Ramsan Kadyrow reagierte auf die Aktion in Stockholm gegen die Türkei, bei der der Koran verbrannt wurde:
„Dieser Abkömmling von Gehenna protestierte damit vor dem offiziellen Ankara, das gegen Schwedens NATO-Beitritt stimmt.
Es ist kein Zufall, dass ich immer behaupte, dass buchstäblich die gesamte Nordatlantische Allianz ein Produkt Satans ist und wir in der Ukraine mit den Kräften dieses Iblis kämpfen. Alles, was mit der NATO zu tun hat, ist reine Gottlosigkeit. Sein gesamter Kurs ist von Unglauben und der Verbreitung des Kultes der Ausschweifung und der bösen Geister durchdrungen.
Der Chef von Tschetschenien glaubt, dass eine solche Aktion vor der türkischen Botschaft von politischen Kräften initiiert worden sein könnte: «Sonst hätte eine so eklatante Provokation niemals Zustimmung gefunden.»
Die ständige Thematisierung der LBGTQ-Bewegung in den Medien zeigt Wirkung. Bereits 2016 ergab eine Umfrage des Berliner Demoskopie-Startups Dalia Research, die europaweit in etlichen Ländern unter 12.000 Personen internetbasiert durchgeführt wurde, dass 7,4 Prozent der Deutschen schwul, lesbisch, bisexuell oder transgender gewesen seien. Dies wären rund 6 Millionen Menschen. Auch wenn diese Studie kaum repräsentativ gewesen sein dürfte, schon weil besonders viele junge Menschen unter den Teilnehmern waren, so macht sie eines deutlich: Die pausenlose Berieselung mit LBGTQ-Themen bleibt nicht folgenlos. Denn wenn sich ein beträchtlicher Teil der Befragten als LBGTQ bekennen, so ist dies vor allem einer breitgefächerten , verqueren Marketingkampagne der westlichen Medien zu verdanken; eine wahrhaft alarmierende Entwicklung.
„Influencer” und Aktivisten der regenbogenbunten Agenda reden vor allem Kindern und Jugendlichen ein, bei der sexuellen Orientierung handele es sich um eine Modefrage, die beliebig variiert oder gewechselt werden könne. Vor allem „trans“ zu sein wird als trendig, hip und modern dargestellt. Bei jungen Menschen, deren Identität und Persönlichkeit noch nicht gefestigt sind, kann dies zu massiven Entwicklungsstörungen führen.
Schlimmer noch: Mann-Frau-Beziehungen werden zunehmend als rückständig, reaktionär und überkommen dargestellt – auch und vor allem in den Unterhaltungsmedien: Kaum mehr eine Serie auf Netflix oder Prime Video, die ohne Bi-, Trans- oder Homosexuelle auskommt. In der Serie „Elite” gibt es sogar praktisch überhaupt keine heterosexuelle Beziehung mehr. Dafür überbieten sich die Programmmacher mit der exzessiven Darstellung von Orgien, Sexpartys, Drogen, schnellen Abtreibungen und Alkoholkonsum – und dies alles zunehmend in Kombination mit dem LGBTQ-Hype.
Die bildungspolitische Sprecherin der AfD-Bundestagsfraktion, Nicole Höchst, will sich dieser verhängnisvollen Entwicklung entgegenstemmen. Höchst erklärte diese Woche in Berlin: „Diesem Werteverfall muss sofort gegengesteuert werden. Es kann nicht sein, dass die sexuelle Orientierung von Minderheiten und Randgruppen in solchen Serien, die überwiegend von Jugendlichen konsumiert werden, immer übermäßiger propagiert wird, während Heterobeziehungen, die immer noch die weltweite Normalität darstellen, als aussterbendes und veraltetes Modell belächelt werden. Offenbar sollen unsere Kinder auf diese Weise frühzeitig an die neue zügel-, gott- und orientierungslose Regenbogen-Scheinwelt herangeführt und gewöhnt werden. Wie Erwachsene leben und lieben, ist ihnen unbenommen; bei Kindern und Heranwachsenden ist eine solche Prägung jedoch fatal. Dieser Angriff auf die Psyche unserer Kinder, auf unsere Werte und unser christliches Weltbild muss sofort beendet werden! Ich fordere daher, dass Filme oder Serien, die derartige Beziehungsmodelle propagieren, keine Jugendfreigabe erhalten.“
India has blocked the airing of a BBC documentary which questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership during the 2002 Gujarat riots, saying that even sharing of any clips via social media is barred.India blocks BBC documentary on Modi’s role in Gujarat riots
Why now?! It’s been over 20 years!Russia?!
Rishi Sunak , but betrayed India a long time ago. England appointed him prime minister so that India would become a colony
⚡️Zelensky versprach, wenn Scholz seine Ansichten zu Panzern für die Ukraine nicht überdenke, dann würden nach Deutschland geflüchtete Ukrainer für ihn einen Maidan am Brandenburger Tor veranstalten.
Dankbarkeit der Nazis von der Ukraine nach Deutschland
Moskau schert sich nicht um die Meinung des European Jewish Congress, die Organisation hat sich selbst diskreditiert, indem sie das Anwachsen des Antisemitismus und die Verherrlichung des Nationalsozialismus in der Ukraine ignoriert hat. Dies teilte TASS am Donnerstag im russischen Außenministerium mit und kommentierte den Aufruf des Kongresses an den russischen Außenminister Sergej Lawrow, sich für den Vergleich der „jüdischen Frage“ mit der „russischen“ zu entschuldigen.
„Die Meinung einer Organisation, die jahrelang das katastrophale Ausmaß des Antisemitismus in der Ukraine ignoriert hat, ist nicht interessant. Dem European Jewish Congress gelang es, die Symbole der SS, die Hakenkreuze und die Verherrlichung der Nazi-Kollaborateure durch das Kiewer Regime zu übersehen. Die Struktur hat sich in diese Richtung diskreditiert“, betonte die diplomatische Abteilung.
Am Mittwoch sagte Lawrow auf einer Pressekonferenz über die Ergebnisse der Aktivitäten der russischen Diplomatie im Jahr 2022: „So wie Napoleon fast ganz Europa gegen das Russische Reich mobilisierte, so mobilisierte und eroberte Hitler den größten Teil der Europäer Länder und warf sie gegen die Sowjetunion, jetzt haben die Vereinigten Staaten eine Koalition fast aller Europäer organisiert, Mitglieder der NATO und nicht nur Mitglieder der EU, und durch die Ukraine führen sie stellvertretend Krieg gegen unser Land die gleiche Aufgabe — die endgültige Lösung der „russischen Frage“. So wie Hitler die „Judenfrage“ endlich lösen wollte, sagen sie jetzt, wenn man westliche Politiker liest, unmissverständlich, dass Russland eine strategische Niederlage erleiden muss.“
Er stellte auch fest, dass die Ereignisse in der Ukraine „das Ergebnis langjähriger Vorbereitungen der Vereinigten Staaten und ihrer Satelliten für den Beginn eines globalen hybriden Krieges gegen die Russische Föderation“ seien.
