Tag: nato

Mystery craft seen swarming over secretive UK airbases feared to have ‘sinister motive’

An expert has described the latest wave of drone activity over NATO‘s nuclear airbases in the UK as “particularly sinister.”

Over the past year, US military airbases have been plagued by several incursions from mysterious unidentified craft. Starting with a swarm of mysterious drone-like objects over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia over Christmas 2023, the spate of bizarre drone intrusions has reached a peak this month, with dozens of sightings over bases both in the US and here in the UK.

The UFO community has been running wild with speculation about extraterrestrial visitors, focusing on the fact that many of the military sites targeted store nuclear weapons. But there’s a much more plausible – and much more worrying – explanation. That’s according to Professor David Dunn, a lecturer in political since and international studies at the University of Birmingham.

He says that the most likely cause of this rash of UAP sightings is drones being flown by operatives of some hostile power who are attempting to demonstrate the vulnerability of NATO bases, as well as to intimidate service personnel working there.

Speaking to science filmmaker Simon Holland about the nightly flights over NATO bases, he said: “It’s disruptive first of all it’s demonstrating and signalling vulnerability and capability and it’s also about preparation and signalling that preparation. In particular, he says, the drones are not only hovering over aircraft on the ground at these bases, they’ve also being seen lurking near servicemen’s married quarters at bases such as Kirkwall.

He added: “This is not just one or two drones like in Gatwick airport a few years ago. This is a coordinated incursion by a whole variety of different drones that are clearly part of a plan by a sophisticated actor.”

Keep reading

Zelensky’s Flip-Flop On Ceasefire Terms Is A Faux Concession

Ukraine will still remain a de facto member of NATO so long as its security guarantees with the bloc’s members remain in effect.

Zelensky recently flip-flopped on ceasefire terms by signaling that he’d accept a cessation of hostilities in exchange for Ukraine being admitted to NATO, though without Article 5 applying to all the territory that he claims as his own while the conflict remains ongoing. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry then released a statement about how their country won’t accept any alternative to NATO membership. The Kremlin predictably described this demand as unacceptable.

This coincided with NATO Secretary General Rutte clarifying that his bloc’s focus right now is on arming Ukraine, which corroborated reports from Le Monde that several members such as Hungary, Germany, and even the US oppose Ukraine joining at this time. The larger context concerns Putin finally climbing the escalation ladder after authorizing the historic use of the hypersonic medium-range MIRV-capable Oreshnik missile in combat after the US let Ukraine use its ATACMS inside of Russia’s pre-2014 territory.

Nevertheless, what’s lost amidst the latest news about Zelensky’s flip-flop on ceasefire terms is the fact that this is actually just a faux concession since there isn’t any chance that he’ll capture all of his country’s lost territory, plus he’s still demanding NATO membership, which is at the root of this conflict. At the same time, Ukraine is already arguably a de facto member of NATO after clinching a spree of security guarantees with many of its members over the past year, which resemble Article 5 in spirit.

About that, this clause is popularly misportrayed as obligating countries to dispatch troops in support of allies that are under attack, though it only actually obligates them to provide whatever support they deem necessary. The security guarantees that it clinched institutionalize those countries’ existing support for Ukraine in the form of arms, intelligence sharing, and other aid, which is essentially the same as Article 5 but without any implied (key word) pressure to dispatch troops like full membership carries.

Keep reading

Ukraine’s best hope for peace looks a lot like Donald Trump

Last week, people who fear a third world war got more reasons to worry. Ukraine, with permission from the White House, struck Russian territory with long-range missiles supplied by the United States. Russian President Vladimir Putin has long warned that such an attack would mean that NATO and Russia “are at war,” and he has raised the specter of nuclear retaliation. Granted, these threats could be bluffs, but last week Putin gave them some credibility by (a) loosening the conditions for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, (b) firing a multiple-warhead, nuclear-capable missile at Ukraine for the first time in the war, and (c) declaring, in a speech after the strike, that Russia would be entitled to attack any nations that aid Ukraine’s strikes into Russian territory.

