after subserviently going along with Biden and the neocon’s war for three years. The suggestion that they or Zelensky merit a seat at the Trump-Putin talks is hilarious. My sense is that these US allies harbored the illusion that the neocons and the Deep State would be ruling the US indefinitely. Now they’re befuddled, humiliated, cut loose and have no leverage and no cards to play. All they can do is bitch from the sidelines and behave as spoilers. Of course, my feelings of satisfaction (and if I might, vindication) are tempered by the fact that half a million fathers, brothers, sons and uncles were slaughtered on behalf of a U.S. proxy war to weaken Russia before taking on China.
These discredited European leaders have two choices: One, they must drastically increase “security” spending that will provoke massive social unrest as people watch the already weakened welfare state implode. Two, they must try to establish a post-Ukraine working relationship with Russia in order to obtain energy resources and a trading partner. After exposing their populations to a false narrative about Russia since 1945 in order justify NATO, at Washington’s behest, that’s an unenviable task. We can hope that NATO will soon be toast, U.S. troops begin exiting the continent and Europe becomes sovereign. Finally, I’m encouraged that Trump is proposing trilateral talks with China and Russia as this holds promise for a more peaceful world.
An investigation has exposed the tech firm’s cooperation with autocratic regimes to remove unfavourable content
Google has cooperated with autocratic regimes around the world, including the Kremlin in Russia and the Chinese Communist party, to facilitate censorship requests, an Observer investigation can reveal.
The technology company has engaged with the administrations of about 150 countries since 2011 that want information scrubbed from their public domains.
As we approach the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a monumental shift is taking place that might just lead to the end of this calamitous war. This is not a breakthrough on the battlefield, but a stark reversal of the U.S. position from being the major supplier of weapons and funding to prolong the war to one of peacemaker.
Donald Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine if he was re-elected as president. On February 12th, he started to make good on that promise by holding a 90-minute call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Biden had refused to talk to since the war began. They agreed that they were ready to begin peace negotiations “immediately,” and Trump then called President Zelensky and spent an hour discussing the conditions for what Zelensky called a “lasting and reliable peace.”
At the same time, the new U.S. Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, unveiled Trump’s new policy in more detail at a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, saying, “The bloodshed must stop. And this war must end.”
There are two parts to the new policy that Hegseth announced. First, he said that Trump “intends to end this war by diplomacy and bringing both Russia and Ukraine to the table.” Secondly, he said that the United States is handing off the prime responsibility for arming Ukraine and guaranteeing its future security to the European members of NATO.
Assigning Europe the role of security guarantor is a transparent move to shield the U.S. from ongoing responsibility for a war that it played a major role in provoking and prolonging by scuttling previous negotiations. If the Europeans will not accept their assigned role in Trump’s plan, or President Zelensky or Putin reject it, the United States may yet have to play a larger role in security guarantees for Ukraine than Trump or many Americans would like. Zelensky told the Guardian on February 11th that, for Ukraine, “Security guarantees without America are not real security guarantees.”
After blocking peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in April 2022, the Biden administration rejected peace negotiations over Ukraine for nearly three years. Biden insisted that Ukraine must recover all of its internationally recognized territory, including the Crimea and Donbass regions that separated from Ukraine after the U.S.-backed coup in Kyiv in 2014.
Hegseth opened the door to peace by clearly and honestly telling America’s European allies, “…we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.”
Spelling out the U.S. plan in more detail, Hegseth went on, “A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again. This must not be Minsk 3.0. That said, the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Instead any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.”
NATO membership for Ukraine has always been totally unacceptable to the Russians. Trump and Hegseth’s forthrightness in finally pulling the plug, after the U.S. has dangled NATO membership in front of successive Ukrainian governments since 2008, marks a critical recognition that neutrality offers the best chance for Ukraine to coexist with Russia and the West without being a battleground between them.
Trump and Hegseth expect Europe to assume prime responsibility for Ukraine, while the Pentagon will instead focus on Trump’s two main priorities: on the domestic front, deporting immigrants, and on the international front, confronting China. Hegseth justified this as “a division of labor that maximizes our comparative advantages in Europe and the Pacific respectively.”
Elaborating on the role the U.S. plan demands of its European allies, Hegseth explained,
If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission. And they should not be covered under Article 5. There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact. To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine… Safeguarding European security must be an imperative for European members of NATO. As part of this Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine.
To say that U.S. forces will never fight alongside European forces in Ukraine, and that Article 5, the mutual defense commitment in the NATO Charter, will not apply to European forces in Ukraine, is to go a step farther than simply denying NATO membership to Ukraine, by carving out Ukraine as an exclusion zone where the NATO Charter no longer applies, even to NATO members.
While Trump plans to negotiate directly with Russia and Ukraine, the vulnerable position in which his plan would place European NATO members means that they, too, will want a significant say in the peace negotiations and probably demand a U.S. role in Ukraine’s security guarantees. So Trump’s effort to insulate the U.S. from the consequences of its actions in Ukraine may be a dead letter before he even sits down to negotiate with Russia and Ukraine.
Hegseth’s reference to the Minsk Accords highlights the similarities between Trump’s plans and those agreements in 2014 and 2015, which largely kept the peace in Eastern Ukraine from then until 2022. Western leaders have since admitted that they always intended to use the relative peace created by the Minsk Accords to build up Ukraine militarily, so that it could eventually recover Donetsk and Luhansk by force, instead of granting them the autonomous status agreed to in the Accords.
Russia will surely insist on provisions that prevent the West from using a new peace accord in the same way, and would be highly unlikely to agree to substantial Western military forces or bases in Ukraine as part of Ukraine’s security guarantees. President Putin has always insisted that a neutral Ukraine is essential to lasting peace.
There is, predictably, an element of “having their cake and eating it too” in Trump and Hegseth’s proposals. Even if the Europeans take over most of the responsibility for guaranteeing Ukraine’s future security, and the U.S. has no Article 5 obligation to support them, the United States would retain its substantial command and control position over Europe’s armed forces through NATO. Trump is still demanding that its European members increase their military spending to 5% of GDP, far more than the United States spends on its bloated, wasteful and defeated war machine.
Biden was ready to fight Russia “to the last Ukrainian,” as retired U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman said in March 2022, and to enrich U.S. weapons companies with rivers of Ukrainian blood. Is Trump now preparing to fight Russia to the last British, French, German or Polish soldier too if his peace plan fails?
Trump’s call with Putin and Hegseth’s concessions on NATO and Ukraine’s territorial integrity left many European leaders reeling. They complained that the U.S. was making concessions behind their backs, that these issues should have been left to the negotiating table, and that Ukraine should not be forced to give up on NATO membership.
European NATO members have legitimate concerns to work out with the new U.S. administration, but Trump and Hegseth are right to finally and honestly tell Ukraine that it will not become a NATO member, to dispel this tragic mirage and let it move on into a neutral and more peaceful future.
There has also been a backlash from Republican war hawks, while the Democrats, who have been united as the party of war when it comes to Ukraine, will likely try to sabotage Trump’s efforts. On the other hand, maybe a few brave Democrats will recognize this as a chance to reclaim their party’s lost heritage as the more dovish of America’s two legacy parties, and to provide desperately needed new progressive foreign policy leadership in Congress.
On both sides of the Atlantic, Trump’s peace initiative is a gamechanger and a new chance for peace that the United States and its allies should embrace, even as they work out their respective responsibilities to provide security guarantees for Ukraine. It is also a time for Europe to realize that it can’t just mimic U.S. foreign policy and expect U.S. protection in return. Europe’s difficult relationship with Trump’s America may lead to a new modus operandi and a re-evaluation (or maybe even the end?) of NATO.
Meanwhile, those of us anxious to see peace in Ukraine should applaud President Trump’s initiative but we should also highlight the glaring contradictions of a president who finds the killing in Ukraine unacceptable but fully supports the genocide in Palestine.
Given that most of the casualties in Ukraine are soldiers, while most of the maimed and killed in Palestine are civilians, including thousands of children, the compassionate, humanitarian case for peace is even stronger in Palestine than in Ukraine. So why is Trump committed to stopping the killing in Ukraine but not in Gaza? Is it because Trump is so wedded to Israel that he refuses to rein in its slaughter? Or is it just that Ukrainians and Russians are white and European, while Palestinians are not?
If Trump can reject the political arguments that have fueled three years of war in Ukraine and apply compassion and common sense to end that war, then he can surely do the same in the Middle East.
As the annual high-level Munich Security Conference gets underway, the Russia-Ukraine war is dominating the agenda, and we speak to two guests protesting the conference. Economist, progressive leader and former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis says the European project started with a noble goal of promoting peace but finds itself today “cornered” between Russian and NATO militarism.
Russia is open to dialogue with the US, including on Ukraine, but has not yet received any “specific signals” from Washington’s new administration on resuming contacts, Moscow’s envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, said on Sunday. In an interview with RIA Novosti, the diplomat stressed that Moscow is actively monitoring Washington’s rhetoric on Ukraine and Russia.
Nebenzia’s remarks follow statements made by US President Donald Trump, who reportedly told the New York Post on Saturday that he recently held a phone conversation with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. Trump did not disclose any details of the reported call, but claimed that the conversation focused on the Ukraine conflict and that Putin “wants to see people stop dying.” He added that he had a plan for ending the hostilities, also without providing details. The Kremlin neither confirmed nor denied the phone call.
Nebenzia did not comment on the reported contact between Trump and Putin, but noted that despite the US president’s repeated pledges to swiftly end the Ukraine conflict, Moscow has yet to see a clearly formulated American plan.
“We are closely monitoring the rhetoric of US President Donald Trump and his team… As for specific signals on resuming contacts, including on the situation around Ukraine, they have not yet been received,” he stated, adding that “for now, we only hear slogans.”
Nebenzia reiterated Moscow’s position that any potential settlement should eliminate the root causes of the conflict, which he said were previously neglected by Washington, such as NATO’s eastward expansion.
“We heard Donald Trump’s statements that during [former President] Joe Biden’s tenure in office, grave mistakes were made in Ukraine… I hope that in the near future we will see whether the Trump administration is interested in eliminating these mistakes,” Nebenzia stated.
“We are open to contacts, but on an equal basis and with the obligatory consideration of Russian interests. We are waiting for the corresponding signals from the American side,” he added.
The diplomat stressed that regarding the Ukraine conflict, it is “fundamentally important” for Russia that any potential peace deal is legally binding and signed by the legitimate Ukrainian leadership. He noted that this could present a challenge given that Vladimir Zelensky’s term as president officially expired in May last year. Another problem hindering any diplomatic moves is Zelensky’s decree banning negotiations with Moscow, Nebenzia noted.
In an interview with Britain’s ITV news network on Sunday, Zelensky said he would agree to negotiations with Russia if the US and EU offer Kiev firm security guarantees. He earlier named Ukraine’s NATO membership as one of them, a notion Moscow has repeatedly opposed.
Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, on Sunday signaled that Washington plans to attempt to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table, but wants the EU to provide Kiev with security guarantees going forward. Waltz said the issue will be discussed later this week when top US officials visit Europe to attend the Munich Security Conference.
In today’s newsletter: Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Anne Applebaum says the president-elect won’t transform into a dictator – but he could set in motion an unstoppable democratic decline
Good morning.
The global surge of authoritarian rule in recent years has been stark and alarming. Strongman leaders like Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin have systematically consolidated power, while a new wave of autocratic rulers have emerged from Asia to South America.
Of the many countries of the Global South that maintain cordial ties with Russia, Iran happens to be one of the few outliers where the public doesn’t hold predominantly positive views of the Eurasian heavyweight. Anti-Russia sentiments have snowballed in Iran since the start of the Ukraine war, and as reflected in an October 2022 Cambridge University study, unfavorable perceptions of Russia are…
President Vladimir Putin has announced that serial production of the new Oreshnik hypersonic, intermediate range, 36-warhead missile has commenced. He made this announcement at a special public meeting with Defense Ministry officials in the Kremlin on Friday, November 22.
