https://t.co/5YZi6ePkLd
Exclusive Breaking News: Evidence to be presented that criminal activity has been committed by the very top of Government in the UK.
Rishi Sunak British Prime Minister may face a criminal investigation and face potential criminal charges of the most… pic.twitter.com/VYYYGOPkCn— Jim Ferguson (@JimFergusonUK) February 24, 2024
»Den Kurs auf Verhandlungen mit Russland stellen!« Rede von der Demonstration »Frieden für die Ukraine und für Russland« am Sonnabend in Berlin – Von Lühr Henken (junge Welt)
AUSZUG:
„Was macht diese Marschflugkörper so gefährlich? Die punktzielgenauen »TAURUS« sind durchschlagfähig gegen vier Meter dicken Beton und nur schwierig abfangbar. Ihre Reichweite von mehr als 500 Kilometern ermöglicht einen Einsatz in drei Bereichen: erstens strategische Zentren in Moskau – wie der Kreml und Ministerien. Das ist, wofür der CDU-Hasardeur Roderich Kiesewetter kürzlich plädierte. Zweitens lagern auf halbem Weg nach Moskau in 22 Silos russische Interkontinentalraketen mit 88 Atomsprengköpfen. Allein diese strategischen Optionen von gelieferten »TAURUS« provozieren heftige russische Gegenmaßnahmen.“
weiterlesen hier:https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/470188.taurus-lieferung-den-kurs-auf-verhandlungen-mit-russland-stellen.html
Ukrainekrieg – Das böse V-Wort ist plötzlich (wieder) da (Nachdenkseiten)
Wir erinnern uns – noch vor einem Jahr wurde die Rückeroberung der Krim als Etappenziel im Ukrainekrieg ausgegeben. Die Perspektive auf einen künftigen Frieden mit Russland war damals noch mit der totalen Niederlage Russlands in der Ukraine verknüpft. Wer – wie beispielsweise die Unterzeichner des „Manifests für den Frieden“ – damals Verhandlungen zur Kriegsbeendigung forderte, galt in der Medienberichterstattung als „Lumpenpazifist“ und „Putin-Knecht“. Wenn das wirklich so ist, hat der „Lumpenpazifismus“ mittlerweile bereits die ersten Falken erreicht. An diesem Wochenende gaben sowohl der ehemalige ukrainische Botschafter Andrij Melnyk, der Grünen-Politiker Anton Hofreiter als auch der ehemalige Bundespräsident Joachim Gauck das Ziel aus, nun „aus einer Position der Stärke heraus“ Friedensverhandlungen mit Russland anzustreben. Vor einem Jahr wäre das undenkbar gewesen. Es ist jedoch noch zu früh, dies als Hoffnungsschimmer zu sehen.
Von Jens Berger
hier weiterlesen:Nachdenkseiten.de
Gewerkschaftsmitglieder, Kommunisten und Friedensfreunde demonstrieren vor dem Kanzleramt (UZ, Unsere Zeit)
Krieg, Wirtschaftskrieg und sozialen Krieg beenden
Mehr als 400 Menschen sind am Samstag einem Aufruf der Friedenskoordination Berlin gefolgt und versammelten sich unter dem Motto „Frieden für die Ukraine und für … Krieg, Wirtschaftskrieg und sozialen Krieg beendenweiterlesen
The Rapidly Emerging Rule of Tyranny in the West
An 18 year old mother put her baby in a dumpster with a trash compactor. The police found the baby’s remains wrapped in a mattress protector inside a zipped-up duffel bag. Evil must have taken a large step forward for a mother to do this to her baby. See here.
I can imagine Jakayla Williams thinking that if she had aborted the baby there would be no complaint, so why can’t she put the baby in the dumpster?Brave New World and Br…Aldous HuxleyBest Price: $1.65Buy New $5.06(as of 01:20 UTC — Details)
Legalized abortion, that is legalized murder, has left women insensitive to murder. Consequently, murder is becoming legalized outside abortion. For example, Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, and our Great Country America vetoes the UN resolutions against Israel’s genocidal murder of the Palestinians. Washington has redefined genocide as “self-defense” by the Israelis committing the genocide.
The atrocities are beyond belief. The Israelis are committing genocide of the Palestinians and the Democrat regime here vetos UN cease fire resolutions. But an 18 year old black American woman is going to be tried for first degree murder because she waited too long before she aborted her baby. How can this be that the Israeli and US governments can murder at will, but if a black woman disposes of her baby after the expiration of the “use by” date of her legal right to murder, she is a murderess?
