Tag: ukraine

Media Distorting North Korean Role in Russo-Ukraine War

On November 24, Newsweek ran a story by Ellie Cook with the headline “Russian and North Korean Troops Shrink Ukraine’s Gains in Kursk.”

The title made it seem like North Korea was fighting on the front-lines with the Russians to push back the Ukrainian offensive in Kursk.

However, the opening of the article stated: “Moscow is taking territory back from Ukrainian forces in Russia’s western Kursk region, according to new assessments, as the U.S. says it expects North Korean reinforcements to head for front-line clashes soon.”

Further down in the piece, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is quoted as stating that he “expected to see North Korean soldiers engaged in combat soon.”

Meaning that they were not yet in combat, so Newsweek’s title was misleading.

Cook went on to write that “the State Department confirmed in mid-November that North Korean soldiers were ‘engaging in combat operations with Russian forces’ after undergoing training in how to use drones, artillery, and carry out ‘basic infantry operations.’”

These latter statements contradict what Austin said and what Cook reported on at the beginning of her article.

The contradictory statements and record of deceit of the U.S. State Department make one question what the real story is with North Korea.

Keep reading

Ukraine’s best hope for peace looks a lot like Donald Trump

Last week, people who fear a third world war got more reasons to worry. Ukraine, with permission from the White House, struck Russian territory with long-range missiles supplied by the United States. Russian President Vladimir Putin has long warned that such an attack would mean that NATO and Russia “are at war,” and he has raised the specter of nuclear retaliation. Granted, these threats could be bluffs, but last week Putin gave them some credibility by (a) loosening the conditions for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, (b) firing a multiple-warhead, nuclear-capable missile at Ukraine for the first time in the war, and (c) declaring, in a speech after the strike, that Russia would be entitled to attack any nations that aid Ukraine’s strikes into Russian territory.

While Putin’s caution during previous crises suggests he’s not about to reach for the nuclear button just yet, his dramatic response has complicated any path to a peace deal. Meanwhile, some liberal voices have predicted that Trump’s looming presidency, far from hastening an end to the conflict as Trump has promised to do, will prolong it. If Trump were to cut off arms to Ukraine, he’d remove an important incentive for Putin to call it quits, according to Ben Rhodes, a former White House official under Barack Obama. Among conservatives who advocate foreign policy restraint, there is worry that Trump’s hawkish cabinet nominees portend a departure from the peace agenda he campaigned on. As for hawkish critics of Trump on both left and right, many believe that he may end the war by just giving away the farm to Putin.

These concerns are valid. But Trump has good reasons to try proving the doubters wrong. He understands that foreign policy debacles can crater a president’s approval ratings, and he has staked his reputation on being able to end a conflict that started and continues to escalate on President Joe Biden’s watch. “I’m the only one who can get the war stopped,” he told Newsweek this September. Brokering a respectable peace would be a boon to his legacy and an embarrassment for his political opponents—and Trump loves splattering egg on the faces of his detractors. So there is room for optimism alongside the worry. Trump may well manage not only to stop the war but also to get Ukraine the best deal it could realistically hope for.

Some say Trump’s Ukraine promises are hollow since he hasn’t outlined a viable peace deal. But Trump maintains, plausibly enough, that he can’t reveal details of a plan without boxing himself in. It would be better, he says, to hammer out a deal with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky behind closed doors, which means keeping mum on specifics for now. Despite Trump’s reticence, there are signs of the kind of deal he’d push for—and signs that both Putin and Zelensky would go for it.

This fall, J.D. Vance, Trump’s running mate and now vice president-elect, laid out a likely settlement: The current battle lines become a “heavily fortified” demilitarized zone to prevent future Russian aggression; Kyiv retains its sovereign independence; and Russia gets assurances that Ukraine won’t join NATO. Moscow would presumably also get to keep the lands in eastern and southern Ukraine that it now holds.

Keep reading

Visualizing Ukraine’s Collapsing Front Lines Amid The Steady Russian Onslaught 

As we detailed earlier, the White House is currently overseeing a ‘massive surge’ in arms to Ukraine with just 50 days left before President-elect Trump enters office. The US is also this week announcing $725 million in more aid, which is the latest defense package for Ukraine drawn directly from US inventories.

