Tag: russia

British Media Gloating Betrays Masterminds Behind Kirillov’s Killing

The reveling by the British news media over the assassination of a top Russian general in Moscow is revealing in several ways.

The reveling by the British news media over the assassination of a top Russian general in Moscow is revealing in several ways.

First of all, it is a sickening display of wretched so-called journalism. The celebratory tone in British media outlets at the sight of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov’s bloodied corpse lying in the snow speaks volumes of a despicable lack of respect. It says something about the depraved depth of British culture.

By comparison, the reporting of the assassination by American media outlets was relatively mundane and matter-of-fact.

Not so in Britain. The British media were almost euphoric in their reaction.

The Pentagon’s response was significant. Spokesman Patrick Ryder denied any U.S. involvement in the killing. He said the Americans were not forewarned about the assassination and he added that the United States did not support such action.

Of course, such denials should always be treated with skepticism.

However, while the Americans had the decency to remain reserved, the British were giddy in their ghoulishness.

The London Times editorial board declared that Lt Gen. Kirillov was a “legitimate target” for assassination.

The Daily Telegraph ran an oped piece by Hamish de Bretton-Gordon with the headline: “Putin’s chemical weapons henchman Kirillov was a truly evil man. He deserved to die.”

Meanwhile, the BBC blithely used the Foreign Office’s description of Kirillov as a “notorious mouthpiece for Kremlin disinformation” to convey an implicit justification for murder.

Over at the Guardian, their Russophobic reporter, Luke Harding, abandoned all pretense of journalistic standards by glorifying Ukraine’s military intelligence service (SBU) for its “success,” adding: “The agency has cemented its reputation as an outfit that administers its own form of brutal extrajudicial justice. It is an abrupt and swift form of vengeance, delivered as if from the heavens.”

Keep reading

Bloomberg Is Manufacturing Consent For More Western Meddling In Sudan

The pretext is to jointly contain Russian and Iranian influence in the broader region amidst their recent setbacks in the Levant.

Bloomberg published a detailed piece on Wednesday about how “Russian Guns, Iranian Drones Are Fueling Sudan’s Brutal Civil War”. The content is self-explanatory and presents the Sudanese Armed Forces’ (SAF) change of fortune in the nearly two-year-long civil war as the result of those two’s backing. Russia provides fuel, arms, and jet components while Iran supplies arms and drones in exchange for privileged access to Sudan’s mineral wealth (particularly gold) and the promise of Red Sea naval bases.

The Russian modus operandi builds upon the model explained here in early 2023 whereby Moscow provides military support to its Global South partners to defend them from externally connected threats to their national models of democracy in exchange for resource and other rights. Iran’s approach is similar but more ideologically driven given the SAF’s closeness with political Islam since former leader Omar al-Bashir’s rise to power in 1989. Both want to make up for recent setbacks in the Levant.

Russia risks losing its bases in Syria following the joint American-Turkish regime change there while Iran’s regional Resistance Axis partners have taken a beating at the hands of Israel. Egypt and Turkiye are also allegedly backing the SAF while the UAE and its Libyan ally Haftar are accused of supporting their Rapid Support Forces (RSF) rivals. Even so, Emirati mineral companies are still active in the SAF-controlled Port Sudan that serves as the country’s temporary capital, thus highlighting the complexity of this conflict.

Readers should also be reminded that “Russia’s Veto Of The UNSC Resolution On Sudan Saved It From A Neocolonialist Plot” last month after the UK tried to turn it into a Western vassal by unsuccessfully attempting to create the legal pretext for a foreign military intervention there to that end. Such a threat still remains though as suggested by Bloomberg’s latest piece, which is clearly aimed at manufacturing consent for more Western meddling there on the basis of jointly containing Russia and Iran.

Keep reading

Alleged Killer of General Kirillov Arrested, But Holes Remain in the Story

Akhmad Kurbanov is suspected of murdering Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov, the head of the Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense Troops of the Russian Armed Forces. He was located and detained shortly after planting the bomb that killed Kirillov and his aide. In the photo above, reportedly lifted from social media by the FSB, Kurbanov is chanting, “I’m number one.” (Okay, that’s a joke.)