“There are no means of countering such a missile; no means of intercepting it exist in the world today,” Putin said. “We need to launch its serial production. Let us assume that the decision on the serial production of this system has been made. As a matter of fact, it has already been essentially organised.”
This means there are already, or will shortly be deployed, dozens of Oreshniki missiles for firing at targets in the Ukraine west of the Dnieper River and as far west as the Polish and Hungarian borders.
This also means that no American, no NATO staff group, no Anglo-American target intelligence unit in bunkers in Kiev or Lvov are safe any longer. Nor are Vladimir Zelensky and his advisors. To escape Israeli-precedent decapitation, they must all decamp to the Ukrainian war operations mock-up already prepared on the Polish side of the border.
Ukrainian military intelligence head, Kirill Budanov, has claimed that the Oreshnik strike on the Yuzhmash (Pivdenmash) plant in Dniepropetrovsk is “just a cipher…We know for sure that as of October they were supposed to make two research samples, maybe they made a little bit more, but believe me, this is a research sample, but not yet serial production, thank God.”
“Wishful thinking,” a NATO military source comments. “He’ll get the chance to find out first- hand.”
Russian military sources add that, following disclosure of the Kremlin’s back-channel talks with Donald Trump and his advisors on terms for an end-of-war settlement, the Oreshnik is the signal that the “General Staff are talking directly to Trump & Co.” Putin was explicit in his first announcement of the Oreshnik firing: “We believe that the United States [President Trump] made a mistake by unilaterally destroying the INF Treaty in 2019 under a far-fetched pretext.”
Dmitry Rogozin — formerly Russian NATO ambassador, then deputy prime minister in charge of the Russian military industrial complex, now senator for Zaporozhye – carefully identified the credit for the Oreshnik: “Today, everyone who fought for the creation of this missile system, who overcame what we may call scepticism, should congratulate each other. And I join those congratulations. Good for you!…Thank you to the Supreme [Command, Верховному] for supporting the work! Thank you to the Academy for not backing away!”
A Russian source, who does not believe Putin ordered the General Staff to suspend its electric war campaign between August and this month, believes Russian strategy now is “a thousand cuts. The Oreshnik is a particularly deep one but I don’t believe that the Kremlin and General Staff have decided to use it to hit Bankova [street address in Kiev of the presidential offices and living quarters ]. The decapitation threat is real enough though to impel Zelensky to exit, or maybe for the Ukrainian military to get rid of him on their own initiative.”
“Just as important,” the source says, “the Russian ground offensive in the east will remain slow, patient, maybe for two years more. The priority is on preventing Russian casualties, conserving Russian lives. This is essential once you realize that the [Putin] presidential succession also depends, not only on winning the war on Russian terms, but ensuring the protection of Russian lives.”
Oreshnik in Russian means, literally, hazel nut or the wood of the hazelnut tree. In Siberia, the cognate expression “to give nuts” has the metaphorical meaning of inflicting punishment.
Watch and listen to this video recording of the sequence of warhead strikes on November 21. In this second videoclip, the unique funnel of light is displayed six times as the warheads land on target.
As Putin pointed out in his national address on the evening after the Oreshnik strike, it had been then-President Trump’s “mistake” in 2019 to unilaterally withdraw from the 1987 Soviet-American treaty on intermediate range nuclear forces (INF). Oreshnik is both the Russian reply and also a warning to Trump to correct his mistake.
For the time being, the Financial Times, a Japanese propaganda outlet in London, reported a Norwegian graduate student as claiming “there certainly was no military value to it.”
In Moscow, Izvestia, on which the BBC has relied for republication, reported “it is likely that we are dealing with a new generation of Russian intermediate-range missiles [with a range of] 2,500-3,000km (1,550-1,860 miles) and potentially extending to 5,000km (3,100 miles), but not intercontinental. It is obviously equipped with a separating warhead with individual guidance units.”
This means the missile is MIRV, comprising multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles. Close observation of the strike videoclips shows six of these releasing six munitions capable of penetrating deep underground bunkers. A salvo of thirty-six warhead detonations, altogether.
Missile speed is reported to be between Mach 10 and Mach 11.
The Militarist military blog of Moscow reports this image of the predecessor RSD-10 Pioneer missile “can give a definite idea of the appearance of the Oreshnik.”
Although satellite images of the plant after Thursday’s attack have not been declassified or published in the open, what is likely is that the bunker stocks of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles being prepared at the plant for launching against Russia were destroyed, along with the factory-floor and machine capacities of the plant to service HIMARS, other rocket and missile firing equipment delivered by the US and NATO states to the Zelensky regime.
Russian military sources have been discussing Ukrainian target options since the Putin Pause ended on November 17, and the electric war recommenced with the General Staff’s 120-missile, 90-drone raid against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure across the country. For more on the Putin Pause, click to read this and this.
The sources differ on whether the military initiative has now been delegated by Putin to the General Staff without the autumn restrictions, and whether the President has decided the Biden Administration’s escalation has Trump’s tacit endorsement in a calculated “escalate-to-deescalate” plan.
A Russian military source cautions against confusing Russia’s operational priorities now that Oreshnik has been unleashed, and the strategic priorities which haven’t changed. “Will the generals go for Zelensky and take out the whole illegitimate regime if another ATAMCS hits deep Russia? You bet. The Israelis have made it very easy for Putin. But I do not think the generals or the Security Council or all of the Duma care so much at the moment. Zelensky isn’t a priority because his own soldiers will do him in.”
“I also see there is no pause for Trump. No deference, no hidden messages, and no respite irrespective of what talks might or not be going on behind the scenes. This is a signal that the trust in Trump is near zero, and even less so for [Elon] Musk and the love fest the two of them have been displaying. There’s only one message Trump can give now to show his intention for an end of the war, and that’s to get Zelensky to announce elections by next March. That would signal the end of the neo-Nazi regime, and of course, the end of Zelensky too.”
The military sources also emphasize the warnings to the US, its European and Asian allies in the small print of the new nuclear doctrine signed by Putin on November 19.
The sources note that Paragraph 9 warns that nuclear deterrence is “directed against states that provide their controlled territory, airspace and/or maritime space and resources for the preparation and implementation of aggression against the Russian Federation.” Paragraph 11 then goes on to link nuclear with non-nuclear states in the NATO treaty, as well as the AUKUS and G7 blocs; in Asia these include Japan and Australia. “Aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state is considered as their joint attack.”
This is once again Putin’s cross-hairs warning to Poland and Romania for their US nuclear-capable Tomahawk missile bases at Redzikowo and Deveselu. The cross-hairs warning was first given by Putin in Greece in 2016. Now that the Greek government itself has agreed to secretly hosting US nuclear weapons at the Souda Bay base in Crete, the warning applies to Greece itself.
“Nuclear deterrence,” as Paragraph 12 of the Doctrine says, “is aimed at ensuring that a potential adversary understands the inevitability of retaliation in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.” Greece, Spain, and Germany are also now targeted according to Paragraph 15(e) because they allow “the deployment of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery on the territories of non-nuclear states”; and according to Paragraph 15(g) because of the “actions of a potential enemy aimed at isolating part of the territory of the Russian Federation, including blocking access to vital transport communications”. In Europe this expands Russia’s targets to the Baltic states around Kaliningrad, as well as to the North Sea states Sweden, Norway and Denmark which participated in the Nord Stream-2 sabotage and now threaten Russian maritime movement through the Danish Straits.
Map of European Capitals within Range of Oreshnik (Kalingrad launch)
Source: https://t.me/readovkanews/89690
With an estimated 1,500 kgs of combat payload, lifting to a maximum height of 12 km and moving at a speed of Mach 10, the Oreshnik launched from Kaliningrad would strike Warsaw in 1 minute 21 seconds; Berlin, 2 min 35 sec; Paris, 6 min 52 sec; London, 6 min 56 sec.
Of direct impact for Russian strategy on the Ukrainian battlefield, the Doctrine provisions mean that Odessa will, in the words of a Moscow source, “never again be allowed to be a base against Russia.”
The Oreshnik strike of November 21, the military sources in Moscow believe, demonstrates the military capacity to strike with either conventional or nuclear warheads at targets throughout Europe which none of the available US Patriot or other western air defence systems can defend against. It creates a conventional alternative to nuclear retaliation if, as Paragraph 19(d) of the Doctrine says, there is “aggression against the Russian Federation and/or the Republic of Belarus as members of the Union State with the use of conventional weapons, creating a critical threat to their sovereignty and/or territorial integrity” (emphasis added).
Before Oreshnik, the Russians point out, Washington was saying there was nothing new in Putin’s nuclear doctrine paper. “Observing no changes to Russia’s nuclear posture, we have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture or doctrine in response to Russia’s statements today,” Reuters reported the National Security Council as saying on November 19.
After Oreshnik, in presentations at a Washington think tank on November 21, Pentagon officials announced: “adjustments to the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review may be required to sustain the ability to achieve nuclear deterrence, in light of enhanced nuclear capabilities of China and Russia and possible lack of nuclear arms control agreements after February.”
The President with the Defense Minister and other officials at the Kremlin on November 22.
Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/
Look carefully again at what Putin has announced for Oreshnik. By saying on November 21 “we also carried out tests of one of Russia’s latest medium-range missile systems,” he implied that the Yuzhmash strike may be a one-off. That depends, he added: “our decision on further deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles will depend on the actions of the United States and its satellites. We will determine the targets during further tests of our advanced missile systems based on the threats to the security of the Russian Federation.”
If the US adds to or refills the Kiev regime’s stocks of ATACMS; if the Starmer Government authorizes a new Storm Shadow firing across the border; likewise for President Emmanuel Macron for the SCALP missile, and for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for the supply of Taurus missiles, then Putin’s warning on November 22 of serial production of Oreshniki has confirmed “inevitable retaliation”.
“As I have already said, we will continue these tests, including in combat conditions, depending on the situation and the nature of the security threats posed to Russia. All the more so as we have a stockpile of such products, a reserve of such systems ready for use.”
President Vladimir Putin has announced that serial production of the new Oreshnik hypersonic, intermediate range, 36-warhead missile has commenced. He made this announcement at a special public meeting with Defense Ministry officials in the Kremlin on Friday, November 22.
“There are no means of countering such a missile; no means of intercepting it exist in the world today,” Putin said. “We need to launch its serial production. Let us assume that the decision on the serial production of this system has been made. As a matter of fact, it has already been essentially organised.”
This means there are already, or will shortly be deployed, dozens of Oreshniki missiles for firing at targets in the Ukraine west of the Dnieper River and as far west as the Polish and Hungarian borders.
This also means that no American, no NATO staff group, no Anglo-American target intelligence unit in bunkers in Kiev or Lvov are safe any longer. Nor are Vladimir Zelensky and his advisors. To escape Israeli-precedent decapitation, they must all decamp to the Ukrainian war operations mock-up already prepared on the Polish side of the border.
Ukrainian military intelligence head, Kirill Budanov, has claimed that the Oreshnik strike on the Yuzhmash (Pivdenmash) plant in Dniepropetrovsk is “just a cipher…We know for sure that as of October they were supposed to make two research samples, maybe they made a little bit more, but believe me, this is a research sample, but not yet serial production, thank God.”
“Wishful thinking,” a NATO military source comments. “He’ll get the chance to find out first- hand.”
Russian military sources add that, following disclosure of the Kremlin’s back-channel talks with Donald Trump and his advisors on terms for an end-of-war settlement, the Oreshnik is the signal that the “General Staff are talking directly to Trump & Co.” Putin was explicit in his first announcement of the Oreshnik firing: “We believe that the United States [President Trump] made a mistake by unilaterally destroying the INF Treaty in 2019 under a far-fetched pretext.”