Since Russia’s surprise decision to voluntarily withdraw from west bank Kherson in the first week of November, there has been little in the way of dramatic changes to the frontlines in Ukraine. In part, this reflects the predictable late autumn weather in Eastern Europe, which leaves battlefields waterlogged and clogged with mud and greatly inhibits mobility. For hundreds of years, November has been a bad month for attempting to move armies any sort of significant distance, and like clockwork we started to see videos of vehicles stuck in the mud in Ukraine.
The return of static positional warfare, however, also reflects the synergistic effect of increasing Ukrainian exhaustion along with a Russian commitment to patiently attriting and denuding Ukraine’s remaining combat capability. They have found an ideal place to achieve this in the Donbas.
It has gradually become apparent that Russia is committed to a positional attritional war, as this maximizes the asymmetry of their advantage in ranged fires. There is an ongoing degradation of Ukraine’s warmaking ability which is allowing Russia to patiently maintain the current tempo, while it organizes its newly mobilized forces for offensive action in the coming year, setting the stage for cascading and unsustainable Ukrainian losses.
In Ernest Hemingway’s novel, The Sun Also Rises, a formerly wealthy, now down on his luck character is asked how he went bankrupt. “Two ways”, he replies, “gradually and then suddenly.” Someday we may ask how Ukraine lost the war and receive much the same answer.
Verdun Redux
It is safe to say that western regime media has set a very low standard for reporting on the war in Ukraine, given the extent to which the mainstream narrative is disconnected from reality. Even given these low standards, the way the ongoing battle in Bakhmut is being presented to the population is truly ludicrous. The Bakhmut axis is being spun to western audiences as a perfect synthesis of all the tropes of Russian failure: in a nutshell, Russia is suffering horrible casualties as it struggles to capture a small town with negligible operational importance. British officials, in particular, have been highly vocal in recent weeks insisting that Bakhmut has little to no operational value.
The truth is the literal opposite of this story: Bakhmut is an operationally critical keystone position in the Ukrainian defense, and Russia has transformed it into a death pit which compels the Ukrainians to sacrifice exorbitant numbers of men in order to hold the position as long as possible. In fact, the insistence that Bakhmut is not operationally significant is mildly insulting to the audience, both because a quick glance at a map clearly shows it at the heart of the regional road network, and because Ukraine has thrown a huge number of units into the front there.
Let’s take a step back and consider Bakhmut in the context of Ukraine’s overall position in the east. Ukraine began the war with four operable defensive lines in the Donbas, built up over the last 8 years both as part and parcel of the simmering war with the LNR and DNR, but also in preparation for potential war with Russia. These lines are structured around urban agglomerations with road and rail links between each other, and can be roughly enumerated as follows:
Ukraine Defensive Lines in the East (Map by me)
The Donbas is a particularly accommodating place to construct formidable defenses. It is highly urbanized and industrial (Donetsk was the most urban oblast in Ukraine prior to 2014, with over 90% of the population living in urban areas), with cities and towns dominated by the typically robust Soviet buildings, along with prolific industrial complexes. Ukraine has spent much of the last decade improving these positions, and the frontline settlements are riddled with trenches and firing positions that are clearly visible on satellite imagery. A recent video from the Avdiivka axis demonstrates the extent of Ukrainian fortifications.
So, let’s review the state of these defensive belts. The first belt, which ran roughly from Severodonetsk and Lysychansk to Popasna, was broken in the summer by Russian forces. Russia achieved a major breakthrough at Popasna and was able to begin the full rollup of this line, with Lysychansk falling at the beginning of July.
At this point, the frontline sits directly on what I have labeled as the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian defensive belts, and both of these belts are now heavily bleeding.
The capture of Soledar by Wagner forces has severed the connection between Bakhmut and Siversk, while around Donetsk, the heavily fortified suburb of Marinka has been almost completely cleared of Ukrainian troops, and the infamous keystone Ukrainian position in Avdiivka (the place from which they shell Donetsk city’s civilian population) is being flanked from both directions.
The frontline around Avdiivka (map courtesy of MilitaryLand)
These positions are absolutely critical for Ukraine to hold. The loss of Bakhmut will mean the collapse of the last defensive line standing in the way of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk, which means Ukraine’s eastern position will rapidly contract to its fourth (and weakest) defensive belt.
The Slavyansk agglomeration is a far worse position for Ukraine to defend than the other belts, for several reasons. First and foremost, as the belt farthest to the west (and thus the farthest from the February 2022 start lines), it is the least improved and least fortified of the belts. Secondly, lots of the, shall we just say “good stuff” around Slavyansk is to the east of the city, including both the dominating high ground and the major highways.
All this to say, Ukraine has been very anxious to hold the Bakhmut line, as this is a vastly preferable position to hold, and accordingly they have been pouring units into the sector. The absurd levels of Ukrainian force commitment in this area have been well noted, but just as a quick refresher, publicly available Ukrainian sources locate at least 34 brigade or equivalent units that have been deployed in the Bakhmut area. Many of these were deployed months ago and are already shattered, but over the full span of the ongoing battle this represents an astonishing commitment.
Ukrainian units around Bakhmut (Map courtesy of MilitaryLand)
Russian forces, primarily Wagner PMC and LNR units, have been slowly but surely collapsing this Ukrainian stronghold by making liberal use of artillery. In November, now former Zelensky advisor Oleksiy Arestovych admitted that Russian artillery on the Bakhmut axis enjoyed roughly a 9 to 1 tube advantage, which is turning Bakhmut into a death pit.
The battle is being presented in the west as one where Russians – usually stereotyped as convict soldiers employed by Wagner – launch frontal assaults on Ukrainian defenses and take horrible casualties attempting to overwhelm the defense with pure numbers. The opposite is much closer to the truth. Russia is moving slowly because it irons out Ukrainian defenses with artillery, then pushes forward cautiously into these pulverized defenses.
Ukraine, meanwhile, continues to funnel units in to more or less refill the trenches with fresh defenders. A Wall Street Journal piece about the battle, while trying to present a story of Russian incompetence, accidentally included an admission from a Ukrainian commander on the ground who said: “So far, the exchange rate of trading our lives for theirs favors the Russians. If this goes on like this, we could run out.”
The comparisons have been liberally made (and I cannot take credit for them) to one of the most infamous battles of World War One – the bloody catastrophe at Verdun. While it does not do to exaggerate the predictive value of military history (in the sense that a thorough knowledge of the first world war does not allow one to predict events in Ukraine), I am, however, a great fan of history as analogy, and the German scheme at Verdun is a useful analogy for what’s happening in Bakhmut.
