Category Archives: Military

Washington Has Resurrected the Threat of Nuclear Armageddon, by Paul Craig Roberts

A succession of American presidents thought preventing nuclear war was their most important duty. No more. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

As a participant in the 20th century Cold War, I can tell you that the Cuban Missile Crisis had the effect of convincing the leaders of the US and the USSR that trust had to be created between the two nuclear superpowers in order resolve differences and prevent a reoccurrence of tensions at the level of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev worked together independently of their military/security bureaucracies to resolve the issue. Both paid a price.  President Kennedy was murdered by the CIA and Joint Chiefs of Staff who were determined not to lose the Soviet enemy that justified their power and budgets.  Khrushchev was removed from power by Communist Party hardliners suspicious of accommodation to the capitalist enemy.

After President Johnson destroyed himself in the military/security complex’s Vietnam War, President Nixon renewed the tension reducing policy of President Kennedy.  The Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) and arms limitations agreements followed.  President Nixon topped them off by opening to China and replacing that tense relationship with the “one China” policy.  This was again too much for the US military/security complex, and they orchestrated with the Washington Post the “Watergate” scandal to remove him from office.

President Carter tried to continue building bridges. He signed the SALT II agreement that Nixon had initiated,  but Carter had his hands full with Israel and Palestine.  The situation awaited President Reagan to bring about the end of the Cold War.

President Reagan was a cold warrior who wanted to end it.  He hated what he called “those godawful nuclear weapons.”  He thought it was terrible that the world continued to live under the threat that they might be used.

Continue reading→

General Armageddon Makes Way, by Declan Hayes

It looks like Russia is preparing for a humongous invasion of Ukraine. From Declan Hayes at strategic-culture.org:

Russia’s decision to replace General Armageddon with the even more formidable General Valery Gerasimov, should be a cause of concern for Clown Prince Zelensky and his over-dressed wife.

Russia’s decision to replace General Armageddon with the even more formidable General Valery Gerasimov, currently head of the Russian General Staff, should be a cause of concern for Clown Prince Zelensky and his over-dressed wife. Not that Army General Sergey Surovikin has gone away. Far from it; as General Armageddon will carry on as one of General Gerasimov’s deputies, that is further bad news for Zelensky and his entire cabinet of crooks.

Zelensky needn’t take my word or Russia’s for it. He need only ask Valery Zaluzhny, Kiev’s top commander, who is on record as telling NATO’s Time magazine that he had “learned from Gerasimov” and that Gerasimov “is the smartest of men, and my expectations of him were enormous.”

But this is not a matter of the Ukrainian apprentice out shining the Russian grand master, of Patton thinking he can beat Rommel because he read the under-resourced and over-stretched Rommel’s works. This is Zaluzhny and what remains of his rump army trying to stop the Russian tide. They cannot prevail. It is impossible.

The Wagner Group, which fits as easily into the Gerasimov doctrine as a glove does into a hand, has captured Soledar and thereby opened the way for the imminent liberation of Bakhmut and the collapse of Zaluhny’s entire Donetsk front. General Armageddon’s relentless campaign has left much of Ukraine powerless and on the ropes. And now into the ring climbs General Gerasimov, whose forte is tying all of Russia’s disparate strings together, much as a conductor might do with an orchestra, knowing that the brass and percussion sections, Russia’s air force in particular, are in General Armageddon’s capable hands.

Continue reading→

CIA Chief Warns Zelensky of Assassination (…by the CIA), by Finian Cunningham

Is it time for another American instigated regime change in Ukraine? From Finian Cunningham at strategic-culture.org:

Zelensky would have been told, “Regrettably, we may not be able to protect you”, Finian Cunningham writes.

So CIA boss William Burns made a secret trip to Kiev in January last year to warn Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky that his life was in danger from assassination. The clandestine meeting occurred only weeks before Russia launched its military operation in Ukraine.

A new book that appears to have plenty of insider help from U.S. intelligence sources claims that Burns was sent on President Joe Biden’s orders to deliver a “reality check” to Zelensky.

Western news media are gullibly spinning the claim that Burns warned Zelensky that the Russians were plotting to kill him. The impact of the top secret briefing was said to have had a “sobering effect” on the man in Kiev. In less polite terms, he crapped in his pants.

