Connect with us

Defense

America Escalates Its War Against Russia

Published

on

Even without Ukraine being a NATO member-country, that land has already become America’s initial battlefield against Ukraine’s next-door-neighbor, Russia, thus effectively starting World War III against Russia; and, so, Ukraine is enormously boosting the profits of U.S.-and-allied ‘defense’ contractors, such as Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world’s largest weapons-seller.

Though Ukraine is the land, and though Ukrainians are the U.S. regime’s proxy-soldiers in this initial stage of World War III, it is mainly American armaments-firms that are enormously benefitting from the resultant global surge in weapons-purchases. It’s Ukrainians’ and Russians’ blood, and U.S.-and-allied billionaires’ profits, that are now being promoted in their U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media, as being the heroic war for ‘democracy’ and ’to defend freedom’, though, during the many decades before, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, and in Syria, and in Libya, and in Yemen, and in so many other lands which have been cursed by America’s violent presence, the U.S. regime’s promised ‘championship of democracy and of the rules-based international order’, turned into the reality of U.S.-and-allied ‘rules’, and of rampant violations of international laws, as being the delivered U.S.-and-allied ’order’ there. Russia and China are being demonized, by the U.S. regime, as ‘authoritarian states’, and as violators of human rights, while America’s billionaires, who control the U.S. regime and its ‘news’-media and its armaments-manufacturers, reap the rewards of this — the most massive of all global con-games against the entire global public.

Here are some recent developments, in America’s actual (though not yet formally announced) war against Russia:

On April 12th, Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post bannered “Pentagon looks to vastly expand weapons for Ukraine”, and reported that, “The Biden administration is poised to dramatically expand the scope of weapons it’s providing Ukraine.”

On April 13th, Russia’s RT News headlined “US issues Russia sanctions warning”, and reported that, 

During an event at NATO’s Atlantic Council adjunct, [U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet] Yellen plans to insist that Washington remains fully committed to pushing Russia “further towards economic, financial, and strategic isolation,” according to an excerpt quoted by the media.

“And let’s be clear, the unified coalition of sanctioning countries will not be indifferent to actions that undermine the sanctions we’ve put in place,” Yellen will say.

In her opinion, the measures being imposed on Russia by the US and its allies are necessary because the future of the international order, “both for peaceful security and economic prosperity,” is now at stake. 

Also on the 13th, the New York Times bannered “The U.S. has expanded intelligence sharing with Ukraine”, and reported that “The United States has increased the flow of intelligence to Ukraine about Russian forces in the Donbas and Crimea,” so as to increase the likelihood that Ukrainian forces will retake Crimea, which the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, had arbitrarily transferred to Ukraine in 1954, and which had been a part of Russia ever since 1783. Because there was such intense opposition by the Crimean population to this transfer, the Ukrainian government was obliged to grant to Crimea a special status as being a self-administered region, not controlled by the Ukrainian government in Kiev. But, now, the U.S. regime demands instead that Crimea become an integral part of the Ukrainian regime, especially because Crimeans are passionately opposed to doing that, just as they had been back in 1954, when Khrushchev (a less barbaric dictator than today’s U.S. regime is) transferred it to Ukraine. 

The U.S. is also opposed to the residents in the breakaway Donbass portion of that pre-U.S.-2014-coup Ukrainian region, where over 90% of the residents had voted for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom U.S. President Barack Obama had overthrown in a bloody U.S. coup (‘democratic revolution’) in February 2014. So, the U.S. Biden Administration, set upon bringing about World War III, is likewise assisting its Ukrainian stooge-regime to grab back that former region of Ukraine, against which that U.S.-stooge-regime had been trying to eliminate as many of the residents there as it could. 