It will include a second shipment of antipersonnel mines, and comes the same day that Germany also unveiled another $680 million in Ukraine aid. The Western allies have asserted that they want to see Zelensky and Ukraine forces in as favorable a position as possible before negotiations to end the war inevitably proceed (something which Trump has repeatedly promised from day one of his second administration). But the prime question remains: what good will the rapid infusion of more weapons do when the real problem is Ukraine’s collapsing manpower? To illustrate the reality of Russia’s rapid advance of the past several months…

Keep reading

Boris Johnson admits Ukraine conflict is “proxy war” against Russia

Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson admitted that the West organized a proxy war against Russia, an effort that has not only caused untold deaths and apocalyptic carnage in Ukraine but has raised fears of a nuclear conflict, especially after Moscow announced its intentions to review its nuclear policy following Kiev regime missile attacks on Russian territory.

It is recalled that as prime minister (July 2019-September 2022), Johnson encouraged the Europeans to send more weapons to Ukraine after he urged the Kiev regime to abandon negotiations with the Kremlin and continue a futile war effort. In effect, the former prime minister saw an opportunity to use Kiev as a proxy to continue London’s centuries-old foreign policy tradition of hostility with Moscow.

“We’re waging a proxy war, but we’re not giving our proxies the ability to do the job. For years now, we’ve been allowing them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs and it has been cruel,” Johnson told The Telegraph.

The former British prime minister also said that a multinational group of European peacekeeping forces should be responsible for protecting any possible future ceasefire line in Ukraine.

“I don’t think we should be sending in combat troops to take on the Russians. But I think as part of the solution, as part of the end state, you’re going to want to have multinational European peace-keeping forces monitoring the border [and] helping the Ukrainians,” he said. “I cannot see that such a European operation could possibly happen without the British.”

However, while Johnson said that British troops should not be deployed to fight the Russians, he did stress that London was “morally responsible” for Ukraine and supported the use of British Storm Shadow missile against Russia.

“[Britain took] far too long [to] break the taboo” on providing Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine and the accompanying policy permission to fire the weapons into Russia, he said, adding: “We could have forced the pace.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on November 28 at a press conference in Kazakhstan that major “decision-making centres” in Kiev would be devastated by the powerful Oreshnik missile in response to Ukrainian strikes on Russia and warned that all weapons could be used if the Kiev regime were to acquire nuclear arms.

“We do not rule out the use of Oreshnik against the military, military-industrial facilities or decision-making centres, including in Kiev,” Putin said, adding that although the weapon was “comparable in strength to a nuclear strike” if used several times on one location, they were not currently fitted with nuclear warheads.

“The kinetic impact is powerful, like a meteorite falling,” the Russian president explained. “We know in history what meteorites have fallen where and what the consequences were.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky hypocritically accused Putin of a “despicable escalation” even though it was Kiev that had long been requesting permission from the US, Britain and France to fire long-range missiles provided by them against military targets inside Russia. Following the granting of permission, the Kiev regime launched British Storm Shadow missiles and American ATACMS to strike targets inside Russia for the first time, prompting anger from the Kremlin.

Keep reading

Biden’s Parting Shot at America

The interim between a US presidential election and the swearing in of a new Administration has for most of our history been a non-eventful period where the outgoing Administration winds down operations and the incoming Administration ramps up new personnel before the inauguration.

The 20th Amendment to our Constitution was enacted in 1933 to reduce the “lame duck” period between election and inauguration to January 20th instead of March 4th. Increasing ease in travel and communications made such a long interim unnecessary. However long the transition period, it has been understood that with the new election came a new mandate from the American people and the “lame duck” outgoing administration was meant to quietly quack out its last few days in office without incident.

Then came Biden. In the period since the American people rejected Biden’s neocon interventionists in favor of Donald Trump’s promises to end the wars, the “lame duck” has run roughshod over the will of the American people. Whoever is running Biden – and the answer is unclear – has decided to “Trump proof” foreign policy to bring us to the literal brink of WWIII with Russia. And to top it off, Biden’s people this past week have again unleashed al-Qaeda linked rebels to wreak havoc in Syria!

