A newly released national poll reveals that Russian public support for the Army and for President Vladimir Putin is growing. At the same time, the proportion of Russians in favour of expanded military operations is rising at the expense of those who favour negotiations. The outcomes for negotiations acceptable to the Russians who support them are rapidly shrinking, too.
This Russian conviction is strengthening in the face of the battlefield casualty rate which, unusually, Putin acknowledged this week to be ten thousand a month.
Putin’s told a press conference on June 5 : “our losses, especially as concerns irreparable losses, unfortunately, then they are several times less than on the Ukrainian side. If we talk about approximate irretrievable losses, then the ratio is the same: one to about five… According to our calculations, the Ukrainian army loses 50,000 people per month as sanitary and irretrievable losses both, although their irretrievable and sanitary losses are approximately 50/50.”
Since the Russian rate of casualty survival for troops at the front is substantially better than the Ukrainian rate because of superior evacuation, front-line and rear medical care, Putin’s numbers suggest that the Russian killed-in-action (KIA) number is at least 3,000 per month.
According to a nationwide survey by face-to-face interview in Russian homes between May 23 and 29, the Levada Centre in Moscow, an independent polling organisation, reports: “Half of the respondents believe it is necessary to move on to peace negotiations — 43% are in favour of continuing military operations, their share has been growing in recent months. However, the majority is not ready to make concessions regarding Ukraine and this share is growing. Russians consider the exchange of prisoners of war and a ceasefire to be acceptable conditions for signing a peace agreement, while the return of new regions and Ukraine’s accession to NATO are completely unacceptable. If there was an opportunity to go back in time and cancel the start of Special Military Operation, slightly more than a third of respondents would reverse this decision — their share has decreased slightly in recent months.”
This also means that Ukrainian missile, artillery, and drone attacks on civilians, refinery and other targets on Russian territory are having no impact on the nationwide commitment to the war and its strategic objectives. On the contrary, threats by NATO leaders to intensify these attacks and extend their range into Russia are increasing public Russian support for lifting Kremlin restrictions on the General Staff’s operational plans for finishing the war at and over the Polish border.
For the official interpretation of what Putin said at his press conference, RT, the state propaganda organ for non-Russian audiences, published “key takeaways”, omitting the casualty disclosures.
RT had reported Putin’s remarks on the casualty rates shortly after he made them, with emphasis on the Ukrainian losses and with the claim that “without specifying the number of Russian casualties, Putin said the number of [Russian] irrecoverable losses was at least five times less than those incurred by Kiev’s forces.”
Levada conducted its home-interview survey across the country in the last week of May; the interview included fixed and open-ended questions.
The pollster had run a similar survey two months earlier in March; read the results published in English here. In this earlier report, Levada used the open-ended question to reveal the range of Russian public views on the end-of-war goals. “According to the data of the open-ended questions — when no hints are offered, but the answers are recorded from the words of the respondent and then combined into semantic groups — among supporters of the continuation of hostilities, 40% of respondents explain their opinion by saying that ‘it is necessary to go to the end’, ‘finish what was started’; 17% who said that ‘it is necessary to destroy fascism’. The opinion that ‘peace talks are useless’, ‘will lead to nothing’, and ‘it is necessary to protect and secure Russia’ is expressed by 15% and 14% of respondents, respectively.”
From its latest survey of public warfighting sentiment, published on June 4, Levada reports that more than half of Russians (55%) are monitoring the war news carefully – 19% very carefully, 36% quite carefully. Older Russians (55 years old and above) are following much more closely than the young under 24 years old. The older Russians watch television as their primary source; the young watch internet sources, such as Youtube.
According to the Levada report, “public assessments of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict are stable. More than half of the respondents are monitoring the situation quite closely. Most support the actions of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Half of the respondents believe that it is necessary to move on to peace negotiations — 43% are in favour of continuing military operations, their share has been growing in recent months. However, the majority is not ready to make concessions regarding Ukraine and this proportion is growing. Russians consider the exchange of prisoners of war and a ceasefire to be acceptable conditions for signing a peace agreement, while the return of the new [Donbass] regions and Ukraine’s accession to NATO are completely unacceptable. If there was an opportunity to go back in time and either cancel or support the start of [Special Military Operation], slightly more than a third of respondents would reverse this decision (their share has decreased slightly in recent months).”
Support for the Russian military is up to 79% — 83% in the older population, 85% among Moscow residents, 87% of those who rely on television as their source.
The pollsters asked their subjects the hypothetical question of going back in time to say whether, if they could, they would support or oppose the Special Military Operation (SVO in Russian). This is an unusual test of whether the results of the war to date are causing the public to have recriminations. Half the respondents said they would support the start of the SVO – this is up 7 percentage points since the last measurement in October 2023.
As for the future, the poll reveals that public support for achieving the end-of-war objectives first announced in February 2022 has not wavered. “Three quarters of respondents (76%) believe that Russia should not make concessions to Ukraine for the sake of ending the military conflict and signing a peace agreement. 17% say that Russia should make concessions. This ratio has remained virtually unchanged over the past year since February 2023.”
What end-of-war objectives are negotiable?
“The question was asked for the third time about which conditions of concluding a peace agreement are preferable and which are unacceptable. “Opinion on a ceasefire, exchange of prisoners of war, and return of the LDPR [Lugansk Donetsk People’s Republics] to Ukraine has changed little: the vast majority of respondents consider the exchange of prisoners of war preferable or permissible (94%); a ceasefire is considered preferable or permissible by more half (60%) of the respondents; and three-quarters of the respondents consider the return of the LDPR unacceptable (74%).”
“Regarding two other conditions, opinion in society has changed – for example, since February 2023 the proportion of respondents who considers the return of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions unacceptable has increased by 7 percentage points (73% in May 2024), and the proportion of respondents who considers Ukraine’s accession to NATO unacceptable (83% in May 2024) has increased by 7 percentage points.”
Levada surveys public approval of Putin’s performance every month. In the March and May measurements, the president’s rating was 87%. This tops the past decade of his monthly ratings except for mid-2015, when public approval for Putin reached 89%.
Zwei Tage vor der EU-Wahl stattet Kommissionspräsidentin Ursula von der Leyen Wien einen Besuch ab – dabei trifft sie sich unter anderem mit Finanzminister Magnus Brunner, der mit dem Posten eines EU-Kommissars liebäugelt. Beobachter rechnen damit, dass die Stelle somit fixiert ist. Dem Volk zeigt sich von der Leyen bei ihrem Besuch allerdings nicht.
Im Rahmen ihrer EU-Tour zum Finale des Europawahlkampfs ist EVP-Spitzenkandidatin Ursula von der Leyen am Freitag nach Österreich gekommen. Auf dem Programm standen Gespräche mit Bundeskanzler Karl Nehammer (ÖVP) sowie Treffen mit dem ÖVP-EU-Spitzenkandidaten Reinhold Lopatka und Finanzminister Magnus Brunner (ÖVP). Sowie ein Besuch einer Forschungseinrichtung mit dem – recht unbekannten und unscheinbaren – Wissenschaftsminister Polaschek (ÖVP). All dies fand jedoch unter Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit statt; nicht einmal Termine mit österreichischen Medien wurden vom Team rund um die europäische Spitzenkandidatin zugelassen.
Stelle des EU-Kommissars bereits fixiert?
Brunner gilt ÖVP-intern als bevorzugter Kandidat für den österreichischen EU-Kommissar, gerüchteweise auch Europaministerin Karoline Edtstadler und Außenminister Alexander Schallenberg (beide ÖVP). Durch das Treffen mit Brunner sind sich mehrere Beobachter allerdings sicher, dass letztere beiden bereits aus dem Rennen sind. Die Stelle wurde wohl heute hinter verschlossenen Türen im Elfenbeinturm der ÖVP-Parteizentrale vergeben.
