Tag: perpetual war

Deputy Head Of Russian Navy Killed In Ukraine Missile Strike

In a rare battlefield development, a very high-ranking general officer for Russia’s military has been killed by Ukrainian forces, and it actually happened on Russian soil.

Major General Mikhail Gudkov, deputy commander of the Russian Navy and a brigade leader in the Ukraine war, has been confirmed dead in Russia’s Kursk region, according to a statement Thursday by a Kremlin official.

The news broke when Russian and Ukrainian military Telegram channels reported that Gudkov was killed along with 10 other soldiers in a Ukrainian strike targeting a command post in Korenevo, which lies near the Ukrainian border.

Gudkov is among the highest-ranking Russian military figures killed by Ukrainian forces since the conflict began. A slew of international headlines are reporting his death on Thursday.

Reuters reports the following, citing a Russian regional governor:

Kozhemyako, who said he had spoken to Gudkov a lot over the years, said in a statement that Gudkov had been killed “carrying out his duty as an officer” along with others, and expressed his condolences to the dead men’s relatives.

“When he became Deputy Chief of the Navy, he did not stop personally visiting the positions of our marines,” Kozhemyako said on Telegram.

The 42-year old general had only been promoted by President Putin to the number two command spot over the Navy in late March, according to the Institute for the Study of War think tank.

According to more emerging details in regional media, “An obituary posted by a Russian Navy servicemen’s organization states that on July 2, 2025, the Ukrainian Armed Forces launched a missile strike on the command post of the 155th Marine Brigade.”

Keep reading

Could NATO Burden-Sharing Be a Subtle Snare for the United States?

Both Donald Trump and his legions of critics in Europe are celebrating the outcome of the latest NATO summit.  The centerpiece of NATO’s renewed image of solidarity was an agreement among all Alliance members (except Spain) to boost their annual defense outlays to at least 5 percent of their yearly gross domestic product (GDP).  Although NATO officials portrayed this commitment as a purely voluntary step, it appeased Trump’s long-standing demands for greater financial “burden-sharing” within the Alliance.

Hawks on both sides of the Atlantic may cheer this development, but advocates of a genuine “America first” foreign policy for Washington have little reason to celebrate.  Indeed, more burden-sharing has a disturbing potential to entangle the United States in a growing array of dangerous quarrels between Europe (especially NATO’s East European members) and Russia.  Thus, there could be more Ukraine-style proxy wars in our future.

European leaders apparently were willing to make major concessions to secure America’s continued entanglement in the continent’s security affairs.  They even let Trump take his propaganda victory lap following the U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, despite continued misgivings in some European capitals about the wisdom of his action.  They gave the U.S. leader an even more impressive, albeit implicit, diplomatic victory lap regarding Alliance defense spending.  This theme had dominated Washington’s transatlantic agenda during Trump’s first term, when he pressured the allies to fulfill repeated pledges they had made over the years to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense.  During the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, his demand escalated to 5 percent – the same figure that NATO summit leaders have now adopted.

Despite any superficial appearances, the outcome of the June 2025 NATO summit was not good for the American people.  A meaningful debate in the United States on the future of Washington’s transatlantic policy should not focus on the issue of burden-sharing.  America’s principal need is not for more burden-sharing within NATO; our republic needs a strategic divorce from NATO.

Despite hoary propaganda about NATO being an alliance of equals, there was always a yawning gap between that image and the reality of U.S. hegemony.  The United States invariably  called the shots on Alliance policy regarding security issues that U.S. leaders deemed truly important anywhere in the world.

An especially graphic demonstration of how the transatlantic power relationship worked in practice came during the Cuban Missile crisis during the autumn of 1963.  John F. Kennedy’s administration dispatched former ambassador W. Averell Harriman to meet with French President Charles De Gaulle about the alarming situation.  Near the end of the session, De Gaulle asked Harriman if he was consulting with him about U.S. policy or “informing” him.  Harriman conceded that Washington was merely informing its ally. The United States would make the final decision unilaterally, based on America’s best interests.

One consequence of that confirmation of Washington’s dominance within NATO was that France promptly developed and deployed an independent strategic nuclear deterrent and withdrew from NATO’s military structure, thus asserting an independent role for France.

