Tag: perpetual war

What Happened to NATO in 1999: Its First Target was Serbia. Consolidation of the US-NATO Hegemonic Path

Back in 1999 few people seemed to notice what had happened to NATO. Under the leadership of President Clinton and Tony Blair, it converted itself from a very successful defensive alliance into an organisation with the self-awarded power of pro active interventions around the world on behalf of an undefined “international community”.

Its first target was Serbia which had been in the sights of the USA since the early nineties.

It was with a feeling of doom-laden deja-vu that I recently heard on the news that Croatian and Albanian football fans at the Euro competition had been chanting “Kill the Serbs!” There is an old Austrian saying “Im Balkan stirbt niemand” – Nobody dies in the Balkans (not of natural causes, that is). In 1999 people certainly were dying in Kosovo in fighting between the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) and Yugoslav federal forces.

Statistics from before the war suggested that an Albanian in Kosovo was about as likely to meet a violent death as an ordinary inhabitant of Washington DC at the same period whereas a Serb was several times more likely to come to an untimely end. Nonetheless this was adduced by the Americans as evidence of genocide by the Serbs. They also helped the KLA provide fake evidence of a mass execution at Racak. Bodies from fighting in the area were assembled to look like victims of a firing squad. The Western media accepted the tale eagerly without question. New Labour applied all its considerable powers of media manipulation to the project.

The massacre that never was constituted sufficient evidence for America-led NATO to present the ultimatum of Rambouillet which demanded free access for NATO troops to all of Yugoslavia for an unspecified period and a commitment to the eventual independence of Kosovo – or else they would bomb – and so they did. It is interesting to compare statements of the different leaders of fragmented Yugoslavia – some of whom were supported by the West as suitable promoters of civilised European values. Just have a guess from their words which leaders received the benison of American and Western approval, as well as arms and technical support.

Keep reading

Ben-Gvir Endorses Trump, Says He’s More Likely to Back War on Iran

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir endorsed former U.S. President Donald Trump – the 2024 Republican nominee – for the White House in an interview published Wednesday in which he accused the Biden administration of preventing Israel from winning its war on Gaza.

“I believe that with Trump, Israel will receive the backing to act against Iran,” Ben-Gvir, who heads the far-right Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party, told Bloomberg. “With Trump, it will be clearer that enemies must be defeated.”

“A cabinet minister is supposed to maintain neutrality,” the 48-year-old minister conceded, “but that’s impossible to do after [U.S. President Joe] Biden.”

“The U.S. has always stood behind Israel in terms of armaments and weapons, yet this time the sense was that we were being reckoned with – that we were trying to be prevented from winning. That happened on Biden’s watch and fed Hamas with lots of energy,” added Ben-Gvir, who was convicted in 2007 of incitement to racism after he advocated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

Keep reading

Biden Brags That ‘the United States Is Not at War’ As He Bombs Yemen

President Joe Biden called himself “the first president this century to report to the American people that the United States is not at war anywhere in the world” in a speech on Wednesday night. Less than an hour before Biden spoke those words, the U.S. military had announced that it was bombing Yemen again.

“In the past 24 hours, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) forces successfully destroyed two Iranian-backed Houthi missiles on launchers in a Houthi-controlled area of Yemen,” the U.S. military command responsible for the Middle East and Central Asia declared shortly before Biden’s speech began. “It was determined these weapons presented an imminent threat to U.S., coalition forces, and merchant vessels in the region.”

After completing the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, Biden took credit for ending “the longest war in American history,” what he called a “forever war.” Yet the Biden administration has extended other U.S. forever wars—and introduced U.S. forces into new ones.

When Biden first ordered airstrikes on Yemen’s Houthi movement in January, it was the first direct U.S. attack on the Houthis ever, and the first airstrike on Yemen by any force in two years. The U.S. had previously brokered a truce between the Houthi government in Sanaa and the rival Saudi-backed government in Aden.

But as war broke out in Gaza last year, the Houthis announced that they would attack Israeli-linked shipping in solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Foreign ships began avoiding the Red Sea off the coast of Yemen, a key international waterway, and Biden tried to reopen it by bombing the Houthis.

