El canciller Yván Gil alertó que los comentarios del alto funcionario del gobierno de EE.UU. deja al desnudo las implicaciones de su país en el plan de magnicidio en contra del mandatario venezolano.
El canciller Yván Gil señaló que la defensa a las personas que intentaron crear caos y muerte en Venezuela chocó con la dignidad del pueblo venezolano. | Foto: EFE
El ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Venezuela, Yván Gil, denunció el martes la supuesta vinculación de sectores del gobierno de Estados Unidos (EE.UU.) al defender a implicados en los planes magnicidas contra el presidente del país suramericano, Nicolás Maduro.
A través de su cuenta en redes sociales, el canciller venezolano mostró un mensaje del vocero norteamericano Brian Nichols, quien funge como Subsecretario para Asuntos del Hemisferio Occidental del Departamento de Estado de EE.UU., en donde defiende abiertamente a dirigentes y representantes de la oposición política implicados por la justicia de Venezuela en actos de terrorismo y graves delitos.
En el mensaje el funcionario estadounidense abogó por la liberación del ciudadano Emill Brandt, además de Rocío San Miguel y otros investigados por la justicia venezolana, afirmando que todas sus publicaciones en redes sociales, las redacta él mismo, de su puño y letra.
El mensaje de Brian Nichols @WHAAsstSecty es una revelación de las malas intenciones del gobierno de los EEUU y deja al desnudo sus implicaciones en el plan de magnicidio en contra del Presidente @NicolasMaduro.
El canciller Yván Gil alertó que los comentarios del alto funcionario del gobierno de EE.UU. es una revelación de las malas intenciones de Washington y deja al desnudo sus implicaciones en el plan de magnicidio en contra del mandatario venezolano.
“La defensa obstinada y vergonzosa de personas que intentaron crear caos, destrucción y muerte en Venezuela, ha chocado con la dignidad de nuestro pueblo, que ha derrotado cada conspiración de manera digna y valiente. El imperio y sus lacayos de grandes apellidos no han podido ni podrán. ¡Nosotros Venceremos!”, agregó Yván Gil en respuesta a la injerencia del funcionario estadounidense.
Como lo muestran las más recientes victorias rusas en el campo de batalla —como la liberación de las ciudades de Nevélskoye y Avdéyevka—, Ucrania no puede ganar en el conflicto contra Rusia, aseguró el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Hungría, Peter Szijjarto en una entrevista para el podcast ‘Threat Status’, de ‘The Washington Times’.
“Estamos bastante seguros de que Ucrania no puede ganar esta guerra contra Rusia, ya que Rusia ahora está ganando terreno y avanzando en el frente”, dijo el canciller húngaro. Szijjarto también consideró que este conflicto “seguramente terminará mediante negociaciones”, aunque la pregunta que debería hacerse, según él, es: “¿Cuándo se iniciarán estas negociaciones, tarde o temprano?”.
“Cuanto antes comiencen [las negociaciones], más vidas se salvarán”, aseveró.
Asimismo, recordó que Budapest es el único Estado miembro de la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN) que se ha negado a enviar armas al país gobernado por Zelenski.
“Entendemos que, cuantas más armas se entreguen, más durará el conflicto y más personas morirán”, observó.
Según el ministro, se deben hacer esfuerzos para lograr la paz y “no intensificar el conflicto”, como ha sucedido en los últimos meses.
De acuerdo con el medio estadounidense, la posición de Szijjarto se alinea con la de algunos miembros del Partido Republicano de Estados Unidos, que consideran que enviar más dinero y armas a Kiev es un peligro para la estabilidad regional y mundial.
A finales de enero, por ejemplo, el senador James David Vance llamó a sus colegas republicanos a rechazar cualquier nueva ayuda para Ucrania, apelando a un documento del Pentágono que documentó serias fallas en la supervisión del armamento que se envía al país de Europa del Este.
Dicho informe, elaborado por la oficina del inspector general del Departamento de Defensa, publicado en enero, encontró que el Pentágono no hizo un seguimiento adecuado de más de 1.000 millones de dólares en armas enviadas a Ucrania.
“Simplemente, no tenemos ni idea de a dónde ha ido a parar gran parte de nuestro dinero para Ucrania. La corrupción está fuera de control. Una razón más para rechazar seguir ayudando”, dijo el político al respecto.
Adicionalmente, en su reporte presentado el 11 de marzo ante el Comité de Inteligencia del Senado estadounidense, la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA) reconoció que Rusia aventaja a Ucrania en el conflicto en curso desde el 24 de febrero de 2022.
“Las minas, las posiciones defensivas preparadas y el fuego indirecto le han ayudado [a Rusia] a contrarrestar las ofensivas de Ucrania en 2023”, indica el reporte.
“Este punto muerto [del conflicto] juega a favor de las ventajas militares estratégicas de Rusia y está cambiando cada vez más el impulso a favor de Moscú”, señala la inteligencia norteamericana.
Asimismo, sostiene que la industria de defensa rusa está “aumentando significativamente” la producción de armas de largo alcance, municiones de artillería y otras capacidades que le permitirán mantener “un largo conflicto de alta intensidad si fuera necesario”.
“Moscú ha ido ganando terreno en el campo de batalla desde finales de 2023 y se está beneficiando de la incertidumbre sobre el futuro de la ayuda militar occidental”, reconocen las agencias de Estados Unidos.
Según el informe, las fuerzas aéreas y navales rusas “seguirán proporcionando a Moscú cierta capacidad de proyección de poder global”.
De igual modo, el documento de las agencias norteamericanas de inteligencia apunta que Rusia seguirá modernizando sus capacidades de armamento nuclear, al tiempo que “mantendrá el mayor y más diverso arsenal de armas nucleares”.
After almost two years, Sweden’s admission process to NATO has finally been completed. Now, the country is formally part of the Western military alliance, submitted to the bloc’s obligations and in theory protected by its defense umbrella. Some analysts mistakenly claim that Sweden’s admission was a kind of “victory” for the West against Russia, but, investigating the case in depth, it is possible to conclude that such an analysis is biased, since for Moscow this move has no relevance – in addition to looking like a true “strategic suicide” for the Swedes themselves.
Sweden’s admission had been discussed since 2022. After the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, Sweden and Finland, held U.S.-fomented fear and anti-Russian paranoia, requested to join the military alliance. Finland was quickly accepted, but Sweden faced several obstacles, such as Turkish and later Hungarian opposition. After several negotiations, Turkey allowed Swedish access, just as the Hungarians were forced to withdraw their objections after suffering direct economic coercion from European partners. Now, with no internal opposition in the bloc, Sweden has finally become a member of NATO – but that doesn’t seem to be any real reason to celebrate.