The idea behind America’s “intelligence-sharing” with their stooge-regime is to provide U.S. satellite and other secret intelligence information to America’s stooge-regime there, in order to assist them to conquer not only the residents in both Donbass and Crimea, but also to conquer the Russian military forces in Crimea, which region of the former Ukraine had voted over 95% in March 2014 to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia, and which region has had, ever since 1783, Russia’s largest naval base (which naval base Obama had been intending to become instead yet another U.S. naval base).

Also on the 13th, Defense News bannered “NATO planners put the F-35 front and center in European nuclear deterrence” and reported, regarding that Lockheed Martin fighter-plane:

Following Germany’s decision to buy a fleet of F-35s, NATO planners have begun updating the alliance’s nuclear sharing mechanics to account for the jet’s next-gen capabilities, a key NATO official said this week.

“We’re moving fast and furiously towards F-35 modernization and incorporating those into our planning and into our exercising and things like that as those capabilities come online,” said Jessica Cox, director of the NATO nuclear policy directorate in Brussels.

“By the end of the decade, most if not all of our allies will have transitioned,” she added, speaking during an online discussion of the Advanced Nuclear Weapons Alliance Deterrence Center, a Washington-based think tank. …

The United States military stores around 150 B-61 gravity bombs in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey for that mission, according to a recent accounting in an article by the British-based Chatham House think tank. …

Most recently, the new German government picked the F-35 specifically for the nuclear sharing mission, committing to up to 35 copies. The decision followed a lengthy discussion in Germany about Berlin’s continued participation in the nuclear sharing responsibility in the first place, a debate that appears to have abated following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Cox said the aircraft’s advanced features also will boost the capabilities of alliance members and F-35 customers like Poland, Denmark or Norway who might be tasked with supporting actual nuclear sharing missions.

The U.S. Congress hasn’t yet declared war against Russia, but over 97% of the members in the U.S. Senate and House have voted for the sanctions, and the military appropriations bills, and the other anti-Russian legislation, to assist the U.S. regime to conquer Russia. So, pulling the plug to start the official war seems now to be almost a mere formality, so late in ‘the game’.

The U.S. regime’s intentions toward Russia have been conquest ever since U.S. President Harry S. Truman made that decision on 25 July 1945, and it stayed that way even after the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. America’s anti-Russia alliance, NATO, has always been committed to conquering Russia, and remains so today. For example, NATO’s chief Jens Stoltenberg has always said, and repeated it recently, that “NATO is not a threat to Russia.” How much contempt, against the public, must such a person, who says such a thing, in such circumstances, and with such a long history behind it — all of which has been to the exact contrary of that person’s statement — have? However much it is, that’s how much contempt of the public he has. The blatancy of his lying is shocking. But it’s normal for NATO, which also makes this type of blatantly false allegation an intrinsic part of their commitment to being Russia’s enemies, such as their official statement on 26 February 2022: “NATO has tried to build a partnership with Russia, developing dialogue and practical cooperation in areas of common interest. Practical cooperation has been suspended since 2014 in response to Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, Ukraine, which NATO will never recognise.” (It wasn’t ‘illegal’; Obama’s coup in Ukraine was.) But that ‘partnership with Russia’ didn’t exist even when Boris Yeltsin was Russia’s President and, as the New York Times headlined on 21 December 1991, “Yeltsin Says Russia Seeks to Join NATO”, yet NATO never gave more than perfunctory consideration to his repeated proposal. And as U.S. President G.H.W. Bush secretly started informing U.S. allies on 24 February 1990, the Cold War was to continue on the U.S.-and-allied side until Russia itself becomes conquered, no matter how friendly toward them Russia might be or become.

