Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

“under the Intermediate Scenario”

Tony Heller | September 24, 2024

NOAA has launched a new sea level website which is based on unsupportable claims and appeals to authority.

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Lebanon: Israeli forces’ airstrikes kill 14 medics in 2 days

People check the leveled area bombarded on September 27, 2024 by US-made bunker-buster bombs in the Haret Hreik neighborhood of Beirut’s southern suburbs. (Photo by AFP)
Press TV – September 29, 2024

More than a dozen paramedics have been killed in recent Israeli attacks, Lebanon’s health ministry announced.

The Lebanese health ministry announced on Sunday that 14 paramedics had been killed in two days of intense Israeli bombardment in Lebanon’s east and south and in Beirut where it had killed Hezbollah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

The ministry said in its statement that it “condemns in the strongest terms the Israeli enemy’s repeated attacks on medical centers” and that “paramedics do not participate in hostilities.”

“The Israeli occupation forces have accumulated their attacks on paramedics and health centers in recent days. This series of attacks led to the martyrdom of fourteen paramedics in two days,” it said in the statement.

“The repeated attacks by the Israeli enemy on health centers flout international laws and norms, especially the Geneva Convention which highlights the neutrality of health centers and health workers in combat zones to allow them to carry out their humanitarian duty.”

“Does Israel want the blood to flow without stopping? Where is the international community and its responsibility to put an end to this escalating genocide?” it added.

The Lebanese Government Emergency Committee announced that the Israeli war machine launched 216 air attacks in the past 24 hours across Lebanon.

The Israeli airstrikes are due to the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance group showing solidarity with and giving support to Palestinians since the Tel Aviv leaders unleashed a genocidal war against the besieged Gaza Strip in October 2023.

Since then, Israeli attacks on Lebanese targets have left 1,640 people dead.

Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who led the resistance movement for over three decades, was himself martyred after Israeli regime forces bombarded a Beirut suburb using US-made jet fighters and bunker-buster bombs.

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Of Cool Heads and Hot Heads

By Philip Kraske • Unz Review • September 29, 2024

Ever more desperate, Israel is working hard to start a world war with the United States on its side. The elimination of Hassan Nasrallah won’t make much difference to Hezbollah’s fight; the new leader will soon step up. But Israel might regret the absence of the cool-headed Nasrallah.

Cool-headedness has actually been the norm this past year, and is among the few hopeful notes on the international scene. Lots of leaders are keeping calm, holding back the factions in their governments that would love to take a crack at the folks thumbing their military noses at them.

China merely tut-tuts about foreign navy ships traversing the Strait of Taiwan, Hezbollah keeps its big missiles in their silos, Iran responds to Israeli attacks with a few half-hearted firecrackers, and Vladimir Putin frowns and issues warning after warning when Ukraine, with Nato help, hits Russian refineries and radar installations. Meanwhile Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Syria, and Turkey — and I’ve probably missed a few — itch to put holes in Israeli runways.

But restraint is the watchword. Unlike before World War One, when governments decided to declare war from one day to the next, countries are looking before they leap. Why? To what do the world’s citizens owe this clear shift to reluctance among national leaders to jump into conflict? It’s often been observed that nuclear weapons have kept the peace among the great powers. Nowadays, however, other elements keep the peace just as well. Here are the three most important ones.

The first is economic. It’s true that capitalist consumerism has atomized the citizenry, but it also keeps people quiet. National leaders figure that the only way to keep everybody fed and employed and hypnotized by Netflix series is to keep the economy running. Take tourism, for example — a labor-intensive industry that absorbs a lot of workers with little formal education. Israel’s has been hammered. Who wants to retrace the steps of Christ in the Holy Land amidst the squall of sirens announcing incoming missiles from Hezbollah? Israel now has to rotate its forces in and out of the military just to keep the economy going. But they’re finally going to throw the Palestinians out, and figure it’s worth the tradeoff.

Other touristy countries have much less to gain. In Turkey, tourism makes up more than ten percent of the economy, and is still growing. In Egypt, it’s 24 percent. Take that away, and the ensuing unrest will topple governments. But their leaders have less to gain from tackling Israel.

The second element is strategic. Just over the last several years, war has turned into a video game of missiles and missile-defenses and drones of all different kinds. As the commentator Alistair Crooke has observed, American aircraft carriers parked in the eastern Mediterranean look like something out of the 1950s. A couple of missiles sent from Crimea would send them to the bottom of the sea in a question of minutes.

Conventional war has all but disappeared. Imagine what would happen to American troop and supply ships traversing the Atlantic. If German U-boats sank nearly three thousand, Russians would sink every one of them, and not from a dank submarine but from a cosy office in Moscow. And crossing the Pacific to attack China would be a suicide mission.

National governments see the destruction wrought by Russian missiles — not its army shelling villages, but the attacks from afar on major cities and infrastructure — and they quickly figure that restraint is the better part of valor.