Some questions arise, however, which the Western media as usual do not ask. Why was it deemed necessary for Burns to make a long and secret flight to Kiev to tell Zelensky of a purported Russian assassination threat? Why couldn’t the CIA director have briefed the Ukrainian leader about the danger in a phone call with a secure line? That Burns had to meet Zelensky in person suggests that the American spymaster wanted to convey another, unreported message, a message that only Zelensky would hear and one that could not be taped at any cost.

If the Russians wanted to kill Zelensky surely they would have done it by now during nearly 11 months of bloody conflict and given the evident capability of Russian missiles to hit anywhere in Ukraine?

Incongruously, the Ukrainian politician seems to be at ease in traveling around the country. Only last month he visited the frontline at Bakhmut where he obtained a battle flag from his troops that he then took a day later to Washington for a made-for-television presentation to Congress.

Continue reading→

US May Help Ukraine Launch An Offensive On Crimea, by Caitlin Johnstone

Good luck trying to take Crimea away from Russia. From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:

In a new article titled “U.S. Warms to Helping Ukraine Target Crimea,” the New York Times reports that the Biden administration now believes Kyiv may need to launch an offensive on the territory that Moscow has considered a part of the Russian Federation since 2014, “even if such a move increases the risk of escalation.”

Citing unnamed US officials, The New York Times says “the Biden administration does not think that Ukraine can take Crimea militarily,” but that “Russia needs to believe that Crimea is at risk, in part to strengthen Ukraine’s position in any future negotiations.”

It’s hard to imagine a full-scale assault on geostrategically crucial territory long considered a part of the Russian homeland not causing a major escalation. And as Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp notes, smaller attacks on Crimea have indeed seen significant escalations from Moscow, contrary to claims laid out in the NYT article:The New York Times report quoted Dara Massicot, a researcher from the RAND Corporation, who claimed that “Crimea has already been hit many times without a massive escalation from the Kremlin.” But Massicot’s claim is false as Russia began launching missile strikes on vital Ukrainian infrastructure in response to the October truck bombing of the Crimean Bridge.

The New York Times report quoted Dara Massicot, a researcher from the RAND Corporation, who claimed that “Crimea has already been hit many times without a massive escalation from the Kremlin.” But Massicot’s claim is false as Russia began launching missile strikes on vital Ukrainian infrastructure in response to the October truck bombing of the Crimean Bridge.

Before the bridge bombing, Russia didn’t launch large-scale attacks on infrastructure in Ukraine, but now such bombardments have become routine, and millions of Ukrainians are struggling to power and heat their homes.

Continue reading→

‘NATO’s mission’ leaves Ukraine destroyed, by Aaron Maté

NATO has to destroy Ukraine to save it. From Aaron Maté at mate.substack.com:

“We are carrying out NATO’s mission.” As Ukraine’s defense minister acknowledges the proxy war, NATO proxy warriors disregard the toll.

Unveiling its latest military assistance package to Ukraine – at $3.75 billion, the largest to date — the White House declared that US weapons are intended “to help the Ukrainians resist Russian aggression.”

For their part, Ukrainians on the receiving end see it differently.

“We are carrying out NATO’s mission,” Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said in an interview. “They aren’t shedding their blood. We’re shedding ours. That’s why they’re required to supply us with weapons.” Repeating a rationale offered by his US sponsors in previous wars, including the invasion of Iraq, Reznikov added that Ukraine “is defending the entire civilized world.”

Receiving an endless supply of weapons from NATO countries that shed no blood of their own — all to fulfill their “mission” — is an apt description of Ukraine’s role in the US-led proxy war against Russia. And as one of its staunchest champions, Sen. Lindsey Graham, cheerfully predicted in July, that mission is using Ukraine to “fight to the last person.”

Continue reading→

Should Russia Take the War to NATO States? By Finian Cunningham

The NATO states are certainly taking the war to Russia. From Finian Cunningham at strategic-culture.org:

It’s certainly risky and not to be contemplated rashly. But what is the alternative?

The United States-led military bloc is a party to the conflict in Ukraine against Russia. In short, NATO is at war with Russia. So, why is Russia limiting its military targets to Ukrainian territory?