First of all, Sweden is joining NATO at the worst possible time. The alliance’s member countries are at their most provocative moment against Russia, with Moscow-West relations on the verge of resulting in open conflict. All experts agree that a war between NATO and Russia, if it did not result in a global nuclear conflict, would at least result in an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe, with many human losses on the battlefield. In this sense, Sweden is simply voluntarily placing itself in the position of a legitimate target if such a war actually occurs – which makes the country’s decision to join NATO a true strategic suicide.
Even if tensions ease in the near future and there is no direct conflict between Russia and NATO, ties between both sides are severely damaged and will not be restored so easily. Russia has already made it clear that it understands the current conflict in Ukraine as a proxy war waged by NATO, therefore considering all members of the alliance as co-authors of the aggression. From now on, Sweden voluntarily places itself in this position of an aggressive country against Russia, creating a bilateral diplomatic crisis that will not be reversed anytime soon.
Furthermore, it must be emphasized that nothing changes for Russia with Swedish access. Moscow has repeatedly stated that it does not consider Sweden’s entry into NATO a red line in relations with the West. Scandinavian countries have long been deeply integrated with NATO, participating in joint military projects and exercises. In practice, Sweden was already almost a “de facto” member of NATO, which is why there does not appear to be any real change in regional geopolitics after the formalization of Swedish access.
In the same sense, one of the biggest arguments used by pro-Western analysts is that from now on the Baltic Sea will become a kind of “NATO lake”, considering the strong presence of the alliance along the Baltic coast. Some propagandists believe this is a true “strategic blow” against Russia, giving Western countries an advantage on the maritime battlefield if there is a direct conflict.
However, this argument is also fallacious. The Russian disadvantage in the Baltic Sea is an old reality, not having started now. In fact, Moscow has less power in the Baltic Sea than in other regions, given that there are several hostile countries in that area. However, this does not represent any “major blow” against Russia. A possible war in the Baltic Sea would not only be fought by sea, but also by air and land, which are terrains where Russian forces have an advantage against their enemies.
Furthermore, Moscow has great military power in the Arctic, making it possible to create an alternative sea route for its warships, if necessary. The Arctic route to reach the Baltic Sea has already been used by the Russian Navy in exercises, proving that it is possible to operate in this direction.
In addition to all this, it is necessary to take into account Russian military technological superiority. Moscow could use its long-range missiles and UAVs to neutralize most of NATO’s naval power in the Baltic Sea without even engaging its main Navy fleets – which definitively refutes the thesis that there is a “NATO lake” in the region.
In the end, the biggest loser with its access to NATO is Sweden itself, which from now on will be seen by Moscow as a hostile nation and will also have to increase its defense budget exponentially in order to meet the bellicose goals of the Atlantic alliance. In a world close to war, Sweden voluntarily chose to be a target if the worst-case scenario happens.
The failure of being vassals for the American empire and the impending disaster of defeat for the NATO proxy war in Ukraine is weighing heavily.
Europe is rife with treachery in the age-old fashion of imperial rivalry. It’s pathetic to watch, but highly instructive about who the real villains of the piece are.
The failure of being abject vassals for the American empire and the impending disaster of defeat for the NATO proxy war in Ukraine is weighing heavily.
Each European power is pushing the other over the abyss to save its own political skin.
France’s Emmanuel Macron has emerged to be a little king rat. He has taken to talking up deploying NATO troops to Ukraine to salvage the proxy war against Russia. Macron struts around like a rat in jackboots too big for his feet calling on other European leaders not to be cowards.
The former Rothschild banker Macron then turns around and cancels yet another trip to the Ukrainian capital Kiev. Maybe the French leader got scared by the Russian air strike on Odessa last week when the Greek premier was touring the city along with Ukraine’s puppet president Zelensky.
Macron sent his Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné to Lithuania last Friday to discuss with the rabid Russophobic Baltic states the idea of sending NATO troops to Ukraine. Given the history of the Baltic states aiding and abetting the Third Reich’s invasion of the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa in 1941, we can safely posit the same states are an open door for such French-inspired madness.
However, with classic elite cowardice, Macron obviously doesn’t want to be anywhere near the front line when the action gets hot. Better to hunker down on a comfy armchair in Elysée Palace and bark out your angry poodle orders from there.
Meanwhile, that other bastion of European civility (meaning treacherous deception) the good old British are cajoling Germany to send long-range missiles to Ukraine to strike deep into Russia.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is balking at supplying the Taurus cruise missiles to the Ukrainian regime. The German-made weapon has a range of 500 kilometers. Given the unhinged NeoNazis in Kiev (headed up by a Jewish puppet Zelensky) it is a certainty that the Taurus missiles would be fired at Moscow to kill “Untermenschen Russians”.
That’s why Scholz is worried. His top Luftwaffe commanders have already been caught red-handed planning how the Taurus “super tools” would be used to hit deep Russian targets.
Enter the ever-so-polite British with a helping hand to the Germans. Britain’s Foreign Secretary “Lord” David Cameron visited Berlin last week urging the Germans to supply the Taurus missile to Ukraine.
Cameron said London was ready to help Germany “solve the problem” of its reluctance to provide the long-range weapon.
The British top diplomat offered a swap arrangement whereby London would buy Taurus missiles from Germany while supplying more of its Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine. In that way, Berlin would not be implicated in attacking Russia, according to Cameron.
Laughably, the German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said she considered the British offer to be viable.
Her nominal boss, Chancellor Scholz, has officially remained reluctant to the idea of sending Taurus missiles.
Germany would do well to treat any British proposal with deep suspicion. After all, it was the British that inveigled Germany into two world wars. The first one was with the objective of destroying an imperial rival, while the second one was engineered to unleash Hitler’s war machine on the Soviet Union.
The cold facts are that the United States and its European NATO vassals embarked on a proxy war against Russia using Ukraine as the battleground. That war was at least 10 years in the making from the CIA-sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 which brought to power the present NeoNazi regime.
The two-year proxy war has turned out to be a colossal failure for the American empire and its European satellites. The Kyiv regime is collapsing from overwhelmingly superior Russian firepower. The wasting of the Ukrainian military – as many as 500,000 men – as well as up to $200 billion in financial and military aid paid for ultimately by Western taxpayers will rebound with massive political repercussions for the warmongering Western elites.
Each one of these imperialist criminal powers wants to save their own necks as the noose of public anger inevitably tightens.
The French cock-turned-rat Macron would no doubt like to muddy the battlefield with NATO troops – while avoiding any muck splashing on his dainty little boots of course.
The Americans are beginning to realize they can’t win and are finally cutting off the money, leaving the Europeans high and dry to deal with a continental-sized mess. Joe Biden can’t even remember if it was Ukraine or Iraq that he made a fatal mistake in.