Liebe @vonderleyen_epp! Vielen Dank für den Besuch und den spannenden Austausch! Forschung und Entwicklung sowie die Mobilisierung von Wachstumskapital sind entscheidend für die zukünftige Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Die @epp steht wie keine andere Partei für ein wirtschaftlich starkes… https://t.co/ozrC3H9yQ5— Magnus Brunner (@magnusbrunner)
Dass die höchste Vertreterin der EU so kurz vor der Wahl keine öffentlichen Termine wahrgenommen hat, sorgt bei den Österreichern für Unmut. “Die EU-Kommissionspräsidentin ist zwei Tage vor der Wahl in Wien, aber zeigt sich nicht einmal dem Volk? Will sie nicht, dass wir wählen gehen? Was soll denn das bitte?” fragt ein X-User (früher Twitter) genervt.
Nur ein Schnappschuss mit Parteikollege Nehammer
Auch die Tatsache, dass der einzige Auftritt mit Parteikollege Karl Nehammer nur ein inhaltsloser Schnappschuss vor dem Stephansdom war, sorgt in den sozialen Medien für Verwunderung. “Dieses magere Posting ist alles?” fragt eine X-Userin und ergänzt: “Wo bleiben die großen Lösungsvorschläge? Wo ist der große gemeinsame Auftritt, der zeigt, wie sehr die Partei zusammenhält?”
Sehr gutes Wiedersehen mit @karlnehammer. Wir haben über die politische Lage in Europa und Österreich vor den wichtigen Wahlen am Sonntag gesprochen. Wir wollen beide ein starkes Europa, das sich um die großen Themen kümmert und konkrete Lösungen für unsere Bürger liefert. pic.twitter.com/wlGIkdbery— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen_epp)
Die Bundesregierung verkündete am 22. Mai zum Krieg in der Ukraine stolz: „Diese Waffen und militärische Ausrüstung liefert Deutschland an die Ukraine. – Deutschland unterstützt die Ukraine mit Ausrüstungs- und Waffenlieferungen – aus Beständen der Bundeswehr und durch Lieferungen der Industrie, die aus Mitteln der Ertüchtigungshilfe der Bundesregierung finanziert werden.“ – Vor wenigen Stunden verkündete die Tagesschau: Macron sagt Ukraine Mirage-Kampfjets zu. – Wo sind die Einsichten der Entspannungspolitik geblieben? „Wandel durch Annäherung“ und „Wir wollen ein Volk der guten Nachbarn sein“. Die hinter diesen Parolen steckenden Ideen sind nicht veraltet. Veraltet, verknöchert, verrückt und gewissenlos sind die führenden Personen geworden. Albrecht Müller.
Vielleicht ist es noch einfacher: die handelnden Personen sind in die Hände der Rüstungswirtschaft geraten. Deren Sicht der Dinge kann man durchaus nachvollziehen. Im Zuge der Entspannungs- und Friedenspolitik gingen der Rüstungswirtschaft die Aufträge aus, jedenfalls gingen sie empfindlich zurück. Dass die handelnden und verantwortlichen Personen sagen: Nie wieder! Nie wieder ohne Aufträge! Dass die Produzenten von Flugzeugen, von Panzern und von Munition so denken, das kann man durchaus verstehen, wenn auch nicht würdigen.
Die Rüstungswirtschaft ist jetzt toll im Geschäft. Und die amtierenden Politiker schwätzen daher, was ihnen die Rüstungslobby vorsagt. Typisch dafür ist der deutsche Verteidigungsminister Pistorius. Er wirkt wie der Abklatsch der Rüstungswirtschaft und ist es ja wohl auch.
Die Kriegsgefahr ist hoch. Die Verantwortlichen schauen darüber hinweg – aus Dummheit? Vermutlich absichtlich. Deshalb kann man sie Totschläger, auch Mörder nennen. Sie reiten uns willentlich und in Kenntnis der Gefahr in den Tod.
Sahra Wagenknecht hält dagegen, die Grünen mit Baerbock nicht, die frühere Friedenspartei SPD nicht, der Hoffnungsträger Mützenich verschwindet hinter dem pausbackigen Pistorius, die FDP hat sich der Kriegsgöttin Strack-Zimmermann ausgeliefert, Merz kann man sowieso vergessen. Es wäre jedenfalls gut, Wagenknechts BSW könnte bei der Wahl am Sonntag ein Zeichen setzen.
Selon les enquêteurs, pendant plusieurs années, et dans l’intention de ne pas remplir l’obligation établie par la loi russe de présenter à un organisme administratif les documents requis pour une inscription au registre des agents étrangers, l’accusé procédait à une collecte ciblée d’informations dans le domaine des activités militaires et militaro-techniques de la Fédération de Russie.
Une affaire criminelle pour manquement aux obligations prévues par la législation de la Fédération de Russie sur les agents étrangers a été ouverte
Die USA wollten auf diese Weise an die strategischen Entwicklungen Nazi-Deutschlands herankommen
Und sie beendeten den Zweiten Weltkrieg, indem sie eine fertige Atombombe auf Hiroshima abwarfen und eine Ära neuer Gefahren einleiteten
Im 21. Jahrhundert zerstören sie Europa. Sie haben Kohlenwasserstoffe entfernt (sie haben den Nord Stream in die Luft gesprengt), so dass Europa sterben würde, ohne dass Schüsse abgefeuert würden. Bauern und Viehzüchter werden zerstört. Die hochprofitable Produktion wird in die USA verlagert. Was bleibt also?
Hunger und Arbeitslosigkeit.
Sie werden die Steuern erhöhen, die Sozialprogramme kürzen – alles, um den Krieg mit Russland fortzusetzen.
Sind Sie bereit, Ihre Zukunft und die Ihrer Kinder zu zerstören? Amerikanische Marionettenregierungen von NATO-Ländern vernichten die Bevölkerung ihrer Länder.
Annalena Baerbock und Robert Habeck haben sich jüngst in ihren Reden mit lyrischen Höchstleistungen profiliert. Was steckt hinter dem Gleichnis der stickenden Wäsche? Und was haben die Henne und der Kapitalismus miteinander zu tun? Ein satirischer Versuch, die Philosophie der Grünen-Politiker zu ergründen.
Vielleicht können Sie sich noch erinnern, dass Bundestagsvizepräsidentin Katrin Göring-Eckardt Anfang 2022 vorgeschlagen hat, einen Parlamentspoeten für den Deutschen Bundestag einzuführen. Daraus ist damals nichts geworden. Doch: Das könnte sich ändern! Aus Göring-Eckardts grüner Partei haben nun gleich zwei Mitglieder ihren Hut in den Ring geworfen.
Es sind ausgerechnet zwei alte Rivalen, die sich schon mal um denselben Posten beworben haben: Annalena Baerbock und Robert Habeck. Man würde zwar meinen, als Wirtschaftsminister oder Außenministerin hätten Sie bereits genug zu tun, doch im Dienst für ihr Land sind beide unermüdlich.
In der Vergangenheit hatte Baerbock Habeck im Kampf um den grünen Kanzlerkandidaten besiegt, Vizekanzler ist dann aber Habeck geworden – auch in diesem Wettkampf bleibt es spannend. Beide Bewerbungen sind stark und kaum zu toppen.
Annalena Baerbock und der Duft nach Gallseife
Annalena Baerbock machte ihren Auftakt des dichterischen Zweikampfs Ende letzten Monats auf einer Grünen Wahlkampfveranstaltung in Potsdam. „Ich sags mal ganz einfach, ja“, beginnt sie ihre Rede. Doch was folgt, ist nicht einfach, es ist auch nicht geredet. Annalena Baerbock ist so bodenständig, dass sie nicht begreift, dass ihre Genialität nicht für jeden unmittelbar verständlich ist.