Moscow has said repeatedly that the proxy war in Ukraine between NATO and Russia has become increasingly evident from the United States and its allies pumping up to $100 billion of weaponry into the former Soviet republic. There can be no illusions about the situation.

NATO’s participation has become increasingly deeper and more concerted. Not so long ago, the U.S. was at pains to emphasize its military aid was “defensive only” and “non-lethal”. NATO member Germany was formerly ridiculed for limiting its equipment to “helmets”.

Now the United States and its allies are supplying longer-range rockets, Patriot anti-aircraft systems that could shoot down Russian fighter jets in Russian airspace, as well as delivering main battle tanks.

Ukraine’s defense minister Oleksii Reznikov boasted in an interview with the BBC that Ukraine has become a de facto member of NATO due to the panoply of weapons and military advisors it has received from the 28-nation organization.

Reznikov also recently said that Ukraine was serving on a NATO mission to defeat Russia.

Continue reading→

Ukraine: Is the Hammer About to Fall? by Mike Whitney

The smart money says that Russia launches a pulverizing offensive this spring. From Mike Whitney at unz.com:

“Here’s something you must understand. We were not given any opportunity to act differently.” Vladimir Putin

The plan to engage Russia militarily is a tacit admission that the United States can no longer maintain its global dominance through economic or political means alone. After exhaustive analysis and debate, western elites have settled on a course of action aimed at dividing the world into warring blocs in order to prosecute a war on Russia and China. The ultimate strategic objective of the current policy, is to tighten the grip of western elites on the levers of global power and to prevent the dissolution of the “rules-based international order.” But after 11 months of nonstop warfare in Ukraine, the US-backed western coalition finds itself in a worse position than when it began. Aside from the fact that the economic sanctions have severely impacted Washington’s closest European allies, the West’s control of Ukraine has plunged the economy into a protracted slump, destroyed much of the country’s critical infrastructure and annihilated a sizable portion of the Ukrainian Army. More importantly, Ukrainian forces are now suffering unsustainable casualties on the battlefield which is laying the groundwork for the inevitable splintering of the state. Whatever the outcome of the conflict may be, one thing is certain: Ukraine will no longer exist as a viable, independent, contiguous state.

One of the biggest surprises of the current war, is simply the lack of preparedness on part of the US. One would assume that if the foreign policy mandarins decided to “lock horns” with the world’s biggest nuclear superpower, they would have done the necessary planning and preparation to ensure success. Clearly, that hasn’t happened. US policymakers seem surprised by the fact that the economic sanctions backfired and actually strengthened Russia’s economic situation. They also failed to anticipate that the vast majority of countries would not only ignore the sanctions but proactively explore options for “ditching the dollar” in their business transactions and in the sale of critical resources.

Continue reading→

Game-Changing Russia, by Batiushka

Will Russia conquer the entire Ukraine? If it does, will it then head east? From Batiushka at thesaker.is:

Meanwhile, Circuses

While America is prepared to pay for the last Ukrainian to die for America – the Western world is talking about something else: Harry Windsor has revealed the family secret. The family secret was that Harry is an idiot, whose strings are pulled by an American actress. Now the secret is out. Harry has himself told the whole world he is an idiot whose strings are pulled by an American actress.

And Game-Changing Tanks?

While Western Europe is prepared to pay for the last Ukrainian to die for Western Europe – Germany, France, Finland, the UK and some other countries are prepared to get rid of some more of their old armoured vehicles and even tanks, palming them off on the Neo-Nazi Kiev regime. Thus, the UK is thinking of sending 14 of its 25-year old Challenger 2 tanks. How the UK will train Ukrainians to operate them, how it will supply enough ammunition for them to fire, how they will supply the mechanics and spare parts to repair them, how – and when – they will deliver them to Poland and then get them to the Kiev front, over 1,000 kilometres further away, nobody can tell us. Meanwhile, the British Army Chief of General Staff, Sir Patrick Sanders, is complaining. ‘Giving Kiev tanks means we won’t have enough for ourselves’. After all they do cost £8 million each and there are only 227 of them in the much-underfunded British Army anyway.

Nobody has told the British Army that after one Russian missile all 14 of these obsolescent ‘wonder-weapons’ will go up in smoke before they ever get to the front. £112 million gone. No wonder Ukrainian refugees are returning to Kiev to get proper medical treatment that the grossly underfunded and strikebound British Health System cannot provide them with. Nobody has told the British Army or any EU Army that Russia is fighting a war of attrition. Given Russian air superiority, far superior artillery, drones, missiles and its 15,000 tanks, the Kiev forces, their mercenaries and all their equipment are being wiped out. Worse still, none of the Western hack-journalists, presstitutes to the core, has yet explained why ‘the victorious Kiev forces’ need ever more Western armoured vehicles and tanks. You read it here first: It is because all the other ‘game-changing’ armoured vehicles, tanks and equipment have already been destroyed. Now at least astronomers know what a black hole looks like. It looks like the Kiev regime. Yes, black holes really are game-changing because you can get sucked into one.

Continue reading→

Tanks for Nothing: NATO Keeps On Demilitarising Itself in Ukraine, by James Tweedle

The list of weapons the West has shipped to Ukraine is long. Too bad the list of Western weapons Russia has destroyed is almost the same length. From James Tweedle at thesaker.is:

It has been said often over the past year, most recently by Emmanuel Todd, that the conflict in Ukraine is “existential” for Russia.

Certainly, the Great Bear cannot abide a NATO ballistic missile launchpad just 300 miles from Moscow in a country run my rabidly-Russophobic Nazis — not neo-Nazi skinhead cosplayers but the literal descendants of the real deal.

But others have argued that the Special Military Operation (SMO) is also a make-or-break roll of the dice for NATO and the US which dominates it. How else can we explain the latest mania for arming the regime in Kiev just as its ‘Siegfried Line’ in the Donbass starts to crumble?

How else can one explain cry-bully US National Security Spokesman John Kirby’s response to news that Russian Wagner ‘private military company’ had liberated the town of Soledar, a keystone of the Ukrainian defences? He simultaneously tried to cast doubt on the facts while claiming the town’s capture was strategically insignificant.

“We don’t know his it’s gonna go, so I’m not going to predict failure or success here,” Kirby said as Wagner were mopping up stranded Ukrainian conscripts. “But even if both Bakhmut and Soledar fall to the Russians, it’s not going to have a strategic impact on the war itself, and it certainly isn’t going to stop the Ukrainians or slow them down in terms of their efforts to regain their territory.”

To the contrary, reports indicate that several Ukrainian brigades being concentrated for a southward push on Melitopol, near the narrow isthmus to the Crimea, were redeployed to Donbass in a vain attempt to hold Soledar and Bakhmut, where they suffered huge casualties. Taking Bakhmut could allow the Russian forces to ‘roll up’ the Ukrainian line to the north and south and advance on Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, the last two major cities Ukraine holds in Donetsk.

Continue reading→

America’s Dumbest War, by Bob Moriarty

Has there ever been a smart war? From Bob Moriarty at 321gold.com:

According to documents put out by a report service working for Congress the US has launched 251 foreign military interventions in the last thirty years. The report also says the US started more than 80% of all military conflicts since the end of World War II.

We are in luck because the US (Stanford University IT Department says that using the words America or American should be forbidden) may well have fought their next to last war because it is having unintended consequences no one could have forecast. Actually that is not true either. They were forecast.

Before I dive into why this war is so obscenely stupid and self destructive, I’d like to comment about something I have learned about life in general.

To succeed overall, you need to be good at something. It could be singing. It could be writing. It could be working as a mechanic or a cook. Actually it could be nearly anything. You just need to find something you are good at.

Once you find something that you are good at, you need to do more of it. Frankly there are a couple of things I am good at that somehow manage to pay the bills but there are hundreds of more tasks I am pretty useless at. So do more of what you are good at and less of the things you are not good at and you will get along just fine.

Can I give you a classic example?

Let’s say you work for the government. You got your job because basically you are a freak. You think that you would make a great luggage thief. You take a flight; you stand around the luggage area after the flight and see a bag you would like so you walk off with it. Alas, the baggage area has cameras all over so you get caught.

Continue reading→