Tag: ukraine

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

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

Smedley Butler Explains The Latest Excuse For American Intervention In Ukraine

Senior Fellow Alex Pollock drew my attention to an important quotation by Smedley Butler: 

1935 speech and later a book by Major General Smedley D. Butler (USMC), includes  “… A racket is best described, I believe, something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make large fortunes…

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destructions, they will have no time for the constructive job of building a greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munition makers.

So … I say, TO HELL WITH WAR.”

It is notable that very little has changed over the past century in terms of how regimes rationalize war. It was during the First World War that the term “merchants of death” first gained widespread use, and it was also during that war that the American regime also spoke often in terms of munitions spending as a benefit of war. It was all part of a war-propaganda machine dreamed up with Woodrow Wilson’s cadre. 

Unfortunately, the propaganda still works with many. It was just two weeks ago, in fact, that the Biden Administration began explicitly trying to sell US military aid to Ukraine as a scheme to “create jobs” in the United States. The administration’s statement on the war spending is virtually identical to something out of a US propaganda mill in 1950 or 1918. We would only need to change a few of the names and places. According to Biden’s handlers: 

“While this bill dispatches military hardware to Ukraine,” Biden mentioned on Tuesday, “it actually finances manufacturing within the United States in states like Arizona, where Patriot missiles are manufactured; Alabama, the home of Javelin missiles; and also Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas, which are hubs for the production of artillery shells.”

There are a multitude of problems with this statement.

Keep reading

Pentagon Using AI Program to Identify Targets in Middle East and Ukraine

A defense official said that US Central Command (CENTCOM) has deployed an AI program to help identify targets to bomb in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. The US used the AI targeting system dubbed “Project Maven” to locate Russian targets that were destroyed by Ukrainian forces.  

A senior CENTCOM official speaking with Bloomberg said AI systems helped to identify alleged rocket launchers in Yemen. The outlet described the statement made by Schuyler Moore, CENTCOM chief technology officer, as the “strongest known confirmation that the US military is using the [AI] to identify enemy targets that were subsequently hit by weapons’ fire.”

“We’ve been using computer vision to identify where there might be threats,” Moore told Bloomberg. She went on to say that the program has accelerated due to the situation in Israel. “October 7th everything changed,” CENTCOM’s CTO explained.

“We immediately shifted into high gear and a much higher operational tempo than we had previously,” Moore added, saying US forces were able to make “a pretty seamless shift” to Maven after a year of digital exercises.

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Joey Temple explained the value of Maven is increasing the number of targets a soldier can sign off on. He estimates that the number of targets could be boosted from 30 to 80 per hour. 

According to Bloomberg, he “describes the process of concurring with the algorithm’s conclusions in a rapid staccato: ‘Accept. Accept. Accept.’” Moore also expressed this view, stating, “The benefit that you get from algorithms is speed.”

While Moore touted the program’s deployment, it is unclear if it has had any positive impact on achieving US goals in Yemen. Washington has admitted that recent strikes on Houthi positions have failed to erode the group’s military capabilities.

Keep reading

Ukraine war and Western system’s fatal flaw

We can see from the increasingly incoherent statements by western officials that they are outright panicked about Ukraine’s imminent capitulation to Russia: it is the surprise they did not expect. How important a piece was Ukraine on Western powers’ geopolitical chessboard? Last April, Poland’s President Mateusz Morawiecki gave away the mindset in a TV address when he said that, “If we lose Ukraine, we will lose the world for decades. Defeat of Ukraine could be the beginning of the end of the golden age of the West.”

Incidentally, his statement has subsequently been airbrushed in most media making it seem that he said “… we will lose peace for decades.” In some Slavic languages the word “Mir” means both world and peace, but Morawiecki was not talking about losing peace, but about the end of the West’s primacy in world affairs. From Western oligarchy’s point of view, the stakes could hardly be any higher in Ukraine. Being so very powerful and sophisticated, they should be winning that fight, right? Well…

We’ve got two days’ worth of dry powder…

After two years of Russia’s Special Military Operation, it is now clear that Russia is winning and that Ukraine is now well and truly broken. This is all in spite of the nuclear, all-out trade sanctions against Russia and the full support for Ukraine from her western allies, both in terms of financial, humanitarian and military aid. NATO has practically disarmed itself to provide weapons and ammunition to Ukraine.