Dmitry Rogozin — formerly Russian NATO ambassador, then deputy prime minister in charge of the Russian military industrial complex, now senator for Zaporozhye – carefully identified the credit for the Oreshnik: “Today, everyone who fought for the creation of this missile system, who overcame what we may call scepticism, should congratulate each other. And I join those congratulations. Good for you!…Thank you to the Supreme [Command, Верховному] for supporting the work! Thank you to the Academy for not backing away!”
A Russian source, who does not believe Putin ordered the General Staff to suspend its electric war campaign between August and this month, believes Russian strategy now is “a thousand cuts. The Oreshnik is a particularly deep one but I don’t believe that the Kremlin and General Staff have decided to use it to hit Bankova [street address in Kiev of the presidential offices and living quarters ]. The decapitation threat is real enough though to impel Zelensky to exit, or maybe for the Ukrainian military to get rid of him on their own initiative.”
“Just as important,” the source says, “the Russian ground offensive in the east will remain slow, patient, maybe for two years more. The priority is on preventing Russian casualties, conserving Russian lives. This is essential once you realize that the [Putin] presidential succession also depends, not only on winning the war on Russian terms, but ensuring the protection of Russian lives.”
Oreshnik in Russian means, literally, hazel nut or the wood of the hazelnut tree. In Siberia, the cognate expression “to give nuts” has the metaphorical meaning of inflicting punishment.
Watch and listen to this video recording of the sequence of warhead strikes on November 21. In this second videoclip, the unique funnel of light is displayed six times as the warheads land on target.
As Putin pointed out in his national address on the evening after the Oreshnik strike, it had been then-President Trump’s “mistake” in 2019 to unilaterally withdraw from the 1987 Soviet-American treaty on intermediate range nuclear forces (INF). Oreshnik is both the Russian reply and also a warning to Trump to correct his mistake.
For the time being, the Financial Times, a Japanese propaganda outlet in London, reported a Norwegian graduate student as claiming “there certainly was no military value to it.”
In Moscow, Izvestia, on which the BBC has relied for republication, reported “it is likely that we are dealing with a new generation of Russian intermediate-range missiles [with a range of] 2,500-3,000km (1,550-1,860 miles) and potentially extending to 5,000km (3,100 miles), but not intercontinental. It is obviously equipped with a separating warhead with individual guidance units.”
This means the missile is MIRV, comprising multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles. Close observation of the strike videoclips shows six of these releasing six munitions capable of penetrating deep underground bunkers. A salvo of thirty-six warhead detonations, altogether.
Missile speed is reported to be between Mach 10 and Mach 11.
The Militarist military blog of Moscow reports this image of the predecessor RSD-10 Pioneer missile “can give a definite idea of the appearance of the Oreshnik.”
Although satellite images of the plant after Thursday’s attack have not been declassified or published in the open, what is likely is that the bunker stocks of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles being prepared at the plant for launching against Russia were destroyed, along with the factory-floor and machine capacities of the plant to service HIMARS, other rocket and missile firing equipment delivered by the US and NATO states to the Zelensky regime.
Russian military sources have been discussing Ukrainian target options since the Putin Pause ended on November 17, and the electric war recommenced with the General Staff’s 120-missile, 90-drone raid against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure across the country. For more on the Putin Pause, click to read this and this.
The sources differ on whether the military initiative has now been delegated by Putin to the General Staff without the autumn restrictions, and whether the President has decided the Biden Administration’s escalation has Trump’s tacit endorsement in a calculated “escalate-to-deescalate” plan.
A Russian military source cautions against confusing Russia’s operational priorities now that Oreshnik has been unleashed, and the strategic priorities which haven’t changed. “Will the generals go for Zelensky and take out the whole illegitimate regime if another ATAMCS hits deep Russia? You bet. The Israelis have made it very easy for Putin. But I do not think the generals or the Security Council or all of the Duma care so much at the moment. Zelensky isn’t a priority because his own soldiers will do him in.”
“I also see there is no pause for Trump. No deference, no hidden messages, and no respite irrespective of what talks might or not be going on behind the scenes. This is a signal that the trust in Trump is near zero, and even less so for [Elon] Musk and the love fest the two of them have been displaying. There’s only one message Trump can give now to show his intention for an end of the war, and that’s to get Zelensky to announce elections by next March. That would signal the end of the neo-Nazi regime, and of course, the end of Zelensky too.”
The military sources also emphasize the warnings to the US, its European and Asian allies in the small print of the new nuclear doctrine signed by Putin on November 19.
The sources note that Paragraph 9 warns that nuclear deterrence is “directed against states that provide their controlled territory, airspace and/or maritime space and resources for the preparation and implementation of aggression against the Russian Federation.” Paragraph 11 then goes on to link nuclear with non-nuclear states in the NATO treaty, as well as the AUKUS and G7 blocs; in Asia these include Japan and Australia. “Aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state is considered as their joint attack.”
This is once again Putin’s cross-hairs warning to Poland and Romania for their US nuclear-capable Tomahawk missile bases at Redzikowo and Deveselu. The cross-hairs warning was first given by Putin in Greece in 2016. Now that the Greek government itself has agreed to secretly hosting US nuclear weapons at the Souda Bay base in Crete, the warning applies to Greece itself.
“Nuclear deterrence,” as Paragraph 12 of the Doctrine says, “is aimed at ensuring that a potential adversary understands the inevitability of retaliation in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.” Greece, Spain, and Germany are also now targeted according to Paragraph 15(e) because they allow “the deployment of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery on the territories of non-nuclear states”; and according to Paragraph 15(g) because of the “actions of a potential enemy aimed at isolating part of the territory of the Russian Federation, including blocking access to vital transport communications”. In Europe this expands Russia’s targets to the Baltic states around Kaliningrad, as well as to the North Sea states Sweden, Norway and Denmark which participated in the Nord Stream-2 sabotage and now threaten Russian maritime movement through the Danish Straits.
Map of European Capitals within Range of Oreshnik (Kalingrad launch)
Source: https://t.me/readovkanews/89690
With an estimated 1,500 kgs of combat payload, lifting to a maximum height of 12 km and moving at a speed of Mach 10, the Oreshnik launched from Kaliningrad would strike Warsaw in 1 minute 21 seconds; Berlin, 2 min 35 sec; Paris, 6 min 52 sec; London, 6 min 56 sec.
Of direct impact for Russian strategy on the Ukrainian battlefield, the Doctrine provisions mean that Odessa will, in the words of a Moscow source, “never again be allowed to be a base against Russia.”
The Oreshnik strike of November 21, the military sources in Moscow believe, demonstrates the military capacity to strike with either conventional or nuclear warheads at targets throughout Europe which none of the available US Patriot or other western air defence systems can defend against. It creates a conventional alternative to nuclear retaliation if, as Paragraph 19(d) of the Doctrine says, there is “aggression against the Russian Federation and/or the Republic of Belarus as members of the Union State with the use of conventional weapons, creating a critical threat to their sovereignty and/or territorial integrity” (emphasis added).
Before Oreshnik, the Russians point out, Washington was saying there was nothing new in Putin’s nuclear doctrine paper. “Observing no changes to Russia’s nuclear posture, we have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture or doctrine in response to Russia’s statements today,” Reuters reported the National Security Council as saying on November 19.
After Oreshnik, in presentations at a Washington think tank on November 21, Pentagon officials announced: “adjustments to the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review may be required to sustain the ability to achieve nuclear deterrence, in light of enhanced nuclear capabilities of China and Russia and possible lack of nuclear arms control agreements after February.”
The President with the Defense Minister and other officials at the Kremlin on November 22.
Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/
Look carefully again at what Putin has announced for Oreshnik. By saying on November 21 “we also carried out tests of one of Russia’s latest medium-range missile systems,” he implied that the Yuzhmash strike may be a one-off. That depends, he added: “our decision on further deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles will depend on the actions of the United States and its satellites. We will determine the targets during further tests of our advanced missile systems based on the threats to the security of the Russian Federation.”
If the US adds to or refills the Kiev regime’s stocks of ATACMS; if the Starmer Government authorizes a new Storm Shadow firing across the border; likewise for President Emmanuel Macron for the SCALP missile, and for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for the supply of Taurus missiles, then Putin’s warning on November 22 of serial production of Oreshniki has confirmed “inevitable retaliation”.
“As I have already said, we will continue these tests, including in combat conditions, depending on the situation and the nature of the security threats posed to Russia. All the more so as we have a stockpile of such products, a reserve of such systems ready for use.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed a meeting of leaders at the BRICS Summit in Kazan on Wednesday. In his speech, he focused on the growing role and prospects of the economic group, and warned about the risks to the global economy from Western sanctions and protectionist policies.
Putin also announced Russia’s initiatives within the BRICS framework, including the formation of a grain exchange and a new investment platform.
Here are the key takeaways from the president’s address.
Multipolar world order being formed
World trade and the global economy as a whole are undergoing significant changes, the Russian president told the extended-format BRICS meeting. The center of business activity is gradually shifting towards developing markets, he added. “A multipolar model is being formed, which is launching a new wave of growth, primarily due to the countries of the Global South and East – and, naturally, the BRICS countries.”
Leading role of BRICS
The BRICS economies have been demonstrating “sufficient stability” due to responsible macroeconomic and fiscal government policies, the Russian leader said, noting accelerated growth rates are expected in the medium term. Putin cited preliminary estimates that average BRICS country economic growth in 2024-2025 will be 3.8%, compared to global figure of 3.2-3.3%.
The BRICS countries’ share of global GDP in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) will amount to 36.7% by the end of 2024 and will continue to expand, Putin predicted. Meanwhile, the share of the Group of Seven (G7) leading Western economies is projected to account for slightly above 30%.
“The trend for the BRICS’ leading role in the global economy will only strengthen,” Putin said, citing population growth, capital accumulation, urbanization, and increased labor productivity, accompanied by technological innovations as key factors.
West’s unilateral sanctions and debt burden
The Russian president warned of a potential new global crisis, citing the growing debt burden in developed countries, unilateral sanctions, and protectionist policies as key threats. “These factors are fragmenting international trade and foreign investment, particularly in developing nations,” Putin said.
He also pointed to high commodity price volatility and rising inflation, which are eroding incomes and corporate profits in many countries. Putin’s remarks also highlighted concerns over escalating geopolitical tensions and their impact on global economic stability.
New BRICS investment platform as a powerful tool
The Russian leader said that to fully realize the potential of the BRICS countries’ growing economies, the member states should intensify cooperation in areas such as technology, education, resources, trade and logistics, finance, and insurance, as well as increasing the volume of capital investment many times over.
“In this regard, we propose creating a new BRICS investment platform, which would become a powerful tool for supporting our national economies and would also provide financial resources to the countries of the Global South and East,” Putin said.
BRICS-based grain exchange
The Russian leader proposed a common BRICS grain exchange to protect trade between members from excessive price volatility. BRICS countries are “among the world’s largest producers of grain, vegetables, and oilseeds,” he noted. Such a bourse could be expanded to trade in other major commodities such as oil, gas and precious metals, Putin said.
The initiative is aimed at protecting national markets from negative external interference, speculation and attempts to cause artificial shortages of food products, according to Putin.
AI alliance of BRICS
Putin also proposed a BRICS AI alliance to regulate the technology and prevent its illegal deployment. “In Russia, the business community has adopted a code of ethics in this area, which our BRICS partners and other countries could join,” Putin noted.
Other proposals
The president also spoke about increasing transport connectivity between BRICS countries, saying this could provide additional opportunities for growth and diversification of mutual trade.
“Such promising projects as the formation of a permanent BRICS logistics platform, preparation of a review of transport routes, opening of an electronic communications platform for transport, and establishment of a reinsurance pool are being discussed,” Putin said.