And look what the Great British and American Democracies have done to Julian Assange. Imprisoned in one form or the other for 12 years without any charges being brought. It is just like medieval times when feudal lords at their whim threw people in dungeons for keeps.
The Oswalds: An Untold…Gregory, Paul R.Best Price: $10.35Buy New $19.59(as of 05:01 UTC — Details)The latest reports show that the Democrats are spending massive amounts of our money suppressing truth and financing the recruitment and provisioning of the immigrant invaders from 160 countries that are overrunning our country. According to official, understated, figures, each year Biden is bringing in immigrant-invaders in numbers equal to 12 cities the size of Pittsburg Pennsylvania. So, 24 cities in two years, 36 cities in 3 years, and dumbshit Americans vote for Demorats who are stealing their country from them.
How can a people as indoctrinated and brainwashed as Americans possibly avoid the tyranny that is rapidly descending on them? Many Americans have difficulty being realistic about government. They think government is there to serve them. It is not. Many decades ago Albert Jay Nock made that clear in the classic book, Our Enemy, The State.
The trust that Americans place in official narratives is extraordinary. Americans fell for 9/11, for Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, for the “Covid Pandemic” hoax and the mRNA deadly vaccine. Our government wouldn’t lie to us, many say as they sit in front of CNN, Fox News, listen to NPR, read the New York Times and program themselves into mindlessness.
I recently read a letter from a US Senator to a federal agency demanding to know why the agency was financing research in Wuhan, China, focused on weaponizing bird flu. She hasn’t had a reply. Are the elite going to release weaponized bird flu on us in 2025? By then will it be a criminal offense to refuse the vaccine?
Bill Gates has made it clear that the elite’s agenda is to kill off most of the world population. Mike Benz recently explained to Tucker Carlson the controls being put in place to prevent one word of truth being spoken in resistance to the tyranny that is prepared for us. See here.
The official narrative is that people are killing the planet by causing global warming. To save the planet people have to be eliminated. Here we face not Israel’s genocide of a couple of million Palestinians, but the elite’s genocide of 7.5 billion people. Those advocating the genocide of humanity are not held accountable. Instead, they are respectable leaders of mankind.
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts
War Is Bad for You — And the Economy
Biden Touts the Alleged Benefits of the “Arsenal of Democracy”
By William D. Hartung
TomDispatch.com
Joe Biden wants you to believe that spending money on weapons is good for the economy. That tired old myth — regularly repeated by the political leaders of both parties — could help create an even more militarized economy that could threaten our peace and prosperity for decades to come. Any short-term gains from pumping in more arms spending will be more than offset by the long-term damage caused by crowding out new industries and innovations, while vacuuming up funds needed to address other urgent national priorities.
The Biden administration’s sales pitch for the purported benefits of military outlays began in earnest last October, when the president gave a rare Oval Office address to promote a $106-billion emergency allocation that included tens of billions of dollars of weaponry for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. MAGA Republicans in Congress had been blocking the funding from going forward and the White House was searching for a new argument to win them over. The president and his advisers settled on an answer that could just as easily have come out of the mouth of Donald Trump: jobs, jobs, jobs. As Joe Biden put it:Speed Reading: Learn t…Knight, KamBest Price: $ 7,90Buy New $12.93(as of 08:37 UTC — Details)
“We send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpiles. And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores… equipment that defends America and is made in America: Patriot missiles for air defense batteries made in Arizona; artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country — in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas; and so much more.”
It should be noted that two of the four states he singled out (Arizona and Pennsylvania) are swing states crucial to his reelection bid, while the other two are red states with Republican senators he’s been trying to win over to vote for another round of military aid to Ukraine.
Lest you think that Biden’s economic pitch for such aid was a one-off event, Politico reported that, in the wake of his Oval Office speech, administration officials were distributing talking points to members of Congress touting the economic benefits of such aid. Politico dubbed this approach “Bombenomics.” Lobbyists for the administration even handed out a map purporting to show how much money such assistance to Ukraine would distribute to each of the 50 states. And that, by the way, is a tactic companies like Lockheed Martin routinely use to promote the continued funding of costly, flawed weapons systems like the F-35 fighter jet. Still, it should be troubling to see the White House stooping to the same tactics.
Yes, it’s important to provide Ukraine with the necessary equipment and munitions to defend itself from Russia’s grim invasion, but the case should be made on the merits, not through exaggerated accounts about the economic impact of doing so. Otherwise, the military-industrial complex will have yet another never-ending claim on our scarce national resources.