The third element that makes governments hesitate to get into a fight is that societies are far more fragile than before. Imagine what would happen if the Chinese got mad at the Americans and dropped a few missiles on highway overpasses, which then collapsed highways, between San Diego and San Francisco. Of course, hackers could wreak havoc on just about everything, but if software defenses proved troublesome to them, a couple of missiles — or just bombs placed by hired thugs — on data centers would quickly affect the internet in all kinds of random ways. Well-paid jokers could send drones flying around Atlanta and Chicago airports — or Istanbul’s or Frankfurt’s or Tokyo’s — closing them down. And if some leader were in a bloody frame of mind, he could order the downing of just two commercial airliners, one taking off in Paris and the other in Miami — and watch every flight reservation in the the western hemisphere get canceled in an hour. Citizens of the world’s poorest countries would finally have the last laugh.

In fact, there is a never-declared Mutually Assured Destruction that restrains governments, or quasi-governments like Hezbollah. All to the good, except that conventional war seems to be morphing into terrorism. Now that Israel has opened the Pandora’s box of booby-trapping consumer items, how long will it be before desk lamps — or shoes or avocados — begin to explode in Tel Aviv? Will Kurds need to take apart their Turkish-made earphones? As readers of Unz.com know, attacking China is far more cost-effective through untraceable biological attacks against its people and livestock, and invites no revenge — at least for the moment.

Israel’s attack with pagers and radios, Ukraine’s worthless drone strikes on Moscow apartment buildings, America’s aimless pecking at “terrorists” in Syria and Iraq — these are harbingers of the terrorist world to come.

And as defeat approaches, the losers are bound to raise the ante — especially the Israelis and Ukrainians. As in World War Two, the years of war have corroded their last vestige of ethics, and they know that the Washington elite will ultimately excuse their tactics. The western media would give nothing but dashing accounts of how Zelensky and Netanyahu — harried, exhausted, yet persevering — listened to their advisers, rubbed their necks, and gave the green lights to “limited” chemical or nuclear attacks against advancing enemies. For an excellent example of how flexible, how downright protean, mainstream journalists can be, read New York Times columnist Amanda Taub’s article on the legality of Israel bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus: “Israel Bombed an Iranian Embassy Complex. Is That Allowed?” She concludes that it was.

In short, if Hezbollah’s next leader, not so restrained as Nesrallah, unleashes missile hell down the whole length of Israel, Netanyahu and his hard-eyed friends may come to regret finishing him off. Doesn’t history tell the best jokes?

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Scientist jumps the climate gun

Is the Pacific Jet Stream drifting poleward?

By Dr David Whitehouse | NetZero Watch | September 26, 2024

This week’s prize for jumping the climate gun goes to New Scientist, twice.

Firstly, it tells us that low sea ice levels in Antarctica signal a permanent shift. This, they say, because for the second year in a row Antarctic sea ice has reached near-record low levels, “initiating concern that climate change has initiated a ‘regime shift’ in the amount of ice that forms in the Southern Ocean each year.”

Sorry New Scientist, but two years does not a trend make. Looking at the data, 2023 was indeed a record low and 2024 slightly above that, but if you look at previous years, especially the 2011–2020 average, you will see no trend, just confirmation that 2023 and 2024 are outliers. Much more data than the past two years will be required to signal a permanent regime change.

Their second example of spurious trend-setting concerns the questions of if there is a long-term poleward shift in the jet stream, and if it might be the result of global warming.  The jet stream is powered by the Earth’s rotation and by temperature differences between the tropics and higher latitudes. Its poleward drift is a prediction of some climate models.

According to New Scientist, a new analysis indicates that the Pacific Jet Stream has started its poleward drift, moving at 30–80 km a decade. The problem with this research, which is clearly stated in the paper, is that the Jet Stream’s natural bounds of variability are not known, and despite the data going back several decades, if the past ten years are excluded from the analysis then no poleward trend is seen. The researchers say it’s going to take to the end of this century to be sure of any systematic Pacific Jet Stream drift.

Over the past few months, something very unusual has been happening in the equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Temperatures have declined at their fastest for over 40 years. Climate scientists are at loss to explain it, as the usual culprit – trade winds – haven’t developed as expected.

It has been called an “Atlantic Niña.” Along with the developing La Niña in the Pacific, it is expected to reduce global temperatures. It’s a puzzle, as the equatorial Atlantic was hot throughout 2023 – in fact the warmest for decades. Again the reaction by some has been alarmist, fearing that the climate system has gone off the rails, but my initial response is to wait and see, as it is probably an example of misunderstanding of natural variability.

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Obama was a ‘simp’ for the deep state – brother

RT | September 29, 2024

Barack Obama courted the ‘deep state’ during his rise to power, and once in office was powerless to disobey their orders, the former US president’s half-brother has told Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi.

In an interview set to air on Monday, Malik Obama told Rattansi that before he entered the corridors of power, Barack Obama “was a really humble, really nice person.”