The Battle of Verdun was conceived by the German high command as a way to cripple the French army by drawing them into a preconfigured meatgrinder. The notion was to attack and seize crucial defensive high ground – ground so important that France would be forced to counterattack and attempt to recapture it. The Germans hoped that France would commit their strategic reserves to this counterattack so that they could be destroyed. While Verdun failed to completely sap French combat power, it did become one of the most bloody battles in world history. A German coin commemorating the battle depicted a skeleton pumping blood out of the earth – a chilling but apt visual metaphor.
“The World Blood Pump” – commemorating the meatgrinder at Verdun
Something similar has indeed occurred in Bakhmut, in the sense that Russia is pressing on one of the most sensitive points on the front line, drawing Ukrainian units in to be killed. A few months ago, on the heels of Russia’s withdrawal from west bank Kherson, the Ukrainians talked ecstatically of continuing their offensive efforts with a strike southward in Zaparozhia to cut the land bridge to Crimea, along with continued efforts to break through into northern Lugansk. Instead, forces from both of these axes have been redirected to Bakhmut, to the point where this axis is actively draining Ukrainian combat strength in other areas. Ukrainian sources, previously full of optimism, now unequivocally agree that there will be no Ukrainian offensives in the near future. As we speak, Ukraine continues to funnel forces into the Bakhmut axis.
At the present moment, Ukraine’s position around Bakhmut has badly deteriorated, with Russian forces (largely Wagner infantry supported by Russian army artillery) making substantial progress on both of the city’s flanks. On the northern flank, the capture of Soledar pushed Russian lines to within spitting distance of the north-south highways, while the near simultaneous capture of Klishchiivka on the southern flank has propelled the frontlines to the dootstep of Chasiv Yar (firmly in Bakhmut’s operational rear).
The contact line around Bakhmut, Jauary 20, 2023 (Map by me)
The Ukrainians are not presently encircled, but the continued creep of Russian positions ever closer to the remaining highways is easily discernable. Currently, Russian forces have positions within two miles of all the remaining highways. Even more importantly, Russia now controls the high ground to both the north and south of Bakhmut (the city itself sits in a depression surrounded by hills) giving Russia fire control over much of the battle space.
I am currently anticipating that Russia will clear the Bakhmut-Siversk defensive line by late March. Meanwhile, the denuding of Ukrainian forces on other axes raises the prospect of decisive Russian offensives elsewhere.
At the moment, the front roughly consists of four main axes (the plural of axis, not the bladed implement), with substantial agglomerations of Ukrainian troops. These consist, from south to north, of the Zaporozhia, Donetsk, Bakhmut, and Svatove Axes (see map below). The effort to reinforce the Bakhmut sector has noticeably diluted Ukranian strength on these other sectors. On the Zaporozhia front, for example, there are potentially as few as five Ukrainian brigades on the line at the moment.
At the moment, the majority of Russian combat power is uncommitted, and both western and Ukrainian sources are (belatedly) becoming increasingly alarmed about the prospect for a Russian offensive in the coming weeks. Currently, the entire Ukrainian position in the east is vulnerable because it is, in effect, an enormous salient, vulnerable to attack from three directions.
Two operational depth objectives in particular have the potential to shatter Ukrainian logistics and sustainment. These are, respectively, Izyum in the north and Pavlograd in the South. A Russian thrust down the west bank of the Oskil river towards Izyum would simultaneously threaten to cut off and destroy the Ukrainian grouping on the Svatove axis (S on the map) and sever the vital M03 highway from Kharkov. Reaching Pavlograd, on the other hand, would completely isolate the Ukrainian forces around Donetsk and sever much of Ukraine’s transit across the Dneiper [cf. map in title]
Both Izyum and Pavlograd are roughly 70 miles from the start lines of a prospective Russian offensive, and thus offer a very tempting combination – being both operationally significant and in relatively manageable reach. Beginning yesterday, we started to see Russian advances on the Zaporozhia axis. While these consist, at the moment, mainly of reconnaissance in force pushing into the “grey zone” (that ambiguous interstitial frontage), RUMoD did claim several settlements taken, which could presage a genuine offensive push in this direction. The key tell would be a Russian assault on Orikhiv, which is a large town with a genuine Ukrainian garrison in it. A Russian attack here would indicate that something more than a probing attack is underway.
It is difficult sometimes to parse out the difference between what we predict will happen and what we want to happen. This, certainly, is what I would choose if I was in charge of Russian planning – a drive south along the west bank of the Oskil river on the Kupyansk-Izyum axis, and a simultanious attack northward past Zaporozhia towards Pavlograd. In this case, I believe simply screening Zaporozhia in the short term is preferable to getting bogged down in an urban battle there.
Whether Russia will actually attempt this, we do not know. Russian operational security is much better than either Ukraine’s or their proxy forces (Wagner and the LNR/DNR Milita), so we know significantly less about Russia’s deployments than we do about Ukraine’s. Regardless, we know that Russia enjoys a strong preponderance of combat power right know, and there are juicy operational targets within range.
Please Sir, I Want Some More
The bird’s eye view of this conflict reveals a fascinating meta-structure to the war. In the above section, I argue for a view of the front structured around Russia progressively breaking through sequential Ukrainian defensive belts. I think that a similar sort of progressive narrative structure applies to the force generation aspect of this war, with Russia destroying a sequence of Ukrainian armies.
Let me be a bit more concrete. While the Ukrainian military exists at least partially as a continuous institution, its combat power has been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times at this point through western assistance. Multiple phases – life cycles, if you will – can be identified:
In the opening months of the war, the extant Ukrainian army was mostly wiped out. The Russians destroyed much of Ukraine’s indigenous supplies of heavy weaponry and shattered many cadres at the core of Ukraine’s professional army.
In the wake of this initial shattering, Ukrainian combat strength was shored up by transferring virtually all of the Soviet vintage weaponry in the stockpiles of former Warsaw Pact countries. This transferred Soviet vehicles and ammunition, compatible with existing Ukrainian capabilities, from countries like Poland and the Czech Republic, and was mostly complete by the end of spring, 2022. In early June, for example, western sources were admitting that Soviet stockpiles were drained.
With Warsaw Pact stockpiles exhausted, NATO began replacing destroyed Ukrainian capabilities with western equivalents in a process that began during the summer. Of particular note were howitzers like the American M777 and the French Caesar.
Russia has essentially fought multiple iterations of the Ukrainian Army – destroying the pre-war force in the opening months, then fighting units that were refilled from Warsaw Pact stockpiles, and is now degrading a force which is largely reliant on western systems.
This led to General Zaluzhny’s now-famous interview with the economist in which he asked for many hundreds of Main Battle Tanks, Infantry Fighting Vehicles, and artillery pieces. In effect, he asked for yet another army, as the Russians seem to keep destroying the ones he has.