Military Keynesianism and Cold War Fallacies
The official story about military spending and the economy starts like this: the massive buildup for World War II got America out of the Great Depression, sparked the development of key civilian technologies (from computers to the internet), and created a steady flow of well-paying manufacturing jobs that were part of the backbone of America’s industrial economy.
There is indeed a grain of truth in each of those assertions, but they all ignore one key fact: the opportunity costs of throwing endless trillions of dollars at the military means far less is invested in other crucial American needs, ranging from housing and education to public health and environmental protection. Yes, military spending did indeed help America recover from the Great Depression but not because it was military spending. It helped because it was spending, period. Any kind of spending at the levels devoted to fighting World War II would have revived the economy. While in that era, such military spending was certainly a necessity, today similar spending is more a question of (corporate) politics and priorities than of economics.
In these years Pentagon spending has soared and the defense budget continues to head toward an annual trillion-dollar mark, while the prospects of tens of millions of Americans have plummeted. More than 140 million of us now fall into poor or low-income categories, including one out of every six children. More than 44 million of us suffer from hunger in any given year. An estimated 183,000 Americans died of poverty-related causes in 2019, more than from homicide, gun violence, diabetes, or obesity. Meanwhile, ever more Americans are living on the streets or in shelters as homeless people hit a record 650,000 in 2022.
Perhaps most shockingly, the United States now has the lowest life expectancy of any industrialized country, even as the International Institute for Strategic Studies reports that it now accounts for 40% of the world’s — yes, the whole world’s! — military spending. That’s four times more than its closest rival, China. In fact, it’s more than the next 15 countries combined, many of which are U.S. allies. It’s long past time for a reckoning about what kinds of investments truly make Americans safe and economically secure — a bloated military budget or those aimed at meeting people’s basic needs.
What will it take to get Washington to invest in addressing non-military needs at the levels routinely lavished on the Pentagon? For that, we would need presidential leadership and a new, more forward-looking Congress. That’s a tough, long-term goal to reach, but well worth pursuing. If a shift in budget priorities were to be implemented in Washington, the resulting spending could, for instance, create anywhere from 9% more jobs for wind and solar energy production to three times as many jobs in education.
As for the much-touted spinoffs from military research, investing directly in civilian activities rather than relying on a spillover from Pentagon spending would produce significantly more useful technologies far more quickly. In fact, for the past few decades, the civilian sector of the economy has been far nimbler and more innovative than Pentagon-funded initiatives, so — don’t be surprised — military spinoffs have greatly diminished. Instead, the Pentagon is desperately seeking to lure high-tech companies and talent back into its orbit, a gambit which, if successful, is likely to undermine the nation’s ability to create useful products that could push the civilian sector forward. Companies and workers who might otherwise be involved in developing vaccines, producing environmentally friendly technologies, or finding new sources of green energy will instead be put to work building a new generation of deadly weapons.
Diminishing Returns
In recent years, the Pentagon budget has approached its highest level since World War II: $886 billion and counting. That’s hundreds of billions more than was spent in the peak year of the Vietnam War or at the height of the Cold War. Nonetheless, the actual number of jobs in weapons manufacturing has plummeted dramatically from three million in the mid-1980s to 1.1 million now. Of course, a million jobs is nothing to sneeze at, but the downward trend in arms-related employment is likely to continue as automation and outsourcing grow. The process of reducing arms industry jobs will be accelerated by a greater reliance on software over hardware in the development of new weapons systems that incorporate artificial intelligence. Given the focus on emerging technologies, assembly line jobs will be reduced, while the number of scientists and engineers involved in weapons-related work will only grow.
In addition, as the journalist Taylor Barnes has pointed out, the arms industry jobs that do remain are likely to pay significantly less than in the past, as unionization rates at the major contractors continue to fall precipitously, while two-tier union contracts deny incoming workers the kind of pay and benefits their predecessors enjoyed. To cite two examples: in 1971, 69% of Lockheed Martin workers were unionized, while in 2022 that number was 19%; at Northrop Grumman today, a mere 4% of its employees are unionized. The very idea that weapons production provides high-paying manufacturing jobs with good benefits is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
More and better-paying jobs could be created by directing more spending to domestic needs, but that would require a dramatic change in the politics and composition of Congress.
