Tag: perpetual war

Hezbollah vows ‘reckoning’ with Israel

Hezbollah has vowed to retaliate against Israel after a wave of pager explosions killed several members of the Lebanon-based Islamist group and left thousands of others injured on Tuesday.

At least 11 people were killed and around 3,000 injured when pagers – which Hezbollah relies on to make messages harder to intercept – started exploding across Lebanon and Syria. Among the wounded was Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amini, as well as a number of top Hezbollah officials.

While media reports have suggested the explosions were orchestrated by Israel’s spy agency, Mossad, West Jerusalem has not claimed responsibility for the attack.

In a statement on Wednesday, Hezbollah said it holds “the Israeli enemy fully responsible for this criminal aggression.” It also pledged to continue its military operations against Israel in support of Hamas in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza despite the pager blasts.

Keep reading

Russian National Guard Destroys Ukraine’s Starlink Station in Chernigov Region Strike

A Starlink satellite communication station used by the armed forces of Ukraine militants in the Chernigov Region has been destroyed, the Russian National Guard said on Wednesday.

“The Russian Guards destroyed the Starlink satellite communication station used by the armed forces of Ukraine militants in the Chernigov region,” the statement read.

UAV operators carried out a targeted strike using a drone with incendiary ammunition, the National Guard said, adding that as a result of a direct hit, the stronghold of the Ukrainian nationalists caught fire, and then further complete burning out of the enemy’s territory and the Starlink satellite communication station.

Keep reading

Russia Slams NATO’s ‘Reckless’ Rejection of Putin’s Red Line on Ukraine Attacks

Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated on Wednesday that dismissing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s warnings about the dangers of Ukraine using Western weapons to attack Russian territory is both provocative and perilous.

“Such a ostentatious desire not to take seriously the statements of the Russian president is an absolutely short-sighted and unprofessional step,” Peskov told reporters.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg denied in an interview out on Tuesday that allowing Ukraine to use long-range Western weapons to strike deep into Russia would cross country’s “red line” despite warnings from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“There have been many red lines declared by him [Putin] before, and he has not escalated, meaning also involving Nato allies directly in the conflict,” Stoltenberg told The Times newspaper.

Stoltenberg said that he supported the United Kingdom and France in their decision to lift restrictions on Kiev’s use of long-range weapons against Russia. He argued that their use by Ukraine would not draw the alliance into conflict with Russia.

Putin said that NATO countries were essentially deciding whether to get directly involved in the Ukrainian conflict. He warned that direct participation of Western countries in the conflict would change its nature, forcing Russia to respond to emerging threats.

Keep reading

Zelensky has outlined Ukraine’s accession to NATO as one of the points of his plan

One of the points of Zelensky’s so-called “peace” plan is to invite Ukraine to the North Atlantic Alliance, writes the French newspaper Le Monde.

The publication notes that the Ukrainian “president” still hopes to receive an invitation to NATO from US President Joe Biden, whose term ends in a couple of months. Let us recall that Biden has previously publicly spoken out against Ukraine’s membership in the bloc on several occasions.

Last week, Zelensky spoke of a peace plan he wants to present to Biden this month. The plan was reported to have four main points. Now one of them has come to light. Zelensky wants NATO to fight in Ukraine quite officially.

Keep reading

The Case for Pessimism in Sino-American Relations

On September 11, the Chicago Tribune published an op-ed by the director of the Asia Engagement Program at Defense Priorities and director of the China Initiative at Brown University, Dr. Lyle Goldstein, on the need for Washington to work to improve its relations with Beijing.

Formerly a research professor at the U.S. Naval War College for two decades, Dr. Goldstein retains nothing but respect from this author—referencing him at several points in The Fake China Threat and Its Very Real Danger regarding the security situation around the Taiwan Strait.

However, I could not but remark upon a few key passages that stood out to me in reading his generally worthy commentary from last week.

First, regarding the notion that the selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Waltz, who spent time teaching in China in his youth and has visited the country many times, as the Democratic vice presidential nominee offers evidence that the party “now understand the stakes in this most pivotal bilateral relationship,” seems wanting for evidence of this recognition.