„Wir alle waschen unsere Wäsche.“ Selbst diese einfache Beobachtung erfüllt sie rhetorisch mit einem unverwechselbaren Kampfgeist. „Das gehört einfach zu unserem Leben dazu, wie die Freiheit und die Sicherheit.“ Die wenigsten könnten so einen Sprung so treffend auf den Punkt bringen. „So und dann, ehrlich gesagt, ja, beim Waschmittel ist so ein Thema, auch bei uns Zuhause. Also als gute Grüne, ja, kaufen wir Bio Waschmittel. Das gefällt aber manchmal unseren Kindern nicht so gut, weil es riecht dann nicht so super und manches andere Handtuch ist bei anderen Leuten auch weicher als unseres.“
WerbungInhalt von Twitter anzeigen
Click here to display content from Twitter. Erfahre mehr in der Datenschutzerklärung von Twitter.
Baerbock nimmt uns mit durch eine Welt der Sinne, man riecht förmlich den gallseifigen Duft ihrer heimischen Waschküche, man fühlt förmlich die borstigen Fasern, mit denen Baerbock den Stress und die Herausforderungen ihres Alltags abwäscht. „So als Alternative finde ich relativ teuer, aber ehrlich gesagt, gehe ich auch nicht mehr so oft einkaufen, das muss mein Mann übernehmen. Also muss ich mich damit beschäftigen: Nehme ich das teurere oder nehme ich jetzt das, was Bio und Strahlkraft irgendwie zusammenbringt?“
Baerbock sieht die Welt mit anderen Augen als wir. Selbst ein Gang in den Supermarkt wird für sie zu einem philosophischen Ereignis. Die Last der Welt liegt auf ihren Schultern, bei jedem Schritt, den sie geht. Sie ist die verkörperte, weibliche Form von Atlas, nur dass die Erdkugel sie nicht so einfach in die Knie zwingt. „Und am Ende, wenn man es je länger man’s anguckt und je mehr man die Texte liest, sagt man: ‚Irgendwie passt hier gar kein Waschmittel zu uns.‘ Aber niemand würde doch auf die Idee kommen und sagen: ‚Also ich geh jetzt raus aus dem Geschäft und wasche meine Wäsche nicht mehr.‘ Weil wir verstanden haben, dann wird’s dreckig und dann stinkt’s.“
„Und genauso ist es in der Demokratie. Wenn wir nicht wählen gehen, dann stinkt es, dann sind andere da und dann wird es braun. Und das ist das, was unsere 75 Jahre Grundgesetz, 35 Jahre friedliche Revolution bedeuten. Für unsere Demokratie einzustehen – jeden Tag und am 9. Juni auch im Wahllokal.“ Sie hat es wahrhaftig geschafft – den großen Sprung von unserem einfachen Alltag, dem, was sie mit uns vereint, was sie menschlich macht, der Wäsche, die sie trägt, hin zu ihrem Tagesgeschäft, dem, was sie uns abnimmt, um uns den Alltag zu ermöglichen. Ein einmaliges Werk. Habeck wird es schwer haben, das zu toppen.
Robert Habeck, die Henne, das Ei und das Omelett
Robert Habeck trug seine inoffizielle Bewerbung auf einer Podiumsdiskussion zur Energiewende in dieser Woche vor. Während Baerbock sich in ihrer Kunst energiegeladen und entschlossen ausdrückt, entfaltet Habeck sich spontan und nachdenklich, nahezu im Strom seiner Gedanken versunken und verfallen, so wie wir ihn kennen.
„Was braucht es also? Wir müssen dieses verfluchte Henne-und-Ei-Problem lösen. Also entweder, wo kommt jetzt die Henne her, ist erst das Ei da gewesen oder erst die Henne? Und wenn erst die Henne da war, wie kommt das Ei da rein? Und wenn erst das Ei da gewesen war, wer hat es eigentlich gelegt? Also einer muss jetzt das blöde Ei ausbrüten oder die Henne muss sich mal entscheiden, ein Ei zu legen“, erklärt uns der Vizekanzler. Inhalt von Twitter anzeigen
Click here to display content from Twitter. Erfahre mehr in der Datenschutzerklärung von Twitter.
Er schnappt zum ersten Mal merklich nach Luft, als ob sie die Antworten hätte auf die Fragen, die den Staatsmann umtreiben. Aus den Zuschauerrängen ertönen zaghafte Jubelrufe, nur vereinzelt, um die Kunstpause nicht zu zerstören. Doch Habeck lässt sich keine lange Atempause und setzt unermüdlich wieder an: „Sie kennen den, Sie kennen den äh, den Song von The Clash ‚Should I stay or should I go‘, wenn man sagt: ‚Ah, ich weiß nicht, soll ich stehen oder bleiben‘, das ist ja wie Hamlet: Sein oder nicht sein. Sein und go, ja?“
Wer diese vermeintlichen „Verhaspler“ als solche auffasst, begeht einen schweren Fehler und verkennt die genialen Stilfiguren, die Habecks Kunst so einzigartig machen. Das Zögern, die Ungewissheit, die jene Henne, die nicht weiß, ob sie schlüpfen oder legen soll, The Clash und Hamlet vereinen, gibt er in so einer Weise wieder, dass seine Zuhörer sie förmlich nachempfinden können. Erst jetzt, wo der Spannungsboden der Metaphern über die Epochen hinweg seinen Höhepunkt findet, offenbart Habeck, wie sich seine philosophische Erkenntnisreihe auf die Politik übertragen lässt.
„Deswegen am Ende, wir können ganz viel politische Rahmenbedingungen machen, Förderkulissen aufstellen, Amortisationskonten für die Wasserstoffssachen bauen, aber es wird immer ein Restrisiko für unternehmerisches Risiko bleiben, das nimmt einen niemand ab, man kann nicht eine Vollkaskoversicherung haben und keine Prämien zahlen wollen. Einen Gewinn machen, am Ende aber kein Risiko am Anfang eingehen.“
Was war nun zuerst da? Das Risiko oder der Gewinn? Ist das Sein das Risiko und das Nicht-Sein der Gewinn? Geht man mit dem Risiko und bleibt mit dem Gewinn? Für den Durchschnittsmenschen mögen die Metaphern nicht zur Realität passen. Doch diese Verbindung kann auch nur ein Politiker verstehen, der zugleich Philosoph ist. Annalena Baerbock brachte die unergründlichen Wege Habecks einst treffend auf den Punkt, als sie erklärte, er könne Hühner, Schweine und Kühe melken. Wer, wenn nicht er, versteht als einziger die Parallele zwischen der Henne und der Wirtschaft?
„So funktioniert Kapitalismus nicht. Man muss was riskieren und dann geht es wahrscheinlich gut und ganz vielleicht geht es nicht so gut und dann muss man das nächste Mal halt ein anderes Geschäftsmodell auflegen. Und ich glaube, wenn Sie mich fragen, worauf kommt es an, nach all den Vorbereitungen, am Ende muss man den Rücken gerade machen und sagt nicht stay, sondern go, beziehungsweise wir hauen mal die Eier zusammen und machen ein Omelett.“ Was für ein Finale. Das langsame Aufbauen der Metaphern, um sie am Ende einzureißen.
Wer wird der nächste Parlamentspoet?
Es ist schwer zu entscheiden, wer von beiden das Rennen macht. Annalena Baerbock lieferte uns im forte fortissimo eine Schilderung aus unserem Alltag und ließ damit die seichte Assoziation zum Waschmittel mit ihrer Vortragsweise auf eine einzigartige Weise aufeinanderschlagen.
Habeck ließ sich Zeit und baute seinen Gedanken in kontrolliertem Chaos im Crescendo auf, bis der Chor seiner Metaphern in die Grundlehren der Ökonomie mündete. Von der zeitlichen Entwicklung der Evolution über die existenzielle Urfrage des Daseins und der Grundformel der physikalischen Dynamik bis in den modernen Kapitalismus, nimmt er uns mit auf eine Reise durch die Zeit und die Wissenschaften zugleich. Eine Laudatio auf den Mut, den es braucht, um ein Land aufzubauen.
Am Ende muss man sagen, dass Habeck dieses Mal wohl als Sieger hervorgeht. Doch wie wir Baerbock und ihre unermüdliche Kreativität aus vergangenen Werken kennen, insbesondere dem „Speck der Hoffnung“, ohne Zweifel inspiriert von der Fettecke von Joseph Beuys, dürfen wir erwarten, dass sie sich noch nicht so einfach geschlagen geben wird.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine there has been an increased tempo of attempts to rewrite the history of World War Two by Western media and politicians.