The Military Is Not an “Anti-Poverty Program”
Members of Congress and the Washington elite continue to argue that the U.S. military is this country’s most effective anti-poverty program. While the pay, benefits, training, and educational funding available to members of that military have certainly helped some of them improve their lot, that’s hardly the full picture. The potential downside of military service puts the value of any financial benefits in grim perspective.
Many veterans of America’s disastrous post-9/11 wars, after all, risked their physical and mental health, not to speak of their lives, during their time in the military. After all, 40% of veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars have reported service-related disabilities. Physical and mental health problems suffered by veterans range from lost limbs to traumatic brain injuries to post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). They have also been at greater risk of homelessness than the population as a whole. Most tragically, four times as many veterans have committed suicide as the number of military personnel killed by enemy forces in any of the U.S. wars of this century.
The toll of such disastrous conflicts on veterans is one of many reasons that war should be the exception, not the rule, in U.S. foreign policy.
And in that context, there can be little doubt that the best way to fight poverty is by doing so directly, not as a side-effect of building an increasingly militarized society. If, to get a leg up in life, people need education and training, it should be provided to civilians and veterans alike.
Tradeoffs
Federal efforts to address the problems outlined above have been hamstrung by a combination of overspending on the Pentagon and the unwillingness of Congress to more seriously tax wealthy Americans to address poverty and inequality. (After all, the wealthiest 1% of us are now cumulatively worth more than the 291 million of us in the “bottom” 90%, which represents a massive redistribution of wealth in the last half-century.)
The tradeoffs are stark. The Pentagon’s annual budget is significantly more than 20 times the $37 billion the government now invests annually in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. Meanwhile, spending on weapons production and research alone is more than eight times as high. The Pentagon puts out more each year for one combat aircraft — the overpriced, underperforming F-35 — than the entire budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, one $13 billion aircraft carrier costs more to produce than the annual budget of the Environmental Protection Agency. Similarly, in 2020, Lockheed Martin alone received $75 billion in federal contracts and that’s more than the budgets of the State Department and the Agency for International Development combined. In other words, the sum total of that company’s annual contracts adds up to the equivalent of the entire U.S. budget for diplomacy.A Century of War: Linc…John V. DensonBest Price: $3.72Buy New $8.50(as of 07:45 UTC — Details)
Simply shifting funds from the Pentagon to domestic programs wouldn’t, of course, be a magical solution to all of America’s economic problems. Just to achieve such a shift in the first place would, of course, be a major political undertaking and the funds being shifted would have to be spent effectively. Furthermore, even cutting the Pentagon budget in half wouldn’t be enough to take into account all of this country’s unmet needs. That would require a comprehensive package, including not just a change in budget priorities but an increase in federal revenues and a crackdown on waste, fraud, and abuse in the outlay of government loans and grants. It would also require the kind of attention and focus now reserved for planning to fund the military.
One comprehensive plan for remaking the economy to better serve all Americans is the moral budget of the Poor People’s Campaign, a national movement of low-income people inspired by the 1968 initiative of the same name spearheaded by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., before his assassination that April 4th. Its central issues are promoting racial justice, ending poverty, opposing militarism, and supporting environmental restoration. Its moral budget proposes investing more than $1.2 trillion in domestic needs, drawn from both cuts to Pentagon spending and increases in tax revenues from wealthy individuals and corporations. Achieving such a shift in American priorities is, at best, undoubtedly a long-term undertaking, but it does offer a better path forward than continuing to neglect basic needs to feed the war machine.
If current trends continue, the military economy will only keep on growing at the expense of so much else we need as a society, exacerbating inequality, stifling innovation, and perpetuating a policy of endless war. We can’t allow the illusion — and it is an illusion! — of military-fueled prosperity to allow us to neglect the needs of tens of millions of people or to hinder our ability to envision the kind of world we want to build for future generations. The next time you hear a politician, a Pentagon bureaucrat, or a corporate functionary tell you about the economic wonders of massive military budgets, don’t buy the hype.Reprinted with permission from TomDispatch.com.
After Two Years, Neocons Desperate For More War in Ukraine
By Ron Paul, MD
In a recent CNN interview, the normally very confident US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland sounded a little desperate. She was trying to make the case for Congress to pass another $61 billion dollars for the neocons’ proxy war project in Ukraine and she was throwing out the old slogans that the neocons use when they want funding for their latest war.
