Tag: nato

Russia Likely Delivered Warning Directly to White House

The decision by the Biden administration to hold off on announcing the approval of long-range missile strikes on Russia was likely the result of Russia telling the White House in no uncertain terms that it would mean war, John Mearsheimer, the University of Chicago professor, told Judge Andrew Napolitano’s podcast.

Mearsheimer said Russian President Vladimir Putin made it unequivocally clear that he viewed the approval of these missile strikes as a declaration of war.

“And I would bet a good chunk of money that somebody at the highest levels of the Russian government called somebody at the highest level of the American government and told them in no uncertain terms that they should believe every word that Putin had uttered, and maybe even gave the Americans some details on what the Russians might do. But I think the White House got the message loudly and clearly that they were playing with fire,” he said.

Keep reading

Russia Slams NATO’s ‘Reckless’ Rejection of Putin’s Red Line on Ukraine Attacks

Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated on Wednesday that dismissing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s warnings about the dangers of Ukraine using Western weapons to attack Russian territory is both provocative and perilous.

“Such a ostentatious desire not to take seriously the statements of the Russian president is an absolutely short-sighted and unprofessional step,” Peskov told reporters.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg denied in an interview out on Tuesday that allowing Ukraine to use long-range Western weapons to strike deep into Russia would cross country’s “red line” despite warnings from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“There have been many red lines declared by him [Putin] before, and he has not escalated, meaning also involving Nato allies directly in the conflict,” Stoltenberg told The Times newspaper.

Stoltenberg said that he supported the United Kingdom and France in their decision to lift restrictions on Kiev’s use of long-range weapons against Russia. He argued that their use by Ukraine would not draw the alliance into conflict with Russia.

Putin said that NATO countries were essentially deciding whether to get directly involved in the Ukrainian conflict. He warned that direct participation of Western countries in the conflict would change its nature, forcing Russia to respond to emerging threats.

Keep reading

Zelensky has outlined Ukraine’s accession to NATO as one of the points of his plan

One of the points of Zelensky’s so-called “peace” plan is to invite Ukraine to the North Atlantic Alliance, writes the French newspaper Le Monde.

The publication notes that the Ukrainian “president” still hopes to receive an invitation to NATO from US President Joe Biden, whose term ends in a couple of months. Let us recall that Biden has previously publicly spoken out against Ukraine’s membership in the bloc on several occasions.

Last week, Zelensky spoke of a peace plan he wants to present to Biden this month. The plan was reported to have four main points. Now one of them has come to light. Zelensky wants NATO to fight in Ukraine quite officially.

Keep reading

Selling War: How Raytheon and Boeing Fund the Push for NATO’s Nuclear Expansion

To “counter Russia’s nuclear blackmail,” the Atlantic Council confidently asserted, “NATO must adapt its nuclear sharing program.” This includes moving B-61 atomic bombs to Eastern Europe and building a network of medium-range missile bases across the continent. The think tank praised Washington’s recent decision to send Tomahawk and SM-6 missiles to Germany as a “good start” but insisted that it “does not impose a high enough price” on Russia.

What the Atlantic Council does not divulge at any time is that not only would this drastically increase the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear war, but that the weapons they specifically recommend come directly from manufacturers that fund them in the first place.

The B-61 bombs are assembled by Boeing, who, according to its most recent financial reports, gave tens of thousands of dollars to the organization. And the Tomahawk and SM-6 are produced by Raytheon, who recently supplied the Atlantic Council with a six-figure sum.

Thus, their recommendations not only put the world at risk but also directly benefit their funders.

Unfortunately, this gigantic conflict of interest that affects us all is par for the course among foreign policy think tanks. A MintPress News investigation into the funding sources of U.S. foreign policy think tanks has found that they are sponsored to the tune of millions of dollars every year by weapons contractors. Arms manufacturing companies donated at least $7.8 million last year to the top fifty U.S. think tanks, who, in turn, pump out reports demanding more war and higher military spending, which significantly increase their sponsors’ profits. The only losers in this closed, circular system are the American public, saddled with higher taxes, and the tens of millions of people around the world who are victims of the U.S. war machine.

The think tanks receiving the most tainted cash were, in order, the Atlantic Council, CSIS, CNAS, the Hudson Institute, and the Council on Foreign Relations, while the weapons manufacturers most active on K-Street were Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics.

