Tag: perpetual war

NYT and Telegraph SURRENDER to the Truth, Report on Russian Siege of Konstantinovka and the Advance for the Final Donetsk Battle: The Kramatorsk-Slavyansk Fortress Belt

The end of the war in Donbas is near.

In the last few weeks, an Information Op was taking place in the western mainstream media, in which all voices chanted in unison that ‘finally, Ukraine is winning the war’.

But while there’s no denying the increased success of the Kiev regime’s long-range strikes, the fact of the matter in the ground is that, not only is Russia winning, but it is moving into the endgame in the vital Donbas region – the cradle of the war.

We have been reporting on the siege and encircling of Konstantinovka, and how this fortified bastion was the key for the final assault on the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration, the last region of Donetsk still held by Ukrainian forces.

But yesterday (22), with the usual delay, we watched several MSM outlets discreetly acknowledge the Russian advances and the oncoming endgame.

The British ‘Conservatives’ from The Telegraph, who are rabid Kiev regime fans, reported:

“Russian troops have infiltrated Ukraine’s fortress belt city of Konstantinovka, a crucial gateway to the rest of the Donbas. Ukrainian soldiers said the entire city, which is part of the country’s eastern defenses, was effectively in a ‘grey zone’, no longer controlled by either side. Russia’s defense ministry claimed its forces had intensified operations in the south-west of the city, surrounding Ukrainian units.”

So, while the posh hyphenated-name columnists laugh and laugh of ‘clueless Vladimir Putin’, they were forced to report the obvious truth.

With their tried and tested playbook, the Russian forces don’t smash head-on against the fortified city, but rather flank it in multiple prongs, encircle it, attack the supply lines, put the defenders into fire pockets, conquer it.

“Last month, reports citing Ukrainian intelligence claimed Russia’s top commanders had convinced Vladimir Putin they could seize Kramatorsk and Slovyansk, the towns at the center of the fortress, by the end of the year.

Such a breakthrough would bring the Kremlin closer to achieving one of its most significant remaining war aims: the conquest of the entire Donbas region.”

Keep reading

Thou Shalt Not Kill – Making War No More

An argument the Trump administration is using to justify massive increases in war spending is that the U.S. military is short on munitions. What a surprise! After the Iran War, attacks on Yemen and Somalia, supplying Israel with all sorts of air defense missiles as well as bombs and who knows what else (some of it is classified), the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War, and so on, it’s no wonder munitions are in short supply.

Bottles of nips may be in short supply after an alcoholic raids a hotel minibar. Is it wise to resupply it while the drinker is still there, intoxicated, begging for more?

Fascinating to me are the lack of moral arguments against America’s orgy of murderous weapons. The Bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” Killing is immoral and a crime unless as a last resort in self-defense. When our nation goes to war, it is also supposed to be in self-defense to uphold our Constitution and our highest ideals.

We always hear about a shared Judeo-Christian tradition – there’s a moral imperative here that demands fewer swords and more ploughshares. A God-given mandate to make war no more. To be peacemakers, not warfighters.

America, the shining city on a hill, should celebrate the sanctity of life rather than building more weapons to destroy life. But today’s America is much more akin to a heavily armed garrison-state, bristling with weapons, with satellite garrisons around the world.

Keep reading

Feds: Operative with ‘Direct Ties to IRGC’ Tried to Enter US Posing as Iranian World Cup Soccer Team Prez

The Iranian government was caught trying to sneak a terrorist into the U.S.A. as a fake member of its World Cup national men’s soccer team, American officials say.

U.S. officials refused entry to an Iranian who they say has direct ties to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and who was claiming to be the president of Iran’s soccer federation, the New York Post reported.

Department of Homeland Security chief Markwayne Mullin told the media that the Iranian was prevented from entering the U.S. with the Iranian team when they tried to prepare to fly to the U.S. from Mexico.

“When we started doing the research on him, he had only been put in place since 2022, and we didn’t allow him to board the plane, ” Mullin told the host of Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures.

The IRGC is the paramilitary arm of the Iranian military that answers directly to the mullahs and has been responsible for terrorist attacks all across the world.