The issues related to the transition of the global economy to low-emission development models are very important, according to the Russian president. The BRICS contact group on climate and sustainable development is closely involved in this work and will continue to counteract attempts by some countries to use the climate agenda to eliminate competitors from the market, he said. “We consider the initiatives on the BRICS partnership on carbon markets and the climate research platform to be promising,” Putin concluded.
Early after Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, Turkey, which is a NATO member but not as subservient to the U.S. Government as almost all of its European members are, broke with the U.S. Government’s opposition to there being any negotiations to settle the Ukraine war; and peace talks, negotiations to end the conflict, were held in Istanbul. As Wikipedia notes regarding those negotiations:
In a surprise visit to Ukraine on 9 April [2022], British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said “Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with,” and that the collective West was not willing to make a deal with Putin. Three days after Johnson left Kyiv, Putin stated publicly that talks with Ukraine “had turned into a dead end”. Naftali Bennett said in 2023 that both sides had wanted a ceasefire, the odds of the deal holding had been 50-50, and that the Western powers backing Ukraine had stopped the deal.[79]
Mr. Johnson had received U.S. President Joe Biden’s authorization to do that — to go to Ukraine’s President Volodmyr Zelensky to inform him that The West (the U.S. empire, including NATO) would cease supporting Ukraine’s Government if Ukraine would sign the till-then-agreed-upon but not-yet-signed peace treaty with Russia, which entailed Russia’s ceasing its invasion in return for Ukraine’s returning to its neutral status which had prevailed prior to the US. Government’s take-over of Ukraine on 20 February 2014, and Ukraine’s ceasing its efforts to restore to Ukraine the 22% of the former Ukraine’s territory that Russia then was occupying. Biden insisted upon the Ukrainian Government’s pursuing an all-or-nothing strategy to defeat Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine — or else Ukraine would lose Western support in its war against Russia. (The reason for this policy from Biden is that though such a peace treaty would have been far better for Ukraine, since the million-or-so deaths, that continuing the war entails, would have been prevented, such a treaty would have totally ended America’s ownership of Ukraine, which was won by the Obama-Biden Administration’s stunningly successful coup in February 2014, which grabbed control of Ukraine away from the people of Ukraine. The U.S. Government wants to continue controlling Ukraine’s Government.)
Publicly, the U.S. Government continues to insist upon a total defeat of Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine. However, it also states that, “as we have been consistently saying, it’s going to be up to President Zelenskyy, if and when he wants to negotiate an end to this war. Certainly, a negotiated end is the most likely outcome here. But when that happens, and under what conditions and circumstances, that’s going to be up to President Zelenskyy.” In other words: if Ukraine’s Government will lose the war against Russia, and Russia will win the war against Ukraine, then (according to the Biden Administration) only Ukraine’s Government will have lost it; the U.S. Government and its NATO military alliance won’t also have lost it. This is the message from the White House, two-and-a-half years after it had ordered Ukraine’s Government to continue this war until Russia will have been defeated.
All U.S. regime media are trying to either blame Ukraine’s Government, or else blame the Government (i.e., the U.S. Government) that has, in fact, been controlling Ukraine’s Government, for Ukraine’s losing this war. Domestically within the United States, the Biden Administration and its Vice President Kamala Harris would rather that Ukraine’s defeat be held off till after the November 5 elections, so that their Party will win on November 5. But, if the defeat comes after she has won the election, then there will be total pressure upon Zelensky to quit before she becomes inaugurated on January 20th, so that this loss won’t be blamed upon her — won’t occur during her Presidency.
On September 30, The Atlantic magazine, which is owned by the Democratic Party billionaire Laurene Powell Jobs, the intensely neoconservative widow and heir of Steve Jobs, headlined “The Abandonment of Ukraine: The American strategy in Ukraine is slowly bleeding the nation, and its people, to death.” It argued against “the most unsettling thing we saw [in Ukraine] was the American strategy in Ukraine, one that gives the Ukrainian people just enough military aid not to lose their war but not enough to win it. This strategy is slowly bleeding Ukraine, and its people, to death.” And it closed:
The war in Ukraine is at risk of being lost — not because the Russians are winning but because Ukraine’s allies have not allowed them to win. If we encourage the Ukrainians to fight while failing to give them the tools they need for victory, history will surely conclude that the Russians weren’t the only ones who committed crimes against Ukraine.
How can this be “not because the Russians are winning”? How not only definitionally false, but outright stupid, is that statement? 925,872 people in the deceived U.S. empire are paying subscription fees for such neocon propaganda, basically pushing for WW3. What Ms. Jobs’s agents are arguing for there is to escalate this war to being a direct war between the U.S. Government (and all of its ‘allies’ or colonies) versus Russia’s Government and Russia’s people. How many Americans really even want that — WW3 — in order to continue the U.S. Government’s control over what still remains of Ukrainian territory? Is Ukraine necessary for protecting U.S. national security? Of course not. But if you are a rabidly neocon Democrat, then you want the Biden-Harris Administration to go at least to the brink of WW3, if necessary, in order to prevent the loss of Ukraine.
What the Democratic Party half of America’s Deep State — and Ms. Jobs is part of that — are doing is to try to force the Democratic Party officials to go all the way up to WW3 if that’s what it takes in order to ‘win’ against Russia in Ukraine. This is what’s called a “proxy war.” It has, all along, been part of the U.S. regime’s long war to conquer Russia. Russian citizens have been well informed about this, but the subjects in the U.S. empire have not.
On 2 October 2024, EurAsia Daily headlined the video of a former adviser to the head of the office of the President of Ukraine, Alexei Arestovich, who had advised President Zelensky at the Istanbul peace negotiations in 2022, “The Ukrainian front is collapsing, the loss of Coal is only the beginning of a catastrophe — Arestovich,” and presented him saying, “The training system has failed, there is no basic motivation in the troops, but there is an understanding that the stated goal of the war — reaching the borders of 1991 — is unrealistic in these specific circumstances. In addition, there is no motivation due to domestic politics, where every day those in power put forward new proposals on restrictions on citizens – from cultural and language bans to economic ones, new corruption scandals open almost every day and the mess in the management of the army and the state intensifies.”
“In two to three months, well, three to four, the front, which is currently crumbling in two directions, and slowly retreating in three, will begin to crumble in six or seven. This flow will become uncontrollable. This means a collapse of the front,” he said.
He stated that in this case, the Russian army will shift the war to maneuver warfare, leading to “the collapse of the front as such.”
“When all these 700,000 with automatic weapons and artillery cannot hold the front line, the enemy will start to rapidly advance inward, cutting off Kharkov and reaching Poltava, Dnepr, and Zaporozhye. This will lead to the loss of key industrial centers of Ukraine,” the former presidential office advisor noted.
Arestovych identified the main reason for what is happening as the lack of a reserve of motivated infantry.
“No drones can help reach the borders of any year if infantry soldiers do not walk this path under enemy fire… The training system has failed, there is a lack of basic motivation in the troops, but there is an understanding that the declared goal of the war – reaching the borders of 1991 – is unrealistic under these specific circumstances,” he explained.
“Moreover, motivation is lacking due to internal politics, where every day new proposals are put forward by the powerful to limit citizens’ rights: from cultural and language bans to economic restrictions. Almost every day, new corruption scandals emerge, and the chaos in the management of the army and the state intensifies,” added the former presidential office advisor.
Arestovych believes that “now the only way out is to sober up, stop the war, and begin a complete reorganization of the state system.”
After two years of defense of Vuhledar, the Ukrainian military withdrew from the city. Today, the Khortytsia operational and strategic grouping of troops officially announced this: ‘Having suffered numerous losses as a result of prolonged fighting, the enemy did not give up trying to capture Vuhledar. In an attempt to take control of the town at any cost, they managed to send reserves to conduct flanking attacks that exhausted the defenses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. As a result of the enemy’s actions, the city was threatened with encirclement. The Higher Command gave permission for a maneuver to withdraw units from Vuhledar in order to save personnel and military equipment, and to take up a position for further actions.’
That was a long and strategically crucial battle.
Also on October 6, Russia’s RT News headlined “Russian ambassador to US returns home: Anatoly Antonov has left Washington, during a period of fractured ties between the two countries,” and reported that, “‘The Russian ambassador to the US, Anatoly Antonov, has ended his service in Washington and is on his way to Moscow,’ the Foreign Ministry said in a brief statement carried by Russian news agencies. The ministry did not provide any additional details and has so far not named his successor.” This is normally the sort of thing that happens shortly before a war breaks out between two countries, in order to protect their diplomats from dangers where they are, such as becoming hit by their own country’s weapons.
Both of the two U.S. Presidential nominees have been saying nothing about whether, as the President, they would go all the way to WW3 in order to prevent Russia from winning in Ukraine. And none of the ‘news’ media have asked about that. The only possible exception is that on September 17, Donald Trump co-authored with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at The Hill, “Negotiate with Moscow to end the Ukraine war and prevent nuclear devastation,” which contradicts not only what Kamala Harris has said, but some of the things that Trump has said. It is entirely consistent, however, with what RFK Jr. has been saying. On the other hand, even Mr. Kennedy has not addressed specifically the question of whether, as the President, he would go all the way to WW3 in order to prevent Russia from winning in Ukraine. So: there has been no public discussion of such a question. Perhaps the American pubic don’t even care about it. Would most people be interested in a candidate’s position on it? If not, then is this a democracy? And if so, then is this a democracy? In fact, wouldn’t a democracy be focused upon this issue above any other? Americans aren’t focusing upon it at all. Nor are the publics in any of the U.S. Government’s colonies.
As another October approaches, the beautiful season of colors begins here in New England. Call it October’s Surprise Party. The turning leaves with all their colors come to announce the earth’s glory, the possibility of peace and happiness for all.
Yet as the month transpires and November nears, I think we might expect what for many will be the unexpected, as Bob Dylan reminds us with “A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall.” Listen: “I heard the sound of a thunder that roared out a warnin’/I heard the roar of a wave that could drown the whole world.”
A Black Swan event or the expected?
And if that hard rain does fall, it won’t just be those ravishing leaves that will be pounded down and die. First comes the beauty, then the dying follows, as every fall decrees. And while nature always brings the rebirth of spring, in their hubris, humans, thinking they are gods, have devised a technological solution that can bring all life to an end for good – nuclear weapons.
That their government is provoking their use by waging a war against Russia via Ukraine and backing the Israeli Middle East slaughter and genocide is not a thought that most Americans choose to entertain as they blithely go about their lives. Such lucidity is deemed too depressing.
Dylan wrote that song in the summer of 1962, 62 years ago (a symbolic number by the way), shortly before the Cuban Missile Crisis that October when nuclear annihilation was avoided at the last minute when John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev came to their senses.
Today we are even closer than ever to a nuclear war, as those who closely follow such events tell us. Scott Ritter, the former U.S. Marine and UN weapons inspector who tried to stop the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 by reporting that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is one. He is joined by a host of lonely voices crying out their warnings: ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern, journalist Pepe Escobar, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, the late Daniel Ellsberg and Randy Kelher, the author James W. Douglass who has been writing and demonstrating (with his wife Shelley) against nuclear weapons for nearly half-a-century, peace activist and former CIA officer Elizabeth Murray, et al. (my apologies for limiting the list). Many of these irenic and fatidic voices warning the world of the closeness of nuclear war have appeared on Andrew Napolitano’s illuminating Judging Freedom interview show. Their voices are easily available, for now.