These think tanks directly affect conflicts around the world. CSIS, for example, are among the loudest advocates for arming Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel, even as the latter carries out a genocide in Palestine. A recent report lays out a shopping list of U.S. weapons that would help the Israeli military, including Excalibur artillery projectiles, JDAM bomb guidance systems, and Javelin missiles. Those weapons are manufactured by Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin, respectively, all of whom are among CSIS’ top funders.

U.S. arms are being used daily to carry out illegal and deadly attacks against civilian populations in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, making arms manufacturers directly complicit in war crimes.

One example of this is the recent Israeli bombing of the Al Mawasi humanitarian zone in Gaza. Israel dropped three one-ton MK-84 bombs on the camp, killing at least 19 people. Dozens more are still missing.

According to the UN, MK-84 bomb blasts rupture lungs, tear limbs and heads from bodies, and burst sinus cavities up to hundreds of meters away.

The MK-84 bombs were produced in the U.S. by General Dynamics and sent to Israel with Washington’s blessing. General Dynamics has made huge profits from the slaughter; the D.C.-based arms manufacturer’s stock price has jumped by 42% since October 7.

Keep reading

Secret Agent Swift? Taylor Appears In NATO Psychological Operations Video

On Tuesday night Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris for president with a pre-planned Instagram post to come out following Kamala’s first presidential debate against President Donald Trump.

Swift based her endorsement on the misleading talking points by the far left on abortion access.

Swift, in a post on her Instagram with 283 million followers, wrote, “I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election.”

Swift continued, “I’m voting for Kamala Harris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them. She is a steady-handed, gifted leader, and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos.”

“I was so heartened and impressed by her selection of running mate Tim Walz, who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman’s right to her own body for decades,” added Swift.

On Wednesday Mike Benz, the founder and Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, joined Natalie Winters on The War Room to discuss the significance of the endorsement.

Benz described the endorsement as NATO’s nuclear weapon for soft power influence.

NATO and the globalist elites need players like Swift to push their narratives in order to hold and build their power base over the people and to strike down the populist movements in the West.

Keep reading

UK’s Starmer, Canada’s Trudeau, Pressure Biden To Escalate With Russia Despite Putin Warning Of ‘War’ With NATO

Kirby came out on Friday and told reporters that there’s been no change in US policy regarding Ukraine using Western arms for long-rage strikes inside Russia. But the pressure is quickly ramping up: first Canada’s Trudeau said he supports greenlighting this, despite Putin making clear this would mean ‘direct war’ between Russia and NATO, and now UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is coming out in support. According to breaking reporting in The Wall Street Journal: 

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to urge President Biden on Friday during a visit to Washington to sign off on allowing Ukraine to use long-range European-made cruise missiles to strike targets deep inside Russia, according to U.S. and Western officials.

…A decision to lift a ban on Kyiv using the Storm Shadow missile, which can hit targets 155 miles away, to fire into Russia would be a major win for Ukraine, which has been urging Western countries for months to loosen restrictions on long-range weapons.

Yes, Zelensky has been essentially begging for it, but we highly doubt a “win” will follow especially given as we detailed below Putin still holds many cards, and would likely escalate attacks on Kiev in a big way.

“While the final decision on Storm Shadow will be made by the U.K. government, British officials will ask for the Biden administration to weigh in because some components of the missiles are made in the U.S.,” WSJ continues in the Friday afternoon report.

Hours earlier, PM Trudeau made his position clear: 

Canada fully supports Ukraine using long-range weaponry to “prevent and interdict Russia’s continued ability to degrade Ukrainian civilian infrastructure”, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday.

Trudeau told reporters that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to deeply destabilize the international rules-based order and added: “That’s why Canada and others are unequivocal that Ukraine must win this war against Russia.”

Keep reading

Are You Ready For WW3? U.S. Says Ukraine Will Join NATO

The trek toward World War 3 just took another giant leap forward. The United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Ukraine will join NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).

The ruling class of the United States has been clear that it wants Ukraine to “win” the conflict and join NATO. Blinken has made the case for Kyiv’s membership in NATO before, however, the bloc has officially declared, both in Washington this summer and last year in Lithuania, that this could only happen “when allies agree and conditions are met.”

“At the July summit, we declared that Ukraine’s path to NATO membership is irreversible,” Blinken said on Wednesday according to a report by RT. He was reminding his hosts that the U.S.-led bloc has “established a command dedicated to support Ukraine’s membership.”