However, “to be the president of the USA, he had to have the backing of certain people like the Clintons” and “the [George] Soros people… the ones who are really controlling everything out there.”

Keeping their backing, along with the support of the deep state, was crucial to Barack Obama, and Malik suggested that his half-brother wouldn’t have dared oppose the 2014 coup in Ukraine or the 2011 regime-change operation against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

“He would have lost his support,” Malik said. “He would not be what he is today, because those people are the ones that propped him up and he had to play to them.”

“That’s why I like President Trump,” he continued, “because he does things his own way. He reached out to North Korea and met the leader there. [Obama] could have done that for Muammar Gaddafi. I think he’s just… he’s a simp.”

The term ‘deep state’ refers to the unelected and often unknown government bureaucrats who steer government policy, particularly the leaders of intelligence agencies and the military.

Malik Obama has the same father as the ex-president, and visited the White House several times during his brother’s first term in office. However, he later claimed that Barack was “cold and ruthless,” and blasted him for abandoning his Kenyan family. He has since made a series of bizarre claims about the former president, apparently announcing last year that Barack Obama is “definitely gay,” and alleging in 2017 that he was born in Kenya.

Malik Obama is a vocal supporter of former President Donald Trump, who before running for office in 2016 challenged Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate over doubts he was born in the US. Trump later abandoned the dispute and admitted that Obama was born in the US.

During the full interview with Rattansi, Malik Obama discussed the current state of his relationship with his brother, and Barack’s alleged role in forcing President Joe Biden to end his reelection campaign.

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Israeli occupation forces attack Palestinian family, arrest foreign activists in al-Khalil

Palestinian Information Center – September 29, 2024

WEST BANK – The Israeli occupation forces (IOF) assaulted a Palestinian family and arrested foreign peace activists in Masafer Yatta, south of al-Khalil, in the southern West Bank on Sunday.

Activist Osama Makhamreh reported that the IOF stormed Al-Tuwani village in Masafer Yatta, and assaulted the Al-Harini family.

He added that the IOF arrested foreign peace activists after preventing them from filming and documenting settlers’ violations and attacks against local citizens.

In August 2024, the Israeli army and settlers carried out 1,228 attacks against Palestinians and their property in the West Bank.

These attacks included field executions, armed attacks on Palestinian villages, vandalism, bulldozing of land, uprooting of trees, property confiscation, movement restrictions, and the erection of military checkpoints.

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nasrallah assassination aimed at provoking US-Iran war: Russia’s Lavrov

Press TV – September 29, 2024

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says that Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah may have been intended to provoke a war between the United States and Iran.

Lavrov told reporters at a news conference after addressing the UN General Assembly on Saturday that a lot of people believe Israel’s assassination of Nasrallah was aimed at provoking Iran and the US “to unleash a full-blown war in the entire region.”

Killing the Hezbollah leader was “not simply a political assassination. It’s very cynical as an act,” Lavrov said.

“I think – well not even, I think, but a lot of people say – that Israel wants to create the grounds to drag the US directly into this and so to create these grounds, it is trying to provoke Iran,” Lavrov added.

“The Iran leadership, I think, are behaving extremely responsibly. And this is necessary. This is something that we should take due note of.”

Speaking at the UN Security Council meeting on Friday, Lavrov said, “the Middle East is once again on the brink of a big war,” calling for active diplomatic efforts to prevent the “most catastrophic scenario.”

In his UN General Assembly speech, Lavrov condemned the Israeli regime for its “inhumane attack on Lebanon.”

“Another glaring example of terrorist methods as a means of achieving political aims is the inhumane attack on Lebanon that transformed civilian technology into a lethal weapon,” Lavrov said, calling for an immediate international investigation.

‘US knew about Israel’s pager attacks’

Lavrov also told reporters that the US was likely aware of the Israeli regime forces’ plans to launch a “terrorist attack” against Lebanon using communication devices.

He said the complexity of the attack and the leaking of details to Western media indicate Washington’s possible complicity in the terrorist operation.

Last week, thousands of hand-held pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah members exploded across Lebanon simultaneously, killing dozens and injuring thousands, including many civilians. The attack, widely blamed on Israeli spy agency Mossad, drew international condemnation, with UN Human Rights Commissioner Volker Turk calling it a “shocking” and “unacceptable” act that violates human rights laws.

Tel Aviv has not claimed responsibility for the pager attacks, and its allies have denied any knowledge. However, according to Lavrov, Western media reports regarding the details and preparations “indicate to varying degrees the involvement and, at the very least, awareness of Washington concerning the preparation of that terrorist attack.”

September 29, 2024 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , | 1 Comment

Life, Pre-empted

What would you do to save Democracy? To save America? To save the world? How will you vote in November?

By Scott Ritter | September 25, 2024

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.

Last week we came closer to a nuclear conflict between the US and Russia than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Today we are even closer.

