Tag: russia

Russia Accuses Kiev of GENOCIDE

A Russian diplomat has accused Ukraine of committing genocide. Senior Russian diplomat Rodion Miroshnik claimed on Sunday that captured Ukrainian soldiers “have reported they were given orders to kill Russian speakers.”

According to Miroshinik, this amounts to genocide. He claimed that the Ukrainian military is conducting “language-based genocide” by giving orders to kill anyone who speaks Russian.

Miroshnik was commenting on the discovery of civilian bodies in a recently liberated village in Russia’s Kursk Region. He asserted that the alleged Ukrainian policy amounts to the “elimination of all civilians” in the area, which Kiev recognizes as Russian, according to a report by RT. 

On Sunday, the Foreign Ministry described the discovery as evidence of a “massacre” and the latest confirmation of the “terrorist and neo-Nazi essence of the Kiev regime,” as spokeswoman Maria Zakharova put it. She accused Western supporters of the Ukrainian government of turning a blind eye to Kyiv’s crimes and charged that foreign officials secretly condone such behavior. –RT

The Russian Investigative Committee is probing the Ukrainian military for alleged terrorism, based on the reports from Russkoye Porechnoye. A person convicted of such a crime can be sentenced to life imprisonment in Russia.

Keep reading

Zelensky is desperately trying to provoke a Pearl Harbour moment

There has been much reporting of Ukraine’s aerial attack on Russia over recent days that struck as far as Tatarstan. Western media has been quick to point out the use of western ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles in these attacks and six of each appear to have been used.

What does this all mean?

As talk increases of a possible meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin to discuss ending the war, Volodymyr Zelensky is grasping for a Pearl Harbour moment. Specifically, he wants to provoke Russia into a retaliatory strike against NATO that would be so strategically damaging that NATO would be drawn into Ukraine’s war with Russia.

In that regard, Zelensky is trying to position himself as a modern-day Winston Churchill.

Churchill famously said in a radio broadcast on 9 February 1941 addressing President Roosevelt, ‘Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.’

In April 2024, Zelensky said, ‘We will have a chance for victory if Ukraine really gets the weapon system which we need.’ He has used a different form of the same Churchillian entreaty several times.

In truth, Churchill knew that Britain could only defeat Nazi Germany in western Europe with the industrial might of the United States. So too, Zelensky has always wanted a more direct NATO role in the war, because it has always been clear that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia on its own.

History will record that the outcome of World War II was sealed by events far from Europe, but rather in the Pacific, namely the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, on 7 December 1941. That so enraged the United States that they had no choice but to enter the war.

By attacking targets deep inside of Russia using western supplied weapons, Zelensky’s gamble is that Russia will retaliate by striking a significant NATO target inside of Europe.

Keep reading

Without job opportunities in their homeland, Colombians are recruited by Kiev

NATO’s proxy war against Russia through Ukraine has shown significant changes in various aspects, particularly regarding the participation of foreign mercenaries. While, at the start of the war, the flow of fighters was predominantly composed of individuals from Europe and the United States, a notable shift occurred throughout 2024, with a considerable increase in mercenaries from Latin America, especially Colombia. The driving factor behind this growing presence of Latin American fighters is not ideological, but rather economic, with many of these soldiers seeking a way to survive financially abroad, considering the extreme poverty in their home countries.

Colombia, one of the nations most affected by economic inequality in Latin America, serves as an example to understand this reality. With a large portion of the population living below the poverty line, many Colombians see themselves with few viable alternatives to improve their financial situation. For many Colombians, military service appears to be one of the few legal options that guarantees some level of financial stability, albeit modest. However, with scarce job opportunities and a struggling economy that fails to offer appealing alternatives, the chance to participate in the war in Ukraine, where mercenaries’ payments can be much higher, becomes attractive to many ex-soldiers who were previously trained in the Colombian armed forces.

The situation in Ukraine, however, does not turn out to be a “simple battlefield” for these mercenaries, as it might have seemed initially. When the first foreign fighters arrived, particularly Europeans and Americans, many saw the war as an opportunity to test their skills or even to partake in an “adventure.” However, as the conflict intensified, it became clear that the reality of the Ukrainian battlefield was far more brutal than many had imagined. Modern warfare, with its predominant use of heavy artillery, airstrikes, and large-scale exhausting confrontations, is an environment unfamiliar to soldiers who, like many Colombians – as well as Brazilians and other Latin soldier – were used to urban combat and guerrilla warfare, where the use of light weapons at short distances is common.