Russia never invaded America and has never even threatened to do so except as being what they would do if America pushes them too far into a corner — comes at all close to trapping them (such as the present Biden regime is trying to do). The aggressor has always, ever since 25 July 1945, been the U.S. regime, which has perpetrated most of the world’s coups, sanctions, and invasions, after WW II. This has always been done by the U.S. regime in the name of advancing ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ and ‘human rights’. It has always been done by the very same regime that today is the world’s biggest violator of each of those alleged values, and that is also the world’s #1 police state, having a higher percentage of its residents living in prisons than does any other nation on the entire planet. Any nation which is allied to it shares its immense guilt and hypocrisy, and will, no doubt, likewise be targeted by Russian, and maybe also Chinese, missiles, when America and its NATO finally do unleash their World War III against their ‘enemies’ if the intended victims become totally cornered, trapped. But this will surely be a loser’s game on both sides (victimizers, the U.S. and its vassal-nations or ‘allies’; versus victims, such as Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and Libya). However, for the weapons-profiteers and extraction corporations that (mainly) the U.S. aristocracy control, and that are making money hand-over-fist this way, it will be a ‘winning’ game, if nuclear debris can ever be called a “win,” by anyone who is sane (which billionaires, as individuals with insatiable demands for their own supremacy, strongly tend not to be).

Can anyone more evil and deceitful, and hypocritical, than the U.S. regime and its NATO be imagined? If so, then whom might such a person even possibly be?

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

A war where the machine decides who to kill! (LAWs wars)

Published

on

Which country wants to be attacked by an AI-controlled system with no one in command? Which country wants their soldiers to be killed by an autonomous machine, and potentially, some civilians by mistake? The answer is evidently no one! No country wants that. But which country intends to possess such weapons, then the answer is more ambiguous. The last report of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) reflects this. After a week (25-29 July) of discussion at the Palais des Nations, UN Geneva, the adopted report is hollowed without meaningful conclusion or commitments.

Lethal autonomous weapons

Lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) are military system that can autonomously search for and engage targets based on programmed constraints and descriptions. LAWs are also known as killer robots.

Autonomous weapons have existed for many years; for example, land mines trigger and kill or an injury without any human action. With emerging technology, including AI, we understand the interest of certain states to include these technologies in weapons to improve their autonomy. Since the 70s, the US has used the Phalanx CIWS, which can autonomously identify and attack incoming missiles. With AI, its capacities are considerably increased! Continuing with the example of mines, Russia’s anti-personnel mines of the POM-3 type are particularly deadly. They are disseminated in the land of operations but do not explode immediately. When activated, they rise in the air before exploding and causing multiple ravages, which can be fatal within a radius of 16 meters. Equipped with sensors and software, they choose their target, when they explode or not, depending on the identity of the people or equipment that approach. There are, unfortunately, so many other systems that will be too long to cite here. To conclude this part, in Libya in 2020, a Kargu 2 drone hunted down and attacked a human target. According to a report from the UN Security Council’s Panel of Experts on Libya, published in March 2021. This may have been the first time an autonomous killer robot armed with lethal weaponry attacked human beings. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_robot]

We quickly understand all potential ethical and legal issues. Autonomous systems can make mistakes; who is responsible then? Like mine killed millions of civilians, new systems may have bias and kill unstintingly, with no one to stop them. The range of potential problems is extensive.

A slow-downed convention

For nine years, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons or CCW, also known as the Inhumane Weapons Convention, has tried to regulate it with its GGE. For the most ambitious, it would be a question of agreeing on a treaty, or another international instrument, which would guarantee the prohibition that a weapon can operate autonomously, i.e., without the intervention of human supervision. Many Latin Americans, and European states are now advocating for this outright ban. The answer is less clear-cut for other states, including the USA. They consent to the prohibition of specific weapon systems as well as to a certain regulation but refuse a binding legal framework. Finally, Russia is slowing down all negotiations and reducing its content.

Russia and the game of consensus

A majority of States are now convinced of the need to act significantly, even asking for more days to debate in 2023. But the main problem is the rule of consensus, which prohibits any discussion breakthrough”.

Many little disagreements, for instance, delegations, wasted time discussing whether the CCW is an appropriate forum or the only appropriate forum for dealing with the issue of autonomous weapons.