Death by Government: G…R. J. RummelBest Price: $ 43.32Buy New $42.99(as of 08:10 UTC — Details)Asked by CNN whether she believes that Congress will eventually pass the bill, Nuland responded that she has confidence that, “we will do what we have always done, which is defend democracy and freedom around the world…”
What Nuland is attempting here is what the neocons always do. They try to wrap their terrible policies up in the American flag and sell it to the American people as something reflective of “our” values. If you oppose another neocon war, well then you are unpatriotic according to their trickery.
But Americans are waking up to the lies of the neocons and more and more are realizing that there is no “we” when the neocons are trying to sell another war. It is “them.” The “we” in the equation are the people who are being robbed to pay for what will inevitably be another neocon failure.
Does any American still believe that Washington was “defending democracy and freedom” when it used a pack of lies to get us into Iraq, where a country was destroyed and perhaps a million people were killed? How about when, after 20 years in Afghanistan, we managed to replace the Taliban…with the Taliban? And Syria and Libya and all the other interventions?The Costs of War: Amer…Best Price: $1.99Buy New $13.46(as of 08:00 UTC — Details)
Was Washington “defending democracy” when Nuland and the rest of the neocons successfully overthrew a democratically elected government in Ukraine in 2014?
It’s getting harder and harder for the American people to choke down the war lies of the neocons. That is something that should make us feel optimistic. In the same interview, Nuland said she was confident that when House Members return to session next week, “after they’ve been out in their districts hearing from the American people,” they will vote to send the $61 billion to Ukraine.
Looking at public opinion polls, however, it is far more likely that any Member meeting with constituents during the break will hear the opposite. It is likely they will hear a demand that not another penny be spent on the brutal, futile, and disastrous Ukraine war. According to a Harris poll taken earlier this month, some 70 percent of Americans want talks to end the Ukraine war!
Americans no longer support the neocon war project in Ukraine. That is something to celebrate.
Perhaps in a last show of desperation, Victoria Nuland debuted another argument for keeping the war money flowing for Ukraine. She said, “we have to remember that the bulk of this money is going right back into this economy to make those weapons…”
Is this supposed to be attractive to the American people? The middle class and the poor are being destroyed by inflation and squeezed by a debased currency so that the wealthy, politically-connected weapons manufacturers can get even richer? Instead of money to rebuild this country and protect its borders, Americans should be thrilled to see their hard work go up in smoke, literally, in Ukraine?
Jetzt muss der Staatsfunk berichten: Bauerproteste in Brüssel eskalieren
Bauernprotest Brüssel (Bild: Screenshot)
Verbissen hat der Staatsfunk und die Neigungsmedien versucht, die Bauernproteste tot zu schweigen. Nun sind diese am Montag beim Treffen der EU-Agrarminister in Brüssel eskaliert.
Beim Treffen der EU-Agrarminister in Brüssel, wo es unter anderem um den jüngsten Kommissionsvorschlag zu Streichungen bei den GLÖZ-Standards ging, jam es am Montag zu gewaltsamen Bauernprotesten. Ihren Unmut über die desaströse und bauernfeindliche EU-Agrarpolitik machten die Landwirte in Brüssel Luft. Weite Teile des Europaviertels waren wegen der Proteste seit dem frühen Montagmorgen abgeriegelt.
Vereinzelt durchbrachen jedoch Landwirte mit ihren Landmaschinen die Polizeiabsperrungen. Auf der Hauptzufahrtsstraße zum Ratsgebäude machten die Landwirte klar, dass Schluss ist mit lustig und zündeten Reifen und Heuballen an.
Einen wahrhaft “beschissenen” Tag erlebten die vor Ort eingesetzten Polizeibeamte. Offenbar wurden Güllefässer auf den Straßen entleert.
Wie die Brüsseler Polizei auf der Plattform X mitteilte, waren rund 900 Traktoren in der belgischen Hauptstadt unterwegs.
Die EU-Agrarminister, welche diese Vernichtungspolitik zu verantworten haben, erhielten Schutz von einem Großaufgebot der Polizei und tagten weitgehend hinter verschlossenen Türen.
Was ist eigentlich aus den deutschen Bauernprotesten geworden? Der Staatsfunk und die Neigungsmedien versuchen verbissen darüber zu schweigen. Wer jedoch regelmäßig über die Bauernproteste informiert werden will, wer lieber die Stimmen der Bürger lauschen möchte, als den leeren Phrasen oder der Hetze der Linksregierer ist hier richtig:
https://www.youtube.com/@UtopiaDeutschland/videos
(SB)
View from Washington: Fire Jens Stoltenberg now before it is too late! NATO is risking a wider war
Jens Stoltenberg, a former Norwegian Prime Minister and now Secretary General of NATO should be fired now, before it is too late! He announced he is giving Ukraine “permission” to use its soon to be delivered F-16s to launch attacks inside Russia, states Stephen Bryen, a former US deputy under Secretary of Defense.