Ritter, who is being hounded by the U.S. government, has just written an article, “Life Pre-empted” whose opening line reads as follows: “If you’re not thinking about the end of the world by now, you’re either braindead or stuck in some remote corner of the world, totally removed from access to news.” [my emphasis]
He is right, although contemplating our nearness to nuclear war no doubt gives most people such a serious case of the megrims that they turn away. It is understandable but must be resisted if the world is to avoid disaster. A world-wide antinuclear movement is necessary, one that links the dangers of the U.S. aggressive Ukrainian proxy-war against Russia with the U.S./Israeli genocide of Palestinians and its expanded war throughout the Middle East together with the U.S. provocations of China.
Even the corporate mainstream media are here and there starting to recognize the growing danger of nuclear war. Of course, they blame Russia for this, as they do for everything, even as most of the world correctly points the finger at the United States.
For it is the USA together with its NATO lap dogs that have brought us to this point, as they have spent decades surrounding Russia with troops and missiles and waging a war to conquer Russian via Ukraine. For those who don’t know this history, they are in for a big surprise if Russia responds and the nuclear missiles fly, as Pepe Escobar recently tweeted about a statement by Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev, the former president of Russia and presently the deputy chairman of its Security Council:
IT’S THUNDERBOLT TIME Medvedev Unplugged does know his Latin. But then Russian educational standards are in a class by itself, as I never cease to learn here in Moscow. Commenting on the update of Russia’s nuclear doctrine, Medvedev noted, “This change in our country’s guidelines for using nuclear weapons, in and of itself, may cool the ardor of those of our opponents who have not yet lost their sense of self-preservation. As for the dim-witted, only the Roman maxim remains: caelo tonantem credidimus Jovem Horace’s Odes. AnRegnare …” All of us who studied Latin know that comes straight from Horace and it goes straight to the point: thunder out of the sky reminds everyone that Jupiter rules. Medvedev’s metaphor is a beauty: the only way the “dim-witted” – Hegemonic and the vassal swamp – will learn is when the Russian Jupiter releases a thunderbolt.
Let us hope it doesn’t come to that. But the danger of a nuclear war has increased dramatically as the Biden administration continues to up the ante with its support for Ukraine and Israel. If it approves the Ukrainian request to use U.S., British, and French-supplied long-range missiles for strikes deep inside Russia, all bets are off. And the world awaits Russian ally Iran’s response to the current Israel bombing of Lebanon and the killing of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the longtime leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement, a war crime of another government that believes there will be no repercussions for their actions.
The American public’s problem is not really ignorance of Latin (that is a symptom of a much greater ignorance), but being unable to recognize the truth about its leaders’ insane aggression and nuclear gamesmanship. A knowledge of the Roman and Greek Classics reminds us that evil is real and tragedy descends on those who surpass the limits. The tragic flaw – hamartia – is not part of the American lexicon. Disney World talk is.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently issued a warning to the US/NATO that Russia’s nuclear policy has changed as a result of US/NATO/Ukraine’s attacks inside Russia. “Aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, with the participation or support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as a joint attack on the Russian Federation,” he said. As a result, he added, “We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus.”
But the Biden/Harris administration’s idiot leaders push the nuclear envelope thinking Russia is bluffing. In their desire to conquer Russia, they have lost all reason and continue on a trajectory that started long ago but has now hit a crisis point.
For those who think this war against Russia will come to a peaceful conclusion, I refer them to a series of articles in the propaganda organ of the U.S. “deep state,” which is really very shallow and obvious – the journal Foreign Affairs ( January/February 2023) – the mouthpiece for the Council of Foreign Relations. There you will read articles promoting the destruction of Russia, regime change, and the removal of Vladimir Putin, etc. All justified by America’s God-given right to rule the world. One article by Robert Kagan, the neoconservative adviser to Republican and Democratic administrations and the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland, a central figure in the 2014 US-engineered Ukrainian coup d’état, is laughable, but that it is taken seriously is a sign that the ruling elites are so deluded and intent on never stopping to try to destroy Russia that they will claim anything, no matter how contrary to obvious facts. They just make things up to fit their narrative.
In “A Free World If You Can Keep It,” Kagan writes, presumably with a straight face, the following: “Similarly, Putin’s serial invasions of neighboring states have not been driven by a desire to maximize Russia’s security. Russia’s never enjoyed greater security on its western frontier than during the three decades after the end of the Cold War…. But at no time since the fall of the Berlin Wall has anyone in Moscow had reason to believe that Russia faced the possibility of attack by the West.” [my emphasis]
This crap is so laughable if it weren’t so dangerous and delusional. If Kagan actually believes what he is saying, which I doubt, then he is dumber that a rock. Since the end of the Cold War, US/NATO has, contrary to their promises, continually moved east, surrounding Russia right up to its borders with troops, bases, and missiles aimed at Russia. Clear provocations and threats that Russia has been complaining about for a long time.
*****
So October approaches, the month of Halloween, actors, and masks. Gore Vidal got a laugh when years ago he referred to Ronald Reagan as our “acting president.” But we’ve had six acting presidents since and their acts have left millions dead and wounded around the globe, including thousands of American troops. The American electoral system is a horror show, a spectacle in what Guy DeBord called “The Society of the Spectacle.” Many Americans have acquiesced in this ongoing tragedy, playing their parts in this deadly charade. The ghosts of all these victims walk among us, and they will haunt us until we come to life by admitting our own complicity in their deaths. The show must not go on, but it will, as long as we keep acting our parts.
The Classical scholar Norman O. Brown so well describes our stage set: “Ancestral voices prophesying war; ancestral spirits in the danse macabre or war dance; Valhalla, ghostly warriors who kill each other and are reborn to fight again. All warfare is ghostly, every army an exercitus feralis (army of ghosts), every soldier a living corpse.”
So many Americans mask themselves from this savage truth in a futile, face-saving, phony performance. The act is wearing thin. It is time to see through the illusion that a world war is not in the making, unless vast numbers arise from their sleep and oppose it.
It is not just our “leaders” who perform at the Devil’s Masquerade Ball, which is the charade we call American Exceptionalism or The American Way of Life. I think of how all persons are, by definition, masked, the word person being derived from the Latin, persona, meaning mask. Another Latin word, larva, occurs to me, it too means mask, ghost, or evil spirit.
The living masks light up for me as I think of ghosts, the dead, all the souls and spirits circulating through our days. The murdered ghosts demanding retribution, and the spirits of the brave and truthful ones urging us to oppose the killers.
While etymology might seem arcane, I rather think it offers us a portal into our lives, not just personally, but politically and culturally as well. Shakespeare was right, of course, “all the world’s a stage,” though I would disagree that we are “merely” players. It does often seem that way, but seeming is the essence of the actor’s show and tell.
Who are we behind the masks? Who is it uttering those words coming through the masks’ mouth-holes (the per-sona, Latin, to sound through)?
October’s surprise party is coming.
“I heard ten thousand whispering and nobody listening,” sings Dylan.
On 13 September, at a conclave in Washington, DC, US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer indicated that it would be acceptable for Ukraine to fire missiles, provided by the West, into Russian territory. No official decision has been announced as of yet, but it is clear where the conversation among North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) member states is headed. After Starmer – whose approval rating with voters sits at 22% – returned to London, his foreign secretary David Lammy told the press that the UK government is in conversation with other allies about lifting restrictions on Ukraine’s use of UK-provided Storm Shadow missiles into Russia. Sir John McColl, a retired senior UK army officer, went further, stating that these missiles would eventually be used against Russia, yet – by themselves – they would not enable Ukraine to prevail. In other words, knowing full well that these missiles will not change the tenor of the war, these men (Biden, Starmer, and McColl) are willing to risk deepening the conflict.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made the use of Western-provided missiles a central theme of his conversations with world leaders, claiming that if his military is allowed to fire the Storm Shadow missiles (from the UK), SCALPs (from France), and ATACMS (from the US), then Ukraine will be able to hit Russian military bases on Russian soil. A greenlight by NATO to use these three missile systems, which have already been supplied to Ukraine by NATO member countries, would be a significant escalation: if Ukraine were to use these missiles to attack Russia, and Russia were to retaliate with an attack on the countries that provided the missiles, it would trigger Article 5 of the NATO charter (1949), drawing all NATO member countries directly into the war. In such a scenario, several nuclear powers (US, UK, France, and Russia) will have their fingers on the nuclear button and could very well take the planet down the path of fiery destruction.
Ion Grigorescu and Arutiun Avakian (Romania/Armenia), The Genius and the Era, 1990/1950s.
In December 2021, Russia and the United States held a series of consultations that, even at that late hour, could have prevented hostilities from breaking out in Ukraine. A summary of those discussions is vital to highlight the key issues underlying the conflict:
1. 7 December 2021. US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a two-hour video conference. The White House readout, which is only a paragraph long, focused on Russian troop movements on the Ukrainian border. The Kremlin summary is a bit longer and introduced a point that the United States has ignored: ‘Vladimir Putin warned against the shifting of responsibility on Russia, since it was NATO that was undertaking dangerous attempts to gain a foothold on Ukrainian territory and building up its military capabilities along the Russian border. It is for this reason that Russia is eager to obtain reliable, legally binding guarantees ruling out the eventuality of NATO’s eastward expansion and the deployment of offensive weapons systems in the countries neighbouring Russia’.
2. 15 December 2021. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov met with US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Karen Donfried in Moscow. The Russian press release published after the meeting said that ‘they had a detailed discussion of security guarantees in the context of the persistent attempts by the US and NATO to change the European military and political situation in their favour’.
Maria Khan (Pakistan), Craving for Love, 2012
3. 17 December 2021. Russia released a draft treaty between itself and the United States as well as a draft agreement with NATO. Both texts made it clear that Russia was seeking firm security guarantees against any destabilisation of the status quo to its west. In these texts, there are explicit and important statements about missiles and nuclear weapons. The draft treaty says that neither the US nor Russia should ‘deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party’ (article 6) and that both sides should ‘refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories’ (article 7). The draft agreement with NATO says that none of the NATO countries should ‘deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties’ (article 5).
4. 23 December 2021. In his annual press conference, Putin once more broadcast Russia’s anxiety about NATO’s eastward movement and about the threats of weapons systems being deployed on Russian borders: ‘We remember, as I have mentioned many times before and as you know very well, how you promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly: there have been five waves of NATO expansion, and now the weapons systems I mentioned have been deployed in Romania, and deployment has recently begun in Poland. This is what we are talking about, can you not see? We are not threatening anyone. Have we approached US borders? Or the borders of Britain or any other country? It is you who have come to our border, and now you say that Ukraine will become a member of NATO as well. Or, even if it does not join NATO, that military bases and strike systems will be placed on its territory under bilateral agreements’.
5. 30 December 2021. Biden and Putin had a phone call about the deteriorating situation. The Kremlin’s summary is more detailed than the one from the White House, which is why it is more useful. Putin, we are told, ‘stressed that the negotiations needed to produce solid legally binding guarantees ruling out NATO’s eastward expansion and the deployment of weapons that threaten Russia in the immediate vicinity of its borders’.
On 24 February 2022, Russian troops entered Ukraine.
Louay Kayyali (Syria), Then What?, 1965.
Russia has been anxious about its security guarantees ever since the United States began to unilaterally withdraw from the delicate arms control system. The bookends of this dismissal are the US’s 2001 departure from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and 2019 revocation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The disposal of these treaties and the failure to acknowledge Russian pleas for security guarantees – alongside NATO aggressions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya – caused anxieties to grow in Moscow about the possibility that the West could place short-range nuclear missiles in Ukraine or in the Baltic states and be able to strike large Russian cities in the west without any hope of defence. That has been Russia’s main argument with the West. If the West had taken the treaties that Russia proposed in December 2021 seriously, then we might not be in a situation where the Western countries are discussing the use of NATO missiles against Russia.