Keep reading

The Real National Emergency: Endless Wars, Failing Infrastructure, and a Dying Republic

Seventy years after President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about the cost of a military-industrial complex, America is still stealing from its own people to fund a global empire.

In 2025 alone, the U.S. has launched airstrikes in Yemen (Operation Rough Rider), bombed Houthi-controlled ports and radar installations (killing scores of civilians), deployed greater numbers of troops and multiple aircraft carriers to the Middle East, and edged closer to direct war with Iran in support of Israel’s escalating conflict.

Each of these “new” fronts has been sold to the public as national defense. In truth, they are the latest outposts in a decades-long campaign of empire maintenance—one that lines the pockets of defense contractors while schools crumble, bridges collapse, and veterans sleep on the streets at home.

This isn’t about national defense. This is empire maintenance.

It’s about preserving a military-industrial complex that profits from endless war, global policing, and foreign occupations—while the nation’s infrastructure rots and its people are neglected.

The United States has spent much of the past half-century policing the globe, occupying other countries, and waging endless wars.

What most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with propping up a military-industrial complex that has its sights set on world domination.

War has become a huge money-making venture, and the U.S. government, with its vast military empire, is one of its best buyers and sellers.

Keep reading

Professor Warns UK Gov’t Is Preparing For Civil War, Using Russian Invasion Threat As Cover

A prominent academic in London has warned that the UK government is actively preparing for the break out of a civil war, but is using the “logically absurd” cover of a Russian invasion to put contingencies in place.

Pointing to remarks made in the 2025 National Security Strategy paper last month, Professor David Betz of King’s College London has suggested that the British government is using the phantom threat of a foreign attack in order to harden critical national infrastructure against sabotage.

“For the first time in many years, we have to actively prepare for the possibility of the UK homeland coming under direct threat,” the Whitehall paper noted, adding that “critical national infrastructure – including undersea cables, energy pipelines, transportation and logistics hubs” are a major target.

During a discussion with Professor Lewis Halsey, Professor Betz, a modern war expert recently stated “there is growing apprehension about the security of Britain, the security of its infrastructure specifically, and about the potential for active conflict at home in a very direct manner, effecting people in a very direct manner.”

“But that’s not external in origin, that’s internal, and that has to do with the way our society is now configured, it is highly fractured,” Betz continued, adding “Low trust, highly fractured, and highly politically factionalised which is leading us increasingly inevitably into civil conflict.”

Betz further outlined how the Russian threat is being amplified as a cover story.

“The fact of the matter is there is a great distance between us and Russia… we are not militarily threatened in a direct way on the ground by any obvious external enemy, even Russia,” Betz outlined.

“Which isn’t to say there aren’t things which Russia could do to attack the UK should they wish to, but one of those is not occupying the village green with Russian soldiers, that simply, frankly, is a rather bizarre assertion,” he contended.

“What they’re concerned about is domestic conflict, and they perfectly understand this, but that’s completely politically toxic for them to say so publicly, hence the convenience of saying ‘we need to develop… a citizen’s militia for the protection of critical infrastructure’,” Betz further noted.

“To say that we’re doing this against the potential of Russian attack, which is frankly a logically absurd proposition, but it is convenient as a pretext,” he emphasised.

Keep reading

AIPAC-Funded Reps Put Forward Bill to Transfer American B-2 Bombers and Bunker Busters to Israel

AIPAC-funded congressmen Josh Gottheimer and Mike Lawler have put forward a bill to transfer American B-2 stealth bombers and bunker busters to Israel.

From Fox News, “Trump could arm Israel with US B-2s and bunker busters if Iran tries to go nuclear under new proposal”:

A bipartisan pair of lawmakers has proposed authorizing President Donald Trump to transfer B-2 stealth bombers and 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs to Israel if Iran is found to still be developing a nuclear weapon after last week’s strikes.

Proposed by Reps. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., and Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., the Bunker Buster Act would allow Trump to “take actions to ensure Israel is prepared for all contingencies if Iran seeks to develop a nuclear weapon.”

[…] [Israel] doesn’t possess the 30,000-pound GBU 57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators, precision-guided munition bombs developed for the U.S. Air Force. The 20-foot-long weapons can travel 200 feet deep inside a target before exploding.