I want to note a few particular areas where Ukraine’s capabilities are clearly degraded beyond acceptable levels, and observe how this relates to NATO’s effort to sustain the Ukrainian war-making effort.
First, artillery.
Russia has been prioritizing counterbattery action for many weeks now, and seems to be having great success hunting and destroying Ukrainian artillery.
It seems that this partially coincides with the deployment of new “Penicillin” counterbattery detection systems. This is a rather neat new tool in the Russian arsenal. Counterbattery warfare generally consists of a dangerous tango of guns and radar systems. Counterbattery radar is tasked with detecting and locating the enemy’s guns, so they can be destroyed by one’s own tubes – the game is roughly analogous to enemy teams of snipers (the artillery) and spotters (the radar) attempting to hunt each other – and of course, it makes good sense to shoot the other side’s radar systems as well, to blind them, as it were.
The Penicillin system offers potent new capabilities to Russia’s counterbattery campaign because it detects enemy artillery batteries not with radar, but with acoustic locating. It sends up a listening boom which, in coordination with a few ground componants, is able to locate enemy guns through seismic and acoustic detection. The advantage of this system is that, unlike a counterbattery radar, which emits radio waves that give away its position, the Penicillin system is passive – it simply sits still and listens, which means it does not offer an easy way for the enemy to locate it. As a result, in the counterbattery war, Ukraine currently lacks a good way to blind (or rather, deafen) the Russians. Furthermore, Russian counterbattery abilities have been augmented by increased use of the Lancet drone against heavy weapons.
The Penicillin acoustic boom listens for the sound of enemy guns
All that to say, Russia has been destroying quite a bit of Ukrainian artillery lately. the Russian Ministry of Defense has made a point of highlighting counterbattery success. Now, I know at this point you’re thinking, “why would you trust the Russian Ministry of Defense?” Fair enough – let’s trust but verify.
On January 20, NATO convened a meeting at Ramstein Airbase in Germany, against a backdrop of a massive new aid package being put together for Ukraine. This aid package contains, lo and behold, a huge amount of artillery pieces. By my count, the aid announced this week includes nearly 200 artillery tubes. Multiple countries, including Denmark and Estonia, are sending Ukraine literally all of their howitzers. Call me crazy, but I seriously doubt that several countries would just spontaneously decide, at the exact same time, to send Ukraine their entire inventory of artillery pieces were Ukraine not facing crisis levels of artillery losses.
Let’s review the evidence here, and see if we can make a reasonable conclusion:
Ukrainian officials admit that their artillery is outgunned by 9 to 1 in critical sectors of the front.
Russia deploys a cutting edge counterbattery system and increased numbers of Lancet drones.
The Russian MoD claims that they have been hunting and destroying Ukrainian artillery systems in large numbers.
NATO has hurried to put together a massive package of artillery systems for Ukraine.
The United States is raiding critical forward-deployed stockpiles to supply Ukraine with shells.
I personally think it is reasonable, given all of this, to assume that Ukraine’s artillery arm has been largely shattered, and NATO is attempting to rebuild it yet again.
My kingdom for a tank
The main point of contention in recent weeks has been whether or not NATO will give Ukraine Main Battle Tanks. Zaluzhny hinted at a badly depleted Ukrainian tank park in his interview with the Economist, in which he pleaded for hundreds of MBTs. NATO has attempted to provide a stopgap solution by giving Ukraine various armored vehicles like the Bradley IFV and the Stryker, which do restore some mobility, but we must unequivocally say that these are in no way substitutes for MBTs, and they fall far short in both protection and firepower. Attempting to use Bradleys, for example, in the MBT role is not going to work.
Good Morning
Thus far, it appears that Ukraine is going to receive a small handful of Challenger tanks from Britain, but there is also talk of donating Leopards (German make), Abrams (American), and Leclercs (French). As usual, the battlefield impact of Ukraine receiving tanks is being both greatly overstated (by both Ukrainian shills and pessimistic Russians) and understated (by Russian triumphalists). I suggest a middle ground.
The number of tanks that can be reasonably given to Ukraine is relatively low, simply because of the training and sustainment burden. All of these tanks use different ammunition, special parts, and require specialized training. They are not the sort of systems that can simply be driven off the lot and directly into combat by untrained crew. The ideal solution for Ukraine would be to receive only Leopard A24s, as these might be available in decent numbers (perhaps a couple hundred), and at least they would be standardized.
A burned out Turkish Leopard in Syria
We should also note, of course, that these western tanks are not likely to be game changers on the battlefield. The Leopard already showed its limitations in Syria under Turkish operation. Note the following quote from this 2018 article:
“Given that the tanks are widely operated by NATO members – including Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece and Norway – it is particularly embarrassing to see them so easily destroyed by Syrian terrorists when they are expected to match the Russian Army.”
Ultimately, the Leopard is a fairly mundane MBT designed in the 1970’s outclassed by the Russian T-90. It’s not a terrible piece of equipment, but it’s hardly a battlefield terror. They will take losses and be attrited just like Ukraine’s prewar tank park was. However, that doesn’t change the fact that a Ukrainian army with a few companies of leopards will be more potent than one without them.
I think it’s fair to say that the following three statements are all true:
Receiving a mixed bag of western tanks will create a difficult training, maintenance, and sustainment burden for Ukraine.
Western tanks like the Leopard have limited combat value and will be destroyed like any other tank.
Western tanks will raise the combat power of the Ukrainian army as long as they are in the field.
Now, with that being said, at this point it does not appear that NATO wants to give Ukraine main battle tanks. At first it was suggested that tanks from storage could be dusted off and given to Kiev, but the manufacturer has stated that these vehicles are not in working order and would not be ready for combat until 2024. That leaves only the possibility of dipping directly into NATO’s own tank parks, which thus far they are reticent to do.
Why? My suggestion would simply be that NATO does not believe in Ukrainian victory. Ukraine cannot even dream of dislodging Russia from its position without an adequate tank force, and so the reticence to hand over tanks suggests that NATO thinks that this is only a dream anyway. Instead, they continue to prioritize weaponry that sustains Ukraine’s ability to fight a static defense (hence, the hundreds of artillery pieces) without indulging in flights of fancy about a great Ukrainian armored thrust into Crimea.
However, given the intense war fever that has built up in the west, it’s possible that political momentum imposes the choice upon us. It is possible that we have reached the point where the tail wags the dog, that NATO is trapped in its own rhetoric of unequivocal support until Ukraine wins a total victory, and we may yet see Leopard 2A4s burning on the steppe.
Summary: The Death of a State
Ukraine’s military is extremely degraded, having taking exorbitant losses in both men and heavy weaponry. I believe Ukrainian KIA are approaching 150,000 at this point, and it is clear that their inventories of both artillery tubes, shells, and armored vehicles are largely exhausted.
