Die von den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und Deutschland am Rande des NATO-Gipfels in Washington erzielte Vereinbarung, 2026 weitreichende Präzisionsflugkörper auf deutschem Territorium zu stationieren, wird sowohl von Vertretern der Ampel-Parteien als auch von CDU/CSU begrüßt. Aus Russland sind hingegen mahnende Stimmen zu vernehmen. Ein neuer Teil aus der Serie „O-Töne“.
Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz auf dem NATO-Gipfel am 11. Juli 2024
Die Vereinigten Staaten haben beschlossen, Präzisionsraketen in Deutschland zu stationieren. Das ist ein guter Beschluss und passt zu dem, was wir bereits beschlossen haben. Schon auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz hatte ich darauf hingewiesen, dass wir solche Präzisionsflugkörper brauchen angesichts der verschiedensten von Russland in Europa installierten Waffensysteme. Wir müssen so handeln, das finden Sie ja auch in der Sicherheitsstrategie der deutschen Bundesregierung und in den Vereinbarungen, die wir zum Beispiel mit dem Vereinigten Königreich und Frankreich treffen werden, um unsere eigenen Präzisionsschlagfähigkeiten zu verbessern. Das ist ein Element der Abschreckung, ein Beitrag zum Frieden, eine wichtige Entscheidung zum richtigen Zeitpunkt.
Das sind sogenannte Marschflugkörper und das macht natürlich Sinn. Wir müssen uns vorstellen: Rein geographisch ist die Bundesrepublik Deutschland eine Drehscheibe auch für die NATO. Das heißt, auch bei Truppenverlegungen von Westen nach Osten läuft alles über Deutschland. Das haben wir bei den NATO-Übungen gemerkt, das hat auch einen geographischen Grund. Insofern macht es natürlich Sinn, dass wir hier in Deutschland so gut ausgestattet sind, dass wir uns bei einem möglichen Angriff auch entsprechend wehren können. Das erkennen auch die Vereinigten Staaten (…) Putin versteht nur die Sprache der Abschreckung. Das heißt, dass wir uns so ausstatten lassen müssen, aufrüsten müssen, dass er gar nicht auf die Idee kommt.
Das halte ich für einen sehr guten Schritt, weil sie die Abschreckungsbereitschaft zeigen, aber es ist auch eine Überbrückungsmaßnahme, weil die Bundesrepublik Deutschland in ihrer eigenen Strategie weitreichende Flugkörper, Präzisionswaffen, beschaffen will. Und ich halte es für ein gutes Signal, das muss nur unserer Bevölkerung gut erklärt werden, warum wir es machen, weil das für viele doch ziemlich überraschend kommt.
Bundesverteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius (SPD) am 11. Juli 2024
Wir haben kein Wettrüsten, davon kann gar keine Rede sein. Wir holen jetzt das nach, was wir als Fähigkeitslücke beschreiben. Mit Unterstützung der Amerikaner werden 2026 die entsprechenden Systeme stationiert werden, vorübergehend. Wir sind selbst gefordert, solche Systeme zu entwickeln, weil wir hier, wie gesagt, eine Fähigkeitslücke haben. Russland hat diese Waffensysteme schon seit längerem, unter anderem, wie wir vermuten, in Kaliningrad stationiert, das heißt, in absoluter Reichweite zu Deutschland und anderen europäischen Nationen. Mit der neuen Bedrohungslage, die von Russland ausgeht, geht es jetzt um die Frage, wie schrecken wir effektiv ab. Und dazu gehören eben solche Systeme, die aus dieser Entfernung einem möglichen russischen Aggressor deutlich machen: Wir sind in der Lage und bereit, uns zu verteidigen. Also jeder Schlag gegen uns wird auch beantwortet werden, und das konventionell.
Sergej Netschajew, Botschafter der Russischen Föderation in Berlin am 11. Juli 2024
Die am 10. Juli 2024 am Rande des NATO-Gipfels in Washington in einer deutsch-amerikanischen Erklärung angekündigten Pläne, Kurz-, Mittel- und Langstreckenraketen sowie Hyperschallwaffen in Deutschland ab 2026 zu stationieren, stellen eine offensichtliche und unmittelbare Bedrohung für die Sicherheit der Russischen Föderation dar. Ihre Umsetzung führt zu einer weiteren Verschärfung der Konfrontation, der Spannungen und des Wettrüstens und birgt die Gefahr einer unkontrollierten Eskalation, die unumkehrbare Konsequenzen haben könnte. Diese Schritte werden zweifellos eine angemessene Reaktion Russlands erfordern.
Wir hoffen, dass die deutschen politischen Eliten noch einmal abwägen, ob ein solcher destruktiver und gefährlicher Schritt ratsam ist, der weder der Sicherheit der Bundesrepublik dient noch den gesamten europäischen Kontinent sicherer macht, ganz zu schweigen von einem irreparablen Schaden, der dadurch den deutsch-russischen Beziehungen zugefügt wird. (Quellen: Pressemitteilung der russischen Botschaft und Telegram-Kanal des russischen Botschafters in Deutschland)
Dmitri Peskow, Pressesprecher von Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin am 12. Juli 2024
Wir schreiten souverän einem Kalten Krieg entgegen. All das hat es schon gegeben. Deutschland, die USA, Frankreich und Großbritannien beteiligen sich unmittelbar am Ukraine-Konflikt. Alle Elemente des Kalten Krieges mit direkter Konfrontation sind wieder da. All das wird unternommen, um unser Land zu Boden zu zwingen und um unsere strategische Niederlage auf dem Schlachtfeld zu garantieren. Wir müssen all das berücksichtigen. Das ist kein Grund zum Pessimismus. Im Gegenteil: Das ist ein Grund, um uns zusammenzuraffen und unser überaus reiches Potential zu nutzen und all die Ziele durchzusetzen, die wir uns im Zuge der speziellen Militäroperation gesetzt haben.
The “new populism” on the left and right, and the collapse of the “centrist” cordon sanitaire
Brussels Élites let out their long sigh of relief – the French Right was blocked. Markets complacently shrugged; ‘everything must ‘change’ to remain the same’. The Centre will find a way!
Macron successfully had blocked the ‘populist’ Right and Left through mandating a Centrist tactical defensive line to be dug, obstructing both political poles. And the tactical blockade was a success.
The ‘Right-wing’ Le Pen party – out of 32% of votes cast – won 125 seats, (just 22% of the Legislature). The Left took 180 seats out of a 26% share of the vote, and Macron’s bloc Ensemble claimed 159 seats from 25% of the vote.
No one party, however, has enough seats to govern (usually this requires some 240 to 250 seats). If this is deemed success, it surely is a Pyrrhic success. The Leftists comprise a spectrum of opposites – from Anarchists to contemporary Leninists – whose Melenchon core will never co-operate with Macron’s Centrists, nor with Le Pen’s aggrieved followers, either.
Historian Maxime Tandonnet says it is a heroic misinterpretation of events to think that Macron has achieved anything other than a fiasco:
“Operation Jupiter has degenerated into the worst possible scenario. It is a total impasse”.
It is impossible to form a functioning government from this Assembly mêlée. (Macron has refused the resignation of the losing PM, asking him to stay on, ad interim).
Well, as Henri Hude, former Director of Research at the Saint-Cyr military academy, observes:
“No one can doubt that a revolution is in the making in France. Expenditure by the State and the Welfare State far exceeds resources, which it is almost impossible to increase significantly, either through economic growth or taxation …
“The only way for the State to make ends meet is to run up increasing debts, which can only be supported by very low interest rates – but above all, by the ability to issue money infinitely, ‘out of thin air’ thanks to the Euro’s privileged link to the German [high credit rating for 10-year Bunds].
Were these facilities to cease, “financiers estimate that France should have to cut the salaries of its civil servants, or cut back their numbers, by around a third, and retirement pensions of everyone by a fifth. This is obviously unfeasible”.
“What is in reality a budget and trade deficit is disguised as debt and would have been purged thirty years ago by national currency devaluation – but this debt artifice [increasingly benefits the rich]… whilst the general population never ceases to grumble, living its’ rose-tinted dream – and held in blind ignorance of the state of our finances … That said, the ruling class is well aware of the situation, but prefers not to talk about it, because no one knows what to do”.
“There can be no doubt at the moment of truth, when states declare themselves bankrupt … the West will be shaken to the core – and some will pop like champagne corks. The economy will have to be reorganized. Perhaps also we will see cultural revolution. It was the failure of the French State – let us not forget – that provoked the French Revolution …
“Buyou may ask, why cannot this [monetary profligacy] go on indefinitely? That is what we are going to find out, but not just yet”.
“Today, even before the bankruptcy has been declared, the loss of confidence in the institutions: The powerlessness of the public authorities, deprived of prestige and authority, and the detestation of the President – make it possible to foresee the energy of the shockwave that would be unleashed by revelation of the fiasco. A “Greek-style” scenario is unlikely in France. We had better bet on something else” (controlled inflation and a devaluation of the Euro?)”.
Of course, France is not alone. “The Euro system was supposed to force the countries of the Euro to be financially wise and ‘virtuous’. But the very contrary happened”. The sound credit of Germany permitted other EU States to ‘lean’ heavily upon a German privileged rating to self-indulge in infinite debt – through keeping all EU sovereign debt levels artificially low.
So long as the privilege of the U.S. Dollar persists, that of the Euro should remain – except that the war in Ukraine is ruining German industry, first and foremost. France already faces an EU excessive deficit procedure. So do other EU states. Germany has its debt brake and must make cuts of Euro 40bn. Austerity is underway in most of the Eurozone.
The American dollar – at the apex of this liberal debt pyramid – is crumbling, along with the western ‘Rules-based Order’. The world’s geo-strategic ‘plates’ – as well as its cultural zeitgeist – are shifting.
Put plainly, the problem inadvertently exposed by Macron is insoluble.