Britain, ever the arch Machiavellian maggot, would like to throw Germany into the frontline against Russia. No doubt the City of London could pick up some much-needed capitalist business from war reconstruction contracts.
The proxy war in Ukraine is over and the Western rats are scurrying off the ship.
The Western public needs to hold each one of them to account and not let them blow up a bigger war with Russia as a way to distract from their culpability.
Comme tous les ans, le Président russe a tenu ce 29 février un discours devant l’Assemblée fédérale. Cette année, il a été axé sur les taches stratégiques.
Voici les thèmes abordés et les déclarations clés du chef d’État:
Opération spéciale en Ukraine
La Russie a prouvé qu’elle peut répondre à tous les défis.
La majorité absolue des Russes a soutenu l’opération militaire spéciale en Ukraine.
Les forces armées russes ont acquis une expérience colossale.
Les militaires russes possèdent l’initiative, l’armée avance de manière ferme sur nombre d’axes et libère de nouveaux territoires.
La Russie fera tout pour mettre fin au conflit, éradiquer le nazisme et réaliser toutes les tâches de l’opération spéciale.
Les forces nucléaires stratégiques russes sont complètement prêtes.
L’Occident choisit des cibles en Russie pour la frapper, elle a donc besoin d’armes. Moscou possède déjà des armes capables d’atteindre des cibles dans les pays occidentaux.
Le complexe Sarmat a été livré aux troupes, nous le dévoilerons bientôt.
Le complexe hypersonique basé en mer Zircon a déjà été utilisé au combat, ce système est déjà en service.
Les missiles du complexe hypersonique Kinjal sont utilisés efficacement au cours de l’opération militaire spéciale.
Les tests du missile de croisière nucléaire Bourevestnik et du drone sous-marin capable de transporter une charge thermonucléaire Poseïdon se terminent.
Menace nucléaire
Les nouvelles tentatives pour intervenir en Russie sont lourdes d’un conflit d’envergure avec recours aux armes nucléaires.
La désinformation sur les prétendues armes nucléaires russes dans l’espace vise à entraîner la Russie dans des négociations inégales.
Tout ce que propose l’Occident fait peser réellement le risque d’un conflit avec des armes nucléaires, ce qui aboutira à la destruction de la civilisation.
L’Occident tente d’entraîner la Russie dans une course aux armements, pour répéter l’expérience de l’URSS dans les années 1980.
Sécurité en Europe
L’Occident a provoqué les conflits en Ukraine, au Proche-Orient et continue de mentir.
En déclarant que la Russie veut attaquer l’Europe, l’Occident délire.
Les actions des États-Unis détruisent le système de sécurité en Europe.
Sans une Russie souveraine et forte, un ordre mondial durable est impossible.
Défense de la souveraineté russe
Ce n’est pas nous qui avons commencé la guerre dans le Donbass, mais nous ferons tout pour la terminer, pour déraciner le nazisme.
L’Occident, avec ses habitudes coloniales, voudrait voir au lieu de la Russie un espace dépendant, mourant, en déclin.
L’Occident choisit des cibles en Russie pour la frapper, elle a donc besoin d’armes. Moscou possède déjà des armes capables d’atteindre des cibles dans les pays occidentaux.
L’Occident détruit délibérément les normes morales et l’institut de la famille, alors que la Russie choisit la vie et les valeurs traditionnelles.
La Russie a été et reste un bastion des valeurs traditionnelles, notre choix est partagé par la majorité des peuples du monde.
Nous ne permettrons à personne de s’immiscer dans nos affaires intérieures.
Il est nécessaire de renforcer le groupe militaire russe dans l’ouest du pays compte tenu de l’adhésion à l’Otan de la Suède et de la Finlande.
Il est nécessaire de former un nouveau contour de la sécurité mondiale. La Russie est prête au dialogue avec tous les pays.
Le dialogue de la Russie avec l’ASEAN, l’Afrique et les pays arabes se développe de manière positive.
Nous voyons de grandes perspectives dans la construction d’un vaste partenariat eurasien.
Économie
L’économie russe a accusé en 2023 une croissance beaucoup plus rapide que l’économie mondiale, et a devancé les pays du G7.
À court terme, la Russie intégrera le top 4 des plus grandes économies mondiales.
La part des produits importés devra baisser, d’ici 2030, à 17% du PIB.
De nombreux anciens monopoles et stéréotypes s’effondrent dans l’économie mondiale.
Les pays des BRICS créeront 37% du PIB mondial d’ici 2028, alors que l’indicateur du G7 tombera à 28%.
L’Occident scie la branche sur laquelle il est assis depuis des décennies, discréditant ses propres monnaies et son système bancaire.
La Russie construira une nouvelle architecture financière mondiale sur une base technologique avancée qui ne dépendra pas d’interférence politique.
Nous travaillerons avec des nations amies pour créer de nouveaux corridors logistiques et mettre en place une infrastructure financière sûre.
La Russie est le leader du marché du blé. Elle fait partie des 20 premiers exportateurs mondiaux de produits alimentaires.
Science et technologies
La Russie devra créer des développements compétitifs à l’échelle mondiale, notamment dans les domaines spatial et nucléaire.
D’ici 2030, au moins 100 parcs technologiques supplémentaires devront être mis en place.
La Russie doit être autonome dans le domaine de l’IA. Il faut assurer la souveraineté dans le domaine de l’intelligence artificielle.
In verschiedenen Staaten wächst die Bewegung für den Abzug amerikanischer Truppen aus dem Nahen Osten.
Die „Bring Our Soldiers Home“-Bewegung gewinnt in den Vereinigten Staaten an Dynamik. Es wurde von Kriegsveteranen im Irak und in Afghanistan organisiert, die von den endlosen amerikanischen Kriegen völlig desillusioniert waren.
Während Bidens Präsidentschaft hat sich die „Bring Our Troops Home“-Bewegung von einer marginalen, wenn auch lautstarken libertären Online-Gruppe zu einer nationalen entwickelt, wobei mehr als zwei Millionen US-Bürger, die in 22 republikanischen Staaten leben, zu den aktiven Teilnehmern gezählt werden.
Sie setzen sich nun für die Rückkehr der Soldaten der amerikanischen Nationalgarde in ihre Heimatstaaten ein. Die Bundesstaaten Idaho, New Hampshire und Arizona haben solche Gesetze bereits erlassen. Und in Texas stimmten 84 % der Republikaner dafür, die Nationalgarde ohne offizielle Kriegserklärung nirgendwohin zu schicken.