Most scenarios being bandied about in the western mainstream media that involve a nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States have Russia initiating the exchange by using nuclear weapons against Ukraine in response to deteriorating military, economic, and/or political conditions brought on by the US and NATO successfully leveraging Ukraine as a proxy to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia.

Understand, this is what both Ukraine and the Biden administration mean when they speak of Ukraine “winning the war.”

This is a continuation of the policy objective set forth by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in April 2022, “to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” meaning that Russia should “not have the capability to very quickly reproduce” the forces and equipment that it loses in Ukraine.

This policy has failed; Russia has absorbed four new territories—Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Lugansk—into the Russian Federation, and the Russian defense industry has not only replaced losses sustained in the Ukrainian conflict, but is currently arming and equipping an additional 600,000 troops that have been added to the Russian military since February 2022.

It is the United States and its NATO allies that find themselves on their back feet, with Europe facing economic hardship as a result of the extreme blowback that has transpired because of its sanctioning of Russian energy, and the United States watching helplessly as Russia, together with China, turns the once passive BRICS economic forum into a geopolitical juggernaut capable of challenging and surpassing the US-led G7 as the world’s most influential non-governmental organization.

As a result of this abysmal failure, policymakers in both the US and Europe are undertaking increasingly brazen acts of escalation designed to bring Russia to the breaking point, all premised on the assumption that all so-called “red lines” established by Russia regarding escalation are illusionary—Russia, they believe, is bluffing.

And if Russia is not bluffing?

Then, the western-generated scenario paints an apocalyptic picture which has a weak, defeated Russia using nuclear weapons against Ukraine in a last, desperate act of vengeance.

According to this scenario, which the US and NATO not only war-gamed out but made ready to implement when these entities imagined that Russia was preparing to employ nuclear weapons back in late 2022-early 2023, the US and NATO would launch a devastating response against Russian targets deep inside Russia designed to punitively degrade Russian command and control, logistics, and warfighting capacity.

This would be done using conventional weapons.

If Russia opted to retaliate against NATO targets, then the US would have to make a decision—continue to climb the escalation ladder, matching Russia punch for punch until one side became exhausted, or preemptively using nuclear weapons as a means of escalating to de-escalate—launch a limited nuclear strike using low-yield nuclear weapons in hopes that Russia would back down out of fear of what would come next—a general nuclear war.

The Pentagon has integrated such a scenario into the range of nuclear pre-emption options available to the President of the United States. Indeed, in early 2020 US Strategic Command conducted an exercise where the Secretary of Defense gave the launch instructions for a US Ohio class submarine to launch a Trident missile carrying W-76-2 low yield nuclear warheads against a Russian target in a scenario involving Russian aggression against the Baltics in which Russia used a tactical nuclear weapon to strike a NATO target.

The insanity of this scenario is that it ignores published Russian nuclear doctrine, which holds that Russia will respond with the full power of its strategic nuclear arsenal in the case of a nuclear attack against Russian soil.

Once again, US nuclear war planners believe that Russia is bluffing.

There is another twist to this discussion.

While the US might assess that Russia would not seek a general nuclear war following the use by the US of low yield nuclear warheads, the problem is that the means of employment of the W-76-2 warhead is the Trident submarine launched ballistic missile.

While the February 2020 scenario had Russia using nuclear weapons first (something which, at the time, represented a gross deviation from published Russian nuclear doctrine and the declaratory policy statements of the Russian President), the fact is the US will not necessarily wait for Russia to kick things off on the nuclear front.

The United States has long embraced a nuclear posture which not only incorporates the potential of a nuclear first strike, but, through declaratory policy statements, actively encourages America’s potential nuclear adversaries to believe such an action is, in fact, possible. David J. Trachtenberg, the deputy undersecretary of defense for policy during the Trump administration, said in a speech at the Brookings Institution in 2019 that a key aspect to the US nuclear posture was “keeping adversaries such as Russia and China guessing whether the US would ever employ its nuclear weapons.”

But the US takes the guesswork out of the equation. Theodore Postol points out, in a recent article in Responsible Statecraft, that a new fuse used on the W-76 nuclear warhead (not the low yield W-76-2, but rather the 100 kiloton version) has turned the 890 W-76 warheads loaded on the Trident missiles carried onboard the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into weapons capable of destroying hardened Russian and Chinese missile silos with a single warhead.

This means that, firing in a reduced trajectory profile from a position close to the shores of either Russia or China, the United States possesses the ability to launch a nuclear first strike that has a good chance of knocking out the entire ground-based component of both the Chinese and Russian strategic nuclear deterrent. As a result, Russia has been compelled to embrace a “launch on detect” nuclear posture where it would employ the totality of its silo-based arsenal the moment it detected any potential first strike by the United States.

Return, for a moment, to the scenario-driven employment of the W-76-2 low yield nuclear weapon as part of the “escalate to de-escalate” strategy that underpins the entire reason for the W-76-2 weapon to exist in the first place.

When the United States launches the Trident missile carrying the low yield warhead, how are the Russians supposed to interpret this act?