Russian authorities made quick work of scouring surveillance video feeds to identify the suspect car and capture Mr. Kurbanov. Within 24 hours, with no signs of torture or duress, Kurbanov was spilling his guts:

“I came to Moscow on instructions from the Ukrainian special services”: interrogation of Igor Kirillov, the head of the RKhBZ troops, and his assistant Ilya Polikarpov, detained for the murder. The citizen of Uzbekistan faces punishment up to life imprisonment, the FSB reported.

“Why did I do this, for what? They offered me 100 thousand dollars and a European passport”

On instructions from the Ukrainian special services, a native of Uzbekistan installed a high-power IED on an electric scooter, which he parked near the entrance to Kirillov’s house. For observation, I rented a car sharing car and installed a Wi-Fi video camera there – the filming was broadcast online to the city of Dnepr. When the officers left the entrance, the contractor remotely activated the IED.

Keep reading

America’s Origins of Russophobia

For those that grew up in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s, the explosion of Russophobia over the past decade likely came as something of a surprise. A brief survey of the history of Russophobia, however, reveals that the decade and a half after the end of the Cold War was something of an anomaly in the past century and a half of American foreign policy, with a blend of inherited geopolitical fears and ideological tensions leading to a generally anti-Russian sentiment in Washington.

Our investigation begins with the so-called “Testament of Peter the Great.” An eighteenth century forgery of largely Polish origin, it purported to show, in the words of the University of London historian Orlando Figes, that the aims of Russian foreign policy were nothing less than world domination:

“…to expand on the Baltic and Black seas, to ally with the Austrians to expel the Turks from Europe, to conquer the Levant and control the trade to the Indies, to sow dissent and confusion in Europe and become the master of the European continent.”

First published in Napoleonic France in 1812, on the eve of the Grand Armée’s ill-fated invasion of Russia, it was to go on to provide the grist for many an English fear-monger’s mill.

In 1817, Sir Robert Wilson’s A Sketch of the Military and Political Power of Russia in the Year 1817 luridly detailed the military and geopolitical threat supposedly posed by Russia, and a decade later George de Lacy Evans’s On the Designs of Russia repeated these earlier warnings—both were favorably received by the public and among the ruling establishment, paranoid as ever about any potential threat to British control of India. Then, in 1834, the highly influential David Urquhart published his own pamphlet, England, France, Russia and Turkey, casting Russia as the perpetual antagonist to British interests in the Near East and Central Asia.

Not everyone was fooled, however. As noted by the Mises Institute’s Ryan McMaken, the great British liberals, such as Richard Cobden and John Bright, often opposed these characterizations and exaggerated threats. In turn, they were rewarded only with the scorn familiar to today’s scoffers. Indeed, the perception of Russia as a natural, age-old enemy became embedded in British geopolitical thought.

Keep reading

NATO arms Poland more than Ukraine in preparation for potential war with Russia

The massive transfer of NATO military equipment to Poland testifies to the West’s possible preparations for a direct war with Russia. Weapons and equipment arriving in Poland in such quantities, as if we are currently on the eve of a major war, lead to a dangerous escalation.

NATO is massively transferring military equipment from European countries to Poland, arming the country much more heavily than it armed the Ukrainians on the eve of the Russian special military operation. This is part of the Atlantic Alliance’s efforts to pressure and isolate Russia in Eastern Europe.

The grouping of NATO forces on the borders of Russia and Belarus has been a systematic effort for years. With such actions, NATO, in the interim, wants to tie up as many Russian and Belarusian forces as possible on the borders, while in the near future, Poland is intended to be a staging point in case of any hot war with Russia.

The exclave region of Kaliningrad, which has no land border with Russia proper but borders NATO countries Lithuania and Poland and has access to the Baltic Sea, is particularly at risk. Responding to this NATO threat, Russia and Belarus have increased their military group deployed along the borders of Poland and Lithuania.