Mullin added that the U.S. had taken pains to hold “multiple” conversations with representatives of Iran’s soccer team to ensure they understood their travel restrictions and entry criteria.

Iran head coach Amir Ghalenoei has bemoaned the treatment his team has received from his own government. He has also said that the harsh treatment has hurt his players’ performance.

The denial of entry to the Iranian IRGC member comes as the Trump administration continues to negotiate the end of the current military actions between the U.S. and Iran.

Keep reading

Trump’s Attempt To End the Iran War Infuriates the Uniparty

Against the odds, the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the US and Iran appears to be holding, after threats and counter-threats. It may collapse, but it has survived a first round of talks between the two sides in Switzerland over the weekend.

President Trump started a war on Iran against all sober guidance and in violation of the US Constitution’s requirement that only Congress can declare war. There must be a reckoning for our elected leaders who violate their oath of office, the Constitution, and simple common sense.

However, what is more telling is the reaction when President Trump finally took the correct move and attempted to end the war. The neocons who had hailed him as a great leader – Levin, Bolton, Pompeo, etc. – suddenly turned against him when he turned against further escalation of the war.

Even Trump’s top funder, Miriam Adelson, attacked Trump in her newspaper Israel Hayom. “You could have been the greatest president of all, but you failed,” the newspaper wrote in an editorial.

Not much gratitude from the Israel-first crowd, even if the war was started to benefit Israel.

And more telling even than this was the reaction of the “opposition” party in Congress, the Democrats. They attacked him harder for ending – or at least pausing – the war more than for starting the war in the first place! Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) called the MOU a “capitulation.” Sen Chris Murphy (D-CT) called the MOU an “embarrassing document.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar falsely claimed that President Trump was paying Iran $300 billion to re-open Hormuz.

This is more evidence – as if any is needed – that our foreign policy is run by the “uniparty.” When it comes to wars, there is no Republican Party nor is there a Democratic Party. There is only the “yes!” party.

Congress remains silent in the run-up to war. Congress remains silent when the President launches a war. Congress even remains silent when the war begins going badly. It is only on those rare occasions that a president takes steps to correct his mistake that Congress finds its voice.

Yes, there is plenty to criticize. After weekend talks, the US side, led by Vice President JD Vance, is celebrating as a “breakthrough” that the Strait of Hormuz is open again and that Iran has reportedly agreed to the return of UN inspectors. But the Strait was open before this war and UN inspectors were in Iran before President Trump unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA “Iran Deal” in his first term.

The only difference now is that we burned through likely several hundred billion dollars, we lost dozens of aircraft and other military equipment, and we likely lost more service members than the Pentagon is admitting.

Keep reading

Swiss Government Discusses Revoking Protections, Benefits For Military-Aged Ukrainians

During the opening years of the Russia-Ukraine war European states were quite welcoming to Ukrainian refugees and anyone fleeing the carnage and chaos, but now in the conflict’s fifth year the general sentiment among EU populations and governments is changing.

Switzerland, once hailed as Europe’s most neutral state – and among the most ‘welcoming’ countries for asylum seekers – is mulling a policy change which would exclude Ukrainian men of military age from protections granted to refugees.

The Swiss Federal Council announced in a statement Friday that it has begun consultations over the legal status of some 66,000 Ukrainian nationals who fled to Switzerland after the conflict erupted.

Welfare assistance and refugee protections are quite good in Switzerland, given individuals receive basic living items as well as government payouts, and can even freely travel in and out of the country.

For now, protections are expected to extend to Ukrainians in the country, but there’s new talk of revoking this status for men of military age at a moment the Ukrainian military continues to face a severe manpower shortage:

The government announced on Friday that, at a national asylum conference in November 2025, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM), the cantons, cities and municipalities had been tasked with drawing up clear regulations for the future of S protection status.

The results of this deliberation are now set out in a concept paper entitled “The Future of S Status”. According to the government, it serves to prepare for three possible scenarios: the continuation of S status; its abolition in the event of a stable ceasefire; and a phasing out of S status in the event of a protracted conflict.

Specifically pertaining to men of fighting age, the government is considering “a possible future restriction for Ukrainian men subject to conscription,” a new statement reads.