While Putin’s caution during previous crises suggests he’s not about to reach for the nuclear button just yet, his dramatic response has complicated any path to a peace deal. Meanwhile, some liberal voices have predicted that Trump’s looming presidency, far from hastening an end to the conflict as Trump has promised to do, will prolong it. If Trump were to cut off arms to Ukraine, he’d remove an important incentive for Putin to call it quits, according to Ben Rhodes, a former White House official under Barack Obama. Among conservatives who advocate foreign policy restraint, there is worry that Trump’s hawkish cabinet nominees portend a departure from the peace agenda he campaigned on. As for hawkish critics of Trump on both left and right, many believe that he may end the war by just giving away the farm to Putin.

These concerns are valid. But Trump has good reasons to try proving the doubters wrong. He understands that foreign policy debacles can crater a president’s approval ratings, and he has staked his reputation on being able to end a conflict that started and continues to escalate on President Joe Biden’s watch. “I’m the only one who can get the war stopped,” he told Newsweek this September. Brokering a respectable peace would be a boon to his legacy and an embarrassment for his political opponents—and Trump loves splattering egg on the faces of his detractors. So there is room for optimism alongside the worry. Trump may well manage not only to stop the war but also to get Ukraine the best deal it could realistically hope for.

Some say Trump’s Ukraine promises are hollow since he hasn’t outlined a viable peace deal. But Trump maintains, plausibly enough, that he can’t reveal details of a plan without boxing himself in. It would be better, he says, to hammer out a deal with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky behind closed doors, which means keeping mum on specifics for now. Despite Trump’s reticence, there are signs of the kind of deal he’d push for—and signs that both Putin and Zelensky would go for it.

This fall, J.D. Vance, Trump’s running mate and now vice president-elect, laid out a likely settlement: The current battle lines become a “heavily fortified” demilitarized zone to prevent future Russian aggression; Kyiv retains its sovereign independence; and Russia gets assurances that Ukraine won’t join NATO. Moscow would presumably also get to keep the lands in eastern and southern Ukraine that it now holds.

Keep reading

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service Warned About A 100k-Strong NATO Intervention In Ukraine

The NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine might be on the brink of an unprecedented escalation that could easily spiral out of control if Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) is correct in claiming that NATO is planning a 100,000-strong military intervention in Ukraine under the guise of peacekeepers. The purpose is to freeze the conflict, presumably by having these troops function as tripwires for deterring a Russian attack that could spark World War III, and then rebuild Ukraine’s military-industrial complex (MIC).

SVR revealed that Poland will have control over Western Ukraine (like it did during the interwar period); Romania will be responsible for the Black Sea coast (which it seized during World War II via and ruled as the “Transnistria Governorate”); the UK will lord over Kiev and the north; while Germany will deploy its forces to the center and east of the country. The latter’s Rhinemetall will lead the efforts to rebuild Ukraine’s MIC by investing heavily, dispatching specialists, and providing high-performance equipment.

Another important detail is that “NATO is already deploying training centers in Ukraine, through which it is planned to drag at least a million mobilized Ukrainians”, while police functions will be carried out via Ukrainian nationalists that SVR likens to World War II-era Sonderkommandos. The last part is intriguing since it raises the question of why 100,000 NATO troops/peacekeepers would be required. Only a fraction of that is needed for tripwire and training purposes so perhaps those numbers are inaccurate.

Keep reading

The Ever Widening War

RT reports that the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service has concluded that the West is planning to prevent a Russian victory by sending 100,000 NATO troops to occupy Ukraine.  https://www.rt.com/russia/608376-svr-west-kiev-troops/ 

I doubt the 100,000 NATO soldiers will have any more success than the 600,000 dead Ukrainian ones, but the threat of deploying NATO soldiers is more proof that I was correct that Putin’s slow-moving limited military operation would provide endless time for the West to get involved and progressively widen the conflict until it is spun out of control. We are now at that point with insane Washington, Britain, and France striking Russia with missiles and planning to deploy troops.  All of this could have been avoided if Putin had done what every commander should have done and struck hard and fast to quickly end the conflict.