“We might call the emerging ethos ‘the new populism’”, writes Jeffrey Tucker:
“It is neither left nor right, but it borrows themes from both in the past. From the so-called “Right,” it derives the confidence that people in their own lives and communities have a better capacity for wise decision-making than trusting the authorities at the top. From the old Left, the new populism takes the demand for free speech, fundamental rights, and a deep suspicion of corporate and government power.
“The theme of being sceptical of empowered and entrenched elites is the salient point. This applies across the board. It is not only about politics. It hits media, medicine, courts, academia, and every other high-end sector. And this is in every country. This really does amount to a paradigmatic shift. It seems not temporary but substantial; and likely lasting”.
“What happened over four years has unleashed a mass wave of incredulity [and a sense of the illegitimacy of the Élites] that has been building for decades”.
The philosopher Malebranche wrote (1684) in his Traité de Morale: “Men forgive everything, except contempt”:
“An elite that fails in its duties is called élitist; From then on, their activity seems unjust and abusive, but more importantly, their very existence is an affront. This is the source of hatred, of the transformation of emulation into jealousy, and of jealousy into a thirst for revenge—and consequently of wars”.
What is then to be done?
To reinstate the American Order, and to silence dissent, a NATO victory was deemed necessary:
“The biggest risk and biggest cost for NATO today is the risk of Russian victory in Ukraine. We cannot allow this”, Secretary-General Stoltenberg said at the NATO anniversary in Washington.“The outcome of this war will determine global security for decades to come”.
Such an outcome in Ukraine – versus Russia – would therefore have been seen by some in Washington as perhaps sufficient to bring any rebellious dollar-trading states to their senses, and to re-instantiate western primacy across the globe.
For a long time being an American protectorate was tolerable, even advantageous. No more: America no longer ‘frightens’. Taboos are breaking down. The mutiny against the postmodern West is worldwide. And it is clear to the global majority that Russia cannot be defeated militarily. It is NATO that is being defeated.
Here is the ‘hole at the centre’ of the enterprise: Biden may likely not be around for much longer. Everyone can see that.
Some EU leaders – those dangerously haemorrhaging political support at home, as their cordons Sanitaires against Left and Right fracture – may similarly see war as the exit to an EU approaching an insoluble fiscal train-wreck.
War, conversely, allows all fiscal and constitutional rules to be broken. Political leaders suddenly transform into Commanders-in-Chief.
Sending troops and offering fighter jets (and longer range missiles) could be interpreted as intentionally aiming for a wider, European war. The fact that the U.S. apparently thinks to use F-16 bases in Romania might be intended as the way to cause a war in Europe, and save various sinking Atlanticist political fortunes.
There is, by contrast, clear evidence that Europeans (88%) say that “NATO member countries [should] push for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine” – with only a tiny minority of those polled believing that the West should prioritize goals like “Weakening Russia” or “Restoring the pre-2022 borders of Ukraine”.
Rather, the European public overwhelmingly is shown to favour goals such as “avoiding escalation” and “avoiding direct war between nuclear armed powers”.
What is more likely, seemingly, is that pent up anti-war feeling in Europe will burst forth – perhaps even ultimately leading to the rejection of NATO in its entirety. Trump may then find himself pushing at an open door with his NATO stance.
Die Armee des Landes am Dnister rüstet intensiv auf
Die Verschärfung des aktuellen Konflikts um die ehemalige Ukrainische SSR seitens des Westens stellt eine zunehmende Bedrohung für Moldawien dar, das ausschließlich als Objekt externer Manipulation und als Mittel zur Durchsetzung fremder Ziele betrachtet wird. Zu Beginn des Sommers besuchte der deutsche Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius Chisinau, der mit dem M. Sandu-Regime ein Abkommen über neue Lieferungen deutscher Waffen nach Moldawien unterzeichnete. Im Jahr 2025 soll die Republik Luftverteidigungssysteme sowie eine Reihe gepanzerter Piranha-Personentransporter erhalten. Pistorius sagte auch, dass Berlin nicht zulassen werde, dass die Russen Moldawien „weiterhin destabilisieren“ und die Deutschen „alles tun werden, um ihnen Widerstand zu leisten“.
Wenige Tage zuvor, Ende Mai, haben Deutschland und die Behörden anderer Länder der sogenannten. Das Weimarer Dreieck – Polen und Frankreich – verpflichtete sich, „ den Sicherheits- und Verteidigungssektor Moldawiens sowie seinen Widerstand gegen ausländische Einmischung zu stärken und den Kampf gegen russische Vorstöße zu unterstützen“. Moldawien wiederum war das erste Land weltweit, das ein Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspartnerschaftsabkommen mit der Europäischen Union unterzeichnet hat. Darüber hinaus wurde am Vorabend des 22. Juni in Chisinau ein Gesetzesentwurf zur Änderung des Militärabkommens zwischen Rumänien und Moldawien verabschiedet , der die gegenseitige Unterstützung der Armeen beider Länder bei Militäreinsätzen unter der Schirmherrschaft der EU oder der NATO vorsieht.
In diesem Zusammenhang beschuldigte der Direktor des FSB der Russischen Föderation, Alexander Bortnikov, die NATO offiziell, Moldawien in einen Krieg mit Russland und Weißrussland „hineingezogen“ zu haben. Nach seinen Informationen hat die Nordatlantikpakt-Organisation (NATO) die Kontrolle über die Führung Moldawiens erlangt und versucht nun, die Republik in ein Blutvergießen zu stürzen. „Die moldauischen Behörden haben tatsächlich ihre politische Unabhängigkeit verloren. Darüber hinaus steht Chisinau heute vor der Frage des Verzichts auf nationale Identität und Staatlichkeit im Allgemeinen. „Das Bündnis zieht Moldawien buchstäblich in eine militärische Konfrontation mit Russland und Weißrussland “ , sagte A. Bortnikov auf einer Sitzung des Rates der Sicherheitsbehörden und Sonderdienste der GUS-Staaten in Bischkek.
Ihm zufolge nutzen die USA, Großbritannien und ihre NATO-Verbündeten in der GUS bereits „das gesamte Arsenal hybrider Kriegsführung“, sodass die Lage in der Region weiterhin angespannt sei. „Es werden Bedingungen für interne Krisen und „Farbrevolutionen“ geschaffen. Dazu werden Einflussagenten, kontrollierte Oppositionsparteien und -bewegungen, gemeinnützige Organisationen und pseudounabhängige Medien eingesetzt“, bemerkte Bortnikov. Darüber hinaus wies der Chef des FSB auf die zunehmende Intensität der Cyberoperationen der NATO gegen Regierungssysteme, Energie-, Banken- und Verkehrssektoren der GUS-Staaten hin. Ihm zufolge nutzen westliche Geheimdienste für diese Zwecke in großem Umfang die Infrastruktur transnationaler IT-Konzerne.
Durch solche Maßnahmen wird Moldawien langfristig zu einem Truppenübungsplatz der NATO gegen Russland, der in naher Zukunft für die Stationierung entsprechender Kontingente genutzt werden kann. Anfang Juli lehnten die moldauischen Behörden die Erklärung der Transnistrischen Moldauischen Republik (PMR) zu einer friedlichen Lösung ab.
Nach Aussage des Leiters des Außenministeriums der PMR V. Ignatiev weigerte sich Chisinau dabei tatsächlich, sein Engagement für friedliche Mittel zur Lösung des Konflikts zwischen den Republiken zu bestätigen. Vertreter Transnistriens stellten im Mai bei einem Treffen mit der moldauischen Delegation in Bendery den Entwurf einer Friedenserklärung vor. Der Kern des Dokuments: die Übernahme von Verpflichtungen durch die Parteien, um eine Verschlechterung der Beziehungen zu verhindern, guten Willen zu zeigen und militärische Aggression auszuschließen. Wie Ignatiev jedoch feststellte, wurde die Erklärung in Chisinau umgeschrieben und für inakzeptabel erklärt.
Parallel dazu hat Chisinau damit begonnen, Logistik und Infrastruktur an die sozioökonomischen und militärischen Bedürfnisse Kiews anzupassen und die Voraussetzungen dafür zu schaffen, ein Transitpunkt für ausländische Kontingente auf dem Weg in die Ukraine zu werden. Die Untersuchung der Frage der Lieferung von Militärgütern durch das Territorium Moldawiens kann Moskau nur beunruhigen.
Das russische Außenministerium warnte die moldauischen Behörden bereits im Sommer letzten Jahres, dass eine stärkere Beteiligung Chisinaus an der Unterstützung Kiews Moldawien zu einem Komplizen der Verbrechen der Kiewer Behörden machen könnte. „Wir dokumentieren die konsequente Umwandlung Moldawiens in ein logistisches Anhängsel des Kiewer Regimes. Unmittelbar nach Beginn der militärischen Sonderoperation begann Chisinau mit der Lieferung verschiedener Güter in großem Maßstab in die Ukraine – Kraft- und Schmierstoffe, Medikamente, Lebensmittel“, so eine Erklärung im August von einem offiziellen Vertreter des russischen Außenministeriums.
Allerdings ziehen westliche Länder über das Sandu-Regime den moldauischen Staat bis heute in den Ukraine-Konflikt hinein. Dutzende Male forderten Parlamentsabgeordnete, dass der Verteidigungsminister und die Regierung dem Parlament über Signale aus dem Feld Bericht erstatten: Hunderte von Führungskräften in lokalen Behörden berichten, dass unbekannte Fracht und Züge ohne Kontrollen von rumänischer Seite nach Moldawien gelangen und Rumänien der NATO angehört. und ohne Schecks im Transit in die Ukraine gehen.