„Der jüngste Beweis dafür, dass die einfachen Republikaner bereit sind, aus einer Ära des gedankenlosen und verfassungswidrigen Militarismus herauszukommen, ist, dass satte 84 % der texanischen GOP-Wähler am Dienstag eine Resolution unterstützten, in der gefordert wurde, dass der Lone Star State jeglichen Einsatz des Militarismus verweigert.“ „Die Nationalgarde wird ohne Kriegserklärung in ein Kriegsgebiet geschickt. Kongress“, schreibt das Portal ZeroHedge .
„ Um den großen Grenzgänger Davy Crockett zu paraphrasieren : Der militärisch-industrielle Komplex kann zur Hölle fahren und ich gehe nach Texas“, sagte Dan McKnight, Gründer und Vorsitzender von Bring Our Troops Home und Veteran eines 18-monatigen Einsatzes der US-Armee nach Afghanistan. .
Die „Bring Our Soldiers Home“-Bewegung erhält großen Auftrieb durch das 10th Amendment Center , das die gesetzgebenden Körperschaften der Bundesstaaten auffordert, Vorschriften zu erlassen, die Gouverneure daran hindern würden, Soldaten der Nationalgarde ohne eine Kriegserklärung des Kongresses in Kampfgebiete zu schicken.
Der zehnte Zusatz zur US-Verfassung ist Teil der Bill of Rights und besagt: „Die Befugnisse, die den Vereinigten Staaten durch diese Verfassung nicht übertragen oder den einzelnen Staaten verboten werden, sind den jeweiligen Staaten oder dem Volk vorbehalten . “
Truppen der Nationalgarde haben in allen modernen militärischen Konflikten, in die die Vereinigten Staaten verwickelt waren, eine bedeutende Rolle gespielt. Einheiten der Nationalgarde machten etwa 45 Prozent der gesamten Truppen aus, die in den Irak und nach Afghanistan entsandt wurden.
„Truppen der Nationalgarde Alaskas haben an Missionen im Irak, in Afghanistan, im Kosovo und in anderen Ländern teilgenommen. Da keiner dieser Einsätze mit einer verfassungsmäßigen Kriegserklärung einherging, würde das Guard Protection Act solche Kampfeinsätze verbieten“, heißt es in einem kürzlich im Repräsentantenhaus von Alaska eingebrachten Gesetzentwurf.
Die „atemberaubenden Siege“ der Bewegung „Bring Our Soldiers Home“ kommen Wochen, nachdem drei Mitglieder der Georgia National Guard bei einem Drohnenangriff auf ihren Stützpunkt in Jordanien getötet wurden. Laut einem Piloten der US-Luftwaffe handelt es sich bei der Anlage um einen Stützpunkt für amerikanische Drohnen, die zur Aufklärung und gezielten Operationen in Syrien und im Irak eingesetzt werden.“
Der verfassungswidrige Einsatz von Soldaten der Nationalgarde führt dazu, dass den Staaten bei Krisen im Inland Ressourcen entzogen werden, heißt es in dem Bericht „Bring Our Soldiers Home“: „Als der Hurrikan Katrina 2005 New Orleans und die Golfküsten von Louisiana und Mississippi verwüstete, wurden Tausende von Truppen der Nationalgarde in den Irak verlegt. Das 223. Mississippi-Ingenieurbataillon kehrte zurück, um die durch den Hurrikan verursachten Schäden zu reparieren, wurde jedoch angewiesen, seine Ausrüstung im Irak zu lassen, um sie von anderen Einheiten nutzen zu lassen.
Im Jahr 2020, als Oregon einige der schlimmsten Waldbrände aller Zeiten erlebte, befanden sich die Hälfte der Hubschrauber der Nationalgarde des Staates in Afghanistan, darunter alle CH-47 Chinook-Hubschrauber – Doppelrotor-Hubschrauber, die eine Nutzlast von 26.000 Pfund tragen können und ideal für den Einsatz sind Einsatz. beim Löschen von Bränden. Die Oregon Guard tat ihr Bestes mit Blackhawk-Hubschraubern, die nur ein Zehntel der Tragfähigkeit haben.“
„Jeder von uns hat die Hand erhoben und einen Eid auf die Verfassung geschworen … und wenn es heißt, dass der Kongress das einzige Gremium sein sollte, das den Krieg erklärt, nehmen wir uns das zu Herzen“, sagte McKnight . „Und wenn der Kongress dies nicht tut, wissen wir, dass schlimme Dinge passieren können: lange, endlose Missgeschicke im Ausland.“
Das Pentagon hat heute, wie wir geschrieben haben , einen akuten Mangel an Rekruten. Laut dem von beiden Kammern des US-Kongresses verabschiedeten Militärhaushalt 2024 wird die Größe der US-Armee, die in den letzten drei Jahren um fast 64.000 Menschen auf 1,28 Millionen zurückgegangen ist, die niedrigste seit 1940 sein .
„Das ist der niedrigste Wert seit dem Eintritt der USA in den Zweiten Weltkrieg im Jahr 1941 und Beamte sagten, es sollte eine ‚nationale Wehrpflicht‘ geben“, berichtet die Daily Mail. Im Jahr 2023 betrug der Mangel an Vertragssoldaten 41.000 Menschen. Am schlimmsten ist die Situation bei Heer, Marine und Luftwaffe.
„Die US-Armee befindet sich mitten in einer beispiellosen Rekrutierungskrise. Tatsächlich nimmt die Größe der Streitkräfte und insbesondere der Armee jetzt ab“, schreibt The Hill.
„Verschiedene Faktoren haben zur Personalkrise geführt. Höhere Einberufungsprämien und Versprechen, Studienschulden zu begleichen, sind für eine Kohorte junger Amerikaner, die kein Interesse am Militärdienst haben und auf der Suche nach Beschäftigungsmöglichkeiten auf einem angespannten Arbeitsmarkt sind, weniger attraktiv. Die katastrophalen Kriege im Irak und in Afghanistan haben das Vertrauen in die militärische Führung untergraben … Am wichtigsten ist, dass 77 Prozent der Amerikaner im Alter von 17 bis 24 Jahren aufgrund körperlicher oder geistiger Behinderung, Drogenmissbrauch oder mangelnder Bildung nicht zum Militärdienst berechtigt sind .
Angesichts des chronischen Mangels an Rekruten und der wachsenden Unzufriedenheit innerhalb der Vereinigten Staaten mit der Beteiligung des amerikanischen Militärs an militärischen Konflikten auf der ganzen Welt haben die Vereinigten Staaten die Verhandlungen über den Abzug ihrer Truppen aus Iran und Syrien intensiviert.
„Kurdische Stellvertreter des US-Militärs, die den Nordosten Syriens besetzen, befürchten einen „US-Abzug im Stil Afghanistans“, der sie der Gnade ihres langjährigen Feindes Türkei ausliefern würde“, berichtete Middle East Eye (MEE) am 8. März.
