Republican Senator Confirms Ukrainian Strike on Russia With US Weapons

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, confirmed to The Associated Press on Wednesday that Ukraine has used US-provided weapons to carry out strikes on Russian territory, which risks a major response from Russia.

The report also cited an unnamed Western official who said Ukraine used US weapons on Russian territory. The report didn’t specify what type of weapons system was used, but it came after a Ukrainian lawmaker claimed US-provided HIMARS rocket systems destroyed Russian S-300 and S-400 air defense missiles inside Russia’s Belgorod Oblast.

A Ukrainian official also told The Wall Street Journal that HIMARS were used to hit a Russian air defense system in Belgorod. The HIMARS systems require US intelligence for targeting, meaning any HIMARS strike on Russian territory would have been directly supported by the US.

There’s been no official confirmation from Russia about the strikes, but Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday issued a fresh warning to the US and other NATO countries about the use of their weapons on Russian territory.

Keep reading

The Speech That Military Recruiters Don’t Want You To Hear

I had hoped to speak to high-schoolers – I still do – but the six high schools nearest me either ignored my offer to speak or declined it.  “Do it for the kids,” they say when asking to raise your property taxes, but it’s beyond the pale to dissuade those very same kids from needlessly putting themselves in harm’s way?  Parents might have a different opinion, so here’s my speech:

Before we get into this, let’s discuss what most would label “a hypothetical.”  Tonight, I’m going to break into your home, point a gun at you, and rob you – all the while claiming that I’m not your enemy.  Your enemy, I’ll say, is elsewhere, and I don’t mean across the street but in a different country.  What will you do?  By a show of hands, will you fight back and protect those in your home by evicting me or even by killing me?  By a show of hands, who will thank me and travel to said country in search of the enemy, leaving those in your home vulnerable to me?  Anyone?  Nobody?  It sounds absurd, but for reasons that I’ll soon explain, you’ll understand that it’s more real than hypothetical.

Hello, I’m Casey Carlisle.  I’m a West Point graduate, and I spent five years in the Army, including 11 months in Afghanistan.  Some of you are thinking about serving your country, and most of you are asking yourselves, “Why am I listening to this guy?”  I’m glad that both of these groups are here, and I promise that my remarks will cause both groups to think differently about military service.

I was a high-school senior on September 11th, 2001, sitting in class and stunned after hearing the principal announce that our country had just been attacked.  Why would someone want to do this to the greatest country on Earth?  I was also livid, and I wanted revenge.  I wanted to kill the people responsible for this atrocity, and my dilemma then was between enlisting in the military to exact revenge now or first spending years at a military academy before helping to rid the world of terrorists.  I chose the latter, so I didn’t deploy to Afghanistan until 2009.  My time there radically changed my views, which was uncomfortable, but, as with failure, discomfort breeds learning.

I learned that not only were we not keeping our fellow Americans safe or protecting their liberty, we were further impoverishing one of the poorest countries in the world.  I watched in disgust my alleged allies – the Afghan police – rob their neighbors while on patrol and in broad daylight via traffic stops.  Imagine getting pulled over, not for speeding, but because the cop hopes to rob you.  My enemy – the Taliban – didn’t do such things, which is why I ended up having more respect for them than for my mission or for those who were allegedly helping us accomplish it.  “Oh, but they’re horrible in other ways,” you might argue, and I’d agree; however, it’s much harder to kill an idea than it is to kill a person.  Killing someone who holds an idea that you find distasteful only helps that person’s loved ones accept that idea.  It turns out that killing someone for their ideas is a great way to spread those ideas.

Instead of dismissing me as an anti-American lunatic, consider the following.  In the year 2000, the Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan, and today, they control all of it.  This is just one of the reasons why I feel contempt for those who thank me for my alleged service.  Our ‘service’ was worse than worthless, and the people thanking me were forced to pay for it.  All of those who died there did so for nothing.  And the innocent Afghans who were displaced, injured, or killed during our attempt to bring democracy to a country that didn’t want it were far better off in 2000 than they are now.