This is equivalent to a NATO declaration of war. It is an irrational and dangerous move that needs to be quashed as soon as possible.
Not only is Stoltenberg an uber hawk, but he totally misunderstands NATO’s purpose. If he is allowed to stay in office, he will lead NATO into a European war that might well include nuclear weapons. Above all, Stoltenberg doesn’t grasp that NATO is a defensive, not an offensive, alliance.
NATO has been drifting in the wrong direction for years. It has got involved in wars outside of NATO’s defensive domain, based on a rude sort of politics that gratifies the US and Europe’s otherwise inert and short sighted leaders. These wars, that now include Ukraine, are draining NATO’s defenses and weakening the core responsibility of the alliance, which is to protect the territory of its members.
There are no provisions in the NATO Treaty authorizing offensive, outside-the-boundary operations.
Now the Russians are saying that many of the so-called “mercenaries” in Ukraine are, in fact, highly trained NATO soldiers. They wear Ukrainian uniforms with national patches identifying them. They are “necessary” to operate the high tech weapons NATO has sent to Ukraine. When the Russians recently took over Avdiivka they found bodies of these mercenaries, some American and some Poles.
Earlier, they killed at least 60 French mercenaries in a hotel in Kharkiv.
The Ukraine war is being rapidly turned into a NATO war, not only through the supply of intelligence, troop training and armaments, but the supply of experienced technicians. It is simply impossible for Ukraine to operate air defense systems such as Patriot and NASAMs, rocket launching systems like HIMARS, or support British and French Storm Shadow cruise missiles, without considerable outside assistance.
Most of the deaths of NATO personnel are covered up. When they are reported at all, they generally say that the “volunteer” was providing medical assistance.
Now the Russians are starting to believe that the F-16s delivered to Ukraine (probably operational by early summer) will be operated by NATO pilots.
It is extremely dangerous to use NATO pilots in Ukraine. But now Stoltenberg has “given permission” to Ukraine to fly its F-16s over Russian territory. The war has already been expanded with NATO-made drones, cruise missiles and rockets attacking targets in Russia. Adding the F-16 is a qualitative expansion because F-16s can attack Russian cities.
Russia won’t content itself trying to shoot down F-16s flown in the name of Ukraine. They will, certainly, attack Ukrainian air fields (in fact they already are doing so). But will it stop there? Probably not: Russia will interpret the F-16s flying over its territory as a declaration of war against Russia, in fact Russia already is saying so.
The F-16 is an excellent aircraft, but the planes Ukraine is getting are around 20 years old and are not really front line. That’s why the countries supplying them have moved on. While they can be upgraded with newer weapons, better fire control computers, and maybe even better radars, they are not survivable against Russian air defenses and top of the line Russian aircraft such as the Su-35. Flying them over Russia is, therefore, only a provocation likely to result in a wider war spreading to Europe.
Zelensky probably hopes that he will be saved by a NATO intervention. But from Russia’s perspective, NATO has already intervened and things can only get worse.
It is not clear who, if anyone, told Stoltenberg to make such a reckless statement about the use of the F-16. What is clear is that the “permission” should be withdrawn and Stoltenberg fired, Stephen Bryen demands.
Tropas rusas liberan Rabótino en Zaporozhie
El Ejército ruso entró en el pueblo de Rabótino, y continúa avanzando y destruyendo los equipos bélicos de las Fuerzas Armadas de Ucrania.
«La situación en el frente cambió radicalmente, el ejército ruso ingresó en el importante poblado, eliminando así el único avance logrado por las unidades de Kiev en su fallida contraofensiva del verano pasado”, declaró el gobernador de la región de Zaporozhie, Evgueni Balitski, en su canal de Telegram.
Bálitski agregó que el Ejército ruso continúa avanzando de manera sistemática y persistente, batiendo a las fuerzas del enemigo desmoralizado.
Según el funcionario, las pérdidas de efectivos ucranianos en muertos y heridos se cifran en miles, además, durante la contienda actual las tropas rusas «adquirieron una experiencia inapreciable en operaciones de combate».
Der Friedensstifter 