After solidly opposing the neocon demand that Ukraine be given permission to fire US weapons deep into Russia, President Biden in the waning days of his presidency suddenly reversed course and granted permission. From back in 2022, when Russia first went into Ukraine, Biden had argued against sending offensive weaponry and US troops to fight on Ukraine’s behalf. “Make no mistake,” he said in March of that year, “that’s called World War III.”

Something about losing the popular and electoral vote has led Biden’s people to disregard the threat of WWIII and give the green light for attacks with US missiles deep into Russian territory. Why is this so different than providing tanks or bullets? These missile systems are highly complex and classified and can only be operated by US or NATO personnel. That means that American military officers are shooting American missiles into Russia – something unimaginable even in the depths of the Cold War!

Then, just days ago, we saw the sudden re-emergence of the US former proxies in Syria – extremists whose ties go back to al-Qaeda – sweep halfway through the country in what appears to be a return of Obama’s disastrous “Assad must go” policy. For five years the conflict in Syria had been more or less “frozen,” but Biden’s people have turned it up to a boil.

Why has the Biden Administration suddenly given a green light to these terrorists and how deeply is the CIA involved in stirring up new trouble in Syria? Make no mistake: these US-backed “rebels” would never have made their move without the approval of the Biden Administration.

Keep reading

FLASHBACK: Joe And Hunter Biden Met With Russian Energy Execs Within Weeks Of Crimean Annexation…The Question Is…Why?

A well-placed source has informed CDMedia that Joe and Hunter Biden met with state-controlled corporate Russian energy executives in April of 2014. The meeting took place in the United States. Energy deals were discussed.

So what? you may ask. However, dig deeper, the timing is critical.

Only a few weeks earlier, the Maidan Revolution occurred in Ukraine. The Obama administration was behind the overthrow of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanykovych. Over one hundred protesters were shot and killed by snipers loyal to the Yanykovych regime.

Only a few weeks later, before the Biden meeting, Russia invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula, and stoked the war between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian forces in the Donbass region of East Ukraine. The conflict continues today. People are still dying.

The Obama administration forced Ukraine to not respond militarily to the Crimean aggression. This is well documented. Sanctions however were implemented against the Russian Federation for their actions and continue to this day as well.

What occurred in Ukraine in early 2014 and the following weeks between the Obama administration, Kyiv and the Kremlin has never been sufficiently investigated. The corrupt media just doesn’t care.

But if Russia was then, and still is, our enemy number one according to Obama and HIllary at the time, then why were Joe and Hunter meeting with Russian energy executives only weeks later?

Could it be Joe and Hunter had something to sell? Could that something have been keeping Ukraine from responding militarily to the Russian military action? What would Joe and Hunter want in return? And why was Hunter in the meeting at all? He had no official government function.

There is a pattern here. Joe took Hunter to China on business, and Hunter returned with a $1.5 billion check for an investment firm he controlled. What did Joe sell then? Enquiring minds want to know.

And, we all know about the Burisma scandal, where Hunter Biden [and Joe] received millions of dollars from Ukrainian organized crime in a quid pro quo for Joe’s influence to stop investigations into Burisma organized crime.

We also know the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton campaign secretly later paid Russian intelligence to develop the infamous ‘Steele Dossier’ which was later used to try and removed duly-elected President Donald Trump from office.

Keep reading

All Roads Lead to Kiev

So Joe Biden pardoned Hunter. Big surprise.

Of course, the President and his mouthpiece, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, have been denying this would happen for months, ever since it became clear that Hunter was going down for what must surely be the very least of his crimes.

But it didn’t take the gift of foresight or a spare palantir to see this was obviously going to happen.

Hunter was never really going down, was he?

Some, including friends of mine, have been saying that Biden’s clemency humanises him. That it makes him relatable—like an actual human being with the thoughts and feelings, and the weaknesses, we’d expect from an actual human being, from a father—by contrast with the other bipedal creatures that now infest the upper ranks of the Democrat Party.