These discussions have even been theatrical when Russia attacked many times the presence of civil societies to limit their intervention and participation in informal meetings. It was a tool to slow down the discussion, focusing the debate on organizational points. At the same time, we can also be afraid that this Russian posture is appearing in others GGEs. Meanwhile, some other states, like Israel and India, are discrete and do not oppose it. They probably use this condition to their advantage. Russia is doing all the work for them.

Therefore with the refusal of a few states, all the details about elements and possible measures for an agreement on autonomous weapons were removed. All conclusions about what kinds of control are necessary, and possible processes to achieve that control, were taken out. The present conclusions section just outlines the types of proposals discussed, recognizes ethical perspectives, and repeats the respect for international humanitarian law. It confirms then that states are responsible for wrongful acts in accordance with international law [link to report], so no new laws. 

Not only are the conclusions disappointing, but the way the discussion was carried out was disappointing, and the mandate for 2023 remains uncertain.

We can not wait on CCW, the urgency of the problem is too critical.

The slow process is to the advantage of countries using these technologies. The Russian POM-3 mines, for instance, have been used in Ukraine, accordingly to Human Right Watch. The development and deployment by Russia and other countries will continue as long as no agreement is reached. LAWs have to be outlaws! And the CCW seems not to be anymore the right platform.

Continue Reading

Defense

Escalating Big Power Contestation on Taiwan: Can It Lead to War?

Published

on

Xi Jinping is seeking to hide his humiliation over US Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan. His premature and unjustifiable warning to the US about the visit caused him embarrassment, and Pelosi’s purposeful visit after the warning not only hyped it, but humiliated him. China is using its Three Warfare Concept  which entails public opinion warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare along with aggressive military posturing, air violations, firepower power exhibition and some symbolic economic boycott of Taiwan, thus creating  heightened tension around Taiwan as a face saving exercise to amuse its domestic constituency. China is attempting to turn it as an opportunity to stoke national sentiments in favour of Xi Jinping on ‘Anti America’ theme highlighting Chinese mutilated version of his heroics to ensure that he doesn’t lose out on his third term in the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) later this year.

The US side has likewise been under similar pressures. Following the announcement of Pelosi’s visit and the contentious debate between President Xi Jinping and Joe Biden, the US found itself in a difficult situation. The USA was unable to cancel the trip in response to Xi’s warning because doing so would have indicated that Joe Biden was caving in to Chinese pressure. This would have been catastrophic for the Biden Administration, which is already struggling to recover from the disaster in Afghanistan and the difficulties brought on by the Russia-Ukraine War. Although the visit was a risky move, it is still unclear whether the US will follow it up by replacing strategic ambiguity with strategic clarity to support Taiwan in any prospective Chinese attack or not.

Can it Lead to War?

With unprecedented military posturing by China, live missile fire  East of Taiwan close to its coastline, and US aircraft carrier and maritime forces located not too far, the situation is tense and prone to accidental trigger causing escalation. It does not make any strategic sense for China to invade Taiwan, as it has all the negatives except false bravado, with bright chances of loss of face globally and domestically, in case the operations fail; hence, likely to contend with activities short of war.

Chinese strategist Qiao Liang, a retired PLA Air Force Major General, has warned that taking Taiwan by force is ‘Too Costly’. Chinese redline of “Taiwan going nuclear/declaring independence” has not been crossed as yet, giving no justification for China to cross US red line of ‘Changing status Quo by Force’. Xi Jinping may find it too costly to take such a risk before sealing his third term. The military drills near Taiwan have been conducted by Taiwan and US also in past and  the much publicised blockade of Taiwan through military drills, if prolonged may invite similar military drills by US and other democracies in Malacca Strait too, to block Chinese Sea Lines of Communication, beyond the realm of optics of the current Chinese aggressive posture, and it is well aware of this vulnerability.    