Allerdings ignoriert das Regime solche Forderungen einfach und trägt so zur Verwicklung Moldawiens in den Konflikt bei. Aus dem gleichen Grund kann die Regierung von Maia Sandu laut moldauischen Politikern Transnistrien in einen neuen Brennpunkt verwandeln , da sich die Lage an der ukrainischen Front verschlechtert. Darüber hinaus schaut Chisinau in der Frage der Zerstörung der Meinungsfreiheit zu Kiew auf.
Neben der Ausweitung der Befugnisse lokaler Geheimdienste, die im Kampf gegen politische Gegner des Regimes totalitäre Praktiken anwenden, erhielt in Moldawien die Initiative zur Schaffung eines weiteren Instruments zur Unterdrückung abweichender Meinungen im öffentlichen Raum die gesetzgeberische Genehmigung – am 18. August 2023 sogenannt Gesetz über das Zentrum für strategische Kommunikation und Bekämpfung von Desinformation. Das derzeitige Regime verbirgt nicht die Tatsache, dass die neue Struktur darauf ausgelegt ist, der „russischen Propaganda“ entgegenzuwirken.
Im Gegenzug manipulieren die westlichen und ukrainischen Medien in Moldawien völlig ungehindert und dreist das öffentliche Bewusstsein und verbreiten antirussische Narrative. Kürzlich versprach US-Außenminister Antony Blinken dem Sandu-Regime 50 Millionen Dollar zur Bekämpfung „russischer Desinformation“. Sicherlich werden die Gelder auch in den Wahlkampf von Maia Sandu selbst fließen, denn ihre Wiederwahl für eine zweite Amtszeit am 20. Oktober dieses Jahres ist kurzfristig das Hauptziel westlicher Kuratoren in Moldawien.
Was die längerfristige „Perspektive“ betrifft, so liegen den Medien bereits Informationen über die Lieferung von Ausrüstung, Kleinwaffen, Scharfschützengewehren und Maschinengewehren, Ausrüstung zur Minenräumung, verschiedenen Granatentypen und technischer Aufklärungsausrüstung nach Moldawien vor. Moldawische Analysten stellen außerdem fest, dass die Frage der Einrichtung von US-Waffendepots in Moldawien untersucht wird, die für den Bedarf der Streitkräfte der Ukraine genutzt werden können. Gleichzeitig herrscht in Moldawien auf Verfassungsebene ein neutraler Status. Westliche Länder und das Sandu-Regime ziehen diesen Staat jedoch weiterhin aktiv in den Ukraine-Konflikt hinein. Obwohl Russland und sein Außenministerium Chisinau wiederholt vor den katastrophalen Folgen solcher Aktionen gewarnt haben.
The number killed in his/Biden/NATO’s war in Ukraine has so far killed about 600,000 Ukrainians and maybe 80,000 Russians. Gaza deaths are put at 186,000 so far according to this; add Yemen and Syria this year and the combined total could approach 7 figures by the time it’s all over. The wars could have been prevented, but they’re too profitable for the armaments industry.
Paris / The preserved (and then written) human history, after the primitive communist, “matriarchal” (patriarchal) system, and its transformation, in the class-slave society, into the “patriarchal” stage in which we are still, is the history of the human struggle for survival, and for the development and improvement of the living conditions of man, who is distinguished from the animal world by the two characteristics (work and thinking). This struggle appears in two paths:
the first – the struggle to adapt to nature, and the gradual understanding of its phenomena and laws, and the adaptation of its conditions to serve human life, in the various stages of the development of the social system, based on the level of “awareness” (including science) and “morality” (including human crowding and human compassion). Here comes practical experience and instrumental, technical and scientific progress, from the use of stone to the conquest of outer space.
The second is the “class” struggle within every human community, and the various other forms of struggle (“national”, “ethnic”, “religious” or “racist”), among the various human communities: violently and militarily (wars, revolutions, conflicts and massacres), politically, economically and socially, intellectually, philosophically, ideologically and religiously, culturally, mediatically, morally and educationally, etc.
If the first path falls under the title of “the struggle of man with nature” of which he is an interactive part, the second path falls under the title of “social struggle” between and within the human communities themselves.
The basic and primary factor for all forms of societal struggles remains the economic factor, which directly or implicitly moves and directs all human struggles and activities, positive and negative, constructive and destructive, progressive and reactionary, national and treacherous, moral and immoral, etc.
The current Russian war in Ukraine and the Palestinian popular war in Gaza, in which the Russian people, the Palestinian people, the peoples of the Arab nation, the Iranian people and all the free popular masses of the world stand against Western imperialism and global Jewry, do not depart from this law or basic law of human life.
The “social conflict” began to appear with the decline of the stage of the primitive communist “system”, with the progress of the manufacture of means (tools) of production, the increase in labor productivity beyond the limited needs of the direct producers themselves, and the emergence of the possibility of production within the framework of the small family (in the reproductive-blood sense). This “independent” productive capacity of the small family played a decisive role in the disintegration and dismantling of the old great commune (tribal, etc.), the emergence of private ownership of the means (instruments) of production, the division of labor and production, and the division of land allocated for housing, agriculture, grazing and livestock breeding, among the various “small” families – within the various larger associations (tribal, local, regional, “national” and “religious”). Over time, this division was consolidated by the emergence of private ownership of the means of production and of the various products specific to each “small” family.
Out of necessity, the need arose to exchange different products between different producing families. The first forms of exchange were based on barter (a product for an equivalent product, according to the requirements of “need” and “supply and demand”). Consequently, products were commodified (i.e. each product was converted into a commodity). On this basis, money appeared in order to facilitate exchange. Different products were used as money, the last of which was the use of money made of precious metals that do not quickly perish and can be divided into small parts and stored in large quantities).
With the appearance of (gold) money, two phenomena occurred at the heart of the new “exchange” economic-social system:
First, the possibility of commodifying (converting into a commodity) the human being himself, i.e. the producer, appeared. Thus the slavery-racist system was born, which divided people: first as individuals, then as groups, and finally as peoples and specific races, into masters and slaves. The ancient Roman Empire represented the slave-racist system as a “typical” representation, more productive than the hybrid economic system of Carthage. This is the fundamental reason for the victory of “Rome” over “Carthage”. On the basis of the ancient Roman division of people and peoples, the ancient world was divided – a division that is still in effect today – into a colonial “West” and an enslaved and colonized “East”. Note that this division (social-political-racial and human) into “East” and “West” stems from the geographical division, but does not completely coincide with it. Since the rule of ancient Rome, three types of class-racist-colonial systems have succeeded one another in human society:
A – The slave-racist system (the basis of the colonial “colonial” system later).
B – The feudal-serf system.
C – The capitalist system that has transformed into an imperialist system in recent times, which should be stopped at separately.
The second phenomenon is the emergence of the “need” for the existence of “merchants” as intermediaries between different producers. Then the “merchants” turned into lenders or creditors. Here the “need” for the existence of “Jews” emerged, which is what we are particularly interested in stopping at, as Arabs, Muslims and Eastern Christians.
So who were the first “Jews”?
In the answer to this question lies the solution to the “Jewish question” and “the liberation of the Jews by liberating them”, as Karl Marx says, first capitalist, then politically, racially, “nationally”, “ideologically” and “religiously”.
Superficial commentators and analysts sweat profusely as they strive to untangle the texts of the Torah and other similar texts, to put Judaism on an equal footing with Christianity and Islam, describing it as also – and wonder!! – a “heavenly” religion. Superficial commentators even go so far as to say that “Arabs” and “Hebrews” (Jews) are “cousins” and descended from one grandfather, the Prophet Abraham. Therefore, the existential Palestinian/Arab-“Israeli” conflict is nothing more than a “family dispute” between “cousins”! Even a great thinker and heritage researcher like the distinguished Egyptian novelist Youssef Ziedan says that the Palestinian/Arab-“Israeli” conflict is not a fundamental dispute. It is not without significance that the recent normalization agreements between some submissive Arab regimes and “Israel” have taken on a name for themselves: the “Abrahamic” Accords or the “Abrahamic Peace” Accords. These same normalization agreements were used as a pretext to justify the horrific massacre being committed against the Palestinian people in Gaza, under the pretext of “Israel’s right to defend itself” against the “aggression!” carried out by the Palestinian resistance against “peaceful Israel!” on October 7, 2023. Some interpretations even go so far as to say that the Abraham Accords are in the interest of the Palestinian people and one of their goals is to establish two states on the land of historical Palestine, i.e. to “convince” the Palestinian people and the Arab nation to accept the establishment of Israel on the land of Palestine and perhaps include it in the so-called “League of Arab States” because the “closest relatives” (the “good” cousins) are more deserving of kindness. And God forgives what was and will be!
Within this superficial and finally suspicious logic that is part of the “intellectual” arsenal of American imperialism and global Judaism,
the savage criminal Ben-Zephyr claims that the “Israeli Defense Forces and settlers” are now doing their “religious duty” in implementing the biblical divine commandments, which call for the complete extermination of the Canaanites (i.e. the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and other Arabs – the goyim), men, women, children and elderly.
But any sane person, regardless of his religion or intellectual belief, does not find anything “divine” or “holy” in the endless Jewish brutality in Gaza.
Therefore, the search for the origin and roots of this Jewish “genetic” brutality should not be in heaven, the Torah, and similar religious texts, but on earth and in what the black Jewish and American hands are committing, and not in “theology” (with all due respect to theologians and honorable and distinguished jurists), but in “ethics,” “sociology,” “politics,” and “history.” Here the grave historical shortcomings of Arab sociologists and scientific historians become apparent. From the
point of view that is guided by historical logic and social sciences, the following narrative can be put forward, which is of course subject to discussion:
In ancient times, before the double birth of twins:
– Money (precious metal),
– and “the Jewish religion” (and its immaterial, abstract, transcendent, invisible and imperceptible God, called “Yahweh”),
There were no state courts and prisons among the Bedouin tribes in the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula and elsewhere. The elders of the tribe would sentence the murderer to death, while for crimes less than murder (such as rape, robbery, harm, etc.), the criminal or offender would be sentenced to khul’ – that is, expulsion – from the tribe. Those fugitives were called: vagabonds. Driven by the instinct of survival, those vagabonds would gather together to manage their lives as outcasts. Among the things they would do to ensure their survival was to commit some petty thefts and then flee to places far from the place of the theft, because they were not linked to a specific tribe or a specific place.