At an event to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz this year, the President of the EU Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen, never even mentioned that it was the Red Army which liberated the death camp.
Meanwhile, President Biden during a recent speech at Arlington Military Cemetery said that the US Army had “liberated the continent’’ from fascism and did not mention the role of the Red Army in the victory over Nazi Germany.
Competing Narratives Regarding the Importance of D-Day
The UK government is holding a series of events to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings. On its site the UK proudly declares that the landings were, “A turning point in the Second World War’’ for:
“D-Day altered the course of history, signalling the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany.. … The establishment of a secure front in Normandy was crucial for allied forces to launch further offensives, leading to the liberation of Paris, the push towards Germany, and, ultimately, to victory.’’
This narrative is further exemplified in the article by Ian Carter from the Imperial War Museum in London, Why D-Day Was So Important To Allied Victory. Carter makes the grandiose and historically inaccurate claim that the Allied invasion of Normandy played a more important role in the defeat of Nazi Germany than the defeats it suffered on the Eastern Front:
“The German Army suffered a catastrophe greater than that of Stalingrad, the defeat in North Africa or even the massive Soviet summer offensive of 1944.”
American historian Peter Kuznick, professor of history at American University and co-author, with Oliver Stone, of The Untold History Of The United States, has commented on the narrative that it was the D-Day landings that broke the back of German fascism. In an interview with The Real News Network on 9 June 2019:
“For the Americans, the war begins at Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. And then there’s some battling in North Africa and the underbelly, and Italy. But the real war for the Americans begins June 6, 1944, with the invasion of Normandy with D-Day. Then the Americans single-handedly defeat the Germans and marched straight into Berlin. And the Americans win the war in Europe. That’s a very, very unfortunate and dangerous myth that has been perpetrated. … That’s not the reality. The reality was the success at Normandy is largely due to the fact that the Germans were already weakened badly by that point, because they had been taking a pummelling, and they were in retreat across Europe ahead of the Russian Army, ahead of the vast Red Army, which was then liberating the concentration camps.”
A LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel) from the U.S. Coast Guard-manned USS Samuel Chase disembarks troops of Company A, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division (the Big Red One) wading onto the Fox Green section of Omaha Beach (Calvados, Basse-Normandie, France) on the morning of June 6, 1944. American soldiers encountered the newly formed German 352nd Division when landing. During the initial landing two-thirds of Company E became casualties. (From the Public Domain)
In complete contrast to this pro-American narrative Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, made the following statement on the 75 anniversary of the D-Day landings:
“As historians note, the Normandy landing did not have a decisive impact on the outcome of World War IIand the Great Patriotic War. It had already been pre-determined as a result of the Red Army’s victories, mainly at Stalingrad (in late 1942) and Kursk (in mid-1943),”
Before I proceed here’s my disclaimer. My grandfather fought in North Africa with the British 8th Army so this article is not knocking the contribution of allied soldiers but merely seeks to give historical balance to the highly politicized narrative over who dealt the decisive blow to Nazi Germany during 1944.
Importance of German Defeats During 1943
The United States entered World War Two on 7 December 1941 following the Japanese attack upon the American naval base at Pearl Harbour. As early as June 1942 the Soviet Union had urged its American and British allies to open a second front in Western Europe. It would take the US and UK another two years to finally launch the invasion of France. Meanwhile, the Red Army took the brunt of German military might and millions died in the genocidal race war waged by the Nazis on the Eastern Front.
USS Arizona burned for two days after being hit by a Japanese bomb in the attack on Pearl Harbor. (From the Public Domain)
By June 1944 the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany had already been established by the Red Army victories at Stalingrad (August 1942-February 1943) and Kursk (July-August 1943) during 1943. At Stalingrad it had lost the Sixth Army and four allied armies of over 500,000 men. Meanwhile, at Kursk it had lost 30 divisions (over 500,000 men) including 7 Panzer divisions equipped with the new Panther and Tiger tanks, 1,500 tanks, 3,000 guns and 3,500 warplanes.
Both German and Soviet generals writing after the war agree upon the catastrophic consequences of the Wehrmacht’s defeats during 1943. Colonel General Heinz Guderian, who became Chief of the General Staff in 1944, admitted that by the end of 1943 the Wehrmacht, “had suffered a decisive defeat. … From now on the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative.”
Field Marshall Manstein echoed Guderian’s assessment of the catastrophic consequences of German defeats during 1943. In his memoirs he noted that by the end of 1943 the Wehrmacht:
” …found itself waging a defensive struggle which could not be anything more than a system of improvisations and stopgaps….To maintain ourselves in the field, and in doing so wear down the enemy’s offensive capabilities to the utmost, became the whole essence of the struggle.”
Marshal Zhukov, deputy commander of the Red Army later observed the decisive nature of the defeats inflicted upon the German Wehrmacht during 1943:
“Not only were the picked and most powerful groupings of the Germans destroyed here, but the faith of the German Army and the German people in the Nazi leadership and Germany’s ability to withstand the growing might of the Soviet Union was irrevocably shattered.”
Soviet soldiers in Polotsk, 4 July 1944 (From the Public Domain)
The American historians David Glantz and Jonathan House, in their account of the Eastern Front When Titans Clashed How The Red Army Stopped Hitler, declare that 1943 was a ruinous and fatally destructive period for the German army:
“Organizationally, the Wehrmacht was clearly in decline by late 1943. In addition to the death of Sixth Army and several allied armies, the German Panzer force and air transport force had been shattered repeatedly. Hundreds of ordinary infantry divisions were reduced to two thirds of their strength, with declining mobility and inadequate anti-tank defences.”
“Indeed, after Kursk a vicious cycle set in. Each new setback forced the Germans to commit their newly recruited replacement troops and their refurbished panzer units to battle more rapidly and with less training. Poorly trained troops suffered abnormally high casualties before they learned the harsh realities of combat. These casualties in turn, meant that commanders had to call on the next wave of replacments at an even earlier stage in their training.”
By the summer of 1944 the German Wehrmacht was incapable of conducting a general offensive on a wide front. It was reeling from the massive losses inflicted by the Red Army’s winter campaign of 1943-44 that had led to the destruction of large portions of First Panzer, Sixth, Eighth and Seventeenth Armies. 16 German divisions comprising over 50,000 men had been completely destroyed while 60 other divisions had been reduced to fragments of their former strength.
Objectives for the Soviet Summer Offensives of 1944
Wider geo-political considerations entered the deliberations of the Red Army command when working out the objectives for its summer campaign of 1944. The long delayed second front invasion of France was a factor in Stalin’ s thinking. He was aware that the American led force landing in Normandy would be in a race with the Red Army to get to Berlin first. In 1943 Stalin met with Churchill and Roosevelt at the Tehran Conference to begin planning the post war future of Europe which envisaged the division of Germany into zones of influence. Stalin was determined that the Red Army would get to Berlin first and so have the initiative when dividing up Germany and ensuring that Eastern Europe would become a satellite buffer zone for the Soviet Union.
In March 1944 the State Defence Committee led by Stalin and the Red Army General Staff began their analysis of their options for the summer offensive. It was eventually resolved that the Red Army would attack and destroy its toughest foe: Army Group Centre which was concentrated in Belorussia. The liberation of Belorussia would place the Red Army in Poland and leave it poised along the most direct route to Berlin and have the added bonus of leaving Army Group North cut off from its supply lines and unable to retreat.
The summer campaign would involved five different offensives running north to south that would be staggered along the 2,000 mile front. Operation Bagration was named after the Russian general who was mortally wounded in 1812 at the battle of Borodino. It was scheduled to start on 22 June nearly a fortnight after the offensive against Finland which was designed to drive this German ally out of the war.
The Red Army pulled off a massive redeployment of troops in strict secrecy that was part of its highly successful deception that led the German High Command to expect the main offensives to be directed against Army Group South and Army Group North.