And to be honest with you, given the state of the Democrats in 2024 and their ideas about fatherhood and masculinity, I think these people are right. Just look back at the DNC. Look what was done to Tim Walz’s little boy: they put a bowl on his head, gave him a haircut straight out of Dumb and Dumber and made him go full retard for the whole world to see. You never go full retard! Those are Democrat family values in 2024. (Recent TikTok videos show that young Walz Jr. is perfectly fine now, thank heavens.)

Pardoning your philandering crackhead son for being a philandering crackhead looks positively normal by comparison, even if it’s far from the plot of a Hallmark Christmas movie.

Would you pardon your crackhead son if you were president? Probably. I think I would.

So don’t be so quick to judge.

Or maybe do. Do judge. Because the pardon’s not just about Hunter—obviously. It’s about Joe too.

As somebody said on Twitter today: “Joe Biden just pardoned himself.”

Biden is right, as he stated in the pardon, that the prosecution of his son was nakedly political. It was aimed at him, the President. Joe, not Hunter, was the target. Hunter’s convictions came at a time when the nation’s hair-sniffer-in-chief had ceased to be useful. After his diabolical debate perfomance, his cognitive decline could no longer be concealed—perhaps his medication was swapped, even—and now it was time for a new candidate to be put forward.

Keep reading

As Many as 200,000 Ukrainian Soldiers Have Deserted

Ukrainian soldiers refusing to report for duty or walking away from their front-line positions are becoming an increasing problem for Kiev. One Ukrainian lawmaker said that there have been as many as 200,000 desertions. 

Ukrainian officials and soldiers told the AP that “Facing every imaginable shortage, tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops, tired and bereft, have walked away from combat and front-line positions to slide into anonymity.” The report adds, “Entire units have abandoned their posts, leaving defensive lines vulnerable and accelerating territorial losses, according to military commanders and soldiers.”

Soldiers failing to report to their posts are a rapidly worsening problem for Kiev. In 2022, only 9,000 Ukrainians were prosecuted for desertion. That number increased to 24,000 in 2023. Ukrainian government data showed prosecutions skyrocketed to 50,000 during the first nine months of 2024. 

Keep reading

Zelensky More Unpopular Than Ever After Nearly 3 Years Of War: Mainstream Media Admits

While the war-weary US and European populations have long ago lost their fascination with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, which was on display during his September trip to Washington—largely met with little enthusiasm even among Congressional leaders—it is less common for the mainstream media to admit his star power has completely faded.

However, a fresh assessment in Britain’s The Times newspaper details the extent to which there’s been a general “disenchantment” with him both at home and abroad as he’s clearly lost his “shine”.

Amid steady Russian military gains in the east, and under pressure by Washington drop the military enlistment age from 25 to 18 (which would be hugely unpopular among Ukrainians), if a presidential vote were held tomorrow Zelensky would very likely lose.

Keep reading

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service Warned About A 100k-Strong NATO Intervention In Ukraine

The NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine might be on the brink of an unprecedented escalation that could easily spiral out of control if Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) is correct in claiming that NATO is planning a 100,000-strong military intervention in Ukraine under the guise of peacekeepers. The purpose is to freeze the conflict, presumably by having these troops function as tripwires for deterring a Russian attack that could spark World War III, and then rebuild Ukraine’s military-industrial complex (MIC).

SVR revealed that Poland will have control over Western Ukraine (like it did during the interwar period); Romania will be responsible for the Black Sea coast (which it seized during World War II via and ruled as the “Transnistria Governorate”); the UK will lord over Kiev and the north; while Germany will deploy its forces to the center and east of the country. The latter’s Rhinemetall will lead the efforts to rebuild Ukraine’s MIC by investing heavily, dispatching specialists, and providing high-performance equipment.

Another important detail is that “NATO is already deploying training centers in Ukraine, through which it is planned to drag at least a million mobilized Ukrainians”, while police functions will be carried out via Ukrainian nationalists that SVR likens to World War II-era Sonderkommandos. The last part is intriguing since it raises the question of why 100,000 NATO troops/peacekeepers would be required. Only a fraction of that is needed for tripwire and training purposes so perhaps those numbers are inaccurate.

Keep reading