“This is because the EU is currently considering an extension of temporary protection with a possible restriction for these men,” the country’s Federal Council has explained. A final decision could come by the end of the summer, but political pushback is said to be growing.

It should be remembered revocation of protected status is something the Zelensky government itself has long asked Western allies to do. It wants the rapid return of military-aged men, at a moment Ukrainian recruiters have resorted to harsh tactics cracking down on what are seen as draft dodgers.

EU Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner has also confirmed “This is also what the Ukrainians are asking us to do” – commenting on the question of no longer extending protections to Ukrainian men in EU states.

For now, no major policy shifts are expected, but as the war goes on and on, the tone of the conversation has shifted among many European officials. Washington in particular has emphasized that Ukraine’s populace must stand up for itself, and has even leaned heavily on Kiev to make the mandatory conscription age younger.

Keep reading

The Real Reason Russia Would Invade Europe

The press keeps insisting Russia is preparing to invade all of Europe as if Putin wakes up every morning dreaming about inheriting Germany’s industrial collapse and France’s pension protests.

The propaganda has become so absurd that perhaps we should finally discuss the REAL reasons Russia would supposedly invade Europe:

  1. To acquire Germany’s energy policy expertise and finally learn how to shut down functioning nuclear plants while importing expensive energy from everyone else.
  2. To seize Britain’s world-renowned knife-control strategy where criminals ignore the laws while grandmothers get arrested over tweets.
  3. To capture France’s revolutionary spirit, which now mostly consists of setting garbage piles on fire and blocking highways every few months over retirement age increases.
  4. To inherit the European Union’s debt structure because apparently Russia looked at its own sanctions and recession risks and thought, “You know what we really need? Italian debt too.”
  5. To revive the Dutch tulip market and reignite the original speculative bubble. At least tulips are tangible unlike modern sovereign bonds.
  6. To gain control over Europe’s magnificent demographic strategy where birth rates collapse while governments debate banning gas stoves and regulating pronouns.
  7. To seize all of Switzerland’s chocolates, since they’ve already soured their offshore banking.
  8. To experience the thrill of open borders and historic levels of crime in culturally enriched cities.
  9. To inherit Europe’s university system where students graduate with debt, activism experience, and no employable skills whatsoever.
  10. To inherit Europe’s industrial competitiveness, which now largely consists of closing factories and importing products from China while lecturing everyone about carbon emissions.
  11. To govern government’s government by overtaking the European Commission.
  12. To take control of the ECB’s brilliant strategy of printing trillions while pretending inflation was “transitory.”
  13. To secure Europe’s military stockpiles, assuming they can locate them first.
  14. To acquire London real estate prices so inflated they make Manhattan look reasonable.
  15. To learn from Brussels how to regulate artificial intelligence before figuring out how to generate reliable electricity.
  16. To seize Europe’s famous “green economy” where citizens pay some of the highest electricity prices on earth while China builds coal plants by the week.
  17. To inherit NATO procurement systems where a coffee machine probably requires six committees and seventeen consultants before approval.
  18. To finally gain access to Europe’s remaining middle class before they relocate outside of the EU.
  19. To experience firsthand the excitement of driving through fifteen countries while being investigated online for “hate speech” because someone made a joke.
  20. To save the euro before Brussels itself finishes destroying it.

The reality is that the political class in Europe needs Russia psychologically more than Russia needs Europe economically. Fear justifies military spending, centralized power, censorship laws, surveillance expansion, debt issuance, and political unity around failing leadership. Historically governments always need an external threat during periods of internal decline.

Keep reading

Who’s the Weak Link? The New York Times Strikes Again

I love getting The New York Times daily summary of the news. It makes for great hilarity.

Here’s today’s example:

Top News
Lebanon Emerges as Weak Link in U.S.-Iran Deal to End War

The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, once seen as a secondary front to the American-Israeli war on Iran, has become one of the main obstacles to ending it.

It’s not Lebanon that’s the weak link here – it’s Israel.

Israel is the attacker. The aggressor. The country that wants to scupper the MOU between the USA and Iran. Everyone knows this – except the NYT, apparently.

I like too how the NYT describes it as the “American-Israeli war on Iran.” At the very least, it should be Israeli-American war of aggression against Iran.