At the same time, the urban areas surrounding the desert (Yemen, Iraq, natural Syria, Egypt, and North Africa) had advanced states and kingdoms that had judiciaries, courts, and prisons. Many murderers, criminals, and thieves in those countries – for fear of “judiciary” – would flee from “justice!” To the desert, and join the ranks of the Arab “vagrants”, sons of the desert. Over time, an organized “human mass!” of murderers, rapists, criminals, looters and thieves was formed. These are the ancestors of what was later called “the Jews”. Because they were a “male group” at that stage, sodomy was “legalized” among those “Jews!” This is what the “heavenly” “Jewish” texts acknowledge!
As the numbers of that mass increased, it began to feel an excess of power, and dared to raid some weak Bedouin camps, remote villages and poorly protected merchant caravans, stealing food, clothing, livestock and various commercial goods, taking girls and women captive, and stealing in particular money (precious metal). After each raid, the leaders of the “masculine mass” kept what its members needed from the stolen goods for their own consumption, then the “masculine mass” would move to distant places to sell the stolen goods. They sell in the East what they have stolen in the West, and vice versa; and they sell in the South what they have stolen in the North, and vice versa. At this particular stage, and against the backdrop of this “transient commercial activity” of these “thieves, murderers and highwaymen = transient merchants”, the expressions Hebrew, Hebrews, Hebrews, and Hebrews appeared; to indicate this “human mass!” of the desert, not linked to a land, tribe or people, which was moving and active in the “Arab space” without being “Arab”, and “transformed” (transformed into a means) for invasion, roadblocks, looting, plundering, theft, captivity, murder and… “transient” trade. In this regard, the progressive and nationalist Iraqi poet Muhammad Salih Bahr al-Ulum (who – despite his prominent position in the modern history of Iraq – was unfortunately an advocate of peace with “Israel”) says in one of his poems that: There is no difference between an Arab and a Hebrew except in changing the “ra” to “ba”. This is despite the fact that the great sociologist and historian Ibn Khaldun had distinguished between “Arabs” and “Arabs,” but he did not find a basis for distinguishing between “Hebrews,” because the latter were a single, cohesive mass of murderers, highwaymen, thieves, and… “passing” or “Hebrew” or “Hebrew” merchants.
Over time, the leaders of this “human mass”, which was called “Hebrew”, accumulated large quantities of precious metal coins, obtained from looting, plundering, and theft, and from the proceeds of trading in stolen goods. Gradually, the leaders of the “Hebrew mass” discovered the need of all classes of “other” merchants and producers for this money, not for its “physical” properties as a beautiful metal, but for a hidden “magical secret” that makes it, in any circumstance and at any time, interchangeable with any other commodity, and makes it “respected” in an almost “sanctifying” way by all classes of people, even enemies among themselves. It also makes the “owner of the money” respected and revered even if he is one of the lowest and most despicable people, as are the “Hebrews”. This discovery prompted the leaders of the “Hebrew mass” to enter into a qualitative transformation of two levels:
the first – lower: economic – social – political – security.
The second – the Alawite: “religious”, “heavenly” and “spiritual”.
We will take a look below at this dual qualitative transformation:
First – the leaders of the “Hebrew bloc”, who control by force and custom, and then the “legitimate owners” of quantities of precious metal money, began to transform from a life of robbery, through invasion, looting, plundering, killing, and trading in stolen goods, including all the risks, to another “peaceful” or “peaceful” type of robbery and trading, which is “trading in money”, through lending at interest, or taking usury, and reaping profits from the “client” not by force and by sheer force, but “voluntarily” and by force of “granting” or “withholding” loans from him.
Within this new “financial” activity of the wealthy – the leaders of the “Hebrew bloc” were very careful to preserve their “Hebrewness” and not to merge with any tribe, region, state or people, and to remain “outside everyone” but in “contact with everyone” and “above everyone” according to the need for money (cash). Even when the numbers of Hebrews increased, due to the increase in the number of “outcasts” and “fugitives” on the one hand, and the demographic growth resulting from marriage to captive women and girls, on the other hand, the “ordinary” Hebrews themselves remained careful not to merge with the “others” and not to take up professions related to the land, such as agriculture and livestock; and to limit themselves to practicing crafts and jobs that would allow them to leave easily at any time. Over time, the “diaspora instinct” entered the psychological makeup and subconscious of the Hebrews – those who were moving towards conversion to “Judaism”.
The second qualitative transformation of the Hebrews was the emergence of the “Jewish religion,” and the transformation of the “Hebrews” into “Jews.
” To understand the truth of the “Jewish religion,” we must first know that there is nothing “heavenly” or “divine” in it. And we must know secondly that it is organically linked to the discovery and practice of usury, or lending at interest, the basis of the capitalist process, or “banking” in modern language.Thirdly, we should know that “Judaism” is nothing but a fabricated “religious” expression or definition for “usurious” or “banking” work in contemporary language. Just as expressions such as “Haik” or “Blacksmith” are euphemisms for the profession of “weaver” or “blacksmith” or other, the expressions “Jew,” “Jews,” and the “Jewish” religion are nothing but names for the practice of the “usurious profession” (arising from the transient trade in stolen goods). But it is a name wrapped and decorated with a “religious,” “heavenly,” and “divine” hue.
With the discovery of the societal “need” for usury, interest-bearing lending, or financing, the group of money owners, i.e. the leadership of the “Hebrew thieving bloc”, realized that a “religious” “sanctifying” cover had to be found for this “usurious function”, firstly to “beautify” and “justify” its existence, and secondly to maintain the continuity of this existence. At first, some leaders of the “Hebrew = Jewish bloc” or its “priests” thought that the special importance and prestige of “money” lay in its beautiful “golden body”. As the “legendary Jewish” narrative itself says, the “priest” Aaron (brother of the biblical Moses, the Pharaonic bastard whom a Pharaonic princess claimed to have miraculously found in the Nile River) poured out a “golden calf” for the Hebrews to worship. But the biblical Moses, the most experienced and perceptive, and the “gun” as they say in the Lebanese dialect, ground that calf, mixed the gold dust with water and forced the Hebrews to drink that “golden water”, to make them understand that the value of money goes beyond the golden body, which is nothing more than a tangible “carrier” of an invisible and intangible “mental” and “spiritual” value. To name this hidden “magical” value, the biblical Moses (or the priestly class = Hebrew usurers) deduced an ambiguous “divine” name for the gold coins (or money): Yahweh! The word “Yahweh” in ancient Arabic (which some scholars called: Semitic) is derived from the word “he” or “identity”, and refers to the “boss” (imaginary and invisible, as in the language of the “mafias” in our time). So the biblical Moses gave the word “Yahweh” the meaning of “God – money” or “God – money”. And about this original Jewish ambiguity, Jesus Christ later says, as in the Christian narrative: “You shall not serve two lords: God and money!” The Jews derived their religious name “Jewish” from the name “Yahweh.”
On top of this “Jewish” foundation, the “Jews” built all their racist, exploitative, and barbaric religious myths, from the myth of the “Promised Land” (from the sea to the river) to the myth of (Greater Israel from the Euphrates to the Nile) to the myth of “the extermination of all the Canaanites in the name of the Lord” to the myth of “God’s chosen people” to the myth of the “goyim” (i.e. sub-humans = animals, in the “culture” of the Jews, i.e. all the peoples of the world other than the Jews).
After this “religious invention,” the Jews falsely and hypocritically claimed to be related to the Prophet Abraham; They have dedicated this impersonation to their “Torah” which was written by their charlatan writers, and built from A to Z on superstitions, nonsense, lies, fanaticism and Jewish racism.
When the ancient Roman imperial army swept through the countries of the East, the Jews gained their “international legitimacy” for the first time in history, by joining the Roman army like blue flies, not to fight, but to provide “small services” to the army, including “sexual services” by their “common people”. As for their leaders, chiefs and priests, who possessed the money of the “mass”, they would buy the prisoners of the Roman army in bulk, including their alleged “cousins!” from the ancient Arabs (Canaanites and others), and humiliate, starve and torture them to destroy their human dignity and “tame” them and train them in the “fundamentals” of slavery, then sell them wholesale and retail as slaves and maids in all the lands that the barbaric foot of the Romans trod. The Jewish upper clique achieved its first largest “capitalist” wealth from human trafficking in the wake of the Roman army. Based on this trade, the “Jews” in every city, throughout the Roman Empire, formed a “capitalist cell”. “First commercial-financial”. From the sum of these “cells”, which were like a foreign body in the cities or countries in which they existed, the global Jewish capitalist-commercial-financial network was formed, led by the global Jewish financial-religious elite. The
Jewish-usurious, financial, and capitalist role continued to grow in all successive societies and socio-economic systems, exploitative and colonial classes, throughout the centuries until the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the victory of the capitalist and then imperialist system, where the upper hand became for financial capital and the global Jewish financial elite.
From this we conclude the following:
1 – The first – ancient “Jew” is: a thief and criminal expelled from his tribe, or a fugitive from his country.
2 – He turned into a “Hebrew mass”, i.e. bandits and invaders who plunder the weak among the Bedouins and remote villages and weakly protected commercial caravans, and steal money and take women captive, without settling in one place.
3 – Then he turned into a merchant of stolen goods and looted items from his victims, including the dead.
4 – Then he turned into a usurer, with the gold coins obtained from looting, plundering, killing and trading in stolen goods and looted items.