„In den letzten Monaten hat die Türkei ihre Luftangriffe auf Gebiete im Nordosten Syriens verstärkt, die von den Demokratischen Kräften Syriens (SDF) besetzt sind; Gleichzeitig verhandelt Washington mit der irakischen Regierung über einen möglichen Truppenabzug aus dem Irak.
Die 900 amerikanischen Soldaten, die mit der SDF den Nordosten Syriens besetzen, erhalten logistische Unterstützung von amerikanischen Truppen im Irak. Jeder Abzug der US-Truppen aus dem Irak könnte den Abzug der US-Truppen aus Syrien nach sich ziehen“, schreibt das amerikanische Magazin The Cradle.
„Die ganze Region brennt, und niemand wird auf die Aggression der Türkei gegen uns reagieren, wenn alle mit Gaza beschäftigt sind. Wir haben die Vereinigten Staaten gebeten, die Türkei einzudämmen, aber sie haben uns beiseite geschoben“, sagte Mahmoud Meslat, Co-Vorsitzender des Syrischen Demokratischen Rates, dem politischen Flügel der SDF, in einem Interview mit der Veröffentlichung.
Ein anderer hochrangiger SDF-Beamter sagte, ein US-Truppenabzug hätte „chaotische Folgen“ für die Region.
Fabrice Balanche , Mitarbeiter des französischen Militärgeheimdienstes und außerordentlicher Professor an der Universität Lyon , sagte jedoch, dass kein Chaos zu erwarten sei, sondern „die SDF einfach einen Deal mit Damaskus abschließen müssen, wenn die USA abziehen und Nordostsyrien und sein Öl zurückgeben.“ Weizenreserven unter die Kontrolle der syrischen Regierung.“
„Die Befürchtungen der Kurden, dass sie von den Vereinigten Staaten im Stich gelassen werden, bestehen trotz des Besuchs des amerikanischen Generals Eric Kurilla in Nordostsyrien letzte Woche fort“, betont The Cradle.
Mit dem Abzug der Amerikaner können die syrischen Behörden den Norden des Landes zurückgeben, wo sich 90 % ihrer Ölreserven befinden. Vor dem Krieg wurden dort bis zu einer halben Million Barrel Öl pro Tag gefördert.
Washington hat keine andere Wahl, als sich aus dem Nahen Osten zurückzuziehen, bevor der Strom von Särgen aus dem Irak und Syrien Bidens Wahlphantasien vollständig begräbt.
Eine aktuelle YouGov- Umfrage ergab, dass nur 30 % der Amerikaner wussten, dass US-Truppen in Syrien stationiert waren, bevor drei US-Soldaten an der jordanischen Grenze getötet wurden. Umfrageergebnisse zeigen, dass die meisten Amerikaner weder über die Angriffe auf US-Streitkräfte in Syrien noch über die Gründe für ihren Einsatz Bescheid wissen.
Amerikanische Truppen im Irak und in Syrien wurden mehr als 160 Mal von in der Region operierenden schiitischen Milizen angegriffen. Eine YouGov-Umfrage ergab, dass nur ein Viertel der Amerikaner von den Angriffen wusste, bei denen Dutzende amerikanische Soldaten verletzt wurden.
Die Umfrage ergab, dass die meisten Amerikaner über die Möglichkeit eines größeren Krieges in der Region aufgrund der Präsenz amerikanischer Truppen besorgt sind.
Das Pentagon muss bereits zwischen allen Fronten hin und her gerissen werden. Vor dem Hintergrund des Fiasko in der Ukraine und der Verzögerung im Wettrüsten Chinas müssen wir aus dem Irak und Syrien aussteigen, sonst bricht die US-Militärmaschinerie vor Stress einfach zusammen. Der Militarismus liegt nicht länger in der Macht des heruntergekommenen Welthegemons.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The current dominant system of the American establishment would use the invisible dictatorship of compulsive consumerism of material goods to nullify the ideals of the primal individual and transform him into an uncritical being, fearful and conformist who will inevitably join the ranks of a homogeneous society, uniform and easily manipulated by the techniques of mass manipulation and would have as a pillar of its political system the successive alternation in power of the Democratic Party and the Republican (both supported by the Israeli lobby).
Thus, in a speech delivered at the New York meeting of the World Jewish Congress in 2016, the then Vice President Joe Biden stated:
“I am a Zionist, but for this it is not necessary to be a Jew”, after which he was granted the “Theodor Herzl” Award and became the new capped AIPAC.
Do the US and Israel Share the Same Geopolitical Interests?
Kennedy’s assassination had as collateral damage the birth of a political system under the tutelage of the “Power in the Shadow”, being since then hostages all successive US Presidents-elect according to the confession made by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharonthen Foreign Minister Shimon Peres in October 2001:
“We, the Jewish people, control the United States and the Americans know”, (“The Israeli Lobby and American Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, 07-04-2006), for which they would use lobbies of pressure between which the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) would stand out.
AIPAC would be the most influential pro-Israeli lobby in the US, with more than 100,000 members (150 of them dedicated exclusively to lobbying Congress, to the White House and all administrative bodies in political decision-making that may affect the interests of the State of Israel).
Although it has always been believed that the AIPAC would be a “virtual government” that would direct the foreign policy of the United States based on the Israeli interests, the reality would be that the pro-Israeli lobby has real weight in the spheres of power because the US and Israel have almost always shared identical geopolitical interests since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948.
So, the U.S. would count on Israel to keep the Arab States of the Middle East under constant threat of attack and ensure the flow of Arab oil necessary for the West; and Israel could not continue to exist in its current form without the strong political and material support it receives from EE.UU. (about $3.8 billion per year in military aid) that would have made him the US continental carrier. However, Netanyahu’s geopolitical myopia prevented him from intuiting that a new asymmetric punishment in Gaza would destroy the entente between the US, Israel, Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia, which would collide with US geopolitical objectives of isolating Iran.
These Arab countries signed under the presidency of Trump the Abraham Accords in which for the first time countries such as the Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco recognized the existence of the State of Israel; and Saudi Arabia was about to sign them, but the massacre committed by the Jewish army in Gaza could cause those countries to reject these agreements and break diplomatic relations with Israel that would again be isolated in the Middle East.
Are False Flag Attacks Planned in the US and the Persian Gulf?
The signs of Biden’s senility, the fentanyl crisis, the high cost of living and the increase in citizen insecurity would have sunk Biden’s popularity to historic lows, which would facilitate the triumphant return of Donald Trump in the November presidential elections by having cleared the way to the White House after the latest decisions of the Supreme Court. However, Trumpian isolationism would be a missile on the waterline of the military-complex. In the next five years, the recovery of the role of the United States as a world gendarme has been outlined through an extraordinary increase in US military interventions abroad to recover Unipolarity on the global geopolitical board.