And when was Lebanon a “secondary front” to the USA? America has no desire to seize land and water in southern Lebanon. That goal is entirely Israel’s, as is its fight against Hezbollah, which is responding to Israeli aggression.

The Iran War has been a huge loser (to put it in Trumpian terms) for the U.S., and only Israel seeks to prolong it. Again, who’s the weak link in the U.S.-Iran deal to end the war?

I’ve been playing with Trumpian language to describe the Iran War and its outcome. As Trump might say, it’s been a defeat for America the likes of which we’ve never seen before. No other defeat comes close.

I think Trump finally understands that. The question is, will “weak link” Israel let him withdraw or will the war become even more catastrophic?

Keep reading

The Iran Fiasco’s Silver Lining: Trump, Bibi, and the Neocons Got Their Clocks Cleaned

If you don’t think the Donald inhabits an alternative universe – just set your mandibles loose to chomp on his most recent missive. According to history’s most gifted practitioner of the Art of the Deal, only one thing really counts with respect to his Paperless Invite for Iran to join yet another round of negotiations: Namely, making good on their pledge to “never, ever” get a nuke, which they never, ever, ever actually had or had even pursued:

Trump: “This agreement is about one thing — that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Never ever ever. The rest of it is irrelevant, frankly.”

And just in case anyone missed the point, he further insisted that the real bad stuff that supposedly provoked the US/Israel attack in the first place – the 420 kilograms of 60% HEUs – and which the Donald had been on the verge sending in ground troops and Caterpillar earth-movers to retrieve, doesn’t matter so much any more, either!

Trump is backing away from getting Iran’s enriched material: “You could make the case, why even bother? It’s not very valuable stuff.”

That’s right. It is plain as day that the Donald is laying the ground work for a final “deal” with Iran that contains nothing more than a notional “No Nukes” pledge, gussied up by some variation of JCPOA Light.

That is, an agreement about:

  • the length in months and years of a moratorium on Iran’s fuel grade (3.67%) enrichment operations in support of its civilian nuclear power plant.
  • the scale of these civilian enrichment operations in terms of facilities and numbers and types of permitted centrifuges once they restart.
  • the intrusiveness of a renewed IAEA inspection regime.
  • the “snap-back” mechanisms designed to keep the mullahs on the straight and narrow of the overall Peace Plan.

Needless to say, the Obama folks will be proven to have done a far better job the first time around during their arduous negotiations of 2013-2015 than whatever cockamamie version emerges from a final deal that the Donald must and will sign in the shadows of the upcoming November Congressional elections.

Keep reading

The Security State’s Middle East: Why Washington Keeps Choosing Pressure Over Diplomacy

For more than twenty years now, American leaders from both parties have talked about turning over a new leaf in the Middle East. One president pushed hard for democracy promotion, another tried diplomatic outreach, and someone else swore we’d finally end the “forever wars.” Yet every time a crisis hits, Washington’s first move is rarely sitting down to hammer out a political deal. Instead, it reaches for sanctions, sends in more troops, ramps up deterrence, and leans on the threat – or actual use – of force.

This pattern raises a tough question. If the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq didn’t create stable governments, if years of pressure haven’t really changed Iran’s behavior, and if coercion keeps delivering only mixed results, why does the U.S. keep relying on the same old toolbox?

It’s not just about individual presidents or partisan fights. Republicans and Democrats argue over tactics, sure, but they all work inside a national security system that has slowly pushed military and coercive tools to the top while sidelining diplomacy and messy political solutions. The foreign policy crowd increasingly views the Middle East first through the lens of security competition and only second through its complicated politics.

More than sixty years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower warned about this in his farewell address. He talked about the “military-industrial complex” – the tight web of defense officials, contractors, and politicians that could end up warping America’s priorities. He wasn’t saying military power is useless. He worried it might become so dominant that other options would lose out. You can still read the speech on the Eisenhower Presidential Library archives. At the time it felt like a distant concern. Today it looks spot on.