Taiwanese President Tsai has bravely given bold statements during visit of Speaker Pelosi and earlier to take on Chinese aggression. Taiwan with its national spirit, modern arsenal from US, determined armed forces and US backing is unlikely to give a walkover, although the first onslaught of potential offensive will have to be borne by it, till global response gets activated. Comparisons are being made with Hong Kong, but the major differences is that leadership, hierarchy in Hong Kong and police was manipulated by CCP, whereas  the leadership in Taiwan is strong and resolute refusing to give in to Chinese coercion. The need for amphibious assault due to terrain friction makes Chinese misadventure in Taiwan more difficult than Hong Kong.

Chinese amphibious capabilities to capture Taiwan are suspect, more so if US warships like the USS Ronald Reagan are around. China has enough missile arsenals to destroy Taiwan, but such a massive destruction of Han Chinese (95 percent of Taiwanese population is Han), who have relations, investments and inseparable linkages with their relatives in mainland and vice versa will not go well with domestic population of mainland. Over two million Taiwanese live in China, mostly in Coastal areas, and over 20 per cent have married there.

This will also destroy Chinese and Taiwanese economy, which does not suit Chinese leadership struggling to revive its economy marred by trade war, failing BRI and COVID effect. China is top destination for Taiwanese export accounting for approximately 40% of total exports, with Taiwan having  overall trade surplus of US$104.7 billion in 2021 with China.

A public opinion poll in Taiwan in 2020 indicated 73 percent people identified themselves as Taiwanese, who were against China, and 77 percent  supported democratic movement in Hongkong and this figure has increased in last two years. Getting Taiwanese under its wings will also bring a fresh democratic wave in China, which CCP may not be used to handle. Taiwanese people do not want to sacrifice their democratic freedom and prosperity, which is the main reason for success of President Tsai. The conflict if imposed by China will be deadly and Chinese, who want to win without fighting are not known for their appetite to accept body bags of Han Chinese, for a cause which doesn’t give them economic benefit but takes it away its dream of national rejuvenation, as indicated by General Qiao. 

Why Taiwan is a US-China Issue?

PRC may keep claiming Taiwan to be its domestic issue, but it has much greater external dimensions. Diplomatically US may claim to follow ‘One China Policy’ but it treats Taiwan no less than an ally. The Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act of 2019, effective from March 26, 2020 is an indication. The Taiwan Relation Act,1973, Taiwan Travel Act signed 2019, and National Defence Authorisation Act signed earlier this year to facilitate sale of state of the art weaponry and joint exercises justify the statement. US will always like to trade and strategically partner with democratic Taiwan outside Beijing’s influence, and not Taiwan under CCP.

In any potential invasion of Taiwan, the spill over of the battle space to Japan is obvious due to geographic proximity, an ally which US is obligated to protect. Chinese initial offensive can be on Taiwan, but US could join forces with its allies in the region to use their sea and air advantages to cut off Beijing’s maritime lifeline in and outside South China Sea. Chinese supply lines outside Nine dash line are still vulnerable to choking, and it will draw out PLA to get into war outside its comfort Zone. Taking Taiwan by force, therefore involves mobilisation of all its combat resources, expecting an escalation from limited war to an all-out war, as the operation amounts to crossing US redline of “No Change in Status Quo of Taiwan”. Economically Chinese heavy reliance on the US dollar is far from over, and such a war over Taiwan would be a massive economic blow to China, that would see capital flooding out, and companies moving of the country, much sooner than it thought.

Way Ahead

If Chinese aggressive posturing, air incursions and military drills announced for four days end as scheduled without escalation, may be that situation may still remain under control, as US and Taiwan have also done military drills in that region earlier. If it escalates into an attempt to unite Taiwan by force, it will certainly up the ante with US, prove China as irresponsible bully, may lead to loss of life of Han Chinese both ways, lead to economic destruction of its one of the largest investors and jeopardise China’s goal of national rejuvenation. Internationally, China may have miscalculated US resolve and Taiwan’s resistance and all may not go their way. If Chinese ambitions grow beyond global tolerance, it has bright chances to bring rest of the world against China. While the visit of Nancy Pelosi may have given a strong message to China, but the US resolve is still under test, because Taiwan can’t be expected to handle Chinese aggression alone, more so if it has been hyped by super power contestation. US therefore must consider starting similar military exercise in Malacca Strait with other navies to remind China of its vulnerable SLOC before it starts blocking Taiwanese shipping.