Putin preferred the goody two-shoes role, and the consequence was that the West was convinced that Russia was too weak or too lacking in confidence to win if the West backed Ukraine.  Putin has let the gradual widening of the conflict go on for three years, and the world has been brought face-to-face with the possibility of nuclear war. To avoid it, Putin has to carefully craft his response to Western missile attacks on Russia and to give advance warning so that enemies in the target area are not killed. These are not responses that the West will find convincing.

Putin is correct to refrain from any decisive action until Trump is in office as there is some hope that Trump is not part of the neoconservative agenda of defeating Russia and discrediting Putin with the Russian people.  There is the danger, however, that the Biden regime will use the time prior to Trump’s inauguration to so poison US-Russian relations as to make any agreement impossible.

Keep reading

Atlanticists Mobilise to Salvage NATO as Russia Toughens its Stance

The American film maker and philanthropist who created the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises, George Lucas, once said, “Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.” Within a week of Russia “testing” the Oreshnik hypersonic missile in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, against which the NATO has no defence, the Western alliance is already transiting through the Dark Side from fear to hatred and hurtling toward unspeakable suffering. 

The Russian Defence Ministry has disclosed that since the Oreshnik’s appearance in the war zone, Ukraine carried out two more attacks on Russian territory with ATACMS missiles. In the first attack on November 23, five ATACMS missiles were fired at an S-400 anti-aircraft missile division near the village of Lotarevka in Kursk Region. The Pantsir missile defense system, which provided cover for this division, destroyed three of them while two missiles reached the target damaging the radar. There are casualties among the personnel. 

In the second attack by 8 ATACMS missiles at the Kursk-Vostochny airfield on Monday, seven were shot down while one missile reached the target. The falling debris slightly damaged the infrastructure facilities and two servicemen suffered minor injuries. The Russian MOD stated that “retaliatory actions are being prepared.” 

The Russian military experts estimate that the attacks were planned for sometime and the Americans handled the targeting. On November 25, White House acknowledged for the first time the shift in policy allowing the use of ATACMS to attack Russian territory. Admiral John Kirby, coordinator for strategic communications at the White House National Security Council, revealed during a press gaggle on Monday, inter alia, saying that “well, obviously we did change the guidance and gave them [Kiev] guidance that they could use them, you know, to strike these particular types of targets.”

Following the attack on Monday, Ukraine sought an emergency meeting of the NATO–Ukraine Council in Brussels at the level of permanent representatives. Oreshnik was the main topic, and the need to strengthen air defence system. The NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said later, “Our support for Ukraine helps it fight, but we need to go further to change the trajectory of this conflict

Keep reading

Zelensky Willing To Cede Territory To Russia In Exchange For NATO Protection

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is willing to give territory to Russia in exchange for NATO protection in order to stop the “hot stage” of the war.

Zelensky added that after the ceasefire was achieved Ukraine could attempt to “diplomatically” negotiate the return of the territory currently under Russian control, reports The Telegraph.

“If we want to stop the hot stage of the war, we should take under [the] NATO umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control,” said Zelensky in an interview with Sky News Friday. “That’s what we need to do fast, and then Ukraine can get back the other part of its territory diplomatically.”

Zelensky’s statement is a dramatic shift from previous positions.

More from The Telegraph:

Mr. Zelensky hinted in his interview that the “NATO umbrella” would not be full membership of NATO, something Putin has rejected as part of any peace deal.

Rather, it could mean NATO member states, including Britain, the US, France and Germany, providing individual security guarantees to Ukraine.

This development comes on the heels of reports from Infowars and Alex Jones that President-elect Trump has been working around-the-clock to achieve a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine ahead of his inauguration.

Keep reading

Globalists Go For Broke: Plan To Trigger World War III Moves Forward

There are considerable and insidious forces at play when it comes to the development of the war in Ukraine; a swirling mass of think tanks, globalists and bureaucrats are doing everything in their power to instigate an international conflict between the US, the EU and Russia. They’ve specifically been looking for a way to leverage the Western populace into supporting direct and open warfare.

At the beginning of the event the propaganda was very effective in herding the political left into cheering for NATO involvement, with leftists calling for the “cancellation” of Russia and demanding boots on the ground to “wipe them off the face of the Earth.” One of those rabid activists (Ryan Routh) even tried to assassinate Donald Trump, ostensibly because Trump promised immediate peace negotiations with Russia should he become president again.