Asked by reporters whether the airstrikes were working, Biden gave a formula for endless war. “Well, when you say ‘working,’ are they stopping the Houthis? No. Are they going to continue? Yes,” he said.

Keep reading

Ukraine’s Acoustic Drone Detection Network Eyed By U.S. As Low-Cost Air Defense Option

The U.S. should integrate a low-cost acoustic network to detect aerial threats developed by Ukraine into its own air defense systems, the commanding general of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command said Wednesday morning. Consisting of thousands of acoustic sensors across Ukraine, this system helps detect and track incoming Russian kamikaze drones, alert traditional air defenses in advance, and also dispatch ad hoc drone hunting teams to shoot them down.

“Their use of acoustic sensors has proliferated across the country to the point now where they’re almost positively identifying drones in the distance because of this acoustic and the fireteams attached to that acoustic, low-cost capability that they’ve developed and proliferated,” Army Lt. Gen. Stephen Gainey said during a discussion at the Hudson Institute. As a result, Ukraine has a “low-cost defeat” system. The U.S., he added, should “find a way” of integrating “that type of low-cost capability into our system. We should be able to find ways to work together and augment some of our capability with some of that lower-cost capability.”

Keep reading

Netanyahu Commands, US Obeys

The world-historical crisis in Gaza might in the long-term bring about radical change in both the U.S. and Israel, but in the interim the greatest crimes the two nations have jointly taken part in has stiffened their defenses against unprecedented criticism.

The fear of blasting Israel has been breached. The taboo broken. Tel Aviv and Washington have never faced this before.  As both are settler nations, having wiped out natives across the land, they are circling their wagons on a new frontier. They can only respond with the most profound denial and viciousness. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who addresses a joint-session of Congress on Wednesday the subject of a requested arrest warrant at the International Criminal Court, has demanded the United States shield Israel from criticism while continuing to arm and support its genocide — and the U.S. has answered his call. 

When the Biden administration withheld a symbolic shipment of weapons to Israel, Netanyahu counted on Congress to draft a law that would withhold funding for the State Dept. and the Pentagon if Biden did not give Netanyahu the weapons he needs to “finish the job” in Gaza. 

Biden’s withholding of the shipment was designed to fool U.S. voters critical of his  Gaza policy.  But the assault on Rafah — despite Biden’s supposed red line — continues, and so will unconditional U.S. support for Israel. The question is why. 

Why will U.S. politicians risk losing elections to continue supporting the most unimaginable crimes? The answer lies beyond elections and individual politicians.

Continued support for Israel in the midst of genocide threatens the very legitimacy of U.S. post-war rule as the world turns increasingly against the U.S. and Israel. 

Despite this, what makes U.S. leaders so enthralled to a foreign nation and leader who has angered several U.S. presidents? 

For instance, why did U.S. leaders, essentially on the say-so of that foreign leader, turn against their own university students on U.S. soil peacefully protesting both Israel’s genocide and Washington’s complicity in it?

Keep reading

Russian Media Reports Chinese Diplomats Say Ukraine Ready For Negotiations To End War

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba said at a meeting with top Chinese diplomat Wang Yi in Guangzhou that Kiev is preparing for talks with Russia, according to Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning, reported Russian state news agency TASS.

“Ukraine is willing to engage in dialogue and talks with Russia and is making preparations for that,” Mao said at a briefing, citing Kuleba.

According to the Ukrainian foreign minister, “talks need to be rational, substantive and aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace.”

Kuleba stated that Ukraine highly appreciated China’s active and meaningful role in facilitating peace and maintaining international order. Kiev highly values Beijing’s opinion and has studied the initiative of China and Brazil aimed at finding a political solution to the conflict, the top Ukrainian diplomat pointed out. He noted that “China is a great country,” and added that Ukraine and China were important economic and strategic trade partners.

Keep reading

The battle for the skies over Ukraine is about to commence – either Russia or NATO will be humiliated and a key factor for the outcome of the war for Ukraine will be determined

From here:

F-16 fighters are coming to Ukraine soon (usatoday.com)

“Ukraine will soon begin receiving U.S.-made F-16 Fighting Falcon jets from Western allies to use in the war against Russia, a move designed to bolster Ukrainian defenses and challenge Russian air superiority.”

Around 100 F-16’s of varying vintage are due in Ukraine in the next week, of which:

“The Netherlands will begin delivering 24 jets to Ukraine “without delay,” Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said during a visit to Kyiv on July 6. Other nations will send F-16s as well. Norway will give 22 jets and Denmark and Belgium will transfer an unspecified number of the aircraft.

The F-16’s from the Netherlands represents almost a quarter of the 107 in its air force, Norway had 57, but these were phased out in favour of F-35’s in December 2021 (32 were sold to Romania – 3 of which arrived a few weeks ago). Belgium has pledged 30 out of its stock of 45. Poland has pledged some of its 58 F-16’s, maybe Romania has as well. The USAF and UK’s RAF have pledged none, preferring to send sophisticated “air to air” and “air to ground “missiles instead.

“The F-16 is considered a fourth-generation fighter jet, the modern standard in combat aircraft, according to militaryfactory.com.”

Here is a link to another article around the US F-16’s here:

F-16s head to Ukraine to begin flights this summer – POLITICO

“The U.S., Denmark and the Netherlands announced during the NATO Summit in Washington on Wednesday that the two latter countries had sent over the aircraft, though they did not say how many. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken also mentioned the news during a public forum.”

Here is one take on how dogfights – if such things even happen these days of distance killing – might fare:

Russia’s Su-57 Felon vs. F-16 Fighters in Ukraine War: Who Wins? | The National Interest

“The Felon sports air-to-surface missiles in addition to air-to-air missiles to take on ground targets and carry out longer-range air combat operations. With two internal weapons bays, the Su-57 can carry up to eight K-77M air-to-air missiles. The airframe is powered by Izdeliye 117 or AL-41F1 turbofan engines, which Moscow asserts will be replaced by newer Izdeliye 30 engines.

 Since Moscow is struggling financially under sanctions, this engine upgrade may not occur as soon as the Kremlin wishes. “

Keep reading

Facebook Ramps Up Censorship Amid Israeli Pressure

On July 10, it was announced that social media giant Meta would broaden the scope of its censorship and suppression of content related to the Gaza genocide. Under the new policy, Facebook and Instagram posts containing “derogatory or threatening references to ‘Zionists’ in cases where the term is used to refer to Jews or Israelis” will be proscribed. Unsurprisingly, a welter of Zionist lobby organizations – many of which aggressively lobbied Meta to adopt these changes – cheered the move. Emboldened, the same entities are now calling for all social media platforms to follow suit.

The Times of Israel noted that “nearly 150 advocacy groups and experts provided input that led to Meta’s policy update.” This prominently included Tel Aviv-based CyberWell, mundanely described by the outlet as “a nonprofit that has been documenting the swell of online antisemitism and Holocaust denial since Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.” These malign activities have had a devastating impact on what Western audiences see and hear about the Gaza genocide on their social media feeds.

In January, CyberWell published an extensive report on how it was seeking to censor many prominent X accounts that expressed doubts about the official narrative of October 7, including the widely disseminated, proven-to-be-false libel that Hamas fighters beheaded dozens of infants. Users in the firing line included popular anonymous Zei Squirrel, Al Jazeera, The Grayzone chief Max Blumenthal, and famous rapper Lowkey, of MintPress News. CyberWell claimed such legitimate skepticism was comparable to Holocaust denial.

The impact of these lobbying efforts isn’t clear, although almost simultaneously, Zei Squirrel was abruptly suspended from X without warning or explanation, sparking widespread outrage. It was only due to relentless backlash that the account was reinstated. More recently, CyberWell submitted formal guidance to Meta on censoring the Palestine solidarity phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which Zionists falsely claim is a clarion call for the genocide of Jews.