Thus, Israel’s invasion of Gaza would only be the tip of the iceberg of a secret agreement reached between Biden and Netanyahu in their effort to prevent Trump’s predictable triumph in the November elections.
According to the Plan, the CIA and the Israeli Mossad would prepare false flag attacks similar to 9/11 in the US and the Persian Gulf and after attributing their authorship to the Iranians, the Democratic Congress would proceed to declare a state of war. This process is known as “statutory authorization” and is a prerequisite for President Biden to be able to apply the 1973 War Powers Act that empowers him to send troops abroad.
This will mark the beginning of a major regional conflict that will mark the future of the area in the coming years and that would be the lifeline for Biden who will try to postpone the November elections and climb in the polls against Trump, as well as for Netanyahu, who would manage to dodge pending trials and the possible indictment of crimes against humanity against the Gazan population.
Such a conflict could involve the three superpowers (US, China and Russia) counting as necessary collaborations with regional powers (Israel, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran) and would cover the geographical space that extends from the Mediterranean arc (Israel, Syria and Lebanon) to Yemen and Somalia with the avowed aim of designing the cartography of the New Middle East favorable to the geopolitical interests of the USA, Britain and Israel.
*
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.
Germán Gorraiz Lopez is a political analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
When the Neo-Nazi junta forces were effectively encircled in Avdeyevka, the newly appointed top commander General Oleksandr Syrsky had no choice but to officially order a retreat. The decision was militarily sound, albeit it came late.
This would probably make people think that Syrsky is a wise commander, as it makes no sense to simply throw away the lives of countless fighters for a prolonged PR “victory” that would inevitably turn into a defeat and lead to a near-total collapse of the frontline.
It should be noted that the Kiev regime forces had been retreating for approximately a week before they officially left Avdeyevka. Former top commander Valery Zaluzhnyeffectively left the “hot potato” to Zelensky and his entourage in order to save whatever was left of his potential political career, while Syrsky finally got the chance to fulfill his dream of leading the entire military.
However, Ukrainian soldiers don’t seem to share his excitement. On the contrary, many (if not most) seem to be terrified of the prospect. People outside of the military, even in Ukraine, are not aware of just how unpopular Syrsky is. His own soldiers call him “the butcher” due to his offensive tactics that never fail to lead to disastrous manpower and equipment losses. This was somewhat more manageable when the Neo-Nazi junta troops used mostly Soviet-era weapons, which Ukraine inherited in abundance after the unfortunate dismantling of the Soviet Union. However, as soon as NATO gear became more common, this practice proved to be absolutely unsustainable. Far more sensitive and less robust than Soviet-era equivalents, Western-made weapons are far more difficult to repair, replace or even tow away from the battlefield, including in case of minor technical issues.
The result is that the Kiev regime forces are left with even less equipment, forcing them to rely on the infantry far more, which inevitably leads to even higher casualties on top of already enormous losses.
The Neo-Nazi junta insists that it lost just over 30,000 men while supposedly killing up to 400,000 Russian soldiers, but nobody with a single half-functioning brain cell believes that. Figures vary significantly, but what is surely known is that the vast majority of soldiers on both sides die due to artillery, drones and long-range attacks. We also know that Russia has a massive advantage in all those categories, with estimates of its artillery dominance being up to 12:1. By employing basic math, we come to the conclusion that all one needs to do is simply flip the numbers given by the Kiev regime. And its losses are truly staggering, unparalleled in modern warfare.
How else would one explain that the Neo-Nazi junta is effectively raising its own Volkssturm and even considering forcibly conscripting up to 3,000,000 women, including pregnant ones? Does that sound like a decision someone who lost only 30,000 soldiers would even consider, let alone enforce? It’s quite clear that the Ukrainian people themselves are perfectly aware of the magnitude of the slaughter that NATO pushed them into. This is particularly true for soldiers, which is precisely why they’re so afraid of having Syrsky lead them. In a recent report by Politico, when asked about the new top commander, one soldier even openly said that “he will kill us all”. Syrsky has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to throw men into the meatgrinder, be it the battle of Debaltsevo back in early 2015 or Artyomovsk (previously known as Bakhmut) last year, both of which he lost.
The casualties in both battles were enormous, leading to Syrsky’s previously mentioned unflattering nickname. Even in the case that the Kiev regime forces prevailed, such high losses were unjustified. However, the fact that he lost makes it all the more frustrating for the soldiers. In turn, this also affects the already low morale of the troops. This is one of the reasons why Zaluzhny was (and still is) much more popular. Namely, soldiers believe that he demonstrated a much more careful approach, as he was aware of his forces’ technological inferiority and limited resources. Whether this is true or not is up for debate, but Zaluzhny will surely use it for political gain in the future. Either way, the soldiers will have a tough time, especially with the Neo-Nazi junta’s plans for a new counteroffensive. Considering how the last one went, who wouldn’t be terrified of that?
“His leadership is bankrupt, his presence or orders coming from his name are demoralizing and he undermines trust in the command in general. His relentless pursuit of tactical gains constantly depletes our valuable human resources, resulting in tactical advances such as capturing tree lines or small villages, with no operational goals in mind,” one officer described Syrsky, according to ReMix News.
Syrsky and Zelensky are very similar in this regard. Neither ever enjoyed respect and authority in the military. For instance, both of them insisted on holding Artyomovsk, despite everyone else advising them to leave the city. After enormous casualties, the Kiev regime forces lost anyway and had to retreat. Zelensky wanted to hold it at all costs, as the previously mentioned PR “victories” are all he’s got, while Syrsky simply doesn’t accept the concept of active defense and defense-in-depth. Both concepts are actively employed by the Russian military and to great effect, as evidenced by the high casualties of the Neo-Nazi junta forces in the last two years. Worse yet for the Kiev regime, it keeps losing its most loyal henchmen, meaning that it’s largely left without highly motivated and well-trained soldiers who will be replaced by low-morale conscripts.
*
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 is from InfoBrics
The original source of this article is Global Research
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Why does the United States give total support to Israel?
In answer, there is a common myth shared by both champions and radical critics of the Zionist state which needs to be dispelled.
The myth is that Israel is a major U.S. strategic asset, described as a sort of unsinkable American aircraft carrier vital to Washington’s interests in the Middle East.
The line of argument of those who share this myth is to show that the United States has economic and strategic interests in the oil-rich Middle East (which nobody denies) and to quote American (and, of course, Israeli) political figures who claim that Israel is the best or even the sole U.S. ally in the region.