I expect the Bakhmut-Siversk defensive line to be cleared before April, after which Russia will push towards the final (and weakest) defensive belt around Slavyansk. Meanwhile, Russia has significant combat power in reserve, which can be used to reopen the northern front on the west bank of the Oskil and restart offensive operations in Zaporozhia, placing Ukrainian logistics in critical danger.
This war will be fought to its conclusion on the battlefield and end in a favorable decision for Russia.
Coda: A Note about Coups
Feel free to ignore this segment, as it’s a little more nebulous and not concretely related to events in Ukraine or Russia.
We’ve seen lots of fun rumors about coups in both countries – Putin has foot cancer and his government will collapse, Zelensky is going to be replaced with Zaluzhny, on and on it goes. Patriots in control and all that good stuff.
In any case, I thought I would just generally write about why coups and revolutions never seem to lead to nice and cuddly democratic regimes, but instead almost always lead to political control passing to the military and security services.
The answer, you might think, is simply that these men have the guns and the power to access the important rooms where decisions are made, but it is not only that. It also relates to a concept in game theory called Schelling points.
A Schelling point (named after the gentleman that introduced the concept, an economist named Thomas Schelling) refers to the solution that parties choose given a state of uncertainty and no ability to communicate. One of the classic examples to illustrate the concept is a coordination game. Suppose that you and another person are each shown four squares – three are blue and one is red. You are each asked to choose a square. If you both select the same square, you receive a monetary prize – but you are unable to talk to one another about your choices. How do you choose? Well, most people rationally choose the red square, simply because it is conspicuous – it stands out, and you therefore presume that your partner will also choose this square. The red square isn’t better, per se, it’s just obvious.
In a state of political turmoil, or even anarchy, the system works itself towards Schelling points – obvious figures and institutions that radiate authority, and are therefore the conspicuous choice to assume power and issue commands.
The Bolsheviks, for example, understood this very well. Immediately after declaring their new government in 1917, they dispatched commissars to the various office buildings in Saint Petersburg where the Tsarist bureaucracies were headquartered. Trotsky famously turned up at the foreign affairs ministry building one morning and simply announced that he was the new Foreign Minister. The employees laughed at him – who was he? how did he presume to be in charge? – but for Trotsky the point was to insinuate himself on a Schelling point. In the state of anarchy that began to spread in Russia, people naturally look for some obvious focal point of authority, and the Bolsheviks had cleverly positioned themselves as such by claiming control over the bureaucratic offices and titles. On the other side of the civil conflict, political opposition to the Bolsheviks clustered around Tsarist army officers, because they too were Schelling points, in that they already had titles and position within an existing hierarchy.
All of this is to say that in the event of a coup or state collapse, new governments are virtually never formed sui generis – they always arise from preexisting institutions and hierarchies. Why, when the Soviet Union fell, did political authority devolve to the Republics? Because these Republics were Schelling points – branches that one can grab for safety in a chaotic river.
I simply say this because I am tired of phantasmagorical stories about liquidation of the regime in Russia and even territorial dissolution. The fall of Putin’s government will not and cannot lead to an acquiescent, western-adjacent regime, because there are no institutions of real power in Russia that are thus disposed. Power would fall to the security services, because they are Schelling points, and that’s where power goes […]
The spirits of great leaders like Lincoln, Juarez, FDR, and Cardenas would certainly smile at Mexico’s emerging potential.
Last week’s meeting of Justin Trudeau, Joe Biden and Lopez Obrador in Mexico City saw several dynamics clashing. On the one hand, the oligarchist demands of global governance, population reduction (under the guise of “sustainable development”) were advanced with a declaration of North America. This declaration clearly sets the stage for an integrated North American Union founded upon a zero-growth ethos.
Obrador has found himself operating within an incredibly hostile environment as president of Mexico since 2018, where he has been forced to walk a tightrope of compromise between deep state forces loyal to Wall Street and the City of London on the one side, all while attempting to protect the Mexican people against the depopulation-oriented ambitions of an international financier class.
Since the historic context shaping this battleground of Mexico is so little understood, and since any appreciation for the anti-oligarchist traditions of the USA itself have been written out of official historical narratives, a short overview of certain forgotten fights must be outlined here and now.
The Lincoln-Juarez Alliance for Progress
By 1865, Lincoln’s use of national banking practices (the Greenback) was instrumental in saving the union from British-orchestrated Civil War- although his assassination hampered this momentum to full industrial reconstruction of the south.
During this time, Britain, French and Spanish Hapsburg empires had initiated parallel wars to destroy the newly emerging Mexican republic then led by Lincoln-admiring president Benito Juarez, first with the 1858-1860 War of Reform and then 1862-1867 French Invasion. In spite of this existential challenge, Juarez succeeded in driving out the imperialists with political and military support from Lincoln patriots in America, while also imposing tariffs which encouraged the build-up of industry- liberating Mexico from its status as cash cropping exporter. Social and educational reforms elevating the health and welfare of the people grew enormously under Juarez’s leadership.
Describing a U.S.-Mexico policy of mutual respect and development in 1865, Juarez stated:
“Should that Republic soon end its Civil War, and acting as a friend and not a master, wish to lend us aid in the form of money or force, without demanding humiliating conditions, without our sacrificing one inch of our territory, without undermining our national dignity, we would accept it, and we have given confidential instructions to our minister to that effect. It would appear that there is no option but to continue the struggle with what we have, with whatever we can, and as far as we can. That is our duty: Time and perseverance shall help us. Forward then! No one should lose heart!”
Although Lincoln republicans supported Mexico’s sovereignty in opposition to foreign empires, the death of McKinley in 1902 saw a grievous abuse of the Monroe Doctrine which too often became an imperial hammer to subdue banana republics as seen under the brutal leadership of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge.
This was a period of cancerous Anglo-American growth guided by the structure of the Milner-Rhodes Round Table Movement which established the League of Nations, gave rise to a London-directed fascist machine in Europe, the USA, Canada and even Mexico, and prepared to consolidated a global bankers’ dictatorship as a “solution” to the Great Depression.
Then the unthinkable happened, and a pro-Lincoln, anti-fascist reflex within America slapped the oligarchy across the face and the bankers’ dictatorship plans of 1933 came undone as Franklin Roosevelt stated: “The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.”
In an earlier speech, FDR properly attacked the Wall Street takeover of the republican party, and stated “I think it is time for us Democrats to claim Lincoln as one of our own”.
Roosevelt and Cárdenas
Franklin Roosevelt was the first president to push back against the pro-empire Wall Street crowd since McKinley’s murder which he brought in with the Good Neighbor Policy stating:
“In the field of world policy, I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.”