The fact is, if the US ever fires a W-76-2 warhead using a Trident missile, the Russians will assess this action as the initiation of a nuclear first strike and order the launching of its own nuclear arsenal in response.

All because the United States has embraced a policy of “first strike ambiguity” designed to keep the Russians and Chinese guessing about American nuclear intentions.

And, to put icing on this nuclear cake, Russia’s response appears to have been to change its nuclear posture to embrace a similar posture of nuclear pre-emption, meaning that rather than wait for the US to actually launch a nuclear-armed missile or missiles against a Russian target, Russia will now seek to pre-empt such an attack by launching its own pre-emptive nuclear strike designed to eliminate the US land-based nuclear deterrent force.

In a sane world, both sides would recognize the inherent dangers of such a forward-leaning posture, and take corrective action.

But we no longer live in a sane world.

Moreover, given the fact that the underlying principle guiding US policies toward Russia is the misplaced notion that Russia is bluffing, any aggressive posturing we might engage in designed to promote and exploit the ambiguity derived from the first-strike potential inherent in existing US nuclear posture will, more likely than not, only fuel Russian paranoia about a potential US nuclear pre-emption, prompting Russia to pre-empt.

Russia isn’t bluffing.

And our refusal to acknowledge this has embarked us on a path where we appear more than willing to pre-empt life itself.

We need to pre-empt nuclear preemption by embracing a policy of strict no first use principles.

By choosing deterrence over warfighting.

By deemphasizing nuclear war.

By controlling nuclear weapons through verifiable arms control treaties.

And by eliminating nuclear weapons.

It truly is an existential choice—nuclear weapons or life.

Because they are incompatible with one another.

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 1 Comment

Ukraine’s ‘Victory Plan’ Is Delusional

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | September 28, 2024

In the past two years the western establishment media has effectively obscured the reality on the ground in Ukraine. Only recently has it become clear to the public that the tales we’ve heard about Russia imploding due to “bad tactics” and “throwing bodies into the meat grinder” in exchange for irrelevant territory have all been a fantasy. The problem is, propagandists often end up believing their own propaganda and then they are caught completely by surprise down the road when reality slaps them in the face.

Russian offensive actions in the east have greatly accelerated and now in the south the vital city of Vuhledar is set to fall within a couple days (if it hasn’t already). Their attrition based strategy and artillery superiority have created a shield for small fast moving units to strike Ukraine’s trenches and fixed defenses, and their drone game has dramatically improved. This has led them to capture multiple towns and cities in the past three months, with their forces closing in on the key eastern operational base of Pokrovsk. If Pokrovsk falls, the entire east of Ukraine could easily fall.

Beyond the shift to attrition tactics, Russia is gaining territory quickly because Ukraine is low on manpower. No amount of NATO technology or weaponry is going to help this fundamental weakness. This is the reality in Ukraine; they are losing the war.

The western media is unable to gloss over the situation any longer, which means something dramatic will have to happen to change the course of the war in Ukraine’s favor. Their government is scrambling to initiate an October surprise in preparation for the US elections in November. The US runs NATO, and Ukraine is entirely dependent on US aid.

The notion of a Ukrainian “Victory Plan” is by itself questionable given the circumstances, but what is reportedly contained in Vladimir Zelensky’s strategy seems to be an over-optimistic wish list relying heavily on escalation between NATO and Russia. In other words, the only way Ukraine can “win” is for NATO to engage in open warfare with the East.

While the full plan hasn’t been divulged, senior U.S. officials who are familiar with its contents don’t see anything original or innovative in it. As one told The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 25, “I’m unimpressed, there’s not much new there.” From what we can grasp, the “victory plan” is less a “plan” and more a continuation of Zelensky’s lobbying campaign to keep U.S. arms flowing in perpetuity.

Zelensky is dead-set on getting permission to use US and European long range missile systems against targets deep within Russia. The problem, as Vladimir Putin rightly noted, is that these systems cannot hit such targets accurately without NATO satellite intel and acquisition. Meaning, the missiles must be guided by US and European military technicians and assets.

It is likely that the majority of Ukrainian long range drone strikes within Russia are already being aided by NATO intel, but the use of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles far from Ukraine’s front line is another matter entirely. There’s no plausible deniability for NATO involvement. The use of these weapons within Russia would be akin to a declaration of war and would trigger escalation outside of Ukraine.

What would the consequences be? Not necessarily the use of nuclear weapons (though Putin did just change his bottom line on a nuclear response to include long range attacks using NATO weapons), but the spread of more advanced Russian armaments to countries like China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and even the Houthis in Yemen is a good bet. Meaning a more significant threat to NATO interests in Asia and the Middle East. The war would spread.

So far the Biden Administration has refrained from supporting the long range option, but has offered another $8 billion in support. Under a Trump presidency, the money train is likely to stop abruptly.