Russian tactical nuclear weapons have also been deployed in significant quantities in Belarus. The goal of deploying nuclear weapons is to show that Russia and Belarus are capable of causing irreparable damage to NATO, essentially meaning it is for deterrence. Therefore, if NATO is ready to risk a nuclear war, then it will not be Russia’s choice, which will only be left with the choice to respond.

Moscow recently updated its nuclear military doctrine, according to which Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against it using conventional weapons – if this poses a threat to the vital interests of the state. Under the updated doctrine, Moscow also reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Federal State.

Keep reading

Ukrainian Neo-Nazi Claims Nuclear War will be GOOD for Ukraine

Ukrainian Neo-Nazi Evgeny Karas claimed during in an interview on Tuesday with the Ukrainian broadcaster Radio Bayraktar that Russia striking Ukraine with nuclear weapons would in fact be good for Ukraine. The man is the leader of the ‘S14’ terrorist group, whose members have a record of harassing minorities and have been accused of high-profile political murders, according to RT.

”Nuclear war is good,” Karas said in the interview, according to RT on Wednesday. “When it happens, we’ll have no more reasons to whine. Nothing worse could happen after a nuclear strike.”

While the aforementioned statement may indicate a nonsensical bloodlust, Karas went so far as to claim that nuclear fallout in Ukraine may even be good for evolution.

“A nuclear war may help us evolve in a way that we could see through an official and tell whether he is a thief or not,” he said according to RT.

While the Neo-Nazi may think nuclear war will be enjoyable, the Japanese who actually experienced it did not.

Keep reading

Putin And Defense Minister Belousov – Russia Is Preparing For War

For the first time, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Andrei Belousov have publicly stated Russia is likely to go to war with NATO in the next decade.

Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Andrei Belousov delivered their end-of-year report to a giant defense ministry conference on Monday, hailing the state of affairs at the front and in the rear. They talked about the latest successes in the Ukraine invasion, the increase in military spending and Russia’s preparations for conflict with NATO.

2024 was “a landmark year for achieving the goals” of the war in Ukraine, Putin stated, saying the Russian army had captured 189 settlements since January. According to Belousov, Ukrainian forces retain control of under 1% of the territory of the self-styled Luhansk People’s Republic, and 25-30% of the Donetsk People’s Republic, and the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Regions — all parts of Ukraine that Russia claims to have annexed, reported Russian independent news outlet The Bell.

According to Putin, the breakthrough on the front came thanks to people voluntarily signing up to fight. Some 430,000 soldiers have been recruited so far this year, compared with 300,000 in 2023. Amid massive bonuses and salaries, more than 1,000 people are signing up to join the army every day.

Putin announced that the hypersonic Oreshnik intermediate-range missile system would go into serial production in the near future, despite having said at a meeting with Russia’s allies on Nov. 28 that it was already in full swing. And in the third quarter of 2025, Russia should have its own new specialized drone unit, mirroring a decision made by Ukraine back at the start of the year. 

Both Putin and Belousov also spoke of the prospect of direct conflict with the West. Putin complained that Russia was “being pushed to our red lines” while Belousov said that preparations for a conflict with NATO “in the next decade” were part of the defense ministry’s tasks and blamed NATO statements at its recent July summit for the increased threat. At the summit the military alliance’s final declaration described Russia as “the most significant and direct threat” to its members, which requires the strengthening and modernizing of its nuclear potential.

Keep reading

NATO State Warns Against Western Troops In Ukraine: “Discussion Has Gone Off The Rails”

One of NATO’s two newest members, Finland, is urging caution as some European leaders are considering a negotiated end to the Ukraine war which would involve sending Western peacekeeping forces. The incoming Trump administration is reportedly keen on the idea.

President of Finland Alexander Stubb issued a warning Tuesday before a defense cooperation summit in Tallinn, saying “We should not get ahead of ourselves” on the issue of a future peacekeeping mission, cited in Finnish outlet Yle.

His main criticism focused on the huge numbers of European troops that such a mission would require. “The operation cannot be launched on a shaky foundation,” he continued, explaining that an adequate peacekeeping force would have to have at least 150,000 soldiers on the ground.