FDR broke from his puppet predecessors by supporting Mexico’s rights to control its own oil and resources (after President Lazaro Cárdenas, expropriated foreign oil holdings) and also vastly expanded credit from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to fund massive Mexican infrastructure projects with a focus on water, energy and transport. This served as one of the earliest international extensions of the New Deal which FDR intended would liberate all nations of the earth from colonialism.
In 1943, FDR told Congress: “The policy of the Good Neighbor has shown such success in the hemisphere of the Americas that its extension to the whole world seems to be the logical next step.”
As I outlined in my FDR’s Anti- Colonial Vision for the Post-War World, the great leader had clashed repeatedly with the racist degenerate Churchill over the terms of the post-war world and intended to fully wipe the evil vestiges of colonialism forever from the face of the earth through an internationalization of his New Deal. FDR’s grand design was much more in harmony with the win-win Belt and Road Initiative today and even though certain sociopathic bankers would argue otherwise, has no connection in truth to the “Green New Deal” depopulation agenda which is ironically just a eugenics-based bankers dictatorship under a new name.
FDR’s early death on April 12, 1945 and the takeover of American foreign policy by Britain’s deep state crushed his grand design as Stalin lamented “the great dream has died.”
A new era of CIA-run coups, and a recolonization program under the City of London/Wall Street controlled World Bank and IMF created a new evil system of debt slavery and exploitation under a program which Churchill called “British brains enforced by American brawn”.
This system of global enslavement, depopulation, deregulation, and nation-stripping destroyed all resistance along the way (including several great American statesmen) and courageous Mexican leadership was few and far between during these Cold War years… until President José López Portillo was elected in 1976.
The Case of Lopez Portillo
Standing defiantly against the empire of Wall Street and the City of London, Portillo recognized that his nation had been targeted for depopulation and destruction. Henry Kissinger’s 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) had outlined 13 developing nations who aspired to end their colonial scars by following the Japan model of advanced scientific and technological progress.
The NSSM 200 (titled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests”) outlined its objective “Assistance for population moderation should give emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is a special U.S. and strategic interest”. Of the 13 countries targeted, Mexico was at the top. Among the top remedies to population growth, NSSM-200 listed birth control and the withholding of food. Kissinger wrote: “is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?”
Kissinger was joined in this Malthusian revolution by fellow Trilateral Commission leader Zbigniew Brzezinski and State Department advisor William Paddock.
Brzezinski’s open endorsement of William Paddock’s 1975 plan for Mexican depopulation took this genocidal agenda to another level. William Paddock was a member of the Club of Rome and founder of the Environmental Fund in 1973 which led the way in a new Malthusian revival that arose in the wake of the assassinations of key moral leaders in America during the 1960s and the 1971 floating of the U.S. dollar.
In an interview with EIR magazine in 1975, Paddock described his bestial solution for Mexico whose population he believed should be cut by half in the following terms: “seal the border and watch them scream”. When asked what he thought of scientific and technological innovation as a solution to the overpopulation, Paddock said “U.S. agro-scientific organizations [should] deny research to countries that could not get their population growth under control. If you do anything to increase food production through more agricultural technology all you are doing is increasing future suffering because there will be more people, population will expand to absorb that food and the results will be a greater disaster… growth is something you have to stop. No alternative.”
Kissinger and Paddock both asserted that should these nations succeed in their development aspirations, then they would cause an overpopulation crisis. America’s duty, in Kissinger’s twisted mind, had to become wired towards a strict policy of de-population using every mechanism available with a focus on economic warfare. Mexico was at the top of this list.
Trapped under years of conditionality-laden loans from the IMF and World Bank, Mexico and other nations of the Global South were trapped under usurious debts, underdevelopment (loans were given on the condition that money would rarely be spent on any advanced infrastructure or industrialization), and poverty with no hope in sight.
Lopez Portillo was trapped. But unlike many others at this time, he didn’t give up.
In order to escape this trap, several major (yet little known) decisions were made by Portillo at this time which led into his declaration of war against the oligarchy.
How Portillo Played the LaRouche Card
The first major decision occurred when Portillo invited American economist Lyndon LaRouche to the Presidential Palace at Los Pinos in May 1982 where after a long meeting, Portillo requested the economist draft a policy program for Mexico’s resistance to the empire and broader economic recovery. This program was given to Portillo in August 1982 entitled Operation Juarez (named after Mexico’s first revolutionary President Benito Juarez).
Within weeks, Portillo followed the advice of LaRouche and attempted to gain the support of Argentina and Brazil to stand together against the oligarchy using their most powerful weapon: The debt bomb (a threat to default on their usurious debts). On September 1, 1982, Portillo nationalized the banks of Mexico to the ire of the financial oligarchy.
Portillo moved quickly to nationalize much of Mexico’s oil while preparing for capital controls to combat speculation, and maneuvered to use Mexico’s oil revenues to maximize advanced technological growth in agriculture and nuclear energy as outlined in detail in Operation Juarez«. Then came Portillo’s greatest moment when on October 1st 1982, he stood for all people of the earth at the United Nations in speech which must be heard to be believed.
In his speech Portillo said:
“The most constant concern and activity of Mexico in the international arena, is the transition to a New Economic Order…. We developing countries do not want to be subjugated. We cannot paralyze our economies or plunge our peoples into greater misery in order to pay a debt on which servicing tripled without our participation or responsibility, and with terms that are imposed upon us. We countries of the South are about to run out of playing chips, and were we not able to stay in the game, it would end in defeat for everyone. I want to be emphatic: We countries of the South have not sinned against the world economy. Our efforts to grow, in order to conquer hunger, disease, ignorance, and dependency, have not caused the international crisis….
“We have been a living example of what occurs when an enormous, volatile, and speculative mass of capital goes all over the world in search of high interest rates, tax havens, and supposed political and exchange stability. It decapitalizes entire countries and leaves destruction in its wake. The world should be able to control this; it is inconceivable that we cannot find a formula that, without limiting necessary movements and flows, would permit regulation of a phenomenon that damages everyone. It is imperative that the New International Economic Order establish a link between refinancing the development of countries that suffer capital flight, and the capital that has fled.
“The reduction of available credit for developing countries has serious implications, not only for the countries themselves, but also for production and employment in the industrial countries. Let us not continue in this vicious circle: it could be the beginning of a new medieval Dark Age, without the possibility of a Renaissance….”
Ultimately, without the support of a debtors alliance for progress, Portillo’s plans were sabotaged under a barrage of speculative attacks on the peso which drove his plans into the ground, and his nation into turmoil and economic hell for the next 40 years. Those nations which were too cowardly to stand alongside Portillo suffered as gravely as did Mexico in the coming decades.