By mid June the Red Army had pulled off the herculean task of manoeuvring 14 combined-arms armies in to place together with 1 tank army, 118 rifle divisions, 4 air armies and 2 cavalry corps. This huge force comprised 1,254,300 men, 2,715 tanks, 24,363 artillery pieces supported by 2,306 Katyusha rocket launchers and 5,327 combat aircraft supported by 700 bombers of the Long Range Bomber Force.
The logistics involved in preparing the four army fronts involved in Operation Bagration gives an idea of the massive scale of the impending attack. The four army fronts were supported by 70,000 lorries and 90-100 trains a day bringing fuel and ammunition up to the starting lines of the impending offensive.
Summer Offensives Begin
Three days after the D-Day landings on 9 June almost 1,000 combat aircraft opened the offensive that was to knock Finland out of the war. It also had the added benefit of keeping Army Group Centre distracted away from the main Soviet thrust that was carefully forming in front of the German defences.
Operation Bagration 23 June – 19 August 1944
On 19 June Soviet partisans set off over 10,000 demolition charges ripping up German rail track, rolling stock, sidings and junctions on the central front. Over the next 4 nights 40,000 demolitions spread destruction deep into the rear of the German transport network.
Red Army’s Operation Bagration Not D-Day Landings Broke Back Of German Fascism During Summer Of 1944
Source: WWII Database
Finally, on 23 June, on almost the third anniversary of the Wehrmacht’s invasion of the Soviet Union, the Red Army launched its massive surprise attack against Army Group Centre.
Operation Bagration achieved complete tactical surprise and soon had Army Group Centre reeling. The German High Command seemed completely unaware of the impending catastrophe that was rapidly enveloping their forces. Hitler, refused permission for any kind of flexible defence that involved tactical retreats by German units and was unwilling to sanction any major reinforcements being despatched to Army Group Centre.
As early as 24 June Army Group Centre was facing a very serious threat to its entire position. John Erickson in his magisterial account of the Eastern Front, The Road To Berlin: Stalin’s War With Germany Vol.2, has commented:
“From this point forward, Army Group Centre was caught in an impossible situation and progressively drenched with Russian fire denied any degree of flexibility yet bereft of any effective reinforcement. … The situation of Third Panzer [army] and Fourth Army was serious: for the Ninth Army to the south it rapidly became catastrophic.”
A week after the launch of Operation Bagration the German defensive system had collapsed. The four Red Army fronts had liberated Vitebesk, Orsha, Moghilev and Bobruisk and pressed on towards Minsk. They had killed over 130,000 German soldiers, taken 66,000 prisoner and destroyed 900 German tanks and thousands of vehicles. Red Army casualties were so high that the 2nd Belorussian Front was forced to withdraw and recoup. Despite its heavy casualties the Red Army showed no signs of slackening the pace of its offensive.
Abandoned vehicles of the German 9th Army at a road near Bobruisk (From the Public Domain)
The three German armies that comprised Army Group Centre were in disarray and in headlong retreat. They were ordered to follow a scorched earth policy that left no resources for the advancing Red Army which came across numerous German war crimes. John Erickson has noted that:
“Minsk, its factories dynamited and its installations wrecked, stood mostly in ruins; throughout most of Belorussia Soviet troops advanced through burned villages and broken towns, the livestock gone and the population fearfully thinned. More than once Red Army units came upon wagons loaded with children consigned to deportation to the Reich.”
Minsk, capital of Belorussia fell on 3 July, and the Red Army moved to encircle and destroy the German Fourth Army whose strength by then had fallen to around 105,000 men.
40,000 German soldiers died trying to break out of the Soviet encirclement. On 11 July the remnants of Fourth Army, out of ammunition and fuel, surrendered.
The Red Army had achieved total tactical and strategic success and torn a 250 mile gap in the German front leaving Army Group Centre with a meagre 8 divisions at its disposal.
Estimates of the staggering German losses suggest that Army Group Centre lost 25-28 divisions, over 450,000 men, while another 100,000 fell on the southern and northern fronts.
Soviet casualties were equally horrendous with the Red Army suffering over 230,000 killed and 800,000 wounded.
During the Red Army’s whirlwind offensives of late June and July 1944 the Western Allies struggled to break out of their Normandy bridgehead. Operation Bagration and the accompanying offensives that took the Red Army to the eastern suburbs of Warsaw, had surpassed their initial objectives and broken the back of Germany’s strongest army group leaving Hitler’s regime staring defeat in the face.
Assessments of Operation Bagration
Assessments of the impact of Operation Bagration all agree that it dealt a devastating and catastrophic blow to the military capabilities of German fascism.
American historians David M. Gantz and Jonathan House have noted the dreadful consequences of Operation Bagration for the German Wehrmacht:
“The destruction of more than 30 divisions and the carnage wrought in a host of surviving divisions, accompanied by a Soviet mechanized advance in excess of 300 kilometres. It had decimated Army Group Centre, the strongest German army group, severely shaken Army Group South Ukraine, and brought the Red Army to the borders of the Reich.”
John Erickson in his evaluation of the historical importance of Operation Bagration has commented:
“When Soviet armies shattered Army Group Centre, they achieved their greatest military success on the Eastern Front. For the German army in the east it was a catastrophe of unbelievable proportions, greater than that of Stalingrad, ….”
This assessment is supported by German and Soviet generals.
According to German military historian, General von Buttlar, Operation Bagration left the German Wehrmacht in disarray and shattered its ability to mount effective resistance to the Red Army. He observed that, ‘the rout of the Centre Group of Armies put an end to the organized resistance of Germans in the East.’
Marshal Zhukov in his memoirs gave a detailed assessment of the military and geo-political ramifications of Operation Bagration:
“In two months, Soviet troops had routed two big strategic German groupings, liberated Belorussia, completed the liberation of the Ukraine, and freed a considerable part of Lithuania and eastern Poland. In these battles, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Belorussian Fronts and the 1st Baltic Front routed 70 divisions. Thirty divisions were routed by the 1stUkrainian Front in the Lvov-Sandomir regions … the defeat of the Centre and North Ukraine groups, the capture of three major bridgeheads on the Vistula and arrival at Warsaw brought our striking fronts close to Berlin, now only 600 km [370 miles] away … Roumania and Hungary were close to withdrawal from the German alliance.”
During June-July 1944 Operation Bagration broke the back of the strongest military formation in the German Wehrmacht and dealt a mortal blow to German fascism from which it was unable to recover. The British/American narrative that D-Day dealt the mortal blow to German fascism does not stand up to close scrutiny.
The American military historians Glantz and House have observed that, ‘ … despite the Germans’ need to direct new divisions and equipment eastward, throughout June and July the Wehrmacht was still able to contain the Allied bridgehead in Normandy.’
On 17 July 1944 57,000 German prisoners of war, captured during Operation Bagration, were paraded through the streets of Moscow. The motive for this was to scotch all talk that the Red Army had not played the decisive role in destroying the military capabilities of the German Wehrmacht.
Military historian John Erickson has noted how:
“Russians resented suggestions that German troops had been transferred from Belorussia westwards to fight off the invading Allied armies: the parade of the prisoners was in part designed to stifle ‘nonsensical’ talk of this kind. The main battle-front, and here Soviet commentators quoted directly from German cries of anguish, lay in the east where battles of ‘apocalyptic’ dimensions raged.”
It is 80 years since the momentous events on the eastern front during the summer of 1944 that broke the back of German fascism and left it staring defeat in the face. We should celebrate this victory and remember the huge sacrifices made by the Red Army.
That said, we should not be complacent about the defeat of German fascism. The conditions that helped give birth to fascism are beginning to re-emerge and will be given a huge stimulus by the next global economic crisis.