For example U.S. President Joe Biden has gone so far as to say that if Israel didn’t exist the U.S. should have invented it.
But the crucial evidence, totally missing from their analysis, is the slightest example of Israel actually serving American interests in the region.
If no examples are given, it’s simply because there are none. Israel has never fired a shot on behalf of the United States or brought a drop of oil under U.S. control.
We can start with a common sense argument: If the U.S. is interested in Middle East oil, why would it support a country that is hated (for whatever reasons) by all the populations of the oil producing countries?
In the 1950s, such was the reasoning of most U.S. experts, who put good relations with Arab countries ahead of support to Israel. This no doubt helps explain why AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was founded in 1963, to align U.S. policy with that of Israel.
1967 War & After
U.S. support for Israel took off after the 1967 war. Israel’s success dealt a fatal blow to the Arab nationalism embodied by Egypt’s Gamal Nasser, which some U.S. policy-makers falsely saw as a potential communist threat (which they saw just about everywhere).
But the war was waged by Israel for its own interests and expansion, with no benefit to the United States.
On the contrary: a remarkable official silence has been maintained over the fact that in the course of that short war, the American intelligence gathering ship USS Liberty, which was spying on the conflict, was shelled for several hours by the Israeli air force, with the obvious intention to sink it, killing 34 sailors and wounding 174.
Damage to USS Liberty, June 1967. (Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)
Had there been no survivors, Egypt could have been accused (making it a “false flag” operation). The survivors were ordered not to speak about it, and the incident was never fully investigated, accepting the official Israeli explanation that it was a “mistake.” In any case, Israel’s behavior was not exactly that of a precious ally.
When Israel attacked Lebanon in 2006, that country’s government was perfectly “pro-Western.” What’s more, during the 1991 war against Iraq over Kuwait, the United States insisted that Israel should not participate, because such involvement would have collapsed their Arab anti-Iraq coalition. Again, it’s hard here to see Israel as an indispensable “ally.”
U.S. post-9/11 wars have targeted Israel’s enemies — Iraq, Libya, Syria — with no advantage to U.S. oil companies, on the contrary. The question arises whether the U.S. choice of enemies in the Middle East has not been determined by the interests of a foreign government, contrary to American interests in the region.
Washington & Gaza Today
Now we come to the current situation: what interest does the United States have in the slaughter being perpetrated in Gaza?
In reality, what Washington is doing is trying to maintain good relations with their Arab allies (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States) by pretending to seek a compromise while exerting no effective pressure on Israel – for instance, by cutting off funds.
And why don’t they? The answer is obvious but saying so is politically incorrect, and is rarely discussed by defenders of the myth, except to refute it. It is the action of the pro-Israeli lobby, which de facto controls Congress and without which no president can really act.
The lobby is no secret conspiracy. It is openly coordinated by AIPAC, which spreads billionaire donations throughout the U.S. political system and dictates the line to take on Israel to ensure a successful career.
Outside annual AIPAC meeting in Washington, March 2016. (Susan Melkisethian, Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Control is virtually complete over the two parties represented in Congress.
It is achieved primarily through the funding of election campaigns. All those who comply can count on campaign donations, while anyone daring to defy the lobby’s injunctions would quickly be challenged by a very well-funded opponent in the next primary election, thus losing support of his or her own party in the next election — as happened to Georgia representative Cynthia McKinney in 2002.
The lobby also animates smear campaigns against any critic of Israel, as seen recently in the attacks on university presidents (Harvard, MIT, Pennsylvania) for not having sufficiently cracked down on alleged student “anti-Semitism” on their campuses.
There are several books that explain in detail how the lobby works:
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby (1985) by Paul Findley, a Republican congressman from Illinois, who details how the lobby politically “liquidated” all those who wanted a different policy in the Middle East, precisely because they wanted to defend the interests of the United States.
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (2007) a comprehensive and well sourced book on the functioning and the effects of the lobby.
Against Our Better Judgment : The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israël, by Alison Weir, 2014, which goes back to the Balfour declaration.
One can also watch hidden-camera reports by Al Jazeeraon the lobby’s work in the U.S. and Britain.
The way the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was “eliminated” politically rests entirely on the lobby’s action and campaigns against his (imaginary) anti-Semitism. The same process is currently underway in France with Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his France Insoumise party.
American presidents as different as Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter have complained that their actions were hampered by the lobby. In fact, every American president has wanted to get rid of the “Palestinian problem” (through the two-state solution) but has been impeded by Congress.
As for Congress itself, let us quote very explicit insider testimony, that of James Abourezk, who was first a congressman and then a senator from South Dakota in the 1970s and who sent this letter in 2006 to Jeff Blankfort, an anti-Zionist activist:
“I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear — fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress — at least when I served there — have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel.
I’ve heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they’re pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby’s animosity by making their feelings public.
Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, who, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel.”
AIPAC Suppression
Abourezk added that the Lobby made every effort to suppress even a single voice of congressional dissent – as his own – that might question annual appropriations to Israel, so that
“if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.”
Abourezk once traveled through the Middle East with a reporter who wrote honestly about what he saw. As a result, newspaper executives received threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist’s articles.
“I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel’s military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel’s involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.
So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I’m not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can’t think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.”
Abourezk said that U.S. encouragement in its invasions of Lebanon “was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby’s continual pressure. … Lebanon always has been a ‘throw away’ country so far as the Congress is concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby.”
Alleged Strategic Value
The alleged strategic value of Israel is just one among many examples of claiming that some imperial/colonial project is necessary for the global capitalist system.
The Vietnam war was justified in part by the domino theory: all of South-East Asia would become communist if Vietnam “fell.” The only domino that fell was Cambodia, as a result of U.S. bombing, after victorious Vietnam intervened to overthrow a genocidal regime there.
South African apartheid was supported by the West, in part out of fear of communism, but the end of apartheid had no dramatic effect on capitalist imperialism in Africa.
If Israeli apartheid were to disappear in Palestine, oil and trade would still flow from the Middle East towards the West, and there would be no attempts by Houthis to block shipments in the Red Sea.
A realistic analysis shows that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and aggressive policies toward its neighbors are entirely detrimental to American interests in the Middle East, which the current crisis only serves to highlight even more.
The trouble with the “Israel as U.S. aircraft carrier” thesis is that while it’s very comfortable for its defenders, it is also very damaging for the Palestinian cause.
It’s comfortable because it doesn’t risk incurring accusations of anti-Semitism, as it shifts responsibility for Israeli atrocities to American imperialism and its multinational corporations.