During the last 3 minutes of this video, Portillo is featured at a conference in 1998 sitting beside LaRouche’s wife Helga Zepp-LaRouche (chairwoman of the Schiller Institute). In this recording one can listen to the old statesman describe his 1982 battle and his debt to the LaRouches:
“I congratulate Doña Helga for these words, which impressed me, especially because first they trapped me in the Apocalypse, but then she showed me the staircase by which we can get to a promised land. Many thanks, Doña Helga.Doña Helga—and here I wish to congratulate her husband, Lyndon LaRouche…. And it is now necessary for the world to listen to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche. Now it is through the voice of his wife, as we have had the privilege to hear.How important, that they enlighten us as to what is happening in the world, as to what will happen, and as to what can be corrected. How important, that someone dedicates their time, their generosity, and their enthusiasm to this endeavor.”
It is noteworthy, that less than one year before Portillo spoke these words, the LaRouches presented a program entitled the New Silk Road to a conference in Beijing calling for a new system of economic development corridors and sea routs to be developed by China’s government as a means of breaking other nations free from neo-colonialism.
A selection from a 1997 Washington Conference features an incredible preview into the Chinese Grand design which has come to life over two decades later under the leadership of Xi Jinping.
Franklin Roosevelt Inspires Mexico’s AMLO
Upon his election in 2018, President Obrador announced the first phase of his New Deal with an “Every Young Person to Work” program inspired by FDR which he described saying:
“I have had this idea since I read how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt pulled the United States out of the 1930s’ crisis. What did he do, in a tremendous economic crisis? He decided to put the whole U.S. people to work. And he decided to put young people to work, and he paid them a dollar a day, for every young person. But his idea was full employment. That is, a job for everyone. That idea stuck in my head, because Roosevelt lifted the United States out of the crisis, and for me, he was therefore, if not the best President, one of the best that the United States has had—Franklin Delano Roosevelt, by that action, by that decision. Now we are going to do something similar: All young people to work.”
Under NAFTA, Mexico was kept down by acting as cheap labor market to do the work once done by high paid Americans and Canadians. This policy ultimately hurt Mexico since free trade’s obsession with low costs resulted in keeping quality of life and production dismally low. (The formula “Low prices= low paid workers= better slaves= weakened nations” is as true today as it was 250 years ago when the British Empire commissioned Adam Smith to write his 1776 Wealth of Nations).
Until the coup run in the USA in 2020, Obrador found an ally in Donald Trump who had more than simply wall building in mind when he flushed NAFTA and restored the right of the nation states of North America to assert their sovereign rights to use protectionism, influence credit and plan long term infrastructure projects.
One of the largest projects which Obrador began to advance in 2018 (and which Trump had endorsed on record) is a $40 billion infrastructure initiative known as the Mexico/Central America Development Plan involving southern Mexico and the “northern triangle” of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras which would see the construction of a cross Isthmus and North-South railroad system and ports along with a new electricity grid and agro industrial developments for all four nations. The importance of incorporating the northern triangle nations cannot be overstated as 14% of the 280,000 illegal immigrants apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol in 2018 were from the northern triangle.
In November 2018, Obrador and Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard had called this a “Marshall Plan for Latin America” with Ebrard stating that without this “it will be impossible to deal with the immigration problem.”
Sadly, a certain pandemic and renewed counterattack launched by forces that unseated Obrador’s ally Donald Trump in November 2020 derailed the hope for a serious revival of an authentic U.S.-Mexican growth strategy. Instead, a program of de-industrialization, de-growth, destruction of hydrocarbons and agriculture have been demanded by Davos fanatics demanding nations be reduced to slave colonies under the guise of a ‘Great Reset’.
As seen across all of North America during the past decades, First Nations tribes have been manipulated and deployed like pawns on a chess board to block, disrupt all forms of real economic development ranging from pipelines, railways, and energy projects.
Obrador Calls out the Rigged Game
On October 30, 2021 Mexico’s President Lopez Obrador called out this new virulent form of colonialism while presiding over a ceremony in celebration of the ongoing construction of the $10 billion high-speed Maya Train now being built in the southern regions of Mexico. The project which would dramatically uplift living standards in Mexico by driving the growth of industrial and infrastructure production has fallen far behind schedule due in large part to vast legal battles led by indigenous groups who have been used as proxies by foreign interests to defend Mexico’s ecosystems. In many of the legal cases opposing the project, the argument has made that since several species of insect, fauna and even some leopards will be affected by the new railways, then the project must be ground to a halt and buried.
In his remarks to a journalist inquiring into the rail project, Obrador said:
“One of the things which they [the neoliberals] promoted in the world, in order to loot at ease, was the creation or promotion of the so-called new rights. So, feminism, ecologism, the defense of human rights, the protection of animals was much promoted, including by them. All these causes are very noble, but the intent was to create or boost all these new causes so that we don’t remedy—so that we don’t turn around and see that they were looting the world, so the subject of economic and social inequality would be kept out of the center of debate….The international agencies which supported the neoliberal model, which is a model of pillage where corporations grab national property, the property of the people—these same corporations financed, and continue to finance, environmentalist groups, defenders of ‘liberty.’ ”
Many people have been confused over these remarks since they cannot conceptualize how neoliberal monetarists that have parasitically driven the new age of pillage under globalization would also support such ‘new rights’ groups outlined by Obrador.
For nations of the global south who feel resentment that their rights to support their people by having their lands and resources kept off limits, they are told not to worry, since streams of money will be showered upon them from on high. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of monopoly money will be sprayed onto the developing sector as rewards for remaining undeveloped. If that isn’t sufficient, then carbon exchange markets will be set up so that poor nations can sell their un-used carbon quotas to private polluting companies (perhaps the same companies controlling the African cobalt mines which seek a monopoly in controlling the renewable energy sector). That is another way they can make money which at least can keep them warm at night as kindling since the world’s poor will not have to worry about having nature-killing hydro electric dams mucking up their pristine environments.
It is important to recall that even though Mexico currently has many obstacles between it and the New Silk Road, it is not trapped in a vacuum. It is a vital member of the Caribbean-Latin American community of nations that are currently seeing a convergence of sovereign power towards a new system of cooperation spearheaded by the BRICS+ and the associated growth strategy made possible by the Greater Eurasian partnership.
Mexico also happens to be led by a leader who has struggled consistently with the deep state structures within his nation and who is very open to collaborating with the new multipolar system led by China and Russia as an alternative to burning in the meltdown of the western financial system.
The spirits of great leaders like Lincoln, Juarez, FDR, Cardenas, Portillo and LaRouche would certainly smile at this emerging potential.
The United States and its imperial surrogates think they are putting a gun to Russia’s head. But non other than the NATO powers are the ones who are playing Russian Roulette.