Last November, the deputy of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) Johann Wadephul stated to the media that the combat capacity of German Armed Forces has been seriously weakened by the shortages caused by the continuous supply of material and ammunitions to Kiev: “Crucial troop units can only last a maximum of two days in a battle. And that is a catastrophic find overall.” Other NATO countries are likely in no better shape regardless of the ongoing juvenile trash-talk about how Ukraine destroyed 50% of Russia’s military power, took back 50% of the territory held by Russia, all for cents on the dollar of West’s defence budgets, etc.

Keep reading

What Did The CIA Know And When Did It Know It?

As Ukraine careens toward a political and military disaster, it is time to ask why did the CIA fail to predict this. “Wait a minute,” you might say, “How do you know the CIA did not?” Fair question. I no longer have access to classified information, but I can read the public statements of DOD and State Department officials as well as remarks by various members of Congress. At no time during the past two years — since the start of the Special Military Operation — have we heard a single discouraging word from anyone with access to CIA briefings on Ukraine’s military prospects suggesting the West embarked on a fool’s errand in trying to destroy Russia.

On the eve of the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the CIA should have provided answers to the following questions:

  1. What is the capability and condition of the Russian armed forces?
  2. What is Russia’s capability to withstand Western economic sanctions?
  3. What are the conditions that must exist that will force President Putin from office?

Here is what we know for certain. Despite repeated entreaties from Vladimir Putin to President Joe Biden and other Western leaders to provide assurances that Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO, the West told Putin to screw off and continued building up Ukraine’s military. The U.S. and its NATO allies believed that Russia’s military was weak and ineffective. Western leaders also believed that Russia’s economy was vulnerable to Western economic sanctions and that an economic collapse in Russia would catapult Putin from power.

The Western plan was simple, audacious and delusional — i.e., using Ukraine as a military proxy, defeat Russia and humiliate Vladimir Putin; apply Western economic sanctions that would devastate the Russian economy and further erode support for Putin; break up the Russia Republic into 41 new countries. Sounds crazy, but take a look at what Angel Vohra wrote in Foreign Policy Magazine in April 2023:

The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, an independent U.S. government agency with members from the U.S. House of Representatives, Senate, and departments of defense, state, and commerce, has declared that decolonizing Russia should be a “moral and strategic objective.” The Free Nations of Post-Russia Forum, comprising exiled politicians and journalists from Russia, held a meeting at the European Parliament in Brussels earlier this year and is advertising three events in different American cities this month. It has even released a map of a dismembered Russia, split into 41 different countries, in a post-Putin world, assuming he loses in Ukraine and is ousted.

Western analysts are increasingly pushing the theory that Russian disintegration is coming and that the West must not only prepare to manage any possible spillover of any ensuing civil wars but also to benefit from the fracture by luring resource-rich successor nations into its ambit. They argue that when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the West was blindsided and failed to fully capitalize on the momentous opportunity. It must now strategize to end the Russian threat once and for all, instead of providing an off-ramp to Putin.

Keep reading

The Stories You’re Not Hearing About the Russo-Ukrainian War…

Several, seemingly small events in the Russo-Ukrainian War went largely unnoticed in western media recently. But each of them, in their own way, may be significant.

The Fall of Avdiivka

On February 25, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that 31,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed since Russia invaded his country two years ago. It was the first time he had released a number of dead. He wouldn’t provide the number of wounded.

On February 4, he said, “About 26% of the national territory is still under occupation,” before adding that “the Russian army cannot make much progress. We have stopped them.”

Both statements are absurd. As The New York Times remarks on Zelensky’s battlefield accounting, “It differs sharply from estimates by U.S. officials, who, this past summer, put the losses much higher, saying that close to 70,000 Ukrainians had been killed and 100,000 to 120,000 had been wounded.”