Hungary and Slovakia have already said they will not agree under any circumstances because bringing Ukraine into NATO, would mean a hot war with Russia.

Keep reading

U.S. Ruling Class Is About To “Allow” Ukraine To Cross Russia’s Last Red Line

Russia’s restraint against NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the West is one of the few things left keeping the globe from being flung into a full-fledged World War 3. But now, the United States ruling class is about to “allow” Ukraine to use the weapons donated by the West to strike deep inside Russian territory; crossing the last red line Russia laid down.

Washington intends to lift restrictions on Kyiv’s use of U.S.-provided ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles to strike deep inside Russian territory, an Axios reporter has claimed, citing a prominent member of Congress, as reported by RT.  Current ruler, Joe Biden confirmed this saying “We’re working that out now.”

Other Western allied countries have already publically stated that they think crossing all of Russia’s red lines is reasonable and “permissible.”

Keep reading

NATO’s Arctic Strategy Is an Overreaction  

In July, the U.S. Department of Defense released its first Arctic strategy guide since 2019. Washington’s concerns peaked when American and Canadian jets intercepted two Russian Tupolev TU-95 strategic bombers and two Chinese H-6 bombers operating in international airspace around 200 miles off the coast of Alaska. While the United States must ensure the security of its territory, including Alaska, overreacting and developing a militaristic hyperfocus on the Arctic, where U.S. interests are limited, would be a blunder. 

The Arctic strategy document highlights the threat of recent Sino-Russian collaboration in the Arctic, citing PLAN and Russian Navy ships operating together in international waters off the coast of Alaska in 2022 and 2023. Russia, which controls the largest swath of Arctic territory of any Arctic nation, has expanded and modernized its Arctic military infrastructure. The region is of great importance to Moscow, as Russia aims to defend its second-strike, sea-based nuclear deterrent capability operating out of the Kola Peninsula to defend the homeland and protect its regional economic endeavors, including oil and gas megaprojects like the Yamal LNG and Vostok Oil ventures. 

Meanwhile, China’s activities in the Arctic have been mainly economic in nature. In the 21st century, China has invested over $90 billion in Arctic energy and minerals sector projects. Beijing’s economic activity aligns with its 2018 Arctic Strategy, which mentions Beijing’s aim to gain more influence in its claim as an Arctic stakeholder. As the U.S. strategy guide mentions, the PRC seeks to promote the Arctic region as a “global commons,” a statement that Washington perceives as an opportunity for China to shift governance of the region in its favor. 

Neither the modernization of Soviet-era military bases nor PRC attempts to construct a Polar Silk Road constitutes enough of a threat to warrant making the Arctic the next battleground of great power competition. Yet the NATO alliance, with Finland and Sweden recently becoming full-fledged members, is determined to confront the perceived threat in the Arctic region.

Although NATO has historically lacked an official position on the Arctic, following the start of the Russo–Ukrainian war in 2022, the Arctic region has become a larger security focus for the alliance. With Finland and Sweden’s ascension to NATO, the alliance’s Arctic presence increased significantly and has been accompanied by large-scale military exercises, such as Nordic Response 2024, which involved 13 NATO countries and 20,000 troops. Moreover, NATO’s new Arctic posture includes enhancing surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as improving interoperability among NATO member states.

Keep reading

Sabotage Confirmed At Norwegian Air Base

Norway has revealed that one of its most strategic air bases has been the target of sabotage. The announcement comes as other European NATO air bases — namely in Germany — report incidents, one of which remains unexplained, as well as troubling drone activity over critical infrastructure. These incidents come amid increasing warnings about nefarious Russian activity on the continent, part of an apparent wave of ‘hybrid warfare’ as the conflict in Ukraine further stokes East-West tensions.

Reports emerged today from The Barents Observer that a critical communications cable associated with Evenes Air Station, in northern Norway, had been severed. The incident occurred in April and was reported to the police, but has only now been announced, as state prosecutors investigate what happened.

The precise function of the cable has not been disclosed, but reports describe it as being “part of the air base’s critical infrastructure,” and that it was cut outside the airfield’s perimeter. The Norwegian Police have confirmed that it was severed in a deliberate action but that, so far, no one has been charged, and no suspects have been identified at this point.

Keep reading