Keep reading

The Merits Of A Demilitarized “Trans-Dnieper” Region Controlled By Non-Western Peacekeepers

This proposal is the most realistic means for keeping the peace after an armistice.

Bloomberg cited unnamed “people with knowledge of Kremlin thinking” to report that Russia will only demand that Ukraine restore its constitutional neutrality, “drastically cut back military ties with the NATO alliance”, limit its army, and freeze the front lines, albeit with some territorial swaps. Also, “The Kremlin’s position is that while individual NATO members may continue to send arms to Ukraine under bilateral security agreements, any such weapons should not be used against Russia or to recapture territory.”

To be sure, Bloomberg might have either invented their sources or they’re uninformed of what the Kremlin thinks, but there’s also the possibility that they’re accurately reflecting what it plans to ask for during peace talks. Hopefully Russia’s demands of Ukraine are more than what Bloomberg just reported, however, because the aforesaid requests would be settling for much less than it might otherwise be able to achieve as suggested by some of the proposals made at the end of this analysis here.

For instance, any agreement to limit the Ukrainian Armed Forces is meaningless without a monitoring mission paired with credible enforcement mechanisms to enforce compliance. After all, even written guarantees that individual NATO members won’t arm Ukraine for the purpose of using these weapons against Russia or to recapture territory – not to mention purely verbal ones – could be broken. There’s also the question of how Russia would respond to future drone and missile strikes from Ukraine.

The most realistic way to address these concerns is through the participation of only non-Western countries in monitoring and peacekeeping roles, the latter of which could concern deployment along the entire Russian-Ukrainian border, including the Line of Contact (LOC). About the second-mentioned, the reported territorial swaps could see Russia give back its part of Kharkov Oblast in exchange for Ukraine giving back its part of Kursk Oblast, which each would formally retain their territorial claims to the other.

Keep reading

Russia & Iran Sign 20-Year Defense, Energy Pact 3 Days Before Trump Inauguration

President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran on Friday signed a 20-year pact between their countries at the Kremlin, just three days before Trump’s inauguration.

Dubbed the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, the Kremlin is hailing it as bringing relations with the Islamic Republic to a new level, enshrining the two countries’ status as strategic partners. Putin hailed the “real breakthrough, creating conditions for the stable and sustainable development of Russia, Iran and the entire region.”

Russian media has described it covers all spheres, including defense, counter-terrorism, energy, finance, transport, industry, agriculture, culture, science and engineering.

The allies are also working on linking their national payment systems: “According to the Russian leader, in 2024, the share of transactions in Russian rubles and Iranian rials exceeded 95% of all bilateral trade operations,” TASS noted.

Putin further said in a press conference with Pezeshkian, “Our countries firmly uphold the principles of the supremacy of international law, the sovereignty of states, non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries.” As for Pezeshkian, he said the following:

“We witness a new chapter of strategic relations,” the Iranian president said, adding that the countries were set to expand trade ties and also boost the “level of security cooperation.”

The pact is heavily focused on defense and security cooperation. “It will confirm the parties’ desire for closer cooperation in the field of defense and interaction in the interests of peace and security at the regional and global levels,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had earlier stated.

Already, the two sides cooperate closely on drones. Russia has since the Ukraine war’s start been using Iran-produced ‘Shahed’ kamikaze drones against Ukrainian cities, and Iran has reportedly set up a major UAV production facility on Russian soil at Moscow’s invitation. 

Moscow and Tehran early last month lost a key Middle East ally upon the fall of Bashar al Assad, after Islamic insurgents rampaged across the country and the demoralized and underpaid Syrian Army quickly collapsed. Turkey was widely seen as supporting the insurgents with intelligence and equipment, and likely other NATO states played a background role as well.

Keep reading

Joe Biden’s Legacy: Waging Proxy Wars, Spreading Terrorism and Killing Diplomacy

As the sun sets on Joe Biden’s presidency, the Commander-in-Chief and his top staffers are using their final moments in power to convince the American people that we live in a safer and more stable world.

“The United States is winning the worldwide competition compared to four years ago,” Biden declared Monday. “America is stronger. Our alliances are stronger, our adversaries and competitors are weaker.”