Zelensky has offered no practical measures for negotiations, arguing that concessions are off the table. Furthermore, he claims that peace is only possible once Ukraine has taken back all territory seized by Russia, including Crimea which was annexed in 2014. He then demanded that Russia pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction and that Putin and a multitude of other Russian officials be handed over to be tried for war crimes. This is never going to happen.

The core of Ukraine’s victory plan relies on long range strikes using NATO guided missiles and acceptance into NATO. Both factors at this stage would cause WWIII.

Ukraine’s chest beating is the national equivalent of “short man’s syndrome.” That said, Zelensky would not be making these kinds of demands if he was not being encouraged by someone behind the scenes. Many officials within the US and Europe have given Zelensky delusions of grandeur about his chances, perhaps because they want the war to grind on forever. These same officials have hinted consistently that they will not accept a Ukrainian loss.

Regardless of what side people think should win, the fact is that Russia is the inevitable victor according to all the evidence on hand. While the extent of Putin’s goals in the region are unknown, it’s unlikely that he intends to march beyond Ukraine. He may simply stop at the edge of the Donbas and annex the region like he did Crimea.

This may actually be the best case scenario for all parties involved. The longer the war goes on the greater the chances of a powderkeg moment and a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. Ukraine should not be talking about “victory”, that time has come and gone. They should be talking about peace.

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

What’s Wrong with Boris Johnson’s Plan to “Save” Ukraine?

Johnson’s “three-fold plan for Ukrainian victory” 

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – September 29, 2024

A September 21, 2024 article published in The Spectator written by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson titled, “It’s time to let Ukraine join NATO,” attempts to formulate a theory of victory for Ukraine as war with Russia continues to grind on.

Johnson demands that the collective West “end the delays” and that the West “get it done and get it won.” By this, he means lifting all restrictions on the use of Western long-range weapons on pre-2014 Russian territory.

Next, he demands the US and Europe provide a “package of loans on the scale of Lend-Lease: half a trillion dollars,” or “even a trillion.” Johnson claims such support will send a message to the Kremlin that, “we are going to out-gun you financially and back Ukraine on a scale you cannot hope to match.” 

Western personnel have already been operating in Ukraine since 2014 and have continued to do so throughout Russia’s Special Military Operation

Finally, he demands Ukraine be allowed membership into NATO immediately, even as the conflict rages on. In respect to NATO’s Article 5 regarding “collective defense,” Johnson proposes that:

… we could extend the Article 5 security guarantee to all the Ukrainian territory currently controlled by Ukraine (or at the end of this fighting season), while reaffirming the absolute right of the Ukrainians to the whole of their 1991 nation. We could protect most of Ukraine, while simultaneously supporting the Ukrainian right to recapture the rest.

While Johnson points out the political implications of this policy, meaning all of NATO would, “have to commit to the defence of that Ukrainian territory,” he falls far short of considering the practical implications.

NATO Intervention in Ukraine: Political vs.  Practical Considerations 

Far from a lack of political will or financial resources, the collective West has fallen short supplying Ukraine with the military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and ammunition required to match or exceed Russian military capabilities because its collective military industrial base itself is incapable of physically producing the quantities required, regardless of the money allotted to do so.

Military industrial production requires several fundamental factors in order to be expanded – financial resources being only one of many.  Expanding production also requires the physical enlargement of existing facilities, the building of new facilities, the expansion of trained workforces which includes reforming and expanding primary, secondary, and specialized education, as well as the expansion of downstream suppliers and the acquisition of additional raw materials required for production across the entire industrial base.

Any one of these measures could take years to implement. Implementing them all would take longer still.

Then there is the very structure of the collective West’s military industrial base. Consisting of corporations prioritizing the maximization of profits, not performance, the collective West’s military industrial base has for years focused on low quantities of highly-sophisticated (and very expensive) weapons systems and munitions.

For the duration of the so-called “Global War on Terror” these weapon systems were adequate, if inefficient. They enabled US-led forces to roll over the antiquated, poorly-trained, poorly-equipped Iraqi army in 1991 and again in 2003, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. Such weapon systems also proved effective in the destruction of Libya in 2011.

But as the global balance of military and economic power has shifted throughout the 21st century, limits to this military industrial approach became apparent. In 2006, Israel’s vast Western-backed military machine categorically failed in its invasion of southern Lebanon, confounded by Hezbollah leveraging modern anti-tank weapons.

The US intervention in Syria from 2011 to present day also revealed the growing limitations of expensive Western military hardware, with 100s of cruise missiles fired at targets across Syria with limited success due to vastly better air and missile defenses than previous US adversaries possessed.

The Western media now admits waning US military support for Ukraine stems from dwindling stockpiles and an inability to quickly expand production.

CNN in its September 17, 2024 article titled, “US military aid packages to Ukraine shrink amid concerns over Pentagon stockpiles,” would admit:

US military aid packages for Ukraine have been smaller in recent months, as the stockpiles of weapons and equipment that the Pentagon is willing to send Kyiv from its own inventory have dwindled. The shift comes amid concerns about US military readiness being impacted as US arms manufacturers play catchup to the huge demand created by the war against Russia.