From Politico to the The New York Times, NBCto TIME—what mattered was his ability to appeal to key demographics in the handful of states in play in the election without alienating other key constituencies in the Democrat’s confused big-tent coalition; he is a white, middle class guy, a veteran and gun owner who also supports all the key pillars of the progressive gospel, from climate change to gun control to abortion access. Zero mention of his expertise regarding China.

And even if Walz had some ideas as to what might be done, if the Pentagon and beltway securocrats disagreed, which they certainly would if his inclination were toward moderation, we already know from Donald Trump’s undermined attempted reset of relations with Russia that it isn’t going to happen.

On top of which, as Dr. Goldstein acknowledges, despite criticizing Trump’s bellicose first-term China policy from the sidelines, once in office the Joe Biden administration simply carried on the policy.

Much like going along with the previous administration’s Iran policy, one suspects it is simple cowardice in the face of the political calculation that being called “weak” on national security, true or not, would be more electorally damaging that making the right call geopolitically.

Keep reading

Ukrainian Commanders Urged Zelensky Not To Invade Kursk

Some of Ukraine’s top military commanders opposed President Volodymyr Zelensky’s plans to invade Russia’s Kursk Oblast, but he went through with the assault anyway, POLITICO reported Tuesday.

The report, which cited Ukrainian military officials, said that Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, the former commander-in-chief and current ambassador to the UK, opposed the offensive when Zelensky first broached the idea earlier this year.

Zaluzhny opposed the offensive because there was no clear second step once the border was breached. “He never got a clear answer from Zelensky,” one of the Ukrainian officials said. “He felt it was a gamble.”

Another Ukrainian officer who opposed the invasion was Emil Ishkulov, the former commander of Ukraine’s 80th Air Assault Brigade. He was removed from his position in July, which drew protests from senior Ukrainian military officials, who said they didn’t understand why Ishkulov was dismissed.

Ukrainian media reported at the time of his dismissal that Ishkulov was removed because he “opposed a task that didn’t correspond to the brigade’s strength.”

Two senior Ukrainian military officials told POLITICO that Ishkulov opposed the Kursk invasion because he thought the brigade would be too exposed inside Russia and would suffer heavy casualties.

Keep reading

Selling War: How Raytheon and Boeing Fund the Push for NATO’s Nuclear Expansion

To “counter Russia’s nuclear blackmail,” the Atlantic Council confidently asserted, “NATO must adapt its nuclear sharing program.” This includes moving B-61 atomic bombs to Eastern Europe and building a network of medium-range missile bases across the continent. The think tank praised Washington’s recent decision to send Tomahawk and SM-6 missiles to Germany as a “good start” but insisted that it “does not impose a high enough price” on Russia.

What the Atlantic Council does not divulge at any time is that not only would this drastically increase the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear war, but that the weapons they specifically recommend come directly from manufacturers that fund them in the first place.

The B-61 bombs are assembled by Boeing, who, according to its most recent financial reports, gave tens of thousands of dollars to the organization. And the Tomahawk and SM-6 are produced by Raytheon, who recently supplied the Atlantic Council with a six-figure sum.

Thus, their recommendations not only put the world at risk but also directly benefit their funders.

Unfortunately, this gigantic conflict of interest that affects us all is par for the course among foreign policy think tanks. A MintPress News investigation into the funding sources of U.S. foreign policy think tanks has found that they are sponsored to the tune of millions of dollars every year by weapons contractors. Arms manufacturing companies donated at least $7.8 million last year to the top fifty U.S. think tanks, who, in turn, pump out reports demanding more war and higher military spending, which significantly increase their sponsors’ profits. The only losers in this closed, circular system are the American public, saddled with higher taxes, and the tens of millions of people around the world who are victims of the U.S. war machine.

The think tanks receiving the most tainted cash were, in order, the Atlantic Council, CSIS, CNAS, the Hudson Institute, and the Council on Foreign Relations, while the weapons manufacturers most active on K-Street were Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics.