As of 2024, the U.S. had 19 B-2s in operation. It does not transfer custody of its B-2 stealth bombers to any of its allies.

Keep reading

MI6 fueled Ukraine proxy war and fabricated intel on Iran – Grayzone investigative journalist

The UK Secret Intelligence Service, commonly known as MI6, has played a central role in spreading false intelligence and engaging in provocative actions aimed at escalating global conflicts, British whistleblower and investigative journalist for The Grayzone, Kit Klarenberg, has told RT.

Speaking to host Rick Sanchez on Thursday, Klarenberg said MI6 was at the forefront of efforts to push the West deeper into the Ukraine conflict.

“I have since the very start of the Ukraine proxy war been reporting on how Britain is leading this effort,” he said, adding that many see MI6 as merely a tool of the CIA, but “no, they go into business for themselves all the time.”

Klarenberg pointed to the 2022 bombing of the Kerch Bridge, which connects Crimea with mainland Russia, claiming it was orchestrated by British operative and NATO adviser Chris Donnelly as part of an effort to pull Washington further into the conflict.

Keep reading

Two Chinese Nationals Arrested, Accused of Espionage Targeting U.S. Navy Personnel

Two individuals believed to be working on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party’s intelligence agency have been arrested by U.S. authorities for allegedly spying on U.S. Navy service members and recruiting military personnel to assist their efforts.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Yuance Chen, residing in Happy Valley, Oregon, and Liren Lai, who entered the country on a tourist visa and was apprehended in Houston, Texas, were taken into custody last Friday. 

Both men face serious charges for acting as agents of China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS)—the country’s primary foreign intelligence service—conducting covert operations across the United States.

According to the DOJ, the pair engaged in a range of clandestine activities, including gathering sensitive information on Navy bases and personnel, facilitating cash payments through “dead drop” techniques and attempting to recruit U.S. Navy members to cooperate with the MSS.

FBI Director Kash Patel emphasized the importance of these arrests in protecting national security.

Keep reading

Britain’s Long History of Spying on Iran

As bombs fell on Iran last month, the U.K. government claimed it had “not participated” in the military action led by Israel and the U.S. 

But British spy agencies have a long history of meddling in Iran, with everything from covert influence operations, to secretly selling chemical weapons materials to the regime.

In one case, the U.K. spy agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) even created a network of fake Twitter accounts to secretly monitor Iranian opposition activists – the very people working to remove supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from power.

Coup

British spies have targeted Iran for decades, driven by commercial profit and regional control.

In 1951, when the country’s secular prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later known as BP), the British ambassador wrote: “It is so important to prevent the Persians from destroying their main source of revenue … by trying to run it themselves.”

Two years later, the U.K. and U.S. secretly backed a coup to oust Mosaddeq and centralise power under a repressive “pro-Western” regime. 

Declassified files have since revealed the central role played by MI6, which recruited agents and bribed members of Iran’s Parliament. In doing so, one former spy claimed they spent “well over a million and a half pounds”. 

The U.K. and U.S. then supported Iran’s dictator, the shah, for the next 25 years. 

By 1979, the Iranian Revolution saw the establishment of the Islamic Republic led by another dictator, Ayatollah Khomeini. But this did not stop British spies from collaborating with the regime when it was in their interests.

For instance, in 1983, British intelligence provided Khomeini with a list of Iranians allegedly working for the Soviet Union. The intelligence was used to round up over 1,000 communists, as many as 200 of whom were executed. Meanwhile Iran’s communist party, the Tudeh, was banned and forced underground. 

Secret relations were again exploited in the early 1990s, when MI6 helped supply Iran with materials to make chemical weapons — despite its own ban on such sales. 

Britain’s aim was supposedly to use the deals as a way to insert operatives into the Iranian government and gather intelligence about its weapons programmes.

Keep reading

Can You Privatize the Military-Industrial Complex?