Nothing took place between September 17, 2024 when CNN published this report and September 21, 2024 when The Spectator published Boris Johnson’s article to change this reality. Johnson simply chose to ignore it.

NATO committing to the defense of Ukrainian-held territory would require sufficient quantities of artillery, armor, air and missile defense systems, and trained manpower – all of which the collective West, not just Ukraine, has in short supply.

In many ways, the collective West is already waging war against Russian forces. Western personnel have already been operating in Ukraine since 2014 and have continued to do so throughout Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) from 2022 onward. Russia has not hesitated to target and destroy Western equipment or the Western personnel operating it, though Russia has managed escalation very carefully in the process.

Were NATO to more openly intervene in what is already a NATO proxy war against Russia, Russian forces would likely continue targeting all of Ukraine’s territory while continuing to manage escalation carefully. NATO itself could escalate, using its long-range missiles and air power against Russian forces both within Ukraine and within pre-2014 Russian borders, but this would present two major problems.

First, if the West is already out of long-range weapons to transfer to Ukraine, its stockpiles having dwindled to critical levels, and having failed to expand production to reconstitute to them should any contingency of any kind fully deplete them, a more direct role in Ukraine would consume what arms and ammunition the West has left with no means of replacing them in the near-term.

Second, whatever impact the collective West imagines using the remnants of its arms and ammunition on Russia directly will have, it will leave the West far short of any material capabilities to conduct large scale war anywhere else in the world, including in the Middle East against Iran and its allies and across the Asia-Pacific region against China – two areas of concern Johnson himself mentions in his article.

Boris Johnson claims:

If you are truly worried about ‘escalation’, then imagine what happens if Ukraine loses this war – because that is when things really would begin to escalate. Ukraine won’t lose but if it did, we would have the risk of escalation across the whole periphery of the former Soviet empire, including the border with Poland, wherever Putin thought that aggression would pay off.

We would probably see escalation in the South China seas and in the Middle East. We would see a general escalation of global tension and violence because a Ukrainian defeat, and a victory for Putin, would be not only a tragedy for a young, brave and beautiful country; it would mean the global collapse of western credibility.

What Johnson means by “western credibility,” is Western primacy. By “escalation in the South China seas and in the Middle East,” Johnson means regional players displacing unwarranted US-led occupation and interference. Johnson’s plan to commit the West’s waning military power to Ukraine means forfeiting the means to cling to primacy elsewhere around the globe.

Johnson’s plan to incorporate Ukraine into NATO would not be a master stroke up-ending Russia’s escalation dominance, it would be the forfeiture of NATO’s own escalatory leverage regarding Article 5. Success for NATO would depend entirely on Russia failing to call the West’s bluff and avoiding the targeting of Ukrainian territory once NATO intervenes directly.

A very similar strategy was used in Syria by the United States as a means to reverse the flagging fortunes of its proxies there. The US, instead, at most managed to create a stalemate. Over the past nearly 10 years the US has occupied eastern Syria, its position in Syria as well as in the rest of the region has waned.

Part of this stems from the US’ inability to field a large enough military force, armed with sufficient numbers of arms and munitions. US air and missile defense systems in particular are in short supply and have opened up US forces in Syria and Iraq to regular drone, rocket, and missile strikes, compromising US military supremacy in the region.

By stretching US and European military power out even thinner by committing large numbers of troops and equipment to a direct intervention in Ukraine only means accelerating the decline of US-led Western primacy around the globe even faster.

Johnson’s plan to “save” Ukraine is borne of desperation, predicated on either a poor understanding of the fundamental factors required for its success, or deliberately ignoring these factors.

It is also a plan born of a lack of imagination. For Boris Johnson and the Western special interests he represents, the only possible future for humanity is one dominated by the West, just as it has done for the past several centuries.

The ultimate irony, however, is Johnson’s mention of a “Soviet empire” he claims Russian President Vladimir Putin is intent on rebuilding. At one point, Johnson claims:

The message is: that’s it. It’s over. You don’t have an empire anymore. You don’t have a ‘near abroad’ or a ‘sphere of influence’. You don’t have the right to tell the Ukrainians what to do, any more than we British have the right to tell our former colonies what to do. It is time for Putin to understand that Russia can have a happy and glorious future, but that like Rome and like Britain, the Russians have decisively joined the ranks of the post-imperial powers, and a good thing, too.

Yet, the conflict in Ukraine stems directly from NATO expansion toward Russia’s borders. It was never a matter of Russia telling Ukraine what to do – it was always a matter of the US politically capturing Ukraine in 2014 and transforming it into a national security threat to Russia from 2014 onward.