The claims that America is winning and strong are as laughable as when the mainstream media repeatedly attempted to convince the American people that Biden is as “sharp as a tack.”

Americans have witnessed Joe Biden’s physical and cognitive decline over the past four years, which perfectly personifies the American empire. Rather than becoming stronger, the treasury and arms depots were exhausted for the benefit of Ukraine and Israel. America is bankrupt; economic prosperity is increasingly elusive for the average citizen and enjoyed only by an exclusive class with access to government power.

Keep reading

Analyzing Ukraine’s Attempted Drone Strike On TurkStream’s Russian Infrastructure

Here are five observations about Kiev’s latest provocation in terms of the bigger picture.

Russia accused Ukraine of attempting a drone strike against one of TurkStream’s gas compressor stations, which Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described as “energy terrorism” while Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that the US greenlighted it in order to obtain an energy monopoly over the EU. This comes less than two weeks after Ukraine cut off Russian gas exports to Europe across its territory. Here are five observations about Kiev’s latest provocation in terms of the bigger picture:

———-

1. This Isn’t The First Attempted Ukrainian Attack Against TurkStream

Ukraine tried to destroy this pipeline at least three times in late 2022 alone, with two of its failed sabotage attempts being analyzed here and here, but this is the first time that it tried using drones. What this shows is that TurkStream remains a priority target for Kiev, yet strangely enough, this hasn’t led to a downturn in ties with Ankara as proven by their continued military cooperation that even includes a drone factory. The latest attempted attack therefore isn’t expected to harm their relations either.

2. Neither Turkiye Nor NATO As A Whole Cares About This Provocation

Turkiye’s stance is difficult to understand, but it either doesn’t believe Russia’s claims of Ukraine attempting to attack TurkStream or it inexplicably believes that it has more to gain from continuing to arm Ukraine in spite of these provocations than to cut it off in response. As for NATO, while member state Hungary condemned this as a violation of its sovereignty due to the country’s partial dependence on that pipeline’s exports, the bloc as a whole predictably doesn’t care since it’s anti-Russian to the core.

3. Ukraine Wanted To Complete Russia & The EU’s Pipeline Decoupling

Ukraine’s motive was to destroy the last operating pipeline between Russia and the EU, which it believed would then make it more difficult for them to enter into a meaningful rapprochement after the conflict ends while also depriving the Kremlin of revenue for financing its ongoing special operation. It was essentially meant to complement September 2022’s Nord Stream terrorist attack in the sense of serving as a geopolitical power play for influencing Europe’s post-war future.

4. Was This A Rogue Deep State Operation Or Was It Approved By Biden?

The first scenario would align with the hypothesis posited here last spring regarding Ukraine’s attacks against Russia’s early warning systems, which were thought to be a desperate attempt at escalation that was later brought under control, while the second would align with the Nord Stream II precedent. Lavrov already blamed the US so the question is the extent to which its elected government was aware of this. The answer will help predict whether or not Trump’s return to office next week will make a difference.

5. How Might Trump React To This Development After Returning To Office?

Building upon the above, rogue deep state behavior would be more difficult for Trump to rein in if he was against what they did, but the precedent of Biden (or rather those who control him) being able to stop Ukraine’s attacks against Russia’s early warning systems suggests that it’s not impossible. On the flip side, it can’t be ruled out that he might support sabotaging TurkStream in order to obtain an energy monopoly over the EU and/or leverage over Turkiye, in which case more such attempts might follow.

Keep reading

The United States Always Knew NATO Expansion Would Lead to War

The present severed from the past is easily misunderstood. In discussions of the Russia-Ukraine war, not enough is made of the historical fact that, at the end of the Cold War, the newly independent Ukraine promised not to join NATO, and NATO promised not to expand to Ukraine.

Not enough is made of the fact that Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, “External and Internal Security,” says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs…” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance; that included NATO.

Nor is enough made of the fact that in 1990 and 1991, the George H.W. Bush administration gave assurances to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev—assurances that arguably reached the level of a deal—that NATO would not expand east of Germany, including to Ukraine.

But even less is made of what the Bill Clinton administration later promised Russian President Boris Yeltsin, nor what the United States already knew at the time of where plans of NATO expansion to Ukraine would lead.