The 31,000 number may be closer to the number of dead and wounded in the past several disastrous weeks than in the past two years. Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu recently said that over 383,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed or wounded since the war began. Yuriy Lutsenko, the former prosecutor general and ex-head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, says that 500,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or seriously wounded. A number of 400,000-500,000 is consistent with internal Ukrainian communications and reports from the battlefield that 20,000 soldiers a month would be necessary to replace the dead and wounded. That number also accords with the 450,000-500,000 number Zelensky has requested in a new mobilization.

Being absurd was appropriate when Zelensky was a comedian; it may have made Ukrainians laugh. But being absurd when Zelensky is president is not appropriate; it may make more Ukrainians die.

The second statement, that Russia is incapable of further significant advances because the Ukrainian Armed Forces has stopped them is no less absurd. Less than two weeks after making the statement, on February 17, after exhausting every capability it had, the Ukrainian Armed Forces retreated in disarray from the heavily fortified town of Avdiivka as it fell to the Russians. That was a very significant advance. Taking Avdiivka is not just a symbolic victory, as reported in the West, but a strategic victory that could open the door to the Donbas for Russian forces, allowing Russia to solidify the borders of its newly annexed territories.

Following the retreat from Avdiivka, Ukrainian statements about stopping Russia retreated one more step, now claiming that Russia won’t be able to advance. General Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s military-intelligence chief, acknowledged that the loss of Avdiivka was tough, but insisted that Russia has its problems too, and that “they don’t have the strength” to advance significantly and capture all of the Donbas.

American officials echoed Budanov’s assessment, saying that “Russian gains in eastern Ukraine will not necessarily lead to any collapse of Ukrainian lines and that Moscow is unlikely to be able to follow up with another major offensive.”

Kiev said that their armed forces had withdrawn from Avdiivka and established new defensive lines around Lastochkyne and other nearby villages. But on February 26, Lastochkyne fell, and Ukrainian troops retreated to villages further west.

Western officials now say that Russia is “attacking in strength along four parallel axes in the northeast” and that they are “driving forward around Lyman and Kupiansk, in the Kharkiv region.” Newsweek says there are reports that Russian troops have now “advanced west of the village of Lastochkyne.” And military spokesperson Dmytro Lykhoviy now says that Ukrainian troops have withdrawn from Stepove and Severne, two villages near Avdiivka and north of Lastochkyne.

Keep reading

Is Nato heading for nuclear war? 

On Monday, Europe crossed yet another red line in its ever-escalating, no-longer-so-proxy war against Russia. In a hastily arranged meeting of European leaders in Paris — a response to significant Russian breakthroughs on the Ukrainian frontline over the past few weeks — Emmanuel Macron shattered one of the few taboos left in Western circles by saying that sending Nato troops to Ukraine should not be ruled out. “We must do everything necessary to prevent Russia from winning the war,” he declared, adding that France could even take such action without the consent of other EU members because “each country is sovereign and its armed forces are sovereign”.

Unsurprisingly, this didn’t go down well with Nato allies, whom the French president hadn’t even bothered to warn beforehand. This was probably designed to maximise the statement’s impact: Macron is prone to attention-grabbing pronouncements that are never actually acted upon, often as a way of deflecting attention away from domestic problems.

This time, though, Macron overplayed his hand. His statement was so obviously unhinged that it fuelled a sizeable backlash in France, where half of the population opposes providing more aid to Ukraine. Marine Le Pen accused Macron of playing with the lives of French children, while radical leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon called it “madness”. Outside of France, meanwhile, practically all Nato members rebutted Macron’s suggestion and ruled out sending ground troops to Ukraine, while Putin himself yesterday warned such a move could spark a major escalation.

But how long will Nato leaders maintain this stance? After all, Macron is right about one thing: Nato countries have crossed virtually all the red lines they had given themselves at the start of the conflict. “Many people who say ‘Never, never’ today were the same people who said ‘Never tanks, never planes, never long-range missiles’ two years ago,” he said. In this sense, the whole troops-on-the-ground debate is little more than a distraction from the fact that we are, of course, already engaged in a de facto war against Russia — troops on the ground or not. Besides, it’s an open secret that Western special forces are already present in Ukraine — including British troops.

Keep reading