These think tanks directly affect conflicts around the world. CSIS, for example, are among the loudest advocates for arming Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel, even as the latter carries out a genocide in Palestine. A recent report lays out a shopping list of U.S. weapons that would help the Israeli military, including Excalibur artillery projectiles, JDAM bomb guidance systems, and Javelin missiles. Those weapons are manufactured by Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin, respectively, all of whom are among CSIS’ top funders.

U.S. arms are being used daily to carry out illegal and deadly attacks against civilian populations in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, making arms manufacturers directly complicit in war crimes.

One example of this is the recent Israeli bombing of the Al Mawasi humanitarian zone in Gaza. Israel dropped three one-ton MK-84 bombs on the camp, killing at least 19 people. Dozens more are still missing.

According to the UN, MK-84 bomb blasts rupture lungs, tear limbs and heads from bodies, and burst sinus cavities up to hundreds of meters away.

The MK-84 bombs were produced in the U.S. by General Dynamics and sent to Israel with Washington’s blessing. General Dynamics has made huge profits from the slaughter; the D.C.-based arms manufacturer’s stock price has jumped by 42% since October 7.

Keep reading

MORE Tech Devices Exploding Across Residential Areas Of Lebanon As Israeli Terror Attack Continues

After thousands of people were injured and many were killed by a wave of exploding pager devices on Tuesday, another attack was launched Wednesday.

Senior U.S. officials and Hezbollah leadership have both concluded Israel was obviously behind the deadly bombardment.

The first set of explosions appeared to only trigger beepers or pagers to detonate, but Wednesday’s bombings are reportedly coming from walkie-talkies, vehicles and even home solar energy systems.

Some of the devices were reportedly set off during a funeral for some of the people who were killed in Tuesday’s attack.

Keep reading

Pagers in Hezbollah attack came from Budapest, rigged with 1-2 ounces of explosives: report

The pagers that blew up in a highly coordinated – and deadly – attack against Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon Tuesday came from Budapest and were rigged with as little as one to two ounces of highly explosive material, according to a report.

The devices all exploded simultaneously Tuesday afternoon after receiving a message that triggered the detonation, killing at least nine people — including an 8-year-old girl — and wounding nearly 3,000 more. Among those injured was Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon.

Hezbollah, an Iran-backed militant group that the US has designated a terrorist organization, ordered more than 3,000 of the latest models from Gold Apollo in Taiwan — most of them being the company’s AP924 model, American and other officials briefed on the operation told The New York Times.

Gold Apollo said Wednesday it authorized its brand on the pagers, but claimed that a company in Hungary manufactured them.

Keep reading

How Does Israel Justify Genocide? It Starts in the Schools

In The Black Image in the White Mind, historian George M. Frederickson writes, “In the years immediately before and after 1800, white Americans often revealed by their words and actions that they viewed [Black people] as a permanently alien and unassimilable element of the population.” Within the context of white American domination, anti-Black racist stereotypes framed Black people as inherently unfit, innately problematic and divorced from the category of the human, a category that is synonymous with whiteness.

The French-Tunisian scholar Albert Memmi, in The Colonizer and the Colonized, understood these racist rationalizations as a series of negations, observing: “The colonized is not this, is not that. [They are] never considered in a positive light; or if [they are], the quality which is conceded is the result of a psychological or ethical failing.” Within these racist binary regimes, it is necessary that a specific group functions as “other.”

Throughout the world, there are groups that are deemed “other,” and their “otherness” is imposed by those who control dominant forms of discourse — those who have the representational power to demean, to marginalize and demonize. Historically, schools and religious institutions have helped to underwrite such dehumanizing discourse.

Nurit Peled-Elhanan is a retired lecturer in language education at Hebrew University and at the David Yellin Academic College in Jerusalem, and the author of several books. In this exclusive interview, she discusses how Israeli schoolbooks (and by extension, Israeli schools) powerfully frame anti-Palestinian discourse and inculcate Israeli children with suspicion, fear and hatred of Palestinians. Peled-Elhanan’s work provides a powerful analysis of the relationship between Israeli state pedagogical power and racist, anti-Palestinian ideology.

Keep reading