Recently declassified documents clearly show that, between 1993 and 2000, the U.S. already knew that a cornered Boris Yeltsin was distraught about NATO expansion and about the West’s broken promise, that expansion to Ukraine was a red line, and that if Russia ever enforced that red line, the U.S. would respond forcefully.

Though the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were invited to begin accession talks in 1997 and joined NATO in 1999, a secret October 1994 policy paper, written by National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and entitled “Moving Toward NATO Expansion,” makes it clear that the decision to expand NATO had already been made by that time. The paper explicitly keeps “the membership door open for Ukraine.”

Interestingly, though Russia is always publicly painted as a predatorial nation with imperial ambitions, a confidential 1993 cable states that most Eastern European states seek NATO membership “not [because they] feel militarily threatened by Russia” but because they believe “that NATO membership can help stave off the return of authoritarian forces” in their own countries. Though the cable makes the exception that Ukraine and the Baltic states may feel threatened by Russia.

By September 1994, Clinton had explicitly told Yeltsin that NATO would expand. While visiting Yeltsin in the hospital on December 16, 1994, Vice President Al Gore clarifies that “What Clinton told you in September was that eventually NATO will expand.”

But Gore promised Yeltsin that “the process will be gradual and open and we will consult carefully with you.” He added, “The process will be conducted in parallel with a deepening of the U.S.-Russia partnership and your partnership with NATO.”

Though less than a week later, a secret NSC memorandum clarifies that Russia will not be given “a veto or right of prior consultation over NATO decisions,” this promise of a deepening “institutionalized relationship between NATO and Russia—possibly in the form of a Treaty (“alliance with the Alliance”) or Charter” that will be established in parallel with NATO expansion is repeatedly mentioned. A secret memorandum written by Anthony Lake to Clinton on July 17, 1995 identifies “plans to develop a formalized NATO-Russia relationship in parallel with enlargement.” The spirit of this promise would be broken.

Importantly, it is evident that the Clinton administration was very aware of Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion and of their feeling of betrayal. Knowing that expansion is an impossible sell in Russia, Gore promised Yeltsin that expansion wouldn’t occur before 1996 because “[w]e understand you have parliamentary elections in mid-1995 and it would be hard for you if we moved forward then.”

Keep reading

Cutting Slovakia’s Gas Supplies May Well Backfire on Zelensky

On 1 January, Ukraine ceased to allow the transit of Russia gas to Europe. This ended almost uninterrupted supply of Russian piped gas to Europe, through sovereign Ukraine, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some in the west have celebrated this as victory over Russia. More likely, it will backfire on Ukraine’s NATO and European aspirations.

I have always considered the sale, purchase and supply of gas or any other commodity as an entirely commercial matter. In that regard, even while posted to the British embassy in Moscow, I dismissed suggestions that Russia was weaponizing its energy supplies.

There was only one occasion, in 2009, when Russian gas supplies to Europe were halted temporarily following a dispute over Ukraine’s non-payment of its accumulated debts. Russia worked hard to position itself as a reliable supplier of gas specifically because it sells gas domestically at heavily subsidized prices; gas exports therefore subsidize domestic consumption.

Having good relationships with European consumers was prioritised, as Alexander Medvedev, the Deputy Chairman of Gazprom remarked to UK Members of Parliament who visited the British Embassy in early 2017.

Ukraine’s recent decision to end a long-standing gas supply route to Europe seems just another minor twist in the long-running saga of energy disputes between both countries.

Keep reading

Pentagon Reluctantly Admits Russian ‘Incremental Gains’ In Eastern Ukraine

With just days to go before the United States gets a new Commander-in-Chief with Trump’s inauguration on Jan.20, the Pentagon has made a rare admission, acknowledging that Russian forces are basically dominating on the battlefield in Ukraine.

The Pentagon during its daily press briefing on Monday acknowledged Russian forces’ “incremental gains” in the Donbass. Below is from the question and answer transcript: 

Q:  And then a completely different topic — can you give us an update on the Ukrainian battlefield? Does Putin indeed have the upper hand right now?

PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY MAJOR GENERAL PAT RYDER:  Well, what we’re seeing on the battlefield is that, especially in the East, Russia has made some incremental gains. Of course, it’s very tough fighting, as well as in the Kursk region as well. But when you talk about the upper hand, of course, tactically, again other than those incremental gains, what you’re seeing strategically is that again Russia has not achieved any of Its strategic objectives that it set for itself almost three years ago.

Keep reading