Keep reading

Why NATO Cannot Be (& Never Was) a DEFENSIVE Alliance

Even at its very start, NATO was designed as an aggressive alliance, never a defensive one. It was designed by the U.S. Government purely for an aggressive purpose, and entirely on the basis of lies, which have been its propaganda ever since. NATO is a blatant violation of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s anti-imperialist will and intentions for the post-WW2 world, and it is a fulfillment of the U.S.-imperialist will and intentions of (primarily) Harry Truman, but also of Winston Churchill — and this fact is hidden by ‘historians’ but will be fully documented by means of the links here to the evidence.

The will of the United States Government under President Roosevelt, who died on 12 April 1945 just before WW2 ended, was what he had started, on 9 August 1941 (even before joining WW2) to plan in order to replace the then existing imperialistic international world order that had produced both World Wars, and which replacement he called, even that early, the “United Nations.” He planned it so as for his U.N. to take control over international relations: international laws legislating them; international courts interpreting them; and international enforcement backing up with military force these international laws. This — FDR’s U.N. — was to be the exclusive Legislative, Judicial, and Executive, power over international relations, so as to prevent and avoid what had caused both World Wars, which was contending imperialisms. FDR, during 9 August 1941 to 12 April 1945, planned very carefully to prevent WW3, and his U.N. was intended to be the international body which would be designed for this purpose (which the U.N. that we have was not). This was to be a U.N. which would have NO laws pertaining to internal domestic affairs within nations, but ONLY to INTERNATIONAL laws between nations; so, it would be very different from the U.N. that became formed and shaped under Truman at the San Francisco Conference during 25 April 1945 through 26 June 1945.

Keep reading

The EU’s Planned Transformation Into A Military Union Is A Federalist Power Play

Newly reappointed European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen just announced that “it is now time to build a veritable union of defense”, which Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said represents a marked change in priorities that’ll intersect with NATO’s interests. The EU’s planned transformation into a military union is being sold to the public as a response to the protracted Ukrainian Conflict, but it’s really a federalist power play that’s designed to forever entrench German hegemony over the bloc.

That country has sought to federalize the EU for years already, and despite some notable successes in getting member states to surrender significant parts of their sovereignty to Brussels, it’s thus far failed to yield the expected results. This plan might also become more difficult to implement as two new groups have emerged in the European Parliament since the latest elections: the AfD-led “Europe of Sovereign Nations” and the Hungarian-led “Patriots for Europe”, both of which are fiercely against federalization.

The only possible way to push through this agenda in the face of such growing opposition is to double down on anti-Russian fearmongering in the hopes that member states’ ruling liberal–globalist elites will agree to federalize under the pretext of defending against a supposedly impending invasion. It’s not directly stated, but the subtext is that NATO’s American leader couldn’t be relied upon to defend its allies in that event despite repeatedly reaffirming its commitment to Article 5’s mutual defense obligations.

The abovementioned fears can’t be voiced aloud since the prior expression of such concerns was earlier smeared by the Mainstream Media as so-called “Russian propaganda”, but they might become more strongly implied as the US’ upcoming presidential elections approach. Trump’s reported plan for NATO, which readers can learn more about in detail here, calls for coercing members into raising their defense spending and assuming more responsibility for their immediate security interests vis-à-vis Russia.

The preceding hyperlinked analysis argues that it’s already being partially implemented by the Biden Administration as proven by Germany’s “Fortress Europe” concept, which amounts to it becoming the continent’s military powerhouse with full US support so as to facilitate America’s “Pivot (back) to Asia”. Late January’s “military Schengen”, last month’s “EU defense line”, and this month’s agreement to assume partial responsibility for Poland’s border security are the most significant developments thus far.

The next step is to consolidate Germany’s military-strategic gains over the past half-year through von der Leyen’s call for a military union, which would see German-controlled Brussels organizing the bloc’s military-industrial needs across its 27 members, thus moving them closer to de facto federalization. Upon surrendering sovereignty over military policymaking, which some of them have proudly protected up until now, every other aspect of federalization would quickly fall into place shortly afterwards.

Keep reading