The 9/11 attacks supercharged this shift. The Global War on Terror didn’t just launch invasions – it changed how Washington saw the world. Instability anywhere became a direct security threat. Local disputes turned into big strategic battles. Grievances rooted in history and society got reframed as problems that needed sanctions, surveillance, or military action. Diplomacy didn’t vanish, but it became secondary, always operating inside a security-first framework.

The Middle East shows this dynamic better than anywhere else. Take Afghanistan. At first, the invasion looked like a clear success. The Taliban fell fast, and officials in Washington talked confidently about building democracy and long-term stability. But turning military victory into a legitimate government proved far harder. We had the guns and the money, but we underestimated tribal loyalties, history, and what local people would actually accept. After twenty years, the U.S. left and the Taliban came right back. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reports laid it out plainly: unrealistic goals set in Washington, poor understanding of local realities, and timelines that ignored conditions on the ground.

Keep reading

When the Iran War Is Over: The West Bank May Be Netanyahu’s Next Front

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing perhaps the most precarious moment of his political career. He knows it. His allies know it. And his rivals – both within his coalition and across Israel’s political spectrum – are preparing to capitalize on his growing weakness.

Former Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon, who also served as deputy prime minister between 2007 and 2009, is among the latest Israeli political figures to join a growing chorus of criticism directed at Netanyahu.

“In the final result,” Ramon said in an interview with Radio Galey, cited by the Israeli outlet Srugim, “we did not win.” He then broke down that failure in blunt terms: “We did not win in Lebanon, we did not win in Iran, and we did not win against Hamas.”

Another prominent critic is former Israeli army chief Gadi Eisenkot, who joined Netanyahu’s emergency war government following the events of October 7, 2023, before resigning with Benny Gantz in June 2024.

Beyond accusing Netanyahu of failing to protect Israel on October 7, Eisenkot argues that the prime minister has effectively surrendered Israel’s political decision-making to US President Donald Trump, thereby strategically weakening Israel.

Ironically, Netanyahu’s coalition partners have often been even more opportunistic than the opposition.

Since the formation of the current coalition government on December 29, 2022 – widely regarded as the most right-wing government in Israel’s history – figures such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have repeatedly used Netanyahu’s political vulnerability to expand their own influence. Whenever Netanyahu needed political support to remain in power, they demanded concessions in return.

For Israel’s far-right extremists, Netanyahu’s inability to secure decisive strategic victories has often translated into opportunities to advance their own agendas. Every setback on the battlefield became an opening for greater settlement expansion, harsher measures against Palestinians, and deeper entrenchment of extremist policies.

Unable to deliver ‘victory’, Netanyahu turned perpetual war into a political strategy in its own right. The result has been a genocidal war in Gaza, widespread devastation in Lebanon, and a dangerous confrontation with Iran that has repeatedly brought the region to the brink of a wider catastrophe.

For a time, this formula proved politically sustainable. Netanyahu successfully enlisted unwavering US support to keep the fires of war burning. At the same time, the failure of Europe and much of the international community to hold a wanted war criminal accountable provided him with the political space necessary to continue his bloody calculations.

Yet that formula may be nearing its limits. While this possibility may appear encouraging, it comes with a serious warning. If Netanyahu can no longer sustain the wars that have prolonged his political life for nearly three years, he may escalate where resistance is weakest: the occupied West Bank.

Regarding Iran, there is growing recognition that the current confrontation is unsustainable indefinitely and that some form of arrangement will eventually emerge. Likewise, regardless of whether Lebanon is formally included in any future agreement, Israel’s ambition of permanently occupying parts of Lebanese territory remains untenable.

Historically, when Israel fails to secure a strategic breakthrough on one front, it seeks compensation on another – typically where Palestinians are most vulnerable and where international scrutiny is weakest.

As Israeli elections approach, it is therefore reasonable to fear a further escalation of the genocide in Gaza, pushing both the death toll and the level of destruction to new heights. According to Gaza health authorities, nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire agreement was announced in October, bringing the overall death toll of Israel’s genocide in Gaza to 73,000 Palestinians.

Though Israel’s war has already failed to break Palestinian steadfastness, the broader objective remains unchanged: the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza and the transformation of the Strip into a space that can no longer sustain Palestinian life.

The West Bank, however, presents a different challenge.

Keep reading