NATO is at war against Russia. There can be no more pretense or illusions about NATO “not being a party to the conflict” in Ukraine, as Western leaders have been absurdly asserting for the past year. NATO missiles, drones and logistics have already been used to strike Russia. And by Russia, we don’t just mean the disputed territories of Crimea and Donbass, but the pre-war territory of the Russian Federation.
This week saw the NATO mania for war against Russia reach a fever pitch. NATO military leaders met in a series of well-publicized meetings in Europe that can only be described as war summits to plan the further escalation of conflict with Russia. The culmination was the gathering at the US Air Force Base in Ramstein, Germany, on Friday, at which pressure is mounting on Berlin to give the go-ahead for the supply of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. The meeting was opened by Ukrainian leaders alongside American military commanders demanding tanks and more heavy weaponry.
Laughably, the Americans are prevaricating about sending their M1 Abrams tanks, preferring instead for Germany, Britain, France, Poland, Finland and others to send theirs. The farcical wrangling encapsulates the U.S. colonialist attitude towards European allies who are too supine or stupid to complain. “Go ahead punks, make my day,” as Clint Eastwood’s character Dirty Harry might say.
The U.S. is quite content for Europe to be turned into ashes and rebuild the continental wreck for the purpose of reviving redundant American capitalism, as in the aftermath of previous world wars.
Earlier in the week, the U.S. top military commander General Mark Milley met with Ukrainian counterpart Valery Zaluzhny to oversee the setting up of new training grounds for troops in Poland and Germany. Zaluzhny is an acolyte of the Ukrainian World War Two Nazi collaborator and mass murderer Stepan Bandera. The pairing between Milley and Zaluzhny can hardly be a better illustration of the nefarious nature of the U.S.-led axis pushing war against Russia. Western media don’t report this because its function is to hoodwink the Western public into cheerleading for war.
The relentless mobilization of the NATO bloc under U.S. leadership has finally reached a historic war footing against Russia. We can trace this ideology all the way back to the beginning of the Cold War following the defeat of Nazi Germany, but it certainly has accelerated since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, followed by 9/11 and the U.S. imperial notion of full-spectrum dominance, and especially after the ignominious withdrawal of the NATO war machine from Afghanistan in August 2021.
All members of the 30-nation bloc are rushing weapons to the conflict in Ukraine. It is even reported that the United States is drawing down military stockpiles held in Israel and South Korea to augment firepower against Russia. Furthermore, Washington is now considering supporting strikes on Crimea which Moscow warned would be an extremely dangerous escalation towards all-out general war. Virtually all taboos have been shelved it seems, as the New York Times remarked this week.
The Western states appear to be driven by madmen who are willfully pushing the world to the brink of catastrophe. There are now open calls for the defeat of Russia and illogical demands for more weapons to Ukraine as a way of achieving peace. “Weapons are the way to peace,” declared Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s titular leader during the World Economic Forum for assorted global elites in Davos this week. “We have to prevent a stalemate,” intoned Washington’s top diplomat Antony Blinken and his British counterpart James Cleverly (how misnamed is the latter!).
Meanwhile, American, European and NATO leaders are calling for war crimes prosecutions against Russia.
There seems to be no room for any diplomacy or rationality. The NATO powers are doubling down on reckless demands that Russia is expelled from Crimea and the Donbass. What the NATO powers are really seeking is the defeat and conquest of Russia.
Russia was forced to intervene in Ukraine last February after all diplomatic efforts by Moscow were rejected. The NATO-backed covert war on the Russian people within the artificially created areas of Ukraine – a war that had been raging for eight years following the NATO-orchestrated coup in Kiev in 2014 – had to be put to an end by force. Hence Russia’s military intervention on February 24, 2022.
There is no way that Russia is going to cede the territories that have now become part of the Russian Federation following legally constituted referenda. But the war has been dragged out by NATO’s demonic weaponization and callous exploitation of Ukraine as a bridgehead against Russia. NATO leaders talk about “preventing a stalemate” by sending more weapons to prop up the NeoNazi Kiev regime. It is the United States and European states along with other allies who have striven to create a bloody quagmire in Ukraine in which lives are callously being destroyed.
The stakes are being made incredibly high by the United States and its imperialist minions. Make no mistake. Washington and its NATO stooges have embarked on a war of choice. Russia has every right to take military action against NATO members. Train tracks in Poland delivering Leopard tanks to Ukraine to kill Russian soldiers are legitimate targets. As are British servicemen maintaining Challenger tanks or British ships transporting them. Up to now, NATO has aggressed Russia with impunity. It is time to end the impunity and give Western warmongers pause for thought about their criminal conduct as one of our commentators noted this week.
Russian President Vladimir Putin this week said that Russia will eventually win the war in Ukraine to vanquish the NATO-backed NeoNazi regime. He was speaking, appropriately, on the 80th anniversary of the breaking of the Nazi siege on Leningrad (St Petersburg).
Other independent international military analysts, including Colonel Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter, agree that Russia will prevail in its objectives to render Ukraine demilitarized and remove the NATO-NeoNazi surrogate posing as a national security threat to Russia. The Western media in lockstep with imperialist ideologues have created a propaganda illusion that the Kiev regime can win if only it is supplied with more tanks and missiles. This is fomenting a disaster for Ukraine and potentially for world peace. Russia will not be defeated but the madcap warmongers are raising the stakes to the level of an existential crisis by demanding that Ukraine be made into a “defense line for freedom”.
Moscow again this week warned that if the Western powers insist on pursuing a general war with Russia, then the world is being pushed to the brink of nuclear destruction. This is not a threat. It is simply a statement of fact. Western leaders have become so deranged in their imperial arrogance, self-righteousness and Russophobia, they are beyond heeding sensible warnings. When they declare that war is being waged for the sake of peace and freedom and when diplomacy is vilified as a weakness then there is little hope for an imminent political solution.
The United States and its imperial surrogates have made war all but inevitable from their intransigence. They think they are putting a gun to Russia’s head.
Moscow needs to end this war in Ukraine decisively by eliminating the NATO-Kiev regime. The NATO powers are the ones who are playing Russian Roulette.
Tucker Carlson commented on the uncomfortable questions asked to the head of Pfizer
Fox News host Tucker Carlson said that he is pleased to have the Rebel News team in Davos at the World Economic Forum, who have personally pressed the elite on questions the public really wants to know the answers to.
“The strange thing is that we have been receiving news about the side effects of Pfizer injections for more than a year, and it seems that no one thought to ask Pfizer CEO Albert Burla, who made an incredible fortune on injections, what he thinks about it,” Carlson said.
Correspondents caught (https://t.me/bio_genie/2460) Pfizer CEO Albert Burla walking the streets of Davos and asked him a total of 29 questions, which Burla refused to answer. Later, they found US climate special envoy John Kerry, who, as Jesse Watters said on FOX, «wasn’t very happy» to see a team of correspondents asking him tough questions.
Matthew Ehret
Der Friedensstifter 