Though it’s rare to hear someone praise the military-industrial-congressional complex, it is only the latter component that masks a praiseworthy feat.  Markets—also known as “people” voluntarily exchanging—have devised the most efficient methods for producing weapons in the United States, but Congress—or the government, in general—is what hampers the sale of these weapons. The U.S. is the world’s largest arms exporter, but the international weapons market would benefit further if the U.S. regime had nothing to do with it.  Ensuring the separation of administration and armaments would benefit not only Americans but virtually every person on the planet. When it comes to manufacturing weapons, American industrial prowess is unrivaled, but, as Robert Higgs explains, the level of corruption also appears to be unmatched:

It is regrettable in any event for people to suffer under the weight of a state and its military apparatus, but the present arrangement—a system of military-economic fascism as instantiated in the United States by the [military-industrial-congressional complex]—is worse than full-fledged military-economic socialism. In the latter, people are oppressed by being taxed, conscripted, and regimented, but they are not co-opted and corrupted by joining forces with their rapacious rulers; a clear line separates them from the predators on the “dark side.” In the former, however, the line becomes blurred, and a substantial number of people actively hop back and forth across it…

How can the military-industrial-congressional complex become less loathsome? Make it less fascistic; remove democracy’s corrupting influence by extricating Congress from the complex. When a foreign government wishes to purchase weapons from an American manufacturer, it must first gain approval from the State Department, Congress, the Department of Defense, or even from the president. Why is that? Defenders of the status quo screech the tired refrain of “national security,” but as John Tamny makes clear, there’s no way of guaranteeing a good’s final destination:

It’s too easily forgotten by the deep and not-so-deep in thought that production is all about the getting. Goods and services always flow. Everywhere. Without regard to embargoes and sanctions. To be clear, if you’re producing, you’re getting.

Yes, if Country A produces weapons but doesn’t want Country Z to have them, there’s no stopping Buyer D, U, M, or B from selling to Z. But will “we” sell weapons to “the terrorists?” That is the wrong question. Per Tamny, “there’s no getting around the economic fact of life that there’s no accounting for the final destination of any good,” and there’s no policy—imposed preference—that can get around that fact either. “The terrorists” will obtain whatever they’d like. The pertinent question to ask is, who will sell to “the terrorists”?  Currently, weapons manufacturers are somewhat insulated from the court of public opinion. Instead of the collective judgement that markets provide, only a handful of bureaucrats—or just one person, the U.S. president—decide which buyers are morally deserving of receiving American weapons, and, unlike with markets, they’ll suffer no repercussions if their decisions are wrong.

Can government officials be trusted to make ethical decisions? The question answers itself. Again, “the terrorists,” like it or not, receive the weapons they’re able to purchase, just as addicts receive the drugs they’re not ‘allowed’ to have. What must be scrutinized is who bears responsibility for the transactions. Under the status quo—because it’s immune from market forces—not only will government officials suffer no consequences for their lack of knowledge; the collective knowledge of the people—“markets”—is subordinate to the limited knowledge (and morality) of the parasitic caste.  When a monopoly loses its state-sponsored privileges, it must act like every other business: it must adapt to social pressure. The newly ‘exposed’ weapons manufacturer must suffer the consequences—good or bad—of selling or marketing to governments or “terrorists” when doing so might carry some moral implications.

Keep reading

Media Celebrate International Aggression Against Iran

Aggression is widely understood as the most serious form of the illegal use of force under international law. At the post–World War II Nuremberg Trials, British Judge Norman Birkett said:

To initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 lists seven acts that constitute aggression, including:

  • The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a state of the territory of another State….
  • Bombardment by the armed forces of a state against the territory of another state, or the use of any weapons by a state against the territory of another state.

In a clear instance of such aggression, 125 US military aircraft (along with a submarine) unleashed 75 weapons against Iran on June 21, including 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), each of which weighs 30,000 pounds (BBC, 6/23/25). The MOPs are the most powerful non-nuclear weapons in the US arsenal (Democracy Now!, 6/23/25).

Rather than condemning this blatant violation of international law, US corporate media commentators gushed over what the Boston Globe (6/24/25) called a “brilliant military operation.” The Wall Street Journal (6/22/25) gave President Donald Trump “credit…for meeting the moment.”

To the New York Times’ Bret Stephens (6/22/25), Trump made “a courageous and correct decision that deserves respect.” “The president acted before it was too late,” he wrote. “It is the essence of statesmanship.

Keep reading