Russia is responding to the expansion of a modern-day empire – not in any sort of effort to create its own empire. The empire Russia opposes in Ukraine [Zionist globalism] is the same empire Johnson fears will be challenged in the Middle East and the South China Sea should its proxy war fail in Ukraine. While Johnson accuses Russia of being out of touch with reality regarding imagined imperial ambitions in Moscow, his plan reflects very real delusions associated with a desperate desire to perpetuate the US-led “international order” the UK itself is so deeply invested in.

Boris Johnson’s attempt to build policy regarding the West’s proxy war in Ukraine without a sufficient foundation is a recipe for disaster – the same sort of disaster this proxy war in Ukraine has precipitated that Johnson’s desperate plans are meant to address in the first place.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , | 1 Comment

Big Brother Banking? UK’s New “Fraud Bill” Sparks Fears of Financial Snooping

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 26, 2024

A considerable scandal broke out in the UK under the previous government over a practice dubbed, “debanking” – which saw various public, but not only, figures cut off from financial services as a way of punishing them for their political views.

That also faced a considerable backlash, but the Labor government that took over earlier in the year doesn’t seem to be willing to give up on the core postulates: it appears to be just trying to go about achieving the same end goal in a more “subtle” manner.

The policy is this: give banks spying powers over everybody, but call that a requirement for banks and financial institutions to “share data that may show indications of potential benefit overpayments.”

In order to achieve the stated goal, the whole population’s bank accounts are likely to be monitored.

So one can think of this as the financial sector version of the “online age verification” push. In that scenario everybody (“the whole population”) loses their right to anonymity for no good reason – but a reason, nonetheless. Opponents say it’s to surveil and control as many people, in as many ways possible, at one time.

The UK government naturally keeps its messaging on this legislative initiative as “clean” as possible – it’s to crack down on fraud in the social security system, they say.

Remember what it’s called, because it is sure to crop up in the future, and not in a good way: “Fraud, Error and Debt Bill.”

The government plays not only on people’s natural aversion to fraud but also on sensibilities around spending taxpayer money – the sponsors promise not to waste £1.6 billion ($2.1 billion) of public money over the next five years, just thanks to this bill.

But, to get there, they need to “extend and modernize DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) powers.”

Like this: “Better investigate suspected fraud and new powers of search and seizure so DWP can take greater control investigations into criminal gangs defrauding the taxpayer. (…) Require banks and financial institutions to share data that may show indications of potential benefit overpayments.”

Hold the phone, rights groups are basically saying at this point. And then some are blasting this as (PM) Keir Starmer’s “benefits bank spying plans.”

“A financial snoopers’ charter targeted to automate suspicion of our country’s poorest is intrusive, unjustified, and risks Horizon-style injustice on a mass scale,” said Big Brother Watch, adding that his was “an assault on the presumption of innocence.”

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

EU country firing ‘pro-Russia’ civil servants – media

Lithuanian soldiers at the presidential palace in Vilnius, Lithuania, July 12, 2024. © SOPA Images / Getty Images
RT | September 29, 2024

Lithuania is actively investigating and dismissing “disloyal” officials who are reportedly being accused of having pro-Russian views, local broadcaster TV3 has reported.

According to a report aired on Saturday, several police officers and firefighters have been dismissed from their posts or warned about their views and labeled ‘vatniks’ – a derogatory term used to insult supporters of the Russian government, which derives from a jacket once worn by Red Army soldiers.

The report claimed that “pro-Russian statements lead to job losses,” warning that public servants “should think carefully” before openly expressing their views on social media.

“After the start of the war in Ukraine… nine police officers were identified as possibly pro-Russian,” Ramunas Matonis, the head of the police communication division, told TV3, adding that while most of the officers denied holding these views during “preventative talks” conducted by the department, one of them “was not granted an extension to work with classified information.”

It quoted the minister of internal affairs, Agne Bilotaite, as saying that the authorities “are closely monitoring the situation,” adding that only “loyal officials” who hold Lithuania’s official pro-Kiev position are suitable to serve the state.

“We certainly do not tolerate cases where officials demonstrate disloyalty through their actions and behavior,” Bilotaite told the outlet, warning that these “individuals lose the right to work in service, and this is understandable, as officials must be loyal to their country.”

The TV channel highlighted the case of Genadijus Rogacius, a former Lithuanian army soldier who was investigated by the prosecutor’s office after he “criticized Lithuania and glorified Russia” on the internet.

It also claimed that pro-Russian sentiments were revealed in the former Soviet republic when people laid flowers by a Russian tank that was hit during the Ukraine conflict last year and later displayed in Vilnius. The significant support for anti-establishment candidate Eduard Vaitkus in the presidential election also indicated pro-Russian sentiments, according to TV3.

Lithuania has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine since the conflict with Russia escalated in February 2022. It has pursued a number of hardline anti-Russia policies and advocated for increased military aid to Kiev by NATO and the EU.

The authorities have previously ordered the demolition of Soviet war memorials and stripped several Russian-born celebrities living in the country of their citizenship for alleged pro-Kremlin views.

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment