Tag: perpetual war

Newly declassified footage reveals Britain’s deadly DragonFire LASER weapon that can blow up drones and hypersonic nuclear missiles at the speed of light – and for just £10 a shot

A deadly laser weapon which can blow up drones and hypersonic nuclear missiles at the speed of light has been revealed to the public in newly declassified footage. 

The video shows Britain achieving its first high-power firing of the Dragonfire laser weapon, as it successfully destroyed a drone in the sky using the system’s death ray.

In these secret trials at the Military of Defence’s Hebrides Range, the weapon proved so accurate it could hit a £1 coin half a mile away, with each ‘shot’ said to cost around £10.

Its full range remains classified, but the invisible 50kW beam can cut through targets using it ‘pin-point accuracy’ and does not require any ammunition. 

The weapons platform, which military chiefs say will revolutionise the battlefield of the future, could one day be used to annihilate fighter jets, warships and hypersonic missiles. 

The MOD said: ‘DragonFire is an advanced military laser, being developed by Dstl and GB industry.

Keep reading

CSIS Scholars Call for Escalation Against Russia

Four scholars at The Center for Strategic and International Studies CSIS), writing in Foreign Affairs, invoke George Kennan and the words of President John F. Kennedy in advocating a new policy of “containment” of Russian “expansionist tendencies,” and for waging another “long twilight struggle” against Moscow. Not satisfied with defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War and doubling the size of the North Atlantic Alliance, these scholars want to continue and increase aid to Ukraine and to provide infrastructure investments, intelligence, arms, and training to military forces in Georgia, Armenia, and Moldova. George Kennan and John F. Kennedy would be appalled at the misuse of their Cold War legacies.

The CSIS scholars–Max Bergmann, Michael Kimmage, Jeffrey Mankoff, and Maria Snegovaya–rest their proposals on questionable premises. First, they contend that Russia is “the principal threat to the international order.” No, China, is. The Soviet Union that George Kennan said needed containing and that President Kennedy envisioned waging a lengthy struggle against was significantly militarily stronger in relative terms than today’s Russia, and unlike today’s Russia was motivated by a revolutionary ideology that sought to spread communism throughout much of the world. Russia’s expansionist tendencies, of course, have historical roots dating back to the times of the Czars, but those imperial ambitions paled in comparison to Soviet imperial designs. More importantly, Russian relative military power today, as demonstrated in their difficulty in achieving even limited aims in Ukraine, is a shell of its former Soviet self during the Cold War when the threat of Soviet forces overrunning Western Europe was real. It is China, not Russia, that today poses a threat of hegemony on the Eurasian land mass and its littoral seas.

Next, the CSIS scholars make the dubious claims that “Europe’s security hinges on the fate of Ukraine” and that “Ukraine’s defense is crucial for European stability and for preventing the spread of Russian power globally.” One searches in vain for American policymakers who previously identified Ukraine as a vital interest of the United States. We won the Cold War without first liberating Ukraine. Indeed, during the First and Second World Wars, Ukraine was one of the passageways for Germany’s invasions of Russia and the Soviet Union, who were our allies in those conflicts. Approximately four million Ukrainians fought for Russia during the Great War, while nearly three-hundred thousand Ukrainians fought with Austro-Hungarian armies against Russia. Under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, German and Austrian troops occupied Ukraine, though the treaty subsequently expired after Germany’s defeat. Ukrainians also fought on both sides during World War II. There is a reason that Timothy Snyder calls this region the “bloodlands.”

Keep reading

Ukraine Is Presenting Itself As A Reliable Mercenary Force Against Russia In Africa

The WSJ’s piece makes it seem like the armed forces’ recent gains around the capital are the result of this secret Ukrainian intervention, which is intended to imbue policymakers with the notion that the US can successfully roll back speculative Russian influence in Africa by proxy so long as they keep funding Kiev.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported this week that “Ukraine Is Now Fighting Russia in Sudan”, which can be regarded as the follow-up to CNN’s report from last September about how “Ukraine’s special services ‘likely’ behind strikes on Wagner-backed forces in Sudan, a Ukrainian military source says”. According to their sources, Ukraine dispatched special forces there last summer to fight against Wagner’s local allies, during which time they also helped improve the armed forces’ drone and mining capabilities.

Most dramatically, however, is the claim that Ukraine helped evacuate Chief General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan from the capital of Khartoum to Port Sudan. None of what is written can be independently verified, but it wouldn’t be surprising if there’s some truth to their report. After all, by presenting itself as a reliable mercenary force against Russia in Africa, Ukraine likely hopes to keep the foreign aid spigot flowing indefinitely.

The West has turned now-rebranded Wagner into a bogeyman whose sole purpose in the narrative context is to justify more of their meddling across the continent, but they’re uncomfortable doing this directly at the level that’s required to contain Russia, ergo the need for a reliable proxy like Ukraine. The timing of the WSJ’s report comes amidst the Congressional deadlock over more aid for that country, thus hinting that the intent is to show policymakers that these funds are paying off in unexpected ways.

Their piece makes it seem like the armed forces’ recent gains around the capital are the result of this secret Ukrainian intervention, which is intended to imbue policymakers with the notion that the US can successfully roll back speculative Russian influence in Africa by proxy so long as they keep funding Kiev. Although the WSJ referenced the State Department’s warning to others not to intervene in this war, it’s obvious that Washington will turn a blind eye towards Kiev’s intervention, which it clearly approved.

Keep reading

Ukraine war is changing the global arms trade

Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing war has driven new arms purchasing in Europe in dramatic fashion, with US manufacturers being the main beneficiaries, according to a new study from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

From 2019 to 2023, the worldwide trade in weapons declined by 3.3% overall from the 2014-18 figures, but the amount of arms imported by European countries in that period doubled compared with the previous five years.

At 55%, the lion’s share of arms sales to European countries came from the United States. This was up 20 percentage points from the previous period.

US’s global dominance

Mainly thanks to sales to European countries, the United States increased its overall weapons exports by 17%. Stateside producers delivered arms to 107 countries, more than in any other period studied by SIPRI or any other exporting nation.

“The USA has increased its global role as an arms supplier — an important aspect of its foreign policy — exporting more arms to more countries than it has ever done in the past,” said Mathew George, director of the SIPRI Arms Transfers Programme. “This comes at a time when the USA’s economic and geopolitical dominance is being challenged by emerging powers.”

Unsurprisingly, Ukraine is the European country where weapons imports have most dramatically increased. From 2019 to 2023, Ukraine went from being a minimal importer and a site of domestic production to being the No. 4 weapons buyer in the world, after India, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Imports increased 6,600% compared with the previous period.

Keep reading

French Defense Chief Won’t Rule Out Ukraine Deployment

France’s defense minister said Paris is still exploring its options for a military presence in Ukraine, but stressed that troops would not have a direct combat role. The comments came after French opposition leaders warned that President Emmanuel Macron is planning to step up the country’s involvement in the war.

Speaking to local broadcaster BFMTV on Friday, Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu explained that while Macron did not intend to become a “co-belligerent” in the conflict, France could still deploy forces to perform other tasks in Ukraine.

“Between the transfer of arms and co-belligerence – in other words direct war with Russia – have we done everything within that space? Are there paths that we can explore? And notably paths involving a military presence?” he said, suggesting French soldiers could assist with mine-clearance or training troops on Ukrainian soil.

“The more Ukraine needs to conscript, to raise up its army, the greater the need will be to ramp up training,” the minister continued, also noting that three French military contractors would soon begin producing weapons inside the country.

Lecornu’s remarks followed a meeting between President Macron and French party leaders one day prior, after which multiple opposition figures sounded alarms about the risk of direct military intervention in Ukraine.

According to Fabien Roussel, national secretary of the French Communist Party, during the meeting Macron outlined a scenario “which could initiate an intervention,” and proposed a troop deployment should Russian forces advance “towards Odessa or towards Kiev.” He did not say whether that would involve combat operations.

Speaking after the same meeting, National Rally leader Jordan Bardella warned that Macron had “no limits and no red lines,” while La France Insoumise coordinator Manuel Bompard said he “arrived worried” and “left more worried.”

Keep reading

COULD GERMANY START WWIII? Leaked Audio Unveils Military Bombshell

A shocking revelation about Germany’s military plans is shaking the geopolitical landscape: A leaked audio recording exposes a chilling conversation among top-ranking military officials regarding a potential operation to bomb the Crimean Bridge in Russia with Taurus missiles.

Worse yet, the recorded voices, one of whom is Lieutenant General Ingo Gerhartz – the commander of the national Air Force himself, stress that Germany’s involvement in the attack must be concealed from the public.

The recording, initially dismissed by some as mere propaganda, has been confirmed as authentic by the highest echelons of the German government.

Russian officials demand swift answers from Berlin, labeling the leaked conversation as evidence of direct German complicity in acts of aggression against Russia. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov scorns NATO, suggesting a glaring betrayal of trust, while former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev condemns Germany as a resurfaced adversary. He released a brutal statement on Telegram:

“After all, our eternal opponents, the Germans, have again turned into sworn enemies.“

Keep reading

WILL AARON BUSHNELL’S DEATH TRIGGER ANARCHISM WITCH HUNT?

AARON BUSHNELL’S DEATH by self-immolation in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington last month has provoked nationwide soul-searching about the war in Gaza. For the U.S. government though, the airman’s death excites a different kind of search: for so-called extremists, particularly left-wing ones. 

Last Wednesday, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., former Army officer and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin asking why and how the Pentagon could tolerate an airman like Bushnell in its ranks. Calling his death “an act of horrific violence” that was “in support of a terrorist group [Hamas],” Cotton goes on to ask about the Defense Department’s internal efforts to address extremism and whether Bushnell was ever identified as exhibiting extremist views or behaviors.

Cotton’s agitation to find Hamas supporters in uniform twists Bushnell’s political act, which Bushnell said was in support of the Palestinian people. But it also follows a longstanding urging by other members of Congress like Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa — ranking Republican of the Judiciary Committee and former president pro tempore of the Senate — for the military to pursue some kind of similar treatment for leftists.

While studies show that support for extremism is similar or even lower among veterans than the general population, extremism in the active-duty military has become an obsession of the Washington brass since January 6. Soon after taking office, new secretary of defense Austin, a retired Army general, directed the military to conduct an all-hands “stand down” to address extremism in the ranks, commissioning a number of panels and studies to evaluate white nationalism and neo-Nazi support among service members.

Keep reading

F-35A Is Officially Certified For Nuclear Strike

The F-35A has been fully certified to carry the B61-12 thermonuclear bomb. Confirmation comes after we reported late last year that Dutch-operated F-35As had received “initial certification for the deterrence mission” — a reference to their ability to carry the same weapons.

F-35As being able to deliver nuclear strikes will add major credibility to NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture in Europe. The aircraft’s unique ability to pierce enemy air defense networks and defend itself on the way to its target will be a standing capability Russia has never had to deal with. The F-117 was capable of delivering nuclear strikes and could have been called upon to do so, but that was not part of its normal mission purview and the aircraft remained deeply classified during the tail end of the Cold War, complicating its use in such a role and its deterrence value. You can read more about this in our special feature here.

The F-35’s added survivability will complicate Moscow’s ability to defend against these strikes and change whatever predictive modeling they have on the probability of those strikes succeeding will have to be adjusted accordingly. This capability can also be used in other theaters, including the Korean Peninsula and the larger Pacific region, but there isn’t a similar standing tactical nuclear weapons delivery mission there like there is in Europe.

A spokesman from the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), Russ Goemaere, said today that the certification was achieved on October 12, according to a report from Breaking Defense. The milestone was achieved earlier than planned — the U.S. Air Force had previously announced that it aimed to have the F-35A certified to carry the B61-12 by January 2024.

Keep reading

Polish Foreign Minister Says Sending NATO Troops Into Ukraine ‘Not Unthinkable’

Poland’s foreign minister says the presence of NATO forces “is not unthinkable” and that he appreciates the French president for not ruling out that idea.

Radek Sikorski made the observation during a discussion marking the 25th anniversary of Poland’s NATO membership in the Polish parliament on Friday, and the Foreign Ministry tweeted the comments later in English.

Last month French President Emmanuel Macron said the possibility of Western troops being sent to Ukraine could not be ruled out, a comment that prompted an outcry from other leaders.

French officials later sought to clarify Macron´s remarks and tamp down the backlash, while insisting on the need to send a clear signal to Russia that it cannot win its war in Ukraine.

The Kremlin has warned that if NATO sends combat troops, a direct conflict between the alliance and Russia would be inevitable. Russian President Vladimir Putin said such a move would risk a global nuclear conflict.

Keep reading

WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THE U.S. WAR IN SOMALIA WOULD FAIL? THE PENTAGON.

THE PENTAGON HAS known of fundamental flaws with U.S. military operations in the Horn of Africa for nearly 20 years but has nonetheless forged ahead, failing to address glaring problems, according to a 2007 study obtained exclusively by The Intercept.

“There is no useful, shared conception of the conflict,” says the Pentagon study, which was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act and has not previously been made public. “The instruments of national power are not balanced, which results in excessive reliance on the military instrument. There is imbalance within the military instrument as well.”

The 50-page analysis, conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses, a private think tank that works solely for the U.S. government, is based on anonymized interviews with key U.S. government officials from across various departments and agencies. It found America’s nascent war in the Horn of Africa was plagued by a failure to define the parameters of the conflict or its aims; an overemphasis on military measures without a clear definition of the optimal military strategy; and barriers to coordination between the military and other government agencies like the State Department and local allies like the Somali government.

Keep reading