“In rotation, that means three times that, or 450,000 peacekeepers per year. So perhaps this discussion has gone off the rails, so to speak,” he emphasized.

Stubb offered that instead of peacekeeping forces, Kiev should have security guarantees, and that should be the central driver of the discussion over future peace negotiations.

The past several months have seen leading NATO countries revive the idea of sending Western troops to Ukraine. Whether in a ‘peacekeeping’ capacity or not, the Kremlin would see this as a massive escalation and has threatened war with the west.

Putin has made it clear that Russia will not tolerate NATO regular forces right on its border. Already this week Putin has said the West is going ‘beyond’ Russia’s stated red lines.

As the Biden administration has scrambled to try and build Kiev’s leverage on the battlefield prior to the Trump administration taking office, it recently greenlighted long-range missile attacks using ATACMS systems on Russia. 

Moscow has frequently said it is open to peace negotiations with Ukraine, but at this point is very unlikely to sign off on any plan which would see a European troop large deployment in any capacity.

Keep reading

European ‘peacekeepers’ in Ukraine? A horrible idea.

President-elect Trump is reportedly advancing the idea that a large and heavily armed peacekeeping force from Europe (but including NATO members) could be introduced into Ukraine as part of a peace settlement there. It is important that this very ill-thought-out idea be shot down before it does serious damage to the prospects for an early peace and causes Ukraine still further human, economic and territorial loss.

According to the Wall Street Journal and Le Monde, this idea first emerged in private talks between French and British officials in November. It was discussed on Thursday by NATO foreign ministers in Brussels. Trump made the suggestion to French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at a meeting in Paris on December 7.

Macron then traveled to Warsaw to discuss a plan for 40,000 heavily armed European “peacekeepers” with the Polish government whose officials, however, have so far given it a cool public response. In the words of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk: “To cut off speculation about the potential presence of this or that country in Ukraine after reaching a ceasefire, … decisions concerning Poland will be made in Warsaw and only in Warsaw. At the moment we’re not planning such activities.”

Friedrich Merz of the German Christian Democrats, almost certain to be chancellor after the elections due in February, has also distanced himself from the idea.

On the face of it, this idea might seem to reconcile several mutually contradictory pressures on the Ukrainian peace process: The Russian demand for a treaty that will permanently bar Ukraine from NATO membership; the Ukrainian demand for Western guarantees against future Russian aggression; Trump’s determination not to put U.S. troops on the ground or make additional and permanent U.S. commitments to Ukraine; and the real need for a substantial international force to patrol an armistice line.

There is just one problem: According to every Russian official and expert with whom my colleagues and I have spoken (most recently on Thursday), the idea of Western troops in Ukraine is just as unacceptable to the Russian government and establishment as NATO membership for Ukraine itself. Indeed, the Russians see no essential difference between the two.

Seen from Moscow, such a Western “peacekeeping force” would be simply a NATO advance guard that would provide cover for the gradual introduction of more and more NATO forces. Indeed, while President Zelensky has said that Ukraine “may consider” the idea of peacekeepers, it would only do so if it is also given a clear timeline for future NATO membership. If this proposal is put forward by General Kellogg, President-elect Trump’s choice as his Ukraine envoy, in negotiations, the Russian side will therefore reject it out of hand; and if it is insisted on, the talks will fail.

Keep reading

Ukraine Assassinates Russian Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Chief, General Kirillov, in Moscow Bomb Blast in Major Escalation

The Kiev regime once again resorts to ‘asymmetrical tactics’ (a.k.a. terrorism) and assassinates a top Russian General, in a move that is sure to generate a considerable escalation and also certain retaliation by the Russians against top Ukrainian officials.

On today’s early morning (17), an improvised explosive device (IED) was detonated on Moscow’s Ryazansky Prospekt.

The massive, deadly blast killed high profile Russian chemical defense chief General Igor Kirillov.

Sputnik reported on Telegram:

“The Russian Investigative Committee has opened a criminal case into the murder of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of the Troops of Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense of the Russian Armed Forces, and his assistant.

The IED was planted on an electric scooter positioned at the entrance of a residential building in southeast Moscow.”

Keep reading