To be clear, the desire to serve one’s country is noble, but we must first define “country.”  Serving one’s country is entirely different from serving one’s government.  They are not the same.  Serving one’s country is serving one’s family, friends, neighbors, and the land that they’ve made home.  Serving one’s country is serving one’s community.  Serving one’s government, however, is ultimately what everyone does when they enlist or when they take my path as an officer.  Who are these people in government that you’ll end up serving?  Are they your family, friends, or neighbors?  For the most part, they are not, yet, they are ultimately who will decide your fate while in uniform.  Whether they’re politicians or bureaucrats, they decide what serving one’s country entails, and, naturally, they’ll subordinate our country’s prosperity to their job security.  If given the opportunity, these people will not hesitate to send you to your death if it means scoring a measly political point against their ideological foes.  Serving one’s country in this context – reality – means serving these parasites.

Keep reading

Report Details US Troop ‘Land Corridors’ In Event Of European Ground War With Russia

NATO has a plan in place for rapid deployment of its forces in the scenario of a future Russian attack on Europe. It includes the development of “land corridors” which can be used to rush some 300,000 troops  mostly American soldiers  to front line positions in order to defend against a Russian invasion.

High-ranking British military sources described to the Telegraph that the plan entails troops landing at key European ports whereupon they would move east along pre-planned routes to counter potential Russian attacks.

Lt. Gen. Alexander Sollfrank, chief of NATO’s Joint Support and Enabling Command (JSEC), described to the UK publication, “Huge logistics bases, as we know them from Afghanistan and Iraq, are no longer possible because they will be attacked and destroyed very early on in a conflict situation.”

The logistics and troop transport corridors would originate in places like Greece, Italy, Turkey, The Netherlands, Norway – and the port of Rotterdam, a key northern European hub, is specifically named. Lines like the Germany-Poland railway are also mentioned in the report – all of which would theoretically allow rapid deployment of US forces to any NATO territory being threatened (based on Article 5 common defense).

Separate alarmist reports in UK media have been warning that the West should prepare for war with Russia at some point in the next two decades, connected with ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

For example, a prior March report in The Telegraph claimed that President Putin has a “paranoid obsession” with stoking conflict and provoking Western allies.

“Now that Russian President Vladimir Putin has secured his historic fifth term in office, it is patently clear that he will devote his next six-year spell at the Kremlin to pursuing his paranoid obsession of confronting the West,” that prior stated.

As for the Telegraph’s latest Tuesday revelation of the NATO land corridors  with the somewhat loud and sensationalist headline of “Nato land corridors could rush US troops to front line in event of European war”  the reality is that big picture contingency plans like this have been on US and NATO planners’ shelves since the Cold War.

But without doubt they are getting dusted off amid the continued escalation of the Ukraine proxy war…

Keep reading

Ukraine ‘fires first US missile into Russia’ just days after President Joe Biden gave permission for the High Mobility Rocket Artillery System to be used to strike inside Russia

Ukraine last night claimed it successfully hit a missile system inside Russia using U.S. weapons.

It said the country’s forces destroyed Russian missile launchers with a strike in the Belgorod region.

Senior politician Yehor Chernev claimed Ukrainian forces used a High Mobility Rocket Artillery System, or HIMARS, The New York Times reported. 

It comes just days after the U.S. granted permission for Ukraine to fire American weapons into Russia.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden has ruled out Ukraine joining Nato in a major policy shift. The development comes after the defence alliance’s members, including the US and Britain, released a communique last year declaring ‘Ukraine’s future is in Nato’. 

Keep reading

America’s Cold War Doomsday Satellite

When most people think about drama surrounding the launch of a nuclear weapon, they usually think about some sort of tense face-off between two officers who don’t agree on whether or not to launch, often spurred by some sort of garbled message or unforeseen circumstance that leaves those orders in doubt. But in reality, this is actually the least dramatic portion of the entire exercise. American nuclear missile crews, regardless of which leg of the nuclear triad they fall under, train ceaselessly to execute the orders to launch under any circumstances. If the codes match…missiles fly. What *does* keep nuclear planners up at night is how to make sure the shooters end up getting the orders to fire in the first place.  

Early in the Cold War, new and maturing technologies in warfare and communications led to some interesting ideas about how to get launch orders to alert crews no matter what. Simply put, communications underpinned the entire credibility of the nuclear deterrent. The Pentagon needed a way to make absolutely sure that no matter what happened to its command and control infrastructure during the opening of a nuclear exchange, the president’s orders would be delivered. In the end, they decided that the best way to launch a bunch of missiles and set bombers flying was to launch a missile capable of delivering those commands. That missile was the AN/DRC 8 Emergency Rocket Communications System or ERCS.

Keep reading

U-2 Retirement Reprieve Emerges In Proposed Defense Spending Bill

Members of Congress are moving to prevent the U.S. Air Force from retiring its fleet of iconic U-2 Dragon Lady spy planes. The Pentagon approved a waiver last year that had cleared the way for the service to begin divesting the high-flying Cold War-era jets, which The War Zone was first to report. The Air Force’s current plan is to divest the last of the U-2s in 2026 and supplant them with a mix of still largely undefined space-based and other capabilities, which is widely believed to include a classified stealthy high-altitude drone.

The House Appropriations Committee released a draft of the annual defense spending bill for the upcoming 2025 Fiscal Year earlier today. It includes a provision that, should the bill become law, would explicitly and without exception prevent “funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act” from being “used to divest or prepare to divest any U-2 aircraft.”

As of the start of Fiscal Year 2024, the Air Force had 31 U-2s in its inventory, including a trio of two-seat TU-2S trainers.

Until last year, the Air Force had been blocked from retiring any U-2s by provisions in annual defense policy bills, or National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA), enacted in previous fiscal years. However, the earlier legislation had included a path to proceeding with retiring the venerable spy planes if the Pentagon could certify that certain stipulations had been met. Chief among these was the insistence that the resulting capability gap would be filled in a cost-effective manner. You can read more about this here.

“On October 30, 2023, the Secretary of Defense [Lloyd Austin] signed a waiver to divest the U-2 Dragon Lady in accordance with language in the FY 2021 NDAA waiver requirement. In signing the waiver, Secretary of Defense certified combatant commands will continue to be able to accomplish their missions at acceptable levels of risk,” an annual force structure report the Pentagon released in April further explains. “The ability to win future high-end conflicts requires accepting short-term risks by divesting legacy ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconniassance] assets that offer limited capability against peer and near-peer threats. The USAF will fleet-divest the remaining 31 U-2 aircraft starting October 1, 2026.”

Keep reading

The Military-Industrial Complex Is Killing Us All

We need to talk about what bombs do in war. Bombs shred flesh. Bombs shatter bones. Bombs dismember. Bombs cause brains, lungs, and other organs to shake so violently they bleed, rupture, and cease functioning. Bombs injure. Bombs kill. Bombs destroy.

Bombs also make people rich.

When a bomb explodes, someone profits. And when someone profits, bombs claim more unseen victims. Every dollar spent on a bomb is a dollar not spent saving a life from a preventable death, a dollar not spent curing cancer, a dollar not spent educating children. That’s why, so long ago, retired five-star general and President Dwight D. Eisenhower rightly called spending on bombs and all things military a “theft.”

The perpetrator of that theft is perhaps the world’s most overlooked destructive force. It looms unnoticed behind so many major problems in the United States and the world today. Eisenhower famously warned Americans about it in his 1961 farewell address, calling it for the first time “the military-industrial complex,” or the MIC.

Start with the fact that, thanks to the MIC’s ability to hijack the federal budget, total annual military spending is far larger than most people realize: around $1,500,000,000,000 ($1.5 trillion). Contrary to what the MIC scares us into believing, that incomprehensibly large figure is monstrously out of proportion to the few military threats facing the United States. One-and-a-half trillion dollars is about double what Congress spends annually on all non-military purposes combined.

Calling this massive transfer of wealth a “theft” is no exaggeration, since it’s taken from pressing needs like ending hunger and homelessness, offering free college and pre-K, providing universal health care, and building a green energy infrastructure to save ourselves from climate change. Virtually every major problem touched by federal resources could be ameliorated or solved with fractions of the cash claimed by the MIC. The money is there.

Keep reading

‘The New McCarthyism’: NY Hospital Fires Nurse for Empathizing With Gaza Mothers

A nurse was fired earlier this month from a New York City hospital for a speech lamenting the anguish felt by Palestinian mothers whose children were killed during the Gaza genocide – remarks that came as she was being honored for providing extraordinary care to mothers who’ve lost babies.

NYU Langone Health labor and delivery nurse Hesen Jabr, who is Palestinian American, was terminated over her May 7 speech accepting the award, in which she said that “it pains me to see the women from my country going through unimaginable losses themselves during the current genocide in Gaza.”

“Even though I can’t hold their hands and comfort them as they grieve their unborn children and the children they have lost during this genocide, I hope to keep making them proud as I represent them here at NYU,” she added.

In a May 27 Instagram post, Jabr recounted what she says happened to her when she went back to work for the first time after her speech:

As soon as I walked onto the unit, I was dragged into an impromptu meeting with the president and vice president of nursing at NYU Langone to discuss how I “put others at risk” and “ruined the ceremony” and “offended people” because a small part of my speech was a tribute towards the grieving mothers in my country. I was sent back to work my shift while the hospital spent the day “figuring out” what to do with me. After working almost the entire shift, I was dragged once again to an office where I was read my termination letter by the director of human resources, Austin Bender, and escorted off the premises by a plain clothes police officer.

NYU Langone spokesperson Steve Ritea told The New York Times that Jabr was terminated over the speech and “a previous incident” related to Gaza, over which she was warned “not to bring her views on this divisive and charged issue into the workplace.”

“She instead chose not to heed that at a recent employee recognition event that was widely attended by her colleagues, some of whom were upset after her comments,” Ritea added. “As a result, Jabr is no longer an NYU Langone employee.”

Keep reading

Russia Warns US Close To Making ‘Fatal’ Miscalculation Over Ukraine

On Monday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned the US to listen to warnings from Russian President Vladimir Putin about allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory with American-made weapons.

“I would like to caution American officials against miscalculations which may have fatal consequences. For some unknown reason, they underestimate the seriousness of the rebuff they may receive,” Ryabkov said, according to the Russian news agency TASS.

“I am urging these officials who seemingly are not bothered by anything, to take some time away from playing computer games, which is apparently what they are doing, given their light-hearted approach to serious issues, and take a closer look at what Putin said, particularly at a press conference following talks in Tashkent,” he added, referring to a warning Putin issued during a recent visit to Uzbekistan.

Putin said there would be “serious consequences” for any NATO country that allowed Ukraine to hit Russian territory with its weapons. “This constant escalation can lead to serious consequences. If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the US behave, bearing in mind our parity in the field of strategic weapons? Hard to say. Do they want global conflict?” Putin said.

Ryabkov called Putin’s comments “a very significant warning, and it should be treated with the utmost seriousness.”

Keep reading

Who wrote that Gaza peace proposal? All we know is Biden lied

The president of the United States, Joe Biden, went in front of the cameras at the White House on May 31 and presented a multi-stage process for an end of war in Gaza that would release all the hostages, declaring it to be an Israeli peace plan.

It would be interesting to learn from Biden which Israeli came up with this plan.

Biden’s “Israeli” plan sounded comprehensive but it wasn’t, and it didn’t sound right. 

According to Biden we would get all our hostages after we release several hundred merciless killers and accepting a ceasefire that would become a permanent cessation in fighting. But no word about the defeat of Hamas and its leaders.

In other words, Biden’s Israel plan gifts a victory to Hamas.

Our officials have negotiated with any partner, friend or enemy, to get our hostages back for months, but the thought that Hamas would emerge armed and dangerous was never on the cards. In fact, this detail has split a part of Israeli society who want the hostages home even if Hamas is left to repeat the horrors of Oct. 7, but they are a vocal but small part of the population.

This part also wants to remove Netanyahu as Israel’s leader. These are led by the malcontents that had split Israeli society up to the day that Hamas attacked on Oct. 7. Prior to that day they included notable, some would say malevolent, former leftist politicians and retired IDF and air force commanders who were telling reservists not to turn up for duty as long as Bibi was prime minister.

Keep reading