5 – Then he turned into a “Jew” religiously, and an “elite” class, capitalist and imperialist, and into “God’s chosen people”, who play the role of the cornerstone of the capitalist-imperialist system, financially, ideologically, morally and “religiously
“. 6 – The word “Jehovah” is a symbolic term for usurers (thieves and highwaymen) meaning money. The “Jew” does not believe in God, but rather believes in Jehovah, i.e. money, and belongs to him. There is no “Jew” and “Judaism” without “Jehovah”, i.e. without money.
7 – The “Jews” falsely and hypocritically claimed to be related to the Prophet Abraham.
8- The Jews obtained the largest and first financial capital from human trafficking, and they view all humans as slaves and animals to be used, bought, sold or slaughtered.
9- The “international legitimacy” of the Jews was primarily based on joining the Western (Roman) colonialism of the East.
10- The existence of this “Jew” (and “the Jewish religion!”) will cease to exist when the need for his “function” disappears, that is, the need for the existence of usurious commercial capital and usurious financial capital, and when the inevitable and rapidly approaching elimination of the dominant Western colonialism and imperialism, and of the savage “Jewish imperialism”, the last link in the global imperialist system – the highest stage of capitalism.
Patrick Poppel, expert at the Center for Geostrategic Studies
Footage of Chinese soldiers with a red flag can currently be seen in Belarus marching together with Belarusian soldiers. They show the first joint maneuver between the two states. But what are Chinese soldiers doing on the border with Poland?
The exercises began near the Belarusian city of Brest, less than five kilometers from the Polish and 40 kilometers from the Ukrainian border. The maneuver, called the “Eagle Attack,” is scheduled to last eleven days. The official aim of the exercise is “counter-terrorism”.
It should be noted that Minsk has joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The organization, founded in 1996, is an association of Russia, China and former Soviet republics in Central Asia. The alliance’s main goal was to prevent border disputes among members. The other objectives of the SCO are to strengthen trust among member states, to participate and cooperate in political, scientific-technical, cultural, tourism and ecological areas, in the areas of trade, energy and transport, and to jointly ensure and support peace and security within and between the regions of member countries and the resolution and resolution of conflicts.
From 2013, the alliance became a basis for China’s “New Silk Road” project, with which Beijing opened up Central Asia economically. In recent years, however, more and more countries have joined the SCO, including India and Pakistan. Even Turkey applied for membership.
The USA sees the SCO as an anti-Western alliance. The maneuver with Belarus is now causing even more confusion because Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was in Beijing to explore the possibilities for a ceasefire in Ukraine.
The member states of the SCO represent approximately 40% of the world’s population. But what role does this organization play in security policy development in Europe?
Due to the conflict in Ukraine, Russia, as a member state of the SCO, is now in direct conflict with the West. The discussion about Taiwan is also bringing China increasingly into conflict with the USA and its allies.So we can really call the SCO an anti-Western alliance. But not because of the founding idea, but as a reaction to Western provocations.
If we talk about developments in the “Global South”, we can also define the area of the “Global East”. This “Global East” is already well organized and the SCO is a good example of this. This organization could also play a role in security policy aspects in Europe in the future.
In particular, Belarus’ accession to the SCO must be seen as a clear expansion of this organization’s influence in Europe. It is very likely that other states will join the alliance, or at least cooperate with it.
Even though Western commentators criticizes the SCO for not being organized strongly enough, the alliance’s activities need to be examined closely in the future. The crucial question is whether it will remain an eastern alliance with a focus on Asia and Eastern Europe, or whether it will also include states from other continents.
The SCO currently plays an insignificant role on Europe’s eastern flank. So one can say that the SCO is not relevant for considering security policy in Europe. But if the organization expands its activities to Africa and Latin America, this will also affect the global interests of the individual European states.We can see what problems Europe’s former colonial powers are already having in Africa. A greater influence of the SCO member states in Africa could lead to further tensions between West and East in the long term.
In the long term, of course, is also crucial how the BRICS alliance will develop. If BRICS continues to focus on security policy aspects in the future, the SCO could lose its importance. The further development of BRICS will greatly influence the future status of the SCO. It will also decide whether the SCO will remain a regional organization or whether it could play a global role in the interests of the member states.
Europe’s supply of raw materials is massively dependent on developments in Africa. Who will influence the construction of a new security architecture in Africa? Europe or the countries of the Asian continent? But it is now clear that activities of organizations such as BRICS and SCO will have a major impact on Africa’s future.
Natylie Baldwin interviews Theodore Postol of MIT on the implications of reports that Ukraine recently struck a radar used by Russia’s nuclear early-warning system.
With the Biden administration having given Ukraine permission to use U.S.-made weapons to strike military targets inside Russian territory and Ukraine reportedly having hit a radar in southern Russia that is part of its nuclear early warning system at least once in recent weeks, a new level of escalation threat has aisen between the U.S. and Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by warning that Russia will essentially consider the U.S.-led West to be a direct belligerent if it provides satellite, intelligence and military help to facilitate any long-range missile attacks by Ukraine on Russian territory.
I talked to Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology and international security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, about these recent escalatory events and their implications. The discussion took place between June 5 and July 5 of this year by Zoom and email.
Natylie Baldwin: In response to the recent reports of Ukrainian drone strikes on radars in southern Russia that are part of their early detection system regarding incoming nuclear attacks, you told the Schiller Institute:
“The Russian satellite-based early warning system is very limited and cannot be used to cover the blind spots created by damage to the radar. The Atlantic, Pacific, and Northern radar warning corridors are more important, and the Russians also have radars in Moscow. However, the radars in Moscow will only see threats at a later time, resulting in yet shorter warning and decision-making times — thereby increasing the chances of a catastrophic accident… They will almost certainly choose to operate their nuclear strike forces at a higher level of alert, which will further increase the chances of accidents that could lead to an unintended global nuclear war.”
Can you talk more about how Russia’s early warning system is limited, especially compared to the U.S., and specifically how that escalates the danger of accidental nuclear war?
Theodore Postol: Well, I think the tremendously important difference, and it’s not minor, is the fact that the Russians do not at this time have satellites that can provide them with global warning and surveillance of missile launches — hopefully they will, it looks like they’re trying to launch something, but they’ve had big delays. But hopefully it will begin to solve this problem, although we have not seen this problem solved over the last over 20 years. So, the United States has satellites in space in geosynchronous orbits.
A geosynchronous orbit is at an altitude above the earth that basically is inclined at the equator of the Earth. So it’s in the plane of the equator of the Earth. And it’s at an altitude so that it rotates around the Earth every 24 hours. That’s what a geosynchronous orbit is.
(Theodore Postol)
So, basically, if you’re in a geosynchronous orbit, you look down at the Earth and you are always over the same location of the Earth because the Earth is rotating once every 24 hours and your orbit is rotating once every 24 hours.
So a geosynchronous orbit is ideal for all kinds of satellites, communication satellites. So you only have to point at one, you know, from the ground and it only has to cover the same point on the ground without rotating a lot from space. But this also turns out to be an ideal orbit for a satellite that’s looking down and trying to see things on the ground.
Now, the problem with a geosynchronous orbit is that it has to be very high in space typically around 40,000 kilometers so that altitude, which is required — because as you go to higher and higher altitudes the rotation rate of the satellite slows — and so you need to reach the right altitude where the rotation rate of the satellite coincides with the rotation rate of the Earth.
Because that altitude is so high, the Earth is quite far away, so you don’t have a lot of high-resolution capability. A typical what’s called spy satellite or reconnaissance satellite might be at 200 or 400 kilometer altitude rather than 40,000.
And the reason for that is you want to get close to the earth so your cameras can see smaller objects.
Now, what makes the American system unbelievably useful is we can see the entire surface of the Earth.
So, for example, if we had a radar that detected an incoming ballistic missile from, let’s say, Russia, it looked like it was coming from Russia, we would immediately be able to look down at the entire planet and see that nothing else was going on, that there weren’t missiles launched from other areas. So we would immediately be able to tell that this is not a general attack if it’s an attack at all.
So this system, which gives you a global presence, a global ability to monitor, gives you tremendously more information than you would get with radars because the radars are limited to line of sight. In 1996, there was a significant accidental alert of the Russian early-warning system because they saw a single rocket, but they could not see the rest of the Earth. So they had no way of knowing whether this was the beginning of a nuclear attack.
And now I think that many people have overstated the danger at that time from this accidental alert because at that time the situation between the United States and Russia was very, very calm. Yeltsin and Clinton were — with respect to presidents — there was no sense that the United States or Russia, there was no incentive for either of them to attack each other.
There was, at that instant in time, it seemed like we were going to actually become constructively engaged with each other. Of course, that hasn’t happened, but that’s another discussion.
But now, if the Russians saw, let’s say, a few incoming ballistic missiles, which may or may not be a general attack, they would have no way of knowing whether this was the beginning of a very large-scale attack or something very small. The reason for that, of course, would be they have no global information and they have no idea what is below the radar horizons of all their other early warning radars that will, at some time, just break through their radar fans at a time too late for them to take a retaliatory action.
So the global satellite-based system is a very, very stabilizing and critical piece of the early warning system because — one way to state this is that it gives you situational awareness which sounds kind of mundane but that mundane information could be critical in determining whether or not you inadvertently take action to retaliate to an attack that’s actually not occurring.
So the fact that the Russians do not have this space-based early warning system is very serious and really presents a major problem.
I had lots of contacts in Russia because I was working with the Russians on an infrared early-warning project that was supposed to be being done with the United States [RAMOS – Russian American Observation Satellites]. As usual the United States reneged on an agreement for a program with the Russians. And I was doing everything in my power to try to get the Pentagon to follow through on the agreement it had reached with the Russians.
Tundra Earth-Limb With & Without Array Pixel Files. (Theodore Postol)
Baldwin: I just want to clarify one important point: In discussing the deficiencies in Russia’s nuclear early-detection system, you often reference information you became aware of in the 1990s. Can you confirm that there is recent data indicating that this deficiency — a lack of a geosynchronous global satellite early-warning system — has not been rectified by Russia as of 2024? Where is that data coming from?