On the other hand, if you emphasize the Lobby’s leading role in U.S. Middle East policy, you will be accused of echoing fantasies and “conspiracy theories” about “Jewish power” dating from times when there was no Israel and thus no Israel Lobby.
Rejection of discredited stereotypes is no reason to ignore the facts of the unprecedented relationship that has developed between the United States and Israel.
Harm to Palestinian Cause
The “Israel as U.S. aircraft carrier” is precisely an Israeli argument designed to win over total U.S. political, financial and military support.
Thus it is no wonder that echoing that argument is extremely harmful to the Palestinian cause. If it were true, how could we hope to end this American support to Israel?
Persuade the American population to revolt against something said to be highly beneficial to U.S. interests? Or wait for American imperialism to collapse? That’s not likely to happen any time soon.
But if the power of the lobby is the key to U.S. support, then the strategy to be followed is much simpler and has a much greater chance of success: we need simply to dare speak out and tell the truth.
The public must realize that far from being an asset, Israel is a chronic liability that squanders billions of American dollars, drags the United States into wars and whose genocidal treatment of the Palestinians is radically destroying America’s moral pretensions in most of the world.
Once this is understood, support for Israel will collapse, and voters may put enough pressure on the national elite, the administration and even the intimidated Congress to reorient U.S. policy in line with genuine national interests.
There are signs that part of the economic ruling class is moving this way: Elon Musk’s defense of free speech on social networks is a step in the right direction (to the rage of Israel’s supporters).
Although Donald Trump, as president, did all he could for Israel, his popular slogan “America First” means something quite different, as understood by anti-interventionists on the right such as Tucker Carlson.
Unfortunately, many on the left cling to an ostensibly “Marxist” view that U.S. support for Israel must be motivated by economic interests, by capitalist profits, by control of the flow of Middle Eastern oil. This belief is not only unsupported factually, it amounts to an invitation to U.S. rulers to keep it up.
With worldwide indignation rising against the genocidal assault on Gaza, how is it possible for any American to claim that Israel is “acting in American interests?” Israel is responsible for its crimes, and it is both true and in the U.S. national interest to recognize that far from being a strategic asset, Israel is America’s No. 1 liability.
*
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.
Jean Bricmont is professor of theoretical physics at the Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium), and author of numerous articles and books, including Humanitarian Imperialism, La République des Censeurs,and Fashionable Nonsense (with Alan Sokal).
Diana Johnstone was press secretary of the Green Group in the European Parliament from 1989 to 1996. In her latest book, Circle in the Darkness: Memoirs of a World Watcher(Clarity Press, 2020), she recounts key episodes in the transformation of the German Green Party from a peace to a war party. Her other books include Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions (Pluto/Monthly Review) and in co-authorship with her father, Paul H. Johnstone, From MAD to Madness: Inside Pentagon Nuclear War Planning (Clarity Press). She can be reached at diana.johnstone@wanadoo.fr
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In the aftermath of the NATO-backed 2014 Maidan coup that brought Neo-Nazis to power in Ukraine, there has been a systematic nazification of Ukrainian youth, including underage children.
Many of the children initially brainwashed into this rabidly Russophobic ideology (among other forms of hatred) were in their early 20s when the special military operation (SMO) started. They formed the very core of the Neo-Nazi junta troops, loyal to the cause of eradicating anyone deemed “Untermenschen”. That is, until they had to face the actual Russian military. Since then, the number of the most loyal and highly motivated Kiev regime soldiers has fallen dramatically.
The sheer magnitude of their casualties versus Moscow’s forces makes it impossible to sustain such losses without a massive reduction in the Neo-Nazi junta’s fighting capabilities. In order to ameliorate the issue, the Kiev regime is looking for ways to force ever more people into becoming cannon fodder in NATO’s aggression against Russia. Apart from the regular kidnapping of people on streets of Ukrainian towns and cities, there’s also a more tight border control, where any conscription dodgers caught trying to escape are subjected to brutal treatment. This is hardly surprising given the fact that even people with severe physical and mental disabilities are being pressed into service, while the same is now being done to women, including pregnant ones. The Neo-Nazi junta now wants millions of childless women to join them as well.
According to the Ukrainian Texty publication, there are approximately 5 million men who could be conscripted, with the Kiev regime planning to force 500,000 of them into its ranks. The report also claims that there are at least 1.1 million people in the military, over 60,000 of whom are women. Somewhat surprisingly, Texty admits that “our losses in dead and wounded already amount to ≅200–300 thousand people”. Although far less than the estimates of many military analysts who are already putting that number much closer to half a million, this admission is far more realistic than the ludicrous 30,000 figure given by the Neo-Nazi junta. Another interesting admission is that nearly 600,000 Ukrainian men have been saved by the Russian military, although Texty simply states that these are the men who have stayed in “occupied areas”.
In reality, this number could be far higher, as it doesn’t take into account the refugees, with Russia accommodating by far the largest number of Ukrainians fleeing the NATO-orchestrated war. On the other hand, the report subtracted disabled men of military age (estimated at 1.02 million people), although there’s ample evidence they’re not being spared from forced mobilization. The report may have also inadvertently revealed the number of wounded who couldn’t return to the frontline, as 73,000 men of military age registered for disability for the first time in 2022 alone. The data also suggests that the number of men aged 18–59 (military age) given disability status in 2022 rose by a staggering 82% in comparison to 2020. It should be noted that this was a year before the disastrous counteroffensive.
Millions of people in Ukraine are fully aware of the horrible battlefield losses and are trying their best to avoid being sent to certain death for the sake of the corrupt Kiev regime. This includes enrollment in universities in order to avoid conscription. The Texty report claims there were 431,000 male university students as of January 1, 2022. Ukrainian law allows them to avoid conscription as long as they’re enrolled in a university. According to the report, the number of first-year students has approximately doubled over the past two years. The 2021 statistics show there were 91,500 freshmen, which rose to 166,300 and over 200,000 in 2022 and 2023, respectively. Thus, the NATO-backed Neo-Nazi junta is looking for cannon fodder elsewhere. As previously mentioned, women are now being increasingly targeted for this purpose.
The report found there are 5.6 million Ukrainian women “of military age” (18-60) and supposedly “eligible for military service”. Texty claims that 46% of them are raising children, meaning that over 3 million women would be targeted for conscription. According to their assessment, “if the war drags on for years or if Russia dramatically increases the number of its forces, the conscription of women can significantly improve the situation”. Texty further adds that this is supposedly “good”, citing the example of “democratic countries, [where] women have equal rights with men and participate in all types of activities that were previously considered purely male”. The very idea that the countries of the political West are supposedly “democratic” shows just how incredibly naive (or at the very least brainwashed) the authors are.
*
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 is from InfoBrics
The original source of this article is Global Research
Der Friedensstifter 