A new study by the consulting firm Accuracy shows that arms companies in the United States and Europe have benefited enormously from this war, with stock market capitalisation for the main weapons companies having increased by 59.7% since February 2022. The largest gains were made by Honeywell (US), Rheinmetall (Germany), Leonardo (Italy), BAE Systems (UK), Dassault Aviation (France), Thales (France), Konsberg Gruppen (Norway), and Safran (France). The US companies Huntington Ingalls, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Northrup Grumman also saw gains, though their percentage increases were lower because their absolute profits were already at obscene levels. While these NATO merchants of death profit enormously, their populations continue to struggle with higher prices due to fuel and food price inflation.
Perhaps the most cruelly ironic part of this entire debate is that allowing Ukraine to strike Russia would not necessarily result in any military benefit. Firstly, Russian air bases have now moved out of range of the missiles under discussion, and, secondly, Ukrainian supplies of these missiles are low. Adding to the looming threat of nuclear war are two recent statements from the US. In August, the US press reported that the Biden administration had produced a secret memorandum about preparing the US nuclear arsenal to combat China, North Korea, and Russia. This came on the heels of another report, in June, that the US is considering expanding its nuclear forces.
All of this is part of the backdrop of the 79th United Nations General Assembly meeting taking place this month, where member states will discuss a new Global Compact. The draft compact uses the word ‘peace’ over a hundred times, but the real noise we hear is war, war, war.
Tuvshoo (Mongolia), Tears of Joy, 2013.
When I was a teenager in Calcutta, India, I would often zip off to the Gorky Sadan theatre and watch the films of the Soviet director Andrei Tarkovsky, which ruminated about life and the human desire to be better. One of these films, Mirror (1975), about the outrageousness of war, is anchored in the poems of the filmmaker’s father, Arseny Tarkovsky. As tensions rise in Ukraine, the elder Tarkovsky’s poem ‘Saturday, June 21’ (referring to the day before the Soviet Union was attacked by Nazi Germany 1941) warns us against mounting threat of war:
There’s one night left to build fortifications.
It’s in my hands, the hope for our salvation.
I’m yearning for the past; then I could warn
Those who were doomed to perish in this war.
A man across the street would hear me cry,
‘Come here, now, and death will pass you by’.
I’d know the hour when the war would strike
Who will survive the camps and who will die.
Who will be heroes honoured by awards,
And who will die shot by the firing squads.
I see the snow in Stalingrad, all strewn
With corpses of the enemy platoons.
Under the air raids, I see Berlin
The Russian infantry is marching in.
I can foretell the enemy’s every plot
More than intelligence of any sort.
And I keep pleading, but no one will hear.
The passersby are breathing in fresh air,
Enjoying summer flowers in June,
All unaware of the coming doom.
Another moment – and my vision disappears.
I don’t know when or how I ended here.
My mind is blank. I’m looking at bright skies,
My window not yet taped by criss-crossed stripes.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that if the United States and the United Kingdom allow Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia with Western missiles, “it will mean nothing less than the direct involvement of NATO countries.” “This is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is a question of deciding whether or not NATO…
The world is now moving through an epoch-shifting transition, and a new system will be brought online as the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives time bomb that has cancerously taken over the western economy crashes.
Now, this may not be a bad thing, as the system created over the dead bodies of JFK and his brother (which some have dubbed ‘post-industrial society’, consumerism or globalization) was always an atrocity premised around a Malthusian paradigm that rejected America’s historic tradition of morality and technological progress.
However, as the multipolar alliance races to bring a system of win-win cooperation, large scale development and long term thinking into reality, it has become increasingly clear that the New World Order priesthood is no longer the only game in town.
In the following article, I would like to clarify the principled difference between the oligarchical closed system of transhumanism and the foundation for open systems now coming alive through the Russia/China led Multipolar Alliance, which President Trump fought to unite with the USA, and which will have to occur after the oncoming elections if the world is to survive a tragedy that has the very real possibility of ushering in a new global dark age for centuries.
Closed Systems, in Brief
If humanity’s new system is presumed to be of a closed nature, then I am sorry to tell you that fascism will be necessitated as the ultimate governing mechanism of the elite.
The reason for this depressing fact is simple.
In all closed (i.e., finite/bounded) systems, the number of people alive will always tend to consume more energy than the system itself creates over time as resources, and agricultural potential is slowly drawn down and entropy increases.
In such a world, someone has to decide who receives those ever-diminishing returns of resources, and who are the useless eaters to be sacrificed “for the greater good” of the system.
This is the Hobbesian world that such misanthropes like Thomas Malthus, T.H. Huxley, Henry Kissinger and Al Gore live in. In true Pygmalion fashion, these cynics will use any and all political clout at their disposal to force society to adhere to their obsession with “balance”, “mathematical equilibrium” and perfect linear predictability. The self-professed “alphas” of these sorts of master-slave societies are committed to forcing the “might-makes-right” laws of the jungle onto humanity.
In the closed-uncreative world of such a misanthrope, imbalance is considered both un-natural and evil. Imbalance is wild. It is unpredictable. It is open.
Based on their words and actions, Putin, Xi, Modi, Bashar al Assad, Mohammed bin Salman, and Donald Trump do not think this way.
Open Systems, in Brief
As a short example of my meaning, listen to President Xi describe the fundamental principle of open system economics during a 2016 speech to the CPC central committee:
“Coordinated development is the unity of balanced development and imbalanced development. The process from balance to imbalance and then to rebalance is the basic law of development. Balance is relative, while imbalance is absolute. Emphasizing coordinated development is not pursuing equalitarianism, but giving more importance to equal opportunities and balanced resource allocation.”
By placing imbalance as the absolute factor, and balance as merely relative, Xi is defining a process of progress built upon creative leaps, with each higher system requiring a reasonable balance/distribution of resource use, but without ever becoming reliant on that particular set of finite resources.
Putin expressed his understanding of this principle in his own way when he discussed the importance of unlimited energy and growth potential attainable through the harnessing of fusion power:
“Potentially we can harness a colossal, inexhaustible and safe source of energy. However, we will only succeed in fusion energy and in solving other fundamental tasks if we establish broad international cooperation and interaction between government and business, and join the efforts of researchers representing different scientific schools and areas.
If technological development becomes truly global, it will not be split up or reined in by attempts to monopolize progress, limit access to education and put up new obstacles to the free exchange of knowledge and ideas. With their help, scientists will be able to literally see nature’s creation processes.”
Programs like China’s Belt and Road Initiative (and its space, polar, health and information extensions) has not only won over 135 nations to its framework, but this program is entirely rooted in open-system thinking.
Within this framework’s operating system, there is no presumed fixed limit to resources or end point to the progress that nations can create if certain principles are adhered to.
At the heart of these vital principles is found the moral concept of “win-win cooperation,” or as China’s former president Sun Yat-sen called it in his Three Principles of the People, the Principle of “Right makes Might”.
Sun Yat-sen understood in 1924, as Presidents Xi and Putin do today, that if a nation adheres to win-win/right-makes-might thinking, then that nation will never lose the Mandate of Heaven (Tianxia).
In the Western matrix, this principle is expressed beautifully by the Principle of Westphalia, which established the first modern nation states in 1648 premised around the principle of the “Benefit of the Other.” When Kissinger, Brzezinski or Blair speak of a “post-Westphalian age”, it is this fundamental principle that they are attacking more than the mere existence of national borders.
This principle is again reflected in the UN Charter, which was designed by the anti-colonial President FDR “to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion, and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.”
FDR’s early death and the British-Deep State takeover of America over his dead body prevented these ideals and open system dynamics from ever coming to life.
As long as nations are empowered to stand on their own feet, develop full spectrum agro-industrial economies, and if people benefit by developing new skillsets, and if new technologies and new discoveries in science are encouraged rather than sabotaged (as has been the practice under the Might-Makes-Right Darwinian laws of gobble-ization), then potential for human perfectibility is as boundless as our ability to discover, create, plan and inspire future generations.
Some Points of Mutual Interest
Now there are an array of domains, which all nations of the U.N. Security Council can focus on during this period of intense crisis that would tie civilization’s interests into open system thinking benefiting all nations and people.
To end this paper, I wish to outline several of the most fruitful topics to be tackled at upcoming summits, which will best define the coming century (or more) of cooperation and growth:
Space Diplomacy, Asteroid Defense, Arctic and Far east development, nuclear energy.
Space Diplomacy
America’s successful return to manned space flight on May 28, 2020 was more than just another space launch, but rather one important component of a much larger commitment illustrated by the May 15, 2020 Artemis Accords to not only send humans back to the Moon for the first time since 1973, but to permanently develop a Lunar and Mars-based economy with a focus on international cooperation.
This outlook dovetails Russia’s commitment for permanent lunar colonization and resource development, which began with Luna 25 in 2021, followed by Luna 26, 27 and 28 soon thereafter, with a plan to have a permanent manned base along with the Chinese in early 2030.
Although banned from the ISS and U.S.-cooperation since 2011, China has become a pioneer in space, with a tight alliance with Russia on lunar cooperation signed in September 2019. China’s own Chang-e program has resulted in landing on the far side of the moon, with plans for colonization in the coming decades, as well as the development of Helium-3 mining for fusion power.
Asteroid Defense
Faced with the two-fold threat of NATO military encirclement on earth and asteroid collisions from abroad, the former head of Roscosmos, Dimitry Rogozin made headlines in 2011 by reviving the concept for a joint U.S.-Russia controlled defense system first announced by President Reagan’s 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative.
Rogozin’s 2011 version (titled the Strategic Defense of Earth) now called for turning humanity’s arsenal of atomic weapons away from each other and towards the grave danger of asteroid collisions, for which we are woefully unprepared. Introducing this topic into the emerging joint U.S/Russia working groups on arms control set to begin in mid-July would contribute in powerful non-linear ways that cannot be calculated by any linear standard of measurement.
This vision has been echoed by China, as well as the European and Japanese space agencies.
Arctic and Far East Development
In 2007, Russia revived a 150-year-old idea that once had the support of leading republicans of Lincoln’s 19th century America to unite rail lines in America and Eurasia through the Bering Strait crossing in the form of a 65 mile tunnel.
Russia again re-emphasized its commitment to building this $64 billion project in 2011. With China’s Polar Silk Road having extended the traditionally east-west development corridor into the Arctic, and as China and Russia have increasingly merged the Belt and Road Initiative with the Eurasian Economic Union, this new development dynamic offers incredible economic opportunities for all Arctic nations, and also an escape from military confrontation.
As I outlined in The Strategic Importance of the Alaska-Canada Railway, Donald Trump’s executive order reviving the Alaska-Canada railway was directly tied to this strategic vision for Arctic cooperation, in opposition to the closed system warhawks promoting a militaristic program against Russia and China in the Arctic.
Putin’s Far East Development Plan
Part in parcel with this initiative comes President Putin’s Far East development plans as a “21st century national priority” for Russia.
The development of new cities, mining, transport corridors and oil and natural gas of Russia’s Far East represent one of the greatest boons for economic investment during the coming century and already features an array of partners from China, Japan, South Korea, India and other APEC nations.
Putin’s 2018 proposal that the USA join in this project of win-win cooperation is important not only because it would build trust, create business opportunities and re-establish the lost art of long-term thinking, but would also help link up western businesses into partnership with the Asia Pacific development process now being shaped by China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Although tensions have been enflamed to schism China and India from cooperating directly on the BRI, India’s embrace of Russian Far East development investments has created a non-linear flank, which can help bring these two Asian giants into harmony.
Only the tip of the iceberg…
Overall, there are many other points of common benefit shared by nations committed to a Multi-Polar “open system” future, including education/cultural exchange, fission/fusion energy research and counterterrorism.
If Russia, America, China and other nations of the UN Security Council and BRICS were to apply their best minds to solving these problems rather than falling into a new arms race, then not only would either country benefit immensely, but so too would humanity more broadly.