The Democratic Party, once considered the “anti-war party”, is now the warhawk party. Add to that a gaggle of frothing Neo-Cons (leftists and globalists posing as conservatives) like Lindsay Graham and Mitt Romney, and it’s difficult to see how we will be able to avoid an escalation. There are people on both sides trying to trigger greater bloodshed and anyone who calls for peace comes under threat of assassination.

Russia and Vladimir Putin have culpability of their own and one could argue that the East vs West paradigm is itself a brand of theater. However, the evidence for now leans heavily towards globalist think-tank instigation, leading to the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014, the flood of NATO weapons and “advisers” into the country under the Obama Administration and the deep involvement of Lindsay Graham, John McCain and The Atlantic Council in attempts to secure EU and NATO membership for the country; a red line which Russia consistently warned would lead to confrontation.

Keep reading

Military Chairman of NATO Admiral Rob Bauer: Preemptive Attack on Russia Should Be Considered

NATO Military Committee Chairman Admiral Rob Bauer from The Netherlands discussed the need for preemptive strikes on Russia in the event of armed conflict.

Joe Biden and NATO are hoping for all-out war with Russia, the world’s second largest nuclear power, before President Trump enters office in January.

Tucker Carlson calls these recent developments the most evil thing he has seen in his lifetime.

The EurAsia Daily reported:

NATO is discussing the possibility of preemptive precision strikes on the territory of Russia in the event of an armed conflict with the alliance countries. This was stated at a conference in Brussels by the head of the Military Committee of the bloc, Admiral Rob Bauer.

He called positive the fact that NATO has changed its attitude to the essence of the organization as a defense alliance, as well as the perception that it is necessary to “sit and wait for us to be attacked” and only then react.

Keep reading

Have the US and NATO Decided to Play FAFO With Russia?

FAFO is a social media acronym that means F**k Around Find Out. It appears that the United States and NATO have decided to play that dangerous game with Moscow. I had an offline chat with Alastair Crooke this morning. He flagged an article in the Times of Israel that I had missed, and he discussed it with the Judge. The article is an interview with retired Israeli General, Itai Brun, the former head of the IDF’s Military Intelligence research and analysis division. Here are the salient points:

[Brun] warned Saturday that Israel’s inability to recognize that Hamas was preparing to invade shows a far-reaching systemic failure that cannot be fixed simply by replacing key officers and officials.

Correcting that strategic failure, said Brun in a TV interview, requires a fundamental change in the approach and culture of intelligence gathering, the processing of intelligence by the security establishment, and the interaction with the political leadership. . . .

But while Israel’s military intelligence community recognized that it had refused to even consider that Hamas could and would burst through the border fence, and “they realized that they needed to rethink” as regards Gaza, some fundamentally false conceptions continued to be held even after the invasion and slaughter.

Israeli intelligence still failed to recognize and internalize that the Iran-led axis believed it could destroy Israel, Brun specified. “They didn’t understand this change.”

He said Israeli intelligence had so much data, all indicating that Hamas was deterred and was not seeking a war, that there was a refusal to so much as countenance the possibility that this conception was erroneous — not even when the IDF obtained documentation such as the Jericho Wall material showing Hamas’s attack plans.

This intelligence failure is the result of at least two kinds of bias — reporting bias and confirmation bias.

Reporting bias is when managers and analysts selectively report or omit information based on the outcome of the research or personal beliefs.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to favour, seek out, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses, whilst giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

This is different than lying. And this phenomenon is not unique to Israel. In fact, I believe it is a major reason the US intelligence community has been so wrong, so often in its analysis of Russia and the war in Ukraine. We are seeing a manifestation of that now with Biden giving the Ukrainians the green light to use ATACMs inside Russian territory. Biden and his inept advisors have convinced themselves that they can unleash Ukraine and Russia will not respond. If Ukraine goes forward and launches the missiles — with the help of US intelligence data to program the missiles — then Russia will respond in a forceful way. Initially, I believe they will limit their response to Ukrainian territory, but Putin will authorize targeting NATO sites that have gone unscathed until now.

Keep reading