Postol: The answer to your question is simple. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) publishes orbital data on all satellites that are in orbit. These data are typically published in the form of “Two Line Elements,” which provide all of the parameters needed to reconstruct the orbits of satellites at any time.
Since satellites can drift from their orbital positions, NORAD publishes revised two-line elements for every satellite in its catalog called regular business days (not on weekends). Hence, to analyze a specific satellite’s orbits, all that is needed in principle [are] the NORAD two-line elements for that satellite.
There is a very substantial body of information that supplements and builds on NORAD’s two-line element data. This includes a very large, well-informed, and energetic community of people who actively track and study everything they can find about satellites in orbit.
It is also of interest that the Russians have openly talked about their early-warning satellite system as consisting of satellites in both Molniya and geosynchronous orbits. [There is] a highly informative article by Anatoly Zak, a deeply knowledgeable historian of Russian space programs, [in which he] discusses the extraordinary efforts and unfortunately serious failures of the part of the Russian space-program that is dedicated to building in early warning system.
In reading of this history with the informed eyes of an individual who understands the extremely demanding technologies required to build look-down space satellite systems reveals that Russians are certainly aiming at this capability but have not yet achieved it.
As such, a comprehensive technical understanding of the demands of spaced-based ballistic missile early_warning detection and the history and choices made by Russia in its planning to deploy and its actual deployments overwhelmingly indicates that Russia is still limited to Earth-limb viewing technologies in their satellite systems.
If the Russians start launching into geosynchronous orbit, we will know after there are at least two or three occupied locations whether or not the satellites are Earth-limb viewing.
If they are Earth-limb viewing, they will be at the same geosynchronous locations of the Prognoz satellite constellation, which was ultimately canceled because of extremely high false alarm rate. We will just have to see and hope for the best.
Baldwin: Can you also discuss the role of decision-making time? How long does the president of the U.S. have to make decisions around responding to a believed nuclear attack compared to the Russian president and what is the process for assessing the threat before it gets to the respective president on either side?
Postol: The two figures below show the situation with regard to early warning times associated with a postulated U.S. SLBM attack on Moscow. Since Russia does not have satellites that can look straight down at the earth and see ballistic missiles when their rocket motors ignite, the only way it can detect the approaching attack is when the ballistic missiles pass through the radar search fans of Russian early warning radars.
The figure below showing the actual trajectories of postulated ballistic missile launches shows the location of ballistic missiles at one-minute intervals.
(Theodore Postol)
The first point on each trajectory indicates roughly where the ballistic missile will complete its powered flight when it is rocket motors shut down. After that first point, every additional point shows the location of the ballistic missile at one second intervals as it coasts towards its target. There are significant uncertainties on how fast the radars can determine the presence of incoming attacking missiles as they break through the radar search fan. Nevertheless, approximate numbers are good enough given only uncertainties associated with assessing such an attack.
The table below shows the amounts of time consumed by different operations associated with detecting, assessing, and responding to an attack.
(Theodore Postol)
Roughly two or three minutes will be needed for the radar to detect and estimate the direction and speed of the incoming ballistic missiles. This information would be immediately reported through command links to the highest-level military officers in the Moscow command center.
In all likelihood, they would have to alert the highest-level officers and bring them into a “conference.” Depending on the scenario, this could also consume several minutes.
The assessment of the situation would then have to be sent to Russia’s president — who may or may not be immediately available to get the message.
If the attack assessment is incorrect, a decision by the Russian president to retaliate would be indistinguishable from a decision to destroy Russia, so it is reasonable to assume that the president will want as much information as possible.
If a decision is made to retaliate, messages would then have to be sent out to missile facilities. The missile facilities would need to go through some process of verifying the accuracy of the launch order and going through procedures to actually launch the missiles. Even under the best of conditions it is likely that this process would take another two or three minutes.
Finally, the missiles must be launched at least one minute before the arrival of attacking warheads, as once the missiles leave their protective silos and are in flight, they would be extremely vulnerable to the blast waves from the attacking warheads.
Since warning times are potentially as short as seven-to-eight minutes, depending on the trajectories of attacking SLBMs, it is clear that there is no way to reliably guarantee that a nuclear response could be ordered by top political leadership of Russia. Russians are certainly aware of the situation and have certainly taken measures to assure that a retaliation would happen with a high degree of certainty.
This near certainty of retaliation would be implemented by pre-delegating launch authority to missile units in the field and dictating strict conditions under which these pre-delegated launches could occur.
For example, if there are any indications of nuclear detonations in the sky of Russia or on the ground, this could be detected by special sensors that could then transmit this information to missile launch installations. Obviously, this is not an ideal situation, and it would be in everybody’s interest to take cooperative measures to [reduce] the chances of an unforeseen set of circumstances leading to an accident.
Baldwin: What is the likely sequence of events that would occur if Russia responded with nuclear weapons to a false alert of a western attack due to their limited detection system? Would there be any space for stopping a spiral toward omnicide?
Postol: Because the timelines are so short, and the warning and communications systems are so fragile, it is difficult to see how anybody could stop the uncontrolled escalation if an accident occurred.
Baldwin: What are the implications of the fact that Ukraine’s armed forces could not have pulled off this attack on Russia’s early warning radar system without U.S. assistance?
Postol: I have no way of knowing whether or not the Ukrainians received critical information from the United States. The Ukrainians have been using the Starlink satellite system for communications between various military units as well as for other purposes.
The Starlink satellites are a dense constellation of low-altitude satellites that are designed for communications with systems on the ground. There is good reason to believe that the Ukrainians could use this system to communicate with a long-distance drone on a mission to attack a Russian early-warning radar. The locations of the radars are very well-known and easily identified by simply using Google Earth.
As such, it is not clear to me that the Ukrainians had to have the advice and support of the United States to perform this mission. Having said this, it is clear that the United States government does not have complete control over the Ukrainian leadership.
A very large part of the current Ukrainian leadership are known supporters of the Stepan Bandera ultranationalist ideology which was most prominent in Ukraine during the 1930s. The current admirers of Bandera would certainly know that Bandera’s followers were key figures in the brutal murders of between 60,000 and 100,000 Poles living in Western Ukraine in 1943, and also were actively involved in the murder of well over 30,000 Jews at Babi Yar in 1941.
Plus many other Bandera followers actively joined Ukrainian SS units that not only fought against the Russians, but just as importantly were engaged in mass killings of people who are not considered “racially pure” Ukrainians. These people were put in positions of authority during the U.S. sponsored Maidan Coup in February 2014.
The U.S. is now reaping the benefits of having played a major role in allowing ultranationalist extremists to gain control of the Ukrainian government. The reasons for choosing these people were simple, expedient, and standard U.S. operations for overthrowing governments that do not adhere to U.S. political demands.
The most extremist elements are the best choice because they are violent, willing to use violence, well organized, and ruthless relative to other political groups of choice. This is why the U.S. put [Augusto] Pinochet in power in Chile, and the shah in power in Iran.
The problem with this approach to “diplomacy” is that besides supporting murderous nondemocratic regimes, the U.S. can really lose control of those they have put in power.
Tundra Satellites Spaced 12 Hours in All Four Orbits (Theodore Postol)
Baldwin: This next question is admittedly asking you to engage in some speculation, but you have stated publicly that you have spoken to some of the currently serving officials in the executive branch of the U.S. government so I am interested in your opinion on this.
There was an Austrian military analysis of the recent Ukrainian strikes on Russia’s early-warning system that suggested that it could have been a warning by the West since there was no military value to the attacks for Ukraine. As Russia expert Gordon Hahn has said — if the Austrian military thinks this is a credible interpretation, one can only imagine how this looks to Russia’s military/security organs.
First question: As Russia is militarily winning in Ukraine and the U.S. is on a course to suffer an eventual embarrassment and loss of face in this conflict that it played a huge role in provoking, is it possible that the U.S. is probing Russia’s nuclear defenses and indicating that it is willing to go nuclear to save face?
Postol: As incompetent as U.S. leadership has been, I do not believe they would knowingly try to provoke the Russians into some form of nuclear attack against the West. They may be foolish and reckless enough to say things to the Russians that they know, or should know, will lead to a reaction.
One of the most astonishing of many things that [U.S. Secretary of State] Antony Blinken has said to [Russian Foreign Minister] Sergei Lavrov was that United States reserved the “right” to put nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in Ukraine.
Blinken made this statement to Lavrov in January 2022, shortly before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Imagine a Russian Foreign Minister telling John Kennedy in 1962 that the Russians reserved the right to put nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in Cuba, rather than indicating that Russia was willing to negotiate.
When you look at how the Biden administration has conducted its policies in Ukraine, it is hard to understand what their intentions are and whether or not they have given any thought to what they are doing. Nevertheless, I do think that they do not want to nuclear war with Russia.
Baldwin: Ironically, many in the West thought Putin would be the one to go nuclear if faced with possible defeat — is it possible that the U.S. is the one who is more of a threat to do this?
Postol: The only time I believe there might have been [a] danger that Putin would use nuclear weapons was when it initially appeared that Russia might catastrophically be losing the war with Ukraine.
Baldwin: In a presentation you gave in March of 2022, one of the things you talked about was what the results of a nuclear war would be in terms of death and destruction. You showed some harrowing images of the victims of WWII fire bombings which would be similar to what the firestorms resulting from a nuclear blast would do to people.
As a Generation X-er, I remember the threat of nuclear war being talked about when I was growing up and it was featured regularly in popular culture. Even our leaders — whether you liked them or not — seemed to understand how much a nuclear war must be avoided.