This article was loosely based on a presentation delivered in Basel Switzerland this year:
The trenchant critic of Putin was released this month, but says he saw captivity as an integral part of his campaign
For many people, if they had recently turned 70 and were faced with the prospect of a long stint in a Russian prison, their first instinct would be to dash to the airport and escape the country as quickly as possible. Oleg Orlov, one of Russia’s most experienced and respected human rights advocates, had that opportunity but never considered it an option.
Orlov, whose organisation, Memorial, won the Nobel peace prize in 2022, remained in the country after being accused of “discrediting the Russian army” for his commentary on the war in Ukraine. In February this year, he was convicted and sentenced to two and a half years in prison.
As the events surrounding the Ukraine and the cross-Atlantic West continue to defy belief, all roads of recent assassination attempts from Slovak PM Robert Fico to former US President Donald Trump lead back to Ukraine. The biggest anti-Ukrainian War critic in Europe currently is none other than Hungarian PM Viktor Orban, whom met with former President Trump in Mar-a-Lago, Florida just a mere 48 hours before the assassination attempt on Trump in Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024 while on the sidelines of the NATO Summit held in Washington. On the very same day of July 13, Ukrainian Intelligence officials admitted publicly that they had failed at multiple attempts to assassinate Russian President Vladimir Putin. It is of no coincidence whatsoever that the string of recent assassination attempts of high ranking officials on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean are also extreme anti-Ukrainian War critics as we shall see.
Day in and day out US officials at the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon are openly admitting they are in command of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Ukrainian government on what they will or will not allow the Ukrainian Armed Forces to do or not to do. US weapons permeate the Ukrainian War and kill Russian citizens daily and weekly. Failed attempts to shoot down incoming Russian precision cruise missile strikes end up with surface to air missiles (SAMs) veering off-course into residential buildings and even as we saw recently, a hospital in Kyiv during a Russian attack on the Artem missile plant.
They are all conveniently blamed on Russia but never admitted to being tragedies of the Ukrainian Armed Forces as the result of Ukrainian aggression in Ukraine against ethnically Russian Ukrainians in a fratricidal and genocidal war started in the wake of the United States government violent “Euromaidan” coup and subsequent Donbass War started by then acting Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchyinov in April 2014. If you were ethnically Russian and disagreed with the illegal actions of the all-corrupt Ukrainian fascist junta regime or its American masters, you were a terrorist, and the label gives legal precedent to whomever makes the accusation to kill the terrorists. Since late February 2014, Ukraine is nothing but de facto occupied US-EU government and military territory.
This has cost the citizens of the United States—as well as Europe—billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars, debt, and inflation as well as cost the United States its very status of hegemony as the preeminent power on Earth and the end of the Bretton Woods US-dollar dominated monetary system. Radical unprecedented NATO expansion eastward since 2004 has cost trillions of dollars of US debt levels and recent bellicose statements coming from NATO Secretary Jans Stoltenberg that, “…the defeat of Ukraine means the defeat of NATO” is a testament to the fact.
US President Joe Biden, whom has more to do with the events in Ukraine than one can truly imagine up to and including organizing the violent Maidan coup in Kyiv, is serving a conflict of interest that has resulted in nothing short of a Ukrapocalypse and possibly, the next World War. All of this decade-long nightmare has come at the expense of the well-being of the West and cost hundreds of thousands of human lives with no apparent end in sight. This is all blamed and gas-lighted onto Russian President Vladimir Putin whom has been forced to react to the outrageous impending danger created by the cross-Atlanticists which has accomplished nothing but threatening us all with a disaster of the century that should have never happened to begin with.
Voices of reason are few and far in between in Washington and Brussels but fortunately have become much louder with initiatives of people such as Hungarian PM Viktor Orban and Slovak PM Robert Fico whom are officials of countries that border Ukraine itself. Unlike the false omnipotence purported by the cross-Atlantic West, Orban and Fico understand the dangerous and unpredictable existing reality happening on their borders and refuse to be a party to the conflict and proponents of a peaceful solution.
On May 15, 2024 Slovak PM Fico was shot in an attempted assassination which clearly was the beginning of a campaign against anti-Ukrainian War critics by the cross-Atlantic warmongers whom are extremely paranoid and guilt ridden by condemnation of ‘undesirables’ brave enough to speak the truth and speak out against a wretched puppet regime in Ukraine under direct control of Washington and its cross-Atlantic conspirators. Also in May 2024 trouble was brewing in the country of Georgia where a major feud with Washington was unfolding in the wake of the Georgian PM Irakli Kobakhidze passing a law on foreign agents accusing former US Ambassador Kelly Degnan of supporting opposition in the country: “[I] spoke to Derek Chollet and expressed my sincere disappointment with the two revolution attempts of 2020-2023 supported by the former US Ambassador and those carried out through NGOs financed from external sources.”
On May 23, 2024 PM Kobakhidze was explicitly threatened by an EU Commissioner citing the May 15shooting of Slovak PM Robert Fico. According to the Georgian PM, “Even amid the prolonged blackmail [by the West], it was stunning to hear this threat in a telephone conversation with one of the EU commissioners. As we spoke, the EU commissioner listed a whole range of measures that Western partners could take if the veto of the transparency law is overridden, and while listing these measures, he said, ‘You have seen what happened to Fico, and you should be very careful.” By no means a coincidence, the Georgian PM publicly stated in late June that, “Tbilisi will under no circumstances become a second Ukraine.”
In the first days of July 2024, PM of Hungary Viktor Orban traveled to Moscow and Beijing on a peace mission to discuss solutions of the ongoing Ukrainian War, in which Slovak PM Fico was not able to accompany Orban due to recovering from being shot in May. A severe slandering campaign against PM Orban ensued in the cross-Atlantic media as Hungary was now holding the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European July 1-December 31, 2024, which Orban sloganed to “Make Europe Great Again.” Thursday July 11, 20024 PM Orban met with former US President Donald Trump in Mar-a-Lago, Florida on the sidelines of the NATO Summit being held in Washington. Of course, the main theme of the meeting between Trump and Orban was to concretely discuss peace planning of which both Trump and Orban are publicly campaigning and advocating to the global community to end the war in Ukraine.
Within 48 hours of concluding Hungarian PM Viktor Orban’s meeting in Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt on July 13, 2024 in Pennsylvania, thankfully only wounding the former US President in the right ear, but most unfortunately killing one and wounding another in attendance. Also on July 13, 2024 Ukrainian intelligence officers were admitting to failed assassination attempts on the life of Russian President Vladimir Putin. It is of no coincidence the chain of events from May to July 2024 of attempted assassinations against anyone and everyone seeking to stop the war in Ukraine.
Upon PM Viktor Orban’s return from the United States, calls for stripping Hungary of its European Council Presidency and boycotts are in full swing. Orban has repeatedly refused to wear body armor and claimed he will not ever start doing so. The Hungarian PM clearly saw the writing on the wall of plans for war and the connection of Slovak PM Robert Fico’s assassination attempt in May 2024. Ladies and gentleman, war is on the horizon. Don’t say peace in Ukraine; you will be shot like President Trump just as President Joe Biden stated he would when he put Trump “in the bulls-eye.”
MOSCOW — American, British and Canadian troops in NATO’s forward bases in Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania are being told to prepare for deployment to the Ukraine next year. They are also being warned to expect to fight under heavy Russian artillery, missile, guided bomb, and drone strikes.
This message is also intended to slip into the hands of Russian military intelligence and find its way to the Kremlin. There, Moscow sources believe, the intelligence is interpreted as provocation — part of the US and NATO scheme to escalate NATO attacks in the Black Sea and deep into Russian territory, in order to encourage Russian counter-attacks against NATO targets, triggering thereby Article Five of the NATO Treaty and collective NATO force intervention to follow.
Additionally, Russian sources interpret the intelligence as confirming that the US will not allow capitulation and replacement of Vladimir Zelensky and his regime in Kiev — so no denazification, which is one of the two main objectives of the Special Military Operation. Also, no peace terms will be countenanced short of Russian withdrawal from Crimea and the four regions of Novorossiya, and the military defeat of the Russian Army. So, no demilitarization, the second of Russia’s long-term security objectives.
The immediate General Staff response has been to devise “soft” measures to combat the US, UK and other NATO airborne electronic warfare units which are providing guidance, targeting, launch timing and flight manoeuvre of Storm Shadow and ATACMS missiles, as well as coordination of Ukrainian aerial and naval drone strikes. The Russian command has also unleashed a new round of missile attacks against Ukrainian airfields – Voznesensk and Mirgorod – where the bombers launching long-range Storm Shadow cruise missiles are based, and where the NATO-supplied F-16s are planned for deployment in a few weeks’ time.
Under growing domestic pressure to counter attacks as damaging to civilians as the Sevastopol beach strike of June 23, President Vladimir Putin has been making a sequence of statements of calculated ambiguity, if not of strategic deception. One interpretation of this by security analysts in Moscow is that the president is avoiding the provocation trap, creating instead a record of peace terms he is offering, confident they will be dismissed in Kiev, Brussels, London, and Washington. This is to reserve Russian freedom of action for now, reverse the blame later on.
On Friday, in Putin’s remarks to the press after meeting at the Kremlin with Hungary’s Prime Minister Victor Orban – currently the rotational president of the European Union Council – Putin repeated his peace terms offer and his expectation of their rejection: “We remain open for a discussion on a political and diplomatic settlement. However, the opposite side only makes clear its reluctance to resolve this issue in this manner. Ukraine’s sponsors continue using this country and its people as a ram, making it a victim in the confrontation with Russia.”
“We outlined our peace initiative quite recently at my meeting with the senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. We believe that its implementation would make it possible to end hostilities and begin negotiations. Moreover, this should not just be a truce or a temporary ceasefire, nor should it be a pause that the Kiev regime could use to recover its losses, regroup and rearm. Russia advocates a full and final end to the conflict. The conditions for that, as I have already said, are set out in my speech at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We are talking about the complete withdrawal of all Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and from the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. There are other conditions as well.”
Putin is not alone in the war staff – the Stavka – in suspecting provocation by the Americans and British while they prepare for escalation to direct war. Also, the Stavka recognizes this was Stalin’s problem interpreting intelligence from Tokyo and Berlin, especially Richard Sorge’s cables from December 1940 through the early days of June 1941, warning of Hitler’s preparations to invade across the Soviet border.
Moscow sources are sure that avoiding Stalin’s catastrophic misjudgement of Hitler’s timing is a priority of Putin’s and of the General Staff. Misjudging the timing of the US coup in Kiev of February 21, 2014, almost cost the loss of Sevastopol and Crimea; misjudging the readiness of Ukrainian forces at Hostemel on February 24, 2022, cost the lives of at least 300 Russian paratroopers, failed at triggering regime change in Kiev, and doomed the peace negotiations in Istanbul of March 30.
“We told you so” is not a refrain the Kremlin is hearing now from the General Staff for the first time.
Putin’s reluctance to act is criticized in Moscow as the pace of the Ukrainian missile and drone raids increases. “I know for a fact that General Staff fully anticipated NATO’s involvement from the start and contingency planning has been done accordingly,” reported the US-based military analyst Andrei Martyanov on July 3. “It was clear from the first day of SMO [Special Military Operation] not now. The only issue was how Russia will approach escalation and the gradual involvement of NATO until it becomes clear that it is between combined West and Russia.”
“What happened to no NATO, and de-Nazification?” a military source asks. “The Americans, Ukrainians, British have been escalating and the president has been temporizing in response,” he answers. “I don’t believe Orban is just making overtures in Hungary’s interests either. He’s an emissary for Trump’s end-the-war plan”.
The source is referring to Orban’s boostering for Trump’s election in November. “You can criticize [Trump] for many reasons,” Orban has said, “but the best foreign policy of the recent several decades belongs to him. He did not initiate any new war, he treated nicely the North Koreans, and Russia and even the Chinese … and if he would have been the president at the moment of the Russian invasion [of Ukraine], it would be not possible to do that by the Russians. Trump is the man who can save the Western world.”