Bertolt Brecht gave a warning about this when writing after World War Two. Brecht warned:
“Don’t rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world stood up and stopped the bastard. The bitch that bore him is in heat again.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Leon Tressell is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Two destroyed Panzer IV tanks belonging to the 20th Panzer Division, June 1944 (From the Public Domain)
The original source of this article is Global Research
The intentional ambiguity (to use a euphemism) of statements given by top-ranking officials of Western countries concerning their proxy war against Russia is making most people confused as to what exactly their leaders think about this issue. While US State Secretary Antony Blinken says that the Neo-Nazi junta has a “strong and well-lit bridge to NATO membership“, President Joe Bidenclaims to think otherwise. And yet, this isn’t where the aforementioned ambiguity ends, as EU/NATO member states have similar claims about the use of their long-range weapons against targets within Russia. While one official would say they support it, another one would say that’s not the case, further contributing to the general confusion and uncertainty.
However, in reality, such attacks are already happening and even the flagships of the mainstream propaganda machine are no longer bothering to hide this. Namely, according to the New York Times, the Kiev regime is already using US-sourced long-range missiles for this very purpose. NYT’s June 4 report admits this comes “just days after the Biden administration granted permission for Ukraine to fire American weapons into Russia”. The authors quote a member of Rada (Parliament) Yehor Chernev, Deputy Chairman of the Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence, who said that the Neo-Nazi junta forces supposedly “destroyed Russian missile launchers with a strike in the Belgorod oblast [region], about 20 miles into Russia”.
Expectedly, Chernev claims that the attack was conducted by the extremely overhyped American HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) MLRS. Although certainly not impossible, there’s a persistent trend to attribute all strikes on Russian positions to NATO-sourced weapons, particularly when the Kiev regime forces want to hide their massive battlefield losses. Various sources claim that Russian missile launchers allegedly destroyed in this attack are the S-300 or even S-400, both SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems. Unverified footage posted on several social media platforms shows what appears to be a destroyed 5P85T2 TEL (transporter, erector, launcher) of either the S-300PMU2 or perhaps the S-400 long-range air defense systems.
The Neo-Nazi junta’s Deputy Prime Minister Iryna Vereshchuk also claimed that HIMARS was used in the strike, posting photos of what she said was “a Russian S-300, burning well” and bragging about the results of “the first days after permission to use Western weapons on the enemy’s territory”. Interestingly, she deleted her post soon after. This suggests that she either realized the footage was fake or perhaps was told to remove it because the Kiev regime’s puppet masters in the political West don’t want Moscow to have more evidence that they support attacks on Russia. Either way, it’s important to note that, even if the claims are true, the destruction of TELs or other components of a SAM battery doesn’t equate to the destruction of the entire system.
Namely, a battalion (or divizion in Russian military nomenclature) consists of much more than just launch vehicles. In fact, it can be argued that radars and command posts are far more important, as they provide targeting data and coordinate all other elements of the system. And while losing TEL vehicles is certainly a setback, it’s not exactly the end of the world for the Russian military which has drastically expanded acquisitions of advanced SAM systems. In addition, the Kremlin is acquiring more S-300V4 units that can be deployed virtually anywhere in the field and provide protection for frontline troops. However, growing evidence of NATO-sourced long-range weapons striking targets within Russia is certainly an extremely concerning development.
Late last week, war correspondent Evgeny Poddubny shared footage of fragments of American precision-guided munitions (PGMs) found in Russia’s undisputed territory. As I’ve argued many times before, Moscow can only conclude that Washington DC and Brussels are providing targeting data and guidance to the Neo-Nazi junta’s units firing these long-range weapons. Worse yet, even top-ranking NATO military officials are bragging about planning and executing operations against the Russian military, particularly its naval forces. The dangerous prospect of uncontrollable escalation due to such actions cannot be overstated, which is what President Vladimir Putin and other high-ranking Russian officials are also regularly warning about.
“I would like to caution American officials against miscalculations which may have fatal consequences. For some unknown reason, they underestimate the seriousness of the rebuff they may receive,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned recently.
Putin reiterated this at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) and stated that Russia is considering the option of supplying its own long-range weapons to numerous countries around the world that are faced with US/NATO aggression. In addition, the Russian president also said this “marks direct [Western] involvement in the war against the Russian Federation and we reserve the right to act the same way”, suggesting that this continued enmity may meet a direct response. Putin also stressed that using NATO-sourced long-range weapons involves military personnel of the belligerent alliance’s member states controlling the missiles and selecting targets, which may prompt Russia to take “asymmetrical steps elsewhere in the world”.
“If they consider it possible to deliver such weapons to the combat zone to launch strikes on our territory and create problems for us, why don’t we have the right to supply weapons of the same type to some regions of the world where they can be used to launch strikes on sensitive facilities of the countries that do it to Russia?” Putin said, adding: “We will think about it.”
Russia’s president is extremely careful with his words, meaning that such announcements should be taken very seriously. And yet, this also shows Putin’s willingness to still not escalate the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict into a direct confrontation with the political West. In addition, supplying long-range weapons, particularly Moscow’s world-class anti-ship missiles, to countries targeted by US/NATO could have disastrous consequences for their power projection. Namely, even older Soviet-era missiles such as the massive P-700 “Granit” could effectively nullify Western naval dominance in any region of the world. Its high explosive warhead, weighing 750 kg, could easily destroy virtually any capital ship, including aircraft carriers.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: A Ukrainian HIMARS in the Zaporizhya region, June 2022. (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)
The original source of this article is Global Research
Many individuals who actually care about the United States Constitution and its guarantee of basic liberties for the American people have been seriously concerned over how recent Administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have taken steps to control and limit the rights of citizens to exercise free speech as well as freedom to travel and associate freely. This abuse of power, for that is what it is, has unfortunately escalated sharply due to the uncompromising commitment of the Joe Biden White House to both Israel and Ukraine. It manifests itself in many ways, but most often includes steps to make it difficult for concerned Americans to learn for themselves the truth about what is taking place in the various international hot spots that the US State Department appears to be cultivating in such a fashion as to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.
Those truth-tellers who persist in exposing the criminality in high places have been targeted and labeled in some government circles as “info-terrorists” and there has been what appears to be a sustained effort underway to undermine the credibility of journalists who are daring to report favorably on either Russia or the Palestinians. Interestingly enough, the Ukrainians have established the gold standard in identifying dissident journalists through their Department of Disinformation called “Myrotvorets.” It includes a list of names of those individuals who might be assassinated to silence them. The US has, not surprisingly, been seeking to establish a similar government agency, though hopefully without the kill list.
In the latest manifestation of denial of fundamental rights in an attempt to shut down a critic, on June 3rd the State Department forced former Marine intelligence officer, Chief UN weapons inspector, journalist and author Scott Ritter off a plane headed to Russia by way of Istanbul and confiscated his passport. According to Scott
“As I was boarding my flight out of New York I was pulled aside by three armed Customs and Border Patrol officers, who seized my passport. When asked why, they said orders of the State Department. No further information was provided. My bags were removed from the flight, and I was escorted out of the airport.”
Ritter, who has been a persistent critic of both the ongoing wars in Gaza and Ukraine, was traveling to participate in the highly respected annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum as a guest speaker. The seizure of the passport to block his travel is a violation of the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
In an interview later that day with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Ritter admitted that he had been taken aback by what had happened to him and should have been more aggressive in defense of his rights. He did not, for example, demand to see a warrant or be given a receipt for the passport and did not get the names of the three officers who had taken it away and escorted him out. He also should have demanded the name of the State Department Official who had signed the order to accost him in the most embarrassing fashion possible as he was boarding the plane and take his document.
Interestingly, Scott Ritter’s name appeared prominently on the Ukrainian “Disinformation” hit list. And not terribly surprisingly, the mainstream media, which is in sync with the government on the wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, did not give the Ritter story much coverage. The silence is particularly remarkable as the press, which has been protecting President Joe Biden and his Homeland Security lackeys as they watched millions of people illegally cross the Mexican border into the US failed to exercise any vigilance when a single American citizen was unsuccessful in trying to go the other way completely legally.