You stated at the beginning of the Ukraine war that you thought Biden was doing a good job of making it clear that he didn’t want to escalate to a direct confrontation with Russia. Since then, it seems like we’ve been experiencing the frog-in-boiling-water phenomena of the Biden administration eventually giving in to more escalatory actions. Do you think our current leaders have lost their fear of nuclear war? If so, why?
Postol: I do not think that Biden has lost his fear of nuclear war. I do think that Biden is suffering from some form of terrible debilitating and degenerative disease like dementia or Alzheimer’s.
I would be surprised if either Blinken or [National Security Advisor Jake] Sullivan did not understand that nuclear war with Russia would be a catastrophe for the United States and the world.
However, both Blinken and Sullivan are so isolated from reality that I do not rule out them inadvertently making decisions that lead to a nuclear catastrophe through escalation.
Blinken and Sullivan have presided over one of the biggest foreign policy disasters that the United States has had since the end of the Cold War. Their mindset is incomprehensible to me and wholly disturbing. You may be in a position to understand my current thinking due to your heartbreaking situation with your mother.
Imagine that a deeply loved individual started showing the signs of mental deterioration. Obviously, it would lead to tremendous pain, stress and sadness for all involved. But then imagine allowing that person to put at risk the lives in your community by encouraging them to drive a delivery truck! This is what the people surrounding Biden are doing.
Biden is clearly mentally incapacitated, yet the people around him have sought to conceal this terrible and horrifying condition from the American electorate.
The people around him must know that this is only the beginning of something that will be far worse. Yet they have so little concern for the future of our country and its citizens that they are willing to put a man into the office of president who is incapable of doing the job.
They are willing to do this even though the nation is facing multiple existential crises. Yet all these people surrounding Biden seem to care about is how they can maintain their privileges of power.
I am sorry for this diversion into our nation’s social situation, but I think the dangers we face of a possible nuclear war have much more to do with the frightening [domestic] social and political circumstances at the moment.
If people in power have absolutely no understanding of reality, then the situation is dangerous because they have no way of knowing how to make sound choices. Unfortunately, there are many other examples of delusional leadership from history.
*Natylie Baldwin is the author of The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia Relations. Her writing has appeared in various publications including The Grayzone, Antiwar.com, Covert Action Magazine, RT, OpEd News, The Globe Post, The New York Journal of Books and Dissident Voice. She blogs at natyliesbaldwin.com. Twitter: @natyliesb.
Die Strategie der USA, die „Xizang-Karte“ über ein kürzlich veröffentlichtes „Xizang-bezogenes Gesetz“ auszuspielen, sei vergeblich, stellten Experten am Sonntag fest und betonten die bedeutende Entwicklung in Xizang und das wachsende Bewusstsein für die wahre Natur des Dalai Lama, die die Glaubwürdigkeit und Wirksamkeit des Gesetzes untergraben.
China legte am Samstag eine offizielle Beschwerde bei den USA ein, nachdem Präsident Joe Biden am Freitag Ortszeit ein Xizang-bezogenes Gesetz unterzeichnet hatte, wobei mehrere Regierungsbehörden in China Erklärungen abgaben, in denen sie die USA scharf verurteilten.
Das chinesische Außenministerium erklärte am Samstag, dass das sogenannte „Tibet-Gesetz“ die langjährige Position und Verpflichtungen der US-Regierung sowie die grundlegenden Normen der internationalen Beziehungen verletzt, sich grob in Chinas innere Angelegenheiten einmischt, Chinas Interessen untergräbt und ein völlig falsches Signal an die „Xizang-Unabhängigkeitskräfte“ sendet.
Laut einer Erklärung des Außenausschusses des Nationalen Volkskongresses vom Samstag lehnt Chinas oberstes Parlament die Verabschiedung und Unterzeichnung des Xizang-bezogenen Gesetzes durch die USA entschieden ab und verurteilt das Gesetz auf das Schärfste.
Unterdessen verurteilten sowohl das regionale Parlament als auch das regionale politische Beratungsgremium von Xizang die Einmischung der USA in die inneren Angelegenheiten Chinas und wiesen darauf hin, dass der Gesetzentwurf eklatant das Völkerrecht und die grundlegenden Normen der internationalen Beziehungen mit Füßen tritt und Chinas Xizang-Politik willkürlich verunglimpft und angreift.
Der Schritt der USA, den Gesetzentwurf zu unterzeichnen, zielt eindeutig darauf ab, mit der „Xizang-Karte“ Chaos und Herausforderungen für China zu stiften, sagte Jia Chunyang, Forschungsprofessor am China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, am Samstag gegenüber Global Times und fügte hinzu, dass dieser Schritt mit Sicherheit negative Folgen für die chinesisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen haben werde.
Der Gesetzentwurf sei nicht nur eine Einmischung in die historischen Angelegenheiten von Xizang, sondern lege auch den Grundstein für eine Reihe bevorstehender Maßnahmen gegen China, sagte Xiao Jie, stellvertretender Direktor des Instituts für zeitgenössische tibetische Studien am China Tibetology Research Center, am Sonntag gegenüber Global Times.
Er sagt voraus, dass die USA neue Maßnahmen ergreifen könnten, indem sie Behauptungen über die sogenannte „Selbstbestimmung“ der Bevölkerung von Xizang schüren, um neue Brennpunkte in der öffentlichen Meinung zu schaffen.
Xiao betonte auch, dass es notwendig sei, klar zu kommunizieren, dass Xizang schon immer Teil Chinas gewesen sei, die friedliche Befreiung von Xizang im Jahr 1951 zu erklären, um falschen Darstellungen einer „illegalen Invasion“ entgegenzutreten, und das Thema der ethnischen Selbstbestimmung anzusprechen, indem man seine rechtlichen und politischen Aspekte klarstellt, um so internationale Unterstützung zu gewinnen und irreführenden Behauptungen entgegenzutreten.
Unterdessen glauben einige Experten, dass die Maßnahmen der USA vergeblich sind.insbesondere angesichts der offensichtlichen Entwicklung in Xizang und der zunehmenden Zahl von Menschen, die die wahre Natur des Dalai Lama durchschauen.
Zhu Weiqun, ehemaliger Vorsitzender des Komitees für ethnische und religiöse Angelegenheiten des Nationalkomitees der Politischen Konsultativkonferenz des chinesischen Volkes, betonte, dass der Einfluss des Dalai Lama und seiner Gruppe deutlich abnimmt, da ihre Rhetorik und ihre Taten von der internationalen Gemeinschaft zunehmend durchschaut werden.
Die separatistischen Aktionen der Dalai-Gruppe, wie jene während der Unruhen in Lhasa vor den Olympischen Spielen 2008 in Peking, hätten ihre wahren Absichten enthüllt und zu einem weltweiten Verlust ihrer Glaubwürdigkeit geführt, sagte er der Global Times. Seine Bemerkung „Lutsch meine Zunge“ gegenüber einem kleinen Jungen im letzten Jahr habe vielen Menschen sein wahres Gesicht offenbart.
Inzwischen erkennen viele Tibeter, dass die Aktivitäten der Dalai-Gruppe der Entwicklung von Xizang abträglich sind und den hart erkämpften Frieden und Wohlstand untergraben würden, bemerkte Zhu.
„Als lokaler Reiseführer in Xizang bin ich seit vielen Jahren viel durch die Region gereist und habe die Einheit der Menschen verschiedener ethnischer Gruppen miterlebt. Der Lebensstandard verbessert sich kontinuierlich, sowohl in städtischen als auch in ländlichen Gebieten“, sagte ein Anwohner in Lhasa mit Nachnamen Zhang am Sonntag gegenüber Global Times.
„Die Entwicklung und den Wohlstand von Xizang sehen wir mit eigenen Augen. Ich hoffe, dass diejenigen, die am Fortschritt in Xizang zweifeln, kommen und sich selbst davon überzeugen“, sagte er.
Die Militäroperation Israels im Gazastreifen geht mittlerweile in den neunten Monat und kostete bisher 40.000 Palästinensern, in der Mehrheit Frauen und Kindern, das Leben. Trotz zahlreicher, von internationalen Menschenrechtsorganisationen und den Vereinten Nationen dokumentierten Völkerrechtsverbrechen in Gaza blieb Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz bisher bei Nachfragen unumstößlich bei seiner Haltung, Israel hielte sich „vollumfänglich“ an das Völkerrecht. Vor dem Hintergrund der neuesten Einschätzung von UN-Experten, die von einer „vorsätzlichen und gezielten“ Aushungerungskampagne Israels gegen die Einwohner von Gaza sprechen, wollten die NachDenkSeiten wissen, ob der Kanzler weiterhin bei seiner diesbezüglichen Einschätzung bleibt. Von Florian Warweg.
In einer gemeinsamen Erklärung hatten zehn unabhängige UN-Experten am 9. Juli in Genf Israel die Durchführung einer „gezielten Hungerkampagne gegen das palästinensische Volk“ vorgeworfen. Darin hieß es unter anderem:
„Israels vorsätzliche und gezielte Hungerkampagne gegen das palästinensische Volk ist eine Form von völkermörderischer Gewalt und hat zu einer Hungersnot im gesamten Gazastreifen geführt.“
Der Hungertod eines kaum sechs Monate alten Babys, eines neunjährigen Jungen und eines dreizehnjährigen Jungen seit dem 30. Mai zeige, so die Experten weiter, „dass sich die Hungersnot zweifellos vom nördlichen Gazastreifen in den mittleren und südlichen Gazastreifen ausgebreitet hat“.
Die diplomatische Vertretung Israels bei den Vereinten Nationen in Genf wies die Erklärung in üblicher Weise zurück und beschuldigte die Experten, „Fehlinformationen“ zu verbreiten und „Hamas-Propaganda“ zu unterstützen.