No other NATO member but Orban, the US ambassador said in Budapest last week, “not a single one — that similarly, overtly and tirelessly, campaigns for a specific candidate in an election in the United States of America, seemingly convinced that, no matter what, it only helps Hungary, or at least helps him personally.”
Moscow sources suspect Orban told Putin he is Trump’s go-between on terms for ending the war in the Ukraine. Orban openly hinted at this himself, telling the press after their meeting “we will not achieve peace without diplomacy, without channels of communication.” As Trump’s channel, Orban then repeated Trump’s recent claims that he will end the war the day after he wins the election on November 5. “I wanted to know what the shortest road to end the war is. I wanted to hear Mr President’s opinion on three important questions, and I heard his opinion. What does he think about the current peace initiatives? What does he think about a ceasefire and peace talks, and in what succession can they be carried out? And the third thing that interested me was Mr President’s vision of Europe after the war.”
For analysis of Trump’s claims and the staff plan he authorized for release in April, click to read this.
For Orban’s repeat version of what he claims to be doing, and his omission of everything which has transpired before he arrived on the scene by “secret message”, “under the carpet”, and “surprise”, watch this interview with the owner of a Swiss German magazine.
“Next surprise on Monday morning”, Orban told his Weltwoche interviewer. “You will see – follow the path”. This was no surprise in Moscow because Orban had told Putin he was planning to fly to Beijing to meet President Xi Jinping, and the Russian milbloggers were briefed hours before the western propaganda agencies, Reuters, Deutsche Welle, and the Voice of America picked up the story. The first Moscow report on Sunday evening commented that Orban is performing “cynical antics”. “Orban is advertising his trip to Moscow. Tomorrow morning [Monday July 8] Orban is waiting in Beijing, where negotiations are expected with Comrade Xi Jinping.”
There is no Russian military confidence in Trump’s proposals, or in Orban’s version of them, or in the Russian oligarchs also presenting themselves to the Kremlin as go-betweens. Instead, there is suspicion that Trump and his intermediaries are attempting to hoodwink the Kremlin with a repeat of the “October surprise” with Iran of Ronald Reagan’s first election campaign in 1980.
To support their case for reciprocal measures, the General Staff are making sure the military bloggers in Moscow report each day on the escalation of frequency, range, and damage of Ukrainian raids, directed by manned aircraft and drones directed from the Black Sea by the US and the UK.
The map shows Ukrainian (AFU) strikes by air-fired missile, aerial and naval drones over July 5 and 6, as well their launch points west of the current line of contact, and Russian air defence interceptions. “At night, Ukrainian formations again attacked the oil infrastructure with drones in the Krasnodar Krai [Territory] off the coast of the Sea of Azov. Several settlements were hit. The work of the air defence was noted in Yeysk, Pavlovskaya, Leningradskaya. The drones were shot down by 51 air defence divisions, but some of the debris from the warheads fell on to the territory of power facilities, but did not cause serious damage.”
“However, this is the second day in a row when the enemy is attacking the coastal zones of the Sea of Azov. Yesterday, Primorsko-Akhtarsk became the target of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, in the direction of which 20 drones were launched. Almost all of them were shot down by air defence calculations and units of the 4th Army. However, one UAV hit a local [power] substation, which caused problems with electric lighting. After that, the Ukrainian Armed Forces struck again: this time three Neptune anti-ship missiles were launched from the territory of the Zaporozhye region, which are increasingly being observed along the entire line of contact, starting from Belgorod and ending with Crimea. Two missiles were shot down by air defence units; one went off course and hit a residential building, which injured civilians. A little later, seven Ukrainian drones were shot down between Rostov-on-Don and Bataisk. The ultimate objective remains unclear: this could be oil depots, or maybe the drones were flying further in the direction of the Morozovsk airfield. And there was trouble in Crimea yesterday [July 5]. During the day, missile and unmanned drones were introduced at least 5-6 times, and in most cases due to deception missile launches and false targets. However, at one point, a Ukrainian Su-24M bomber launched two Storm Shadow cruise missiles, which were shot down near Tarkhankut and south of Yevpatoria by MiG-31 fighters of the Russian Aerospace Forces.”
The milbloggers leave no doubt that the USAF Global Hawk (RQ-4B) electronic war drone has returned to Black Sea airspace from its new base in Romania to direct the new Ukrainian raids.
Zvinchuk’s Rybar has also reposted a report on NATO preparations for basing NATO ground forces, manned aircraft, and drones on Romanian territory, as well as for repairing HIMARS and other artillery units salvaged from the Ukrainian battlefield, in order to return them to action.
For a list of the eight forward battlegroups NATO is preparing for direct NATO war against Russia, click to read.
On the fareastern front which Russia shares with China, Vzglyad has just published a warning that “NATO is approaching Russia’s borders from the other side.” The author, Gevorg Mirzoyan, is a regular writer for the semi-official security medium Vzglyad and an academic at the state Finance University in Moscow.
Source: https://vz.ru/
Days after the publication, a Ukrainian military publication reported the first ever Chinese Army deployment in Belarus for exercises described as “anti-terrorist training”. NATO is approaching Russia’s borders from the other side By Gevorg Mirzayan July 4, 2024
The NATO bloc will become a global one in the medium term, the experts say. They are referring to the possible advance of the alliance in the Pacific region – directly at the borders of China and the Far Eastern borders of Russia. How will this happen and how can it affect relations between Russia and China?
The leadership of the North Atlantic Alliance has announced its readiness to participate more actively in East Asian affairs. This is ostensibly a response to China’s actions.
Firstly, because of its cooperation with Russia. “The growing rapprochement between Russia and its authoritarian friends in Asia makes our work with friends in the Indo-Pacific region even more important,” says NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Western states are looking for the culprits in this – and find them in the person of the Chinese comrades, who, they say, have provided Russia with everything necessary to confront the “civilized world.”
Secondly, because China’s actions allegedly threaten the security of Europe. “Publicly, President Xi pretends that he avoids the conflict in Ukraine in order to avoid sanctions and maintain trade relations. However, in fact, China supports the largest military conflict in Europe since World War II, while wishing to maintain good relations with the West,” continues Stoltenberg.
In China, of course, they deny all the accusations. “NATO is a product of the Cold War and the largest military force in the world. Instead of denigrating China and attacking it with all sorts of statements, NATO should realize the role that the alliance has played in the Ukrainian crisis,” said the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Lin Jian (right). According to him, China is neither the initiator nor a party to the Ukrainian crisis. “I advise the parties concerned to stop shifting responsibility and sowing discord, to refrain from adding fuel to the fire and provoking an inter-bloc confrontation. And instead do something useful for a political solution to the crisis,” the diplomat explained.
Moreover, the Chinese claim NATO has no place in East Asia, if only because the organization will bring with it only conflicts and wars. “All countries of the Asia-Pacific region are committed to promoting peace and development. Americans need to respect this commitment and also work for peace and development, and not bring block confrontation and conflict with them to the region,” the Chinese Embassy in Washington has said in a statement.
However, the Americans seem to ignore these accusations. The arrival of NATO in East Asia has already been resolved for them — it will be implemented under whatever administration comes next. And the statement about China’s partisan involvement in the Ukrainian crisis is just an excuse, as well as a rhetorical device in order to put pressure on the European countries and convince/force them to support the expansion of NATO to the Far East.
“The fact is that Europe is trying to avoid genuine participation in the military confrontation with China. And it motivates this by the fact that the confrontation with Russia is already difficult enough. Europe is ready to support the United States verbally, but at the same time it is not even ready to allocate money for the fareast confrontation, not to mention sending the military to the shores of China,” Vadim Trukhachev, associate professor at the Russian State University, explains to Vzglyad.
“The Americans are really creating a global planetary player or a police organization out of NATO. And they’re not shy about talking about it – to argue that not only American bases, but also European and other bases should restrain China. All this has already been implemented in the form of small missions, and now the Americans are pushing the topic of creating NATO rapid reaction forces. Now these troops consist of 30,000 people, but they want to increase them to 300,000,” Andrei Klintsevich, head of the Center for the Study of Military and Political Conflicts, explains to Vzglyad.
Left to right: Gevorg Mirzayan of the Finance University; Vadim Trukhachev of the Russian State University for the Humanities; and Andrei Klintsevich, Trukhachev’s assesment of Orban’s “peacemaking” mission can be read here.
Such international forces, Polish, German, French and Italian, would operate outside national command and control. “That is, at any moment, the NATO general picks up the phone and, on instructions from Washington, issues a directive to certain units without the approval of their national parliaments. And the troops are flying away to carry out the multinational task,” Klintsevich continues.
Europe’s sluggish resistance to the prospects of such a deployment is the last problem on the way to the Far Eastern expansion of the alliance. Moreover, there are already enough countries in the Far East which are ready to support the arrival of NATO in the region.
Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea are seen as the key partners of the alliance here. Countries that are very much afraid of China’s growth. Which are much more dependent on the United States than India, and will attend the NATO summit in Washington. According to US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, the Indo-Pacific region is “now more connected to Europe than ever before.”
Finally, the United States has already made certain preparations – for example, the AUKUS bloc (consisting of Australia, United Kingdom, and the United States), which was conceived precisely as a weapon to deter the PRC. “The AUKUS bloc is likely to expand – additional countries will be included, most likely Japan and South Korea. And then this bloc will sign some kind of unification agreement with NATO, after which the alliance will become a global one,” Klintsevich explains.
Australian Prime Minister Albanese meeting NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg at the NATO summit of July 2023. For the Australian version of joining NATO’s war in the Uklraine, click to read: https://www.afr.com/ NATO’s version of the Australian role in NATO: https://www.nato.int/
China understands the high probability of NATO’s arrival, as well as the fact that they will have to change their policy somewhat. Militarily, Beijing is, of course, ready. “The Chinese have already turned on their full military-industrial machine. They are laying down aircraft carriers in series, creating hypersonic weapons, building bases on landfill artificial islands in areas that they would like to control. The Chinese have imposed an arms race on the Americans – and this process will continue even without NATO moving there,” says Klintsevich.
But Chinese foreign policy will have to be modified. More recently, Beijing used the Ukrainian crisis to score international points. And not only through their peace initiatives.
For example, the Chinese accuse NATO of “nuclear blackmail” (based on Stoltenberg’s statements about the possible deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe). Thus, Beijing not only plays the role of a peacemaker, but also appears to be a kind of spokesman for the opinions of the Global South – non-nuclear countries which look with fear at the games of their nuclear colleagues. Such a position will also help the Chinese to divert the world’s attention somewhat from their own build-up of the nuclear arsenal (to which Beijing, not being a signatory to any START, has every right).
We are now talking about a confrontation already in the traditionally Chinese sphere of influence. Not on other people’s shores, but on their own. Which can be defended only with the support of Moscow – resource, infrastructure, political, and all other forms of support.
“This reduces the Chinese room for manoeuvre – it will be more difficult for them to push us into discounts on hydrocarbons and other aspects of Sino-Russian economic cooperation. The realization of a real confrontation with America will force them to build relations with us in a slightly different way. Just because, one by one, we are all just being pushed around,” Klintsevich sums up.
As a result, NATO’s expansion into the Far East could lead to what expansion in Europe has led to already. To bring together and unite the opponents of the United States.
The original of the lead image was this cartoon of August 1939, showing Hitler wrestling with the Russian bear. This was a comment on the non-aggression pact agreed between Hitler and Stalin and signed on August 25, 1939, by foreign ministers Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov. It was known officially as the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. On December 17, 2021, Putin authorized the Russian Foreign Ministry to present to Biden the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees. Biden dismissed it without negotiations.