The aggressive posturing in Taiwan Strait, South and East China Sea will continue, even if the current crisis slows down. PRC’s aim is to pressurise President Tsai Not to declare independence, keep pressure on, hope DPP loses next election and work out favourable arrangements with opposition likely to be favourable to China. Neither China nor US want war, but none wants to give walkover as well, hence this strategic gaming and posturing is on and will continue.

Continue Reading

Defense

Why would a peaceful country join NATO?

Published

on

Image source: war.ukraine.ua

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a security alliance between Europe and North America.  It was established in the 1949 having goals of protecting democratic freedom but its sole purpose was to counter any future aggression from the Soviet Union and hence this organization was anti-Soviet accord that established the balance of power in Europe. Under the Article 5 of NATO it obliges all member states to protect each other in state of war, this allowed the NATO member states to share their military capabilities and pool their resources in time of attack or invasion. Besides having collective security goals and containing USSR, NATO served as an engine to democratization.  NATO clearly was a threat to the sovereignty of USSR and to counter Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact, Moscow had all the reasons to justify formation of this pact. After the Berlin wall fell and Soviet Union disintegrated, Germany was faced by a serious question of whether to join NATO or the Warsaw pact.  The US President made an offer to Russian President, suggesting that if Germany joined NATO, NATO would stop its expansion.  Moscow bought this offer and demolished the Warsaw pact hoping that the west would follow suit that NATO too would dissolve.  NATO continued its expansionist process and included ex-Soviet republics as well. The Russian President Putin on many instances asked NATO that against whom this expansion intended to. An organization initially targeted towards countering a country is now getting so close to them that there intensions can even be sniffed from the border, is causing a security dilemma.  The war in Ukraine is the living example that US did not do as promise, a stab in the back of Russia. This act is clearly a proactive one and number of US’s political analyst opposed this step.

Ukraine being a sovereign country and knowing its history with Russia still wants to join and the question rises, why? Well Ukraine has become a country just like Afghanistan or Vietnam where the two world powers can have their proxy wars. Former Ukrainian presidents either supported to join NATO or opposed it under the influence of these foreign powers. Joining NATO means taking side with the western power and this would seriously be taken as a treat by Russia, as NATO is an organization that talks about collective security with the help of its military alliance. Why Ukraine wants it? Was Ukraine threatened by the Russians of any invasion or were they forced by the western powers to join? What benefits Ukraine would have after joining NATO?

To answer the above questions one must first understand that situation of security dilemma exits between Ukraine and Russia and to assure its security Ukraine needed backup in the form of NATO. Moscow has adopted a policy toward Ukraine and Belarus throughout Putin’s term in power based on the presumption that each former Soviet country’s national identities are artificial and thus brittle. Vladimir Putin frequently exhibits what historians refer to as the “politics of eternity,” in order to restore the lost essence of the Soviet Empire. One of the reasons why Ukraine needed security assurance. This was only possible if a state stronger than Russia supported and formed alliance with Ukraine, hence Ukraine turned towards joining NATO.

Now that Russia has annexed Ukraine, it clearly depicts the Russian insecurity as well in context with the Western imperialist nature. The people of Ukrainian are still in state of shock as to why Ukraine, a peace loving country wants to join an organization that is more in to waging war rather than building cooperation and peace.  The Ukrainian President, Zelensky, recently posed for a Vogue magazine depicting in the background the war torn Ukraine, receiving a major backlash questioning whether all this is just a good background for a cover magazine.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending