Category Archives: War

The Dire Significance of Putin’s Feb 21 Speech, by David Sant

David Sant makes a strong argument for some extremely unsettling conclusions. From Sant at thesaker.is:

On Tuesday, February 21st President Putin gave a speech that was expected to be very significant. After it was delivered, however, most pundits said he didn’t say anything we didn’t already know. Most of them focused on his announcement of the withdrawal from the START II treaty. However, he said something far more significant.

An Existential Threat

What Mr. Putin said, when read through the lens of international law, should be chilling to the West.

We would do well to remember that Mr. Putin majored in international law. His speech made a legal case against NATO.

First he listed, by my count, 30 different ways in which the Western nations have attacked Russia. These included the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders, support of terrorists in Russia, economic war, terrorist sabotage of the Nordstream Pipeline, financing of the coup and war in Ukraine, directly assisting Ukraine to attack targets in Russia including Russia’s nuclear bombers, and plotting to destroy and partition Russia into pieces.

Nestled in the middle of these was an important statement.

“This means they plan to finish us once and for all. In other words, they plan to grow a local conflict into a global confrontation. This is how we understand it and we will respond accordingly, because this represents an existential threat to our country.”

Continue reading

Biden Goes All in on Proxy War Against Russia, by David Stockman

It’s an irrelevant consideration in Washington, but Ukraine’s war with Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the defense and security of the United States. From David Stockman at antiwar.com:

No, Joe, that’s not Hunter you’re sniffing. But Zelensky is a pretty good substitute – every bit as corrupt, drugged-up and delusional as the First Son.

So hug away. You have already proven (repeatedly) that there is no betrayal of America’s true homeland security you will not eagerly embrace.

And, yes, unlike the manifold images on Hunter’s laptop, this picture of the purported hero of the free world snorting cocaine was probably photo-shopped. But so what?

How would our addle-brained President tell the difference!

After all, he apparently can’t even tell the difference between friend and foe. That’s surely the implication of the great Seymour Hersh’s latest bombshell about the pipeline bombings.

According to Hersh’s Deep State sources, the guy shuffling around the Oval Office is so befuddled that he actually ordered the bombing of the $25 billion and strategically crucial Nord Stream pipelines. The latter, of course, are half-owned by Germany, which is by far Washington’s most important and powerful European ally, and have been the economic conduit for cheap Russian gas that has fueled the German industrial economy.

To be sure, Biden apologists keep blathering about his intrepid stand for the postwar”liberal international order”. But given that Washington has been a serial invader, occupier and destroyer of dozens of countries since WWII, that’s a risible joke. Still, who in their right mind would incinerate the economic lifeline of an ally, hoping that the damage just might possibly ricochet and hit an enemy, too?

Indeed, Joe Biden said in no uncertain terms before the event that he would do it, even if he hasn’t yet explicitly confessed. But he doesn’t need to because there are exactly zero alternative suspects.

Continue reading

War and the Constitution, by Andrew P. Napolitano

The Constitution isn’t perfect, but it once stood imperfectly between citizens and pure tyranny. No more. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

Can the president fight any war he wishes? Can Congress fund any war it chooses? Are there constitutional and legal requirements that must first be met before war is waged? Can the United States legally attack an ally?

These questions should be front and center in a debate over the U.S. involvement in Ukraine. Sadly, there has been no great debate. The media are mouthing what the CIA is telling them, and only a few websites and podcasts — my own, “Judging Freedom” on You Tube, among them — are challenging the government’s reckless, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional war.

All power in the federal government comes from the Constitution and from no other source. Congress, however, has managed to extend its reach beyond the confines of the Constitution domestically by spending money in areas that it cannot regulate and purchasing compliance from the states by bribery.

Examples of this are the numerical minimum blood alcohol content to trigger DWI arrests, and maximum speed limits. In both instances, Congress offered money to the states to pave highways provided they lower both numbers, and the cash-strapped states accepted the money along with congressional strings. These are bribes from the criminal consequences of which Congress has exempted itself.

The same takes place in foreign policy. Congress cannot legally declare war on Russia, since there is no militarily-grounded reason for doing so. Russia poses no threat to American national security or American persons or property. Moreover, the U.S. has no treaty with Ukraine that triggers an American military defense. But Congress spends money on war nevertheless.

Continue reading

SCOTT RITTER: Arms Control or Ukraine?

The Ukraine-Russia War has scuppered all hopes of arms control agreements between the U.S. and Russia. From Scott Ritter at consortiumnews.com:

As Russia suspends New START, the sooner the Ukraine war ends, the sooner the U.S. and Russia can work to preserve arms control to avert the ultimate disaster.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Feb. 21 address to Federal Assembly. (Kremlin)

Russia experts and national security specialists will be poring over the text of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s address on Tuesday for some time to come, trying to divine hidden meaning.

The fact is, however, Putin’s speech was something rarely heard in Western political circles —unvarnished statements of fact, set forth in a straightforward, surprisingly easy-to-understand manner.

In a world where Western politicians regularly dissemble to shape perception, even if the underlying “facts” are not true (one need only refer to President Joe Biden’s infamous phone call with former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, in July 2021, for an example), Putin’s speech was a breath of fresh air — no hidden agendas, no false pretense — no lies.

And on the issue of arms control, the truth hurts.

“I have to say today,” Putin announced near the end of his address, “that Russia is suspending its participation in New START. I repeat, not withdrawing from the treaty, no, but merely suspending its participation.”

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), signed in 2010 as the outcome of negotiations between U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, ostensibly caps the number of strategic nuclear warheads that each country can deploy at 1,550; limits the number of deployed land-and submarine-based missiles and bombers used to deliver these warheads to 700; and caps at 800 the deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

Continue reading

Putin’s speech and what it means. By Guiseppe Filotto

Remarkably for a politician, Vladimir Putin is pretty much a straight shooter. From Guiseppe Filotto at gfilotto.com:

Read the whole thing here, direct from the Kremlin, because I would not trust a single Western Media source with telling me the sky is blue at this point.

In essence, however, Putin is doing simply what I stated Russia was and would continue to do, back in October 2022 (well, long before that, but I spelt it out on this blog for the masses then).

And that is: Using verifiable facts (aka known as truth) as their propaganda. Is EVERYTHING Russia says on the level? Maybe not. I am sure some tiny elements here and there might be actual propaganda, but by and large, what Putin says is pretty closely related to the reality of facts, events and objective observations of reality.

In the long term, especially when you are dealing with actual missiles and guns and flying bullets, that kind of “propaganda” is invincible.

Because even the retarded norms start to see it after a while.

Here is a small excerpt of his speech.

The recent Munich Conference turned into an endless stream of accusations against Russia. One gets the impression that this was done so that everyone would forget what the so-called West has been doing over the past decades. They were the ones who let the genie out of the bottle, plunging entire regions into chaos.

Continue reading

Is China Considering Supplying Russia With Weapons? By Ted Snider

If the Chinese do supply weapons to Russia, what’s the U.S. going to do about it? From Ted Snider at antiwar.com:

On February 3, following the balloon incident, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken canceled his trip to China. On February 18, he got a second chance on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference. It didn’t go well.

After reprimanding China over the balloons “unacceptable violation of U.S. sovereignty and international law” – for which China offered “no apology” – and warning them that such an “irresponsible act must never again occur,” Blinken “warned” China about the ” consequences if China provides material support to Russia or assistance with systemic sanctions evasion.”

American officials described the meeting between Blinken and Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Yi as “confrontational.”

The day after the meeting, Blinken claimed that the US has “information that gives us concern that [China is] considering providing lethal support to Russia in the war against Ukraine.” He said that China is “strongly considering providing lethal assistance to Russia.”

The US has made similar claims before. In March 2022, US officials claimed that Russia had asked China for military equipment. They provided no details on the request nor on how they knew. That’s because they didn’t know. European and US officials told NBC that that accusation “lacked hard evidence” and that, in fact, “there are no indications China is considering providing weapons to Russia.”

Continue reading

Who’s Winning and Losing the Economic War Over Ukraine? by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies

For the answer to the question in the title, follow the money. From Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies at antiwar.com:

With the Ukraine war now reaching its one-year mark on February 24, the Russians have not achieved a military victory but neither has the West achieved its goals on the economic front. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States and its European allies vowed to impose crippling sanctions that would bring Russia to its knees and force it to withdraw.

Western sanctions would erect a new Iron Curtain, hundreds of miles to the east of the old one, separating an isolated, defeated, bankrupt Russia from a reunited, triumphant and prosperous West. Not only has Russia withstood the economic assault, but the sanctions have boomeranged–hitting the very countries that imposed them.

Western sanctions on Russia reduced the global supply of oil and natural gas, but also pushed up prices. So Russia profited from the higher prices, even as its export volume decreased. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reports that Russia’s economy only contracted by 2.2% in 2022, compared with the 8.5% contraction it had forecast, and it predicts that the Russian economy will actually grow by 0.3% in 2023.

On the other hand, Ukraine’s economy has shrunk by 35% or more, despite $46 billion in economic aid from generous U.S. taxpayers, on top of $67 billion in military aid.

European economies are also taking a hit. After growing by 3.5% in 2022, the Euro area economy is expected to stagnate and grow only 0.7% in 2023, while the British economy is projected to actually contract by 0.6%. Germany was more dependent on imported Russian energy than other large European countries so, after growing a meager 1.9% in 2022, it is predicted to have negligible 0.1% growth in 2023. German industry is set to pay about 40% more for energy in 2023 than it did in 2021.

Continue reading

They Wouldn’t Really Go Nuclear, Would They? By Jeff Thomas

They might. From Jeff Thomas at internationalman.com:

limited nuclear war

In 2014, the US funded a coup d’état in Ukraine, ejecting the democratically elected president and installing an American puppet. The new regime then set about attacking the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, which were predominantly Russian. Russia did not intervene, even though the US was messing in Russia’s “back yard.” It did, however, draw some “red lines,” warning the Ukrainian government in Kiev that if it tried to take Crimea, join NATO, or become a nuclear state, Russia would invade.

In February 2022, Ukrainian puppet-President Zelensky announced at the Munich Security Conference that Ukraine would go nuclear. That was the trigger that caused Russia to invade Ukraine, days later. The US declared outrage and sought to involve NATO in retaliation. The American media was filled with angry reports of the “unprovoked invasion,” stating that Russia’s goal was to seize all of Europe.

Since that time, the US media have maintained a constant barrage of propaganda regarding the war. The theme is always the same: The Russians are a murderous army, killing civilians and bombing hospitals and schools. But they are also incompetent, poorly led, their troops riddled with deserters, losing battle after battle, and experiencing far more casualties than the Ukrainians.

Continue reading

Recognizing The War Is Lost The ‘West’ Seeks An Exit, by Moon of Alabama

Good luck, Biden administration, trying to devise an exit that’s even within field goal range of being face saving. From Moon of Alabama at moonofalabama.org:

U.S. President Joe Biden is in Kiev today to rescue his lunatic project of destroying Russia by proxy war. But there is no good way to do that.

A review of ‘western’ media shows that the inevitable outcome of the war is now recognized. The only still open alternatives are to risk a large nuclear war or to retreat from ‘western’ dreams of its permanent hegemony.

Few ‘western’ officials will admit that the war is lost, that  Russia has won in Ukraine. But it has. It had won the war when it successfully trapped the Ukrainian army into a war of attrition.

A the Russian commentator Sacha Rogers writes (in Russian, machine translation):

This war has already been won (moreover, what is most offensive for various “unrecognized geniuses”, without their participation and contrary to their foolish ideas of how it should be won). It was won at the moment when, instead of a highly maneuverable war, our General Staff imposed a positional “standing” with an attrition war on the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Strictly by the textbook: Attrition warfare is a military strategy consisting of belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and material.

Ukraine has already lost two armies and it is begging for a third one. But the ‘West’ is unable to deliver it:

Less than a quarter of the modern battle tanks the West has promised to Ukraine are likely to arrive in time to counter an anticipated Russian spring offensive.

Kyiv is expecting its supporters to send up to 320 western tanks in total but estimates suggest barely 50 will reach the front lines by the start of April, prompting concerns they will not be enough to have a substantial impact on the fighting.

The recognition that the Ukraine has lost the war is creating a panic in those quarters that are committed to ‘western’ uni-polarity.

Continue reading

Russia And China Draw ‘Red Lines’ On Their Borders; US Draws Them On The Other Side Of The Planet, by Caitlin Johnstone

You get to draw red lines wherever you want when you run the global unipolar empire. From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:

Reacting to China’s announcement that it will be putting forward a proposal for a political settlement to end the war in Ukraine, the US ambassador to the United Nations said that if China begins arming Russia in that conflict this will be a “red line” for the United States.

“We welcome the Chinese announcement that they want peace because that’s what we always want to pursue in situations like this. But we also have to be clear that if there are any thoughts and efforts by the Chinese and others to provide lethal support to the Russians in their brutal attack against Ukraine, that that is unacceptable,” Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told CNN on Sunday.

“That would be a red line,” she said.

The US ambassador to the United Nations said that China would cross a “red line” if the country decided to provide lethal military aid to Russia for its invasion of Ukraine https://t.co/R47CzEZmJi

— CNN (@CNN) February 19, 2023

The ambassador’s comments pertained to an unsubstantiated claim made by Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday that China is “considering providing lethal support to Russia in the war against Ukraine,” according to US intelligence.

The US has been making evidence-free claims in relation to China arming Russia against Ukraine since the war began. In March of last year the New York Times reported that “Russia asked China to give it military equipment and support for the war in Ukraine after President Vladimir V. Putin began a full-scale invasion last month, according to U.S. officials.” Then in April of last year NBC reported that this claim “lacked hard evidence” and was essentially just a lie the US government told the media “as part of an information war against Russia.”

Continue reading