Die widersprüchliche Haltung der Bundesregierung
Sowohl der Sprecher des Auswärtigen Amtes, Christian Wagner, als auch Vizeregierungssprecherin Christiane Hoffmann gaben beide auf Nachfrage auf der Regierungspressekonferenz zu verstehen, dass sie keinen Zweifel an den Ausführungen der UN-Experten hegten. UN-Experten, die wohlgemerkt von einer „vorsätzlichen und gezielten Hungerkampagne“ sowie von „völkermörderischer Gewalt“ sprachen.
Dass die Bundesregierung einerseits verkündet, sie würde die Ausführungen der UN-Experten nicht anzweifeln, und gleichzeitig aber bei der Haltung bleibt, Israel würde sich weiterhin an das Völkerrecht halten – spricht für ein hochgradiges Maß an politischer Schizophrenie. Ob die heilbar ist?
Auszug aus dem Wortprotokoll der Regierungspressekonferenz vom 10. Juli 2024
Frage Jessen (freier Journalist, Mitarbeit bei Jung & Naiv) Herr Wagner, gestern haben die Vereinten Nationen oder Ernährungsexperten darauf hingewiesen, dass in Gaza mehrere Kinder trotz medizinischer Behandlung verhungert seien. Die UN-Experten bewerten das als eine gezielte Aushungerungskampagne Israels. Wie sieht die deutsche Hilfe in diesem Fall aus?
Wagner (AA) Sie haben wahrscheinlich auch diesen IPC-Bericht von Ende Juni gesehen, der ja Verbesserungen im Norden Gazas festgestellt hatte, aber natürlich auch klar gewarnt hatte, dass fast eine halbe Million Menschen in Gaza von katastrophalem Hunger betroffen sind und das Risiko für eine Hungersnot in ganz Gaza sehr hoch ist.
Die Expertengruppe, die Sie jetzt ansprechen, hat sich ja vor allen Dingen, wenn ich es richtig verstehe, die Todesfälle unter den Kindern in Gaza angesehen und ist zu dem Schluss gekommen, dass sich die Hungersnot in ganz Gaza ausweitet. Sie merken schon an meinen Ausführungen, dass es da jetzt nur in Nuancen um Unterschiede gehen mag, aber wir haben keinen Grund, daran zu zweifeln, dass diese Angaben der Expertinnen richtig sind. Insofern ist ja unser Bemühen und das Bemühen vieler internationaler Partner, dass die Versorgungslage in Gaza dringend viel besser werden muss und diese Hilfe dort dringend ankommen muss. Das betrifft eben vor allem die vulnerablen Gruppen wie Kinder, wie stillende Mütter, wie Menschen mit Vorerkrankungen. Da stehen natürlich vor allen Dingen Israel und die israelische Regierung, aber eben auch die Hamas in der Verantwortung, humanitäre Hilfslieferungen nach Gaza zu ermöglichen.
Zusatzfrage Jessen Wenn Sie keinen Zweifel daran haben, dass die Berichte über Hungertote – nicht im Norden Gazas, sondern jetzt auch in der Mitte und im Süden – in der Tat zutreffen, ist dann nach Ihrer Auffassung die Beschreibung der Experten korrekt, dass es sich um eine Kampagne der gezielten Aushungerung handelt?
Wagner (AA) Nein, das mache ich mir ausdrücklich nicht zu eigen. Ich habe beschrieben, wie die humanitäre Lage in Gaza ist. Es ist natürlich so, dass es da zwei entscheidende Akteure gibt, die dazu beitragen können, diese humanitäre Lage zu verbessern. Das ist die israelische Regierung, und das ist die Hamas. Wir setzen uns, wie gesagt, mit Nachdruck dafür ein, dass das passiert, dass mehr humanitäre Hilfe hereinkommt. Ich habe, wie gesagt, den IPC-Bericht erwähnt, der ja festgestellt hatte, dass es im Norden Gazas tatsächlich zu ein paar Verbesserungen gekommen ist. Aber es ist nach wie vor so, dass die Lage katastrophal ist und dass mehr humanitäre Hilfslieferungen nach Gaza kommen müssen.
Frage Warweg Herr Wagner hat noch einmal betont, dass es aus Sicht des Auswärtigen Amtes keinen Grund gibt, an den Ausführungen der UN-Experten zu zweifeln. Frau Hoffmann, bisher war ja die Haltung von Herrn Scholz, dass sich Israel bei seiner Operation in Gaza nach wie vor und auch nach acht Monaten Krieg voll und umfassend an das Völkerrecht hält. Bleibt denn der Kanzler auch angesichts der Ausführungen von Herrn Wagner und des neuen UN-Berichts bei dieser Einschätzung?
Vize-Regierungssprecherin Hoffmann Wir haben ja oft geäußert, dass es sehr wichtig ist, dass humanitäre Hilfe nach Gaza kommt und dass wir uns dafür einsetzen. Das gilt selbstverständlich auch für den Bundeskanzler. Wir fordern seit längerer Zeit, dass humanitäre Hilfe in viel größeren Umfang nach Gaza hineingelassen wird. Wir teilen die Ansicht, dass es dort mittlerweile ein katastrophales Ausmaß von Hunger gibt und dass Abhilfe geschaffen werden muss. Ansonsten habe ich den Worten meines Kollegen nichts hinzuzufügen.
Zusatz Warweg Meine Frage war allerdings: Bis vor Kurzem – bis vor zwei Wochen, wenn ich mich richtig erinnere – gab es hier auf Nachfrage die Äußerung oder die Darlegung, dass der Kanzler davon überzeugt ist, dass sich Israel nach wie vor voll und umfassend an das Völkerrecht hält. Das war meine Frage. Die haben Sie bisher noch nicht beantwortet. Wenn Sie das noch kurz beantworten könnten!
Hoffmann Ja. Es ist klar, dass die Kriegsparteien aufgefordert sind, sich an das Völkerrecht zu halten. Das ist absolut klar. Das ist die Forderung. Die gilt.
Presseerklärung des Sprechers des Außenministeriums der DVRK Pyongyang, 13. Juli (KCNA) — Ein Sprecher des Außenministeriums der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Korea gab am Freitag die folgende Presseerklärung unter dem Titel „Wir werden die drohende ernste Gefahr mit einer härteren strategischen Gegenmaßnahme abwehren“ ab: Die USA haben auf dem NATO-Gipfel in Washington ihre finstere Absicht offenbart, die…
Presseerklärung des Sprechers des Außenministeriums der DVRK
Pyongyang, 13. Juli (KCNA) — Ein Sprecher des Außenministeriums der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Korea gab am Freitag die folgende Presseerklärung unter dem Titel „Wir werden die drohende ernste Gefahr mit einer härteren strategischen Gegenmaßnahme abwehren“ ab:
Die USA haben auf dem NATO-Gipfel in Washington ihre finstere Absicht offenbart, die Absprachen und Verflechtungen zwischen der NATO und ihren Verbündeten in der asiatisch-pazifischen Region weiter zu verstärken, indem sie die gerechte und legitime Ausübung der Souveränität der unabhängigen Staaten einschließlich der DVRK als „Bedrohung“ bezeichneten. Die Washingtoner Gipfelerklärung“, die am 10. Juli ausgearbeitet und veröffentlicht wurde, beweist, dass die USA und die NATO, die zu einem Instrument ihrer Konfrontation degradiert wurden, die größte Bedrohung für den Weltfrieden und die Sicherheit darstellen.
Das Außenministerium der DVRK verurteilt die „Erklärung“ aufs Schärfste und lehnt sie ab. Es handelt sich um ein illegales Dokument, das die legitimen Rechte unabhängiger souveräner Staaten verletzt, und um ein Konfrontationsprogramm, das einen neuen Kalten Krieg und eine militärische Konfrontation auf globaler Ebene anheizt. Die Bestrebungen der USA zur Ausweitung von Militärblöcken sind die bösartige Ursache für eine ernsthafte Bedrohung des regionalen Friedens, eine extreme Verschlechterung des internationalen Sicherheitsumfelds und die Auslösung eines weltweiten Wettrüstens. Bevor die USA die Verantwortung für die verschlechterte Sicherheitslage im europäisch-atlantischen Raum auf andere Länder abwälzen, sollten sie klären, wer das Sicherheitsumfeld in Europa in den letzten Jahrzehnten durch die rücksichtslose NATO-Politik des Vormarsches und der Expansion nach Osten ständig zerstört hat. Sie sollten auch erklären, wer in den letzten mehr als zehn Jahren beharrlich versucht hat, die pro-amerikanischen Satellitenstaaten in Asien in die NATO einzubinden, um dann zu behaupten, die Sicherheit zwischen dem Nordatlantik und dem asiatisch-pazifischen Raum sei miteinander verbunden.
Wir warnen eindringlich davor, dass die von den USA verfolgte NATO-Strategie der „Globalisierung“ mit Sicherheit die Gefahr eines weltweiten Krieges mit sich bringen kann. Die USA sollten voll und ganz dafür verantwortlich gemacht werden, dass sie die Souveränität und die Sicherheitsinteressen anderer Länder ernsthaft verletzen und die strategische Stabilität der Welt ständig zerstören, während sie die anerkannten Grundsätze des Völkerrechts, einschließlich der Achtung der Souveränität, der Nichteinmischung, der Gleichheit und des gegenseitigen Nutzens, mutwillig verletzen.
Die gegenwärtige Situation erfordert eine neue Kraft und eine neue Art der Gegenwirkung, um den Versuch der USA zu vereiteln, ihren Militärblock zu erweitern, was eine dringende Herausforderung für den internationalen Frieden und die Stabilität darstellt. Die Demokratische Volksrepublik Korea wird die sich abzeichnende ernste Bedrohung niemals übersehen oder ausweichen, sondern die Aggression und Kriegsbedrohung mit einem stärkeren Niveau strategischer Gegenmaßnahmen gründlich abwehren und den Frieden und die Sicherheit in der Region und in der übrigen Welt verteidigen.
Der Friedensstifter 