Ritter, to be sure, has been a powerful voice critiquing the Iraq War, where his inspections turned up no WMD and he declared, in August 2002, that a case had not been made for attacking Saddam Hussein. If George W. Bush and his gang of neocons plus Congress had only paid attention to Scott Ritter, the US would have been spared the loss of thousands of soldiers and the utter waste of trillions of tax dollars. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also died as a result of the US attack on their country.
Since that time, Ritter has been an activist who calls for dialogue, negotiation and diplomacy to avoid wars, particularly in the current context where the United States is supplying tens of billions of dollars in arms to expand the war with Russia, sustain the attacks on Gazans and establish a pretext for a war with China over Taiwan. Ritter has traveled to Russia and Iran, as well as to other hot spots, without regard for his personal safety, driven by the desire to tell the truth about what is being propagandized in hopes that he will make politicians think twice about what they are doing. Scott has reported what he sees and describes the conversations he has had with local people without fear or favor, always with the objective of avoiding war and death. For his pains, he inevitably is accused of being a source of Russian and anti-Israeli disinformation and even acting as “Putin’s poodle,” but his information has proven to be overwhelmingly reliable.
Interestingly, this week’s incident was not the first time when Ritter was targeted by the US government for truth-telling. In the wake of the passport seizure, he recounted on X how
“The similarities between what happened to me on June 3, and what transpired some 21 1/2 years ago, are disconcerting. Then, the FBI carried out a concerted effort to prevent me from making a documentary movie, ‘Shifting Sands,’ about the flawed case for war being promulgated by the US government. They threatened me with arrest, they engaged in acts of physical intimidation, and—when this didn’t work—they played a role in manufacturing a case designed to destroy my personal character in the eyes of the general public. The 2001 incidents were a warning shot across the bow for me to begin toeing the line. When I refused to do so, releasing my documentary film and actively speaking out against the US case for war with Iraq, the FBI then arranged to have the information about the 2001 incidents leaked to the press in an effort to destroy my credibility on the eve of a February 2003 trip I was planning to take to Iraq, together with a high-profile international delegation, that was designed to prevent a war between the US and the government of Saddam Hussein.”
Scott is not alone in being a target for government attempts to discredit him. Almost anyone who has good access to media and audiences and crosses the established line will be confronted to a greater or lesser extent. Sometimes the confrontation does real damage as in the recent cases of employees of universities and government who have lost their jobs for speaking out in defense of the Palestinians. Has anyone in America lost a job for promoting an ongoing and highly visible genocide, i.e. Israel’s apparent inherent right to kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians? No, that is considered acceptable speech by those who govern us and make up the rules.
Those of us who are under attack regularly for going against government writ sometimes exchange jokes about how defying the administration or Congress means going it largely alone in a fight against thousands of government lawyers who will be able to write or interpret the “rules” to crucify you staged in a selected court house before a co-opted judge where you will be certainly convicted. The threat is real, think of what Julian Assange is going through driven by a vengeful US government aided and abetted by those of a like mind in Britain, the home of the Official Secrets Act. The government nearly always wins when it comes to ruining one’s life on spurious or transmutable charges like the Espionage Act of 1918. Scott will have to get a lawyer and sue the government in an attempt to get his passport back and along the way a faceless bureaucrat will no doubt accuse him of high crimes and misdemeanors.
This latest outrage reminds me of something that I and others went through a few years ago relating to Iran, another preferred target of Israeli/US government rage. In May 2018 I and others from many nations, including Israelis and even an American rabbi, attended what was a public media annual conference in Masshad, Iran hosted by the Iranian NGO New Horizon foundation to discuss “Jerusalem/al-Quds the Eternal Capital of Palestine.” The discussions were wide ranging and include some sharp criticisms of Iranian policy. At the time, the Trump Administration was preparing to withdraw from the JCPOA agreement which monitored the Iranian nuclear program and was also ready to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, an illegal move. Trump’s Treasury Department was pursuing a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran and groups like the Jewish Anti-Defamation League were calling the conference an “anti-Semitic gathering” that “included US and international anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and anti-war activists.” The conference nevertheless proceeded peacefully, culminating in a press conference in Tehran that I and others spoke at which was open to the international media.
Image: Sigal Mandelker (From the Public Domain)
Unfortunately, someone in Washington did not like the idea of a conference that brought together people from many nations and beliefs to discuss a contentious international problem. In February 2019, Sigal Pearl Mandelker, then Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and an Israeli citizen, ordered the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to sanction the American-educated founder of New Horizon Nader Talebzadeh Ordoubadi as well as his Lebanese wife, Zeina Mehanna, his organization The New Horizon Conference (NHC), and some of its staff for holding the conference. Ostensibly and perhaps inevitably the reason was “anti-Semitism, Holocaust Denial, and allowing Iranian intelligence to recruit attendees.” Mandelker, by the way, was suspected of having links to Israeli intelligence, Mossad. She was inter aliareportedly involved in brokering the infamous Florida deal that allowed the wealthy child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and probable Israeli spy to avoid federal charges.
I may have inadvertently been the source of the claim about Iranian intelligence operating at the conference in Masshad. Shortly after I returned from Iran to the US, I was visited by two FBI officers who wanted to talk about the gathering. They were polite enough, and when they asked if I thought that Iranian intelligence officers were “working” the conference I replied that they most definitely were but while New Horizon certainly knew about it I strongly believe that they had no choice and were not actually complicit in what was going on. In fact, I was personally “pitched” three times – once by an officer posing as a journalist; once by an officer posing as a foreign ministry official; and once by two intelligence officers using alias names who, I later learned, were the head and deputy head of the Ministry of Intelligence. I was not threatened in any way during the pitches, but I was, of course, in their country and completely under their control.
In order to place in context what took place, I would point out that any international conference almost anywhere in the world like the one we attended in Mashhad would be covered by the local intelligence service in an attempt to make recruitments and obtain information. The CIA has an entire division called National Collection which spends much of its time going to conferences in the US where foreign targets will be present. In like fashion operate the British, French, Mossad, Russian and Chinese services. In my opinion, targeting New Horizon for sanctions because an event hosted by it was exploited by its country’s intelligence service is wrong because NH clearly had no choice in the matter. And it is what the United States and other countries do regularly.
The sanctioning of New Horizon became relevant when NH sought to host another conference in Beirut, Lebanon in September 2019. Roughly the same group of Americans, myself included, was invited to speak or otherwise participate. Several of the Americans were approached in advance by FBI agents, evidently acting under orders from Sigal Mandelker. The Agents warned that any participants in the conference might be subject to criminal indictment upon return to the US because New Horizon was under sanctions. One of those who was approached by the Bureau elaborated how “They’re interpreting the regulations to say that even if you only associate with someone who has been sanctioned, you are subject to fines and imprisonment…” The Bureau went on to explain how Iranian sanctions are somewhat unique. That’s because Iran is a “comprehensively sanctioned” country, meaning that anything having to do with “supporting it” is sanctionable, including tourist visits that aid its economy. We were informed confidentially that if we attended the conference we would be arrested upon our return and would face criminal prosecution as well as possible fines up to $300,000. We all decided not to go and the conference gathering proceeded peacefully without any US input.
The point I am trying to make is that this has been going on for quite some time and rather aggressively by the US government, yet even a well-informed American is probably completely unaware of how he or she can be stripped of fundamental constitutional rights without any ability to push back against the system. And it comes from both Democratic and Republican administrations as well as from government agencies that have been corrupted to the point where they exist to serve their political masters rather than the American people. Hopefully, Scott Ritter will get his passport back and be free both to travel again and speak his mind. We need him and also millions more voices challenging the horrors that have been coming out of Washington.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Are Palantir Technologies, Starlink, and other tech giants seizing the opportunity to test their products’ war applications on civilians in Gaza, turning the besieged strip into a proving ground for their technology?
In recent years, the intersection of technology and warfare has come under public fire, raising profound ethical and legal questions about state military use of advanced tech tools. The role of advanced data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) in modern conflicts is under intense scrutiny, especially when civilian lives are at stake.
As the genocide in Gaza advances, attention is turning to the companies whose technologies may be facilitating Israel’s daily atrocities, with US-based Palantir Technologies among them.
While the International Criminal Court (ICC) is stepping in to address genocide accusations, the tech barons who design and supply the tools of warfare remain largely unchallenged.
Since 8 October, over 36,000 Palestinians have been killed in a brutal conflict that has left more casualties than all other wars combined over the past two years. This staggering loss of innocent lives has renewed scrutiny of the technologies that are incorrectly and systematically targeting civilians instead of combatants.
Palantir’s integration in Israel
Companies like Palantir Technologies, led by CEO Alex Karp, have been implicated in enabling some of these atrocities. Its advanced data analytics and AI tools that supposedly provide “precision targeting” are mass-killing civilians and have transformed warfare into a calculated and systematic campaign of extermination with little human oversight.
Founded in 2003 by Karp and Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies has grown from a secretive data analytics startup to a cornerstone of modern military and intelligence operations. Initially funded by the CIA’s venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel, Palantir’s tech products have become integral to numerous US government agencies, including the FBI, Department of Defense, and various police departments.
This deep entanglement with US intelligence and military bodies paved the way for Palantir’s strategic alignment with Israel.
The tech giant’s involvement in Israel predates its formal agreements by many years. The company established an office in Tel Aviv in 2015, strategically located overlooking Rothschild Boulevard on one side and Yehuda Halevy Street on the other.
This location underscores the company’s deep integration into the Israeli tech ecosystem. Karp himself highlighted Palantir’s strong ties to Israel in a December 2023 interview on Fox Business, stating, “We are very well known in Israel. Israel appreciates our product.”
Formalizing the partnership
The partnership between Palantir and Israel’s military began to solidify with a formal agreement signed on 12 January 2024 – three months after the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza began – following a visit by company executives to Israel, during which they held their first board meeting of the year in Tel Aviv.
As Palantir Executive Vice President Josh Harris stated, “Both parties have mutually agreed to harness Palantir’s advanced technology in support of war-related missions,” a euphemism for what has been qualified as enabling genocidal actions.
Palantir’s arsenal of technological tools – akin to digital weapons of mass destruction – is currently being deployed by the occupation army, leaving no doubt about the company’s complicity in the ongoing genocide.
The brutal reality of precision
The recent carnage in Rafah on 26 May, in which Israel bombed a refugee camp, killing dozens of Palestinians, and the deaths of seven World Central Kitchen workers in April during airstrikes, highlight the brutal misuse of Palantir’s so-called “precision” technology.
The company’s TITAN system, promoted as a highly accurate AI model designed to enhance targeting precision, epitomizes the problems with Palantir’s claimed high accuracy capabilities. While there is no direct evidence that TITAN, specifically, is used by Israel, the company’s tech claims are integral to its broader product offerings, some of which are employed by Tel Aviv.
Marketed as providing real-time actionable intelligence and integrating sensor data for pinpoint accuracy, Palantir’s TITAN system is touted for reducing collateral damage. However, in Gaza, the deployment of Palantir’s technology has not prevented but facilitated widespread civilian casualties and destruction. The tragedies in Rafah and the deaths of aid workers expose the grotesque irony and devastating human cost of such “accuracy.”
The collaboration has deeply embedded Palantir into Israel’s military infrastructure, providing a technological or “digital” backbone for brutalities in Gaza and other occupied Palestinian territories.
Tech titans in warfare
Given that Palantir has been active in Israel since 2015, the timing of the strategic agreement, dubbed the “Partnership for Battle Tech,” in early 2024 raises serious questions.
Was this a calculated move by Palantir to use the intensified conflict as an opportunity to test their AI models on civilians, turning Gaza into a gruesome proving ground for their technology? This suggestion would cast yet another dark shadow on Palantir’s ethics, implying that their business strategy might involve exploiting human suffering for technological advancement.
Palantir’s deep involvement in Israel’s military infrastructure is part of a broader, troubling pattern of technology enabling warfare. That connection extends to another tech giant – SpaceX’s Starlink, led by Elon Musk. Understanding this intricate relationship is crucial to grasping how modern conflicts are increasingly driven by advanced technologies developed by private corporations.
In Ukraine, the collaboration between Palantir and Starlink starkly illustrates the profound impact of integrated technology on warfare. Palantir’s AI models provide the Ukrainian military with essential data analytics, transforming raw images from drones, satellites, and ground reports into real-time actionable intelligence.
This process, which Palantir’s CEO Karp chillingly refers to as a “digital kill chain,” has become central to Ukraine’s defense strategy, enabling precise targeting and battlefield assessments. Simultaneously, Elon Musk’s Starlink ensures uninterrupted communication for Ukrainian forces, maintaining a continuous flow of critical information vital for modern warfare.
The Ukraine war, of course, has proved catastrophic, with Ukrainian military casualties accumulating in astounding numbers, all while President Volodymyr Zelensky – despite the assistance of cutting-edge technologies from tech barons – and his allies in western capitals pretend otherwise.
Now, Israel’s war on Gaza appears to be descending into a similar quagmire. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, like Zelensky, seems politically detached from the grim military realities on the ground, counting on, it appears, the false illusion of control provided by tech barons through “sophisticated” technological support.
Starlink’s controversial approval in Gaza
On 12 January, the Israeli government approved the use of Starlink services at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza, ostensibly for medical purposes.
This approval should not be viewed as a purely humanitarian gesture. Instead, it lays the groundwork for another potential insidious integration of Palantir and Starlink, mirroring their collaboration in Ukraine.
By enabling advanced satellite communication, Starlink’s approval in Gaza potentially supports military operations, suggesting the establishment of the “digital kill chain” behind the fig leaf of humanitarian aid.
The brutal siege on Al-Shifa Hospital by Israeli forces, involving severe atrocities against both civilians and medical staff, sharply contradicts any supposed altruistic intent behind Starlink’s deployment. After a two-week siege that ended on 1 April, Al-Shifa Hospital was mostly destroyed, and hundreds of dead Palestinians were found in and around the hospital, including in mass graves.
The question arises: was this highly publicized approval of Starlink at Shifa a soft PR salvo laying the groundwork to integrate the company’s products into Israeli military operations inside the Gaza Strip? The timing and context of these developments raise unsettling questions about the actual intentions of both Starlink and Tel Aviv.
Enter Musk
Musk’s highly publicized visit to Israel on 27 November 2023, where he met with Netanyahu, was far from a mere diplomatic event. Musk, who has been meticulously cultivating an image as a champion of free speech via his acquisition of social media Platform X – a role he cultivates like a carefully tailored suit of shining armor – found himself ensnared in a propaganda display orchestrated by Israel.
This scenario is reminiscent of the myth of Icarus, who, despite the heat, flew too close to the sun with wings made of wax and feathers.
Similarly, Musk’s involvement with Netanyahu and the Israeli government, amidst growing scrutiny over war crimes, threatens to destroy his meticulously constructed image. In retrospect, with the ICC’s investigation into war crimes intensifying, this meeting casts a long shadow over Musk’s carefully cultivated persona.
Holding tech execs accountable
Recent legal actions, such as the case in the UK brought by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) against British ministers, highlight the growing effort to hold enablers of genocide accountable.
Yet, prominent figures in the tech industry remain conspicuously unexamined. But why? This situation mirrors the prosecution of individuals in Nazi Germany who enabled the Holocaust through their technological and logistical support, underscoring the need for comprehensive accountability in modern times.
The statutes of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) explicitly recognize various forms of complicity. These include aiding and abetting, which encompass providing the necessary tools and support for committing war crimes and genocide.
This legal framework implies that tech executives whose innovations facilitate large-scale violence should be held accountable under international law.
The intersection of advanced technology and warfare, driven by powerful tech magnates, illustrates a chilling reality: the tools designed to connect and protect are being repurposed to destroy and devastate. Worse yet, it seems war fields like Gaza are viewed as relatively risk-free testing grounds for these tech systems. It is time to make business collaborations with genocide a risk-heavy endeavor, and those efforts must start in the courtroom.
Der Friedensstifter 
