Tag: wwiii

Tensions in the Red Sea Setting the Stage for WWIII

In recent weeks, there have been 15 attacks on cargo ships in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea as the Houthis of northern Yemen threatened to attack any vessel heading to the Israeli port city of Eilat.

These attacks caused imports to the port to drop 85% and prompted the formation of a 10-nation coalition led by the US to secure maritime trade. News reports surfaced that Spain and France pulled out of the naval task force, stating they would protect their ships and only accept orders from NATO, not CENTCOM.

On December 23, an Indian-flagged cargo ship was struck in the Arabian Sea 200 nautical miles from the Indian port city of Veraval, and less than an hour later, the Israeli and US governments were claiming they had intelligence the drone was fired from Iran.

The US, EU, and Israel have all accused Iran of having a command ship disguised as a cargo vessel anchored in the Red Sea off Yemen’s northwest coast named the MV Saviz that is identifying ships linked to Israel and handing that information off to the Houthis. In 2021, it was reported that Israeli commandos bombed the Saviz using limpet mines. Iran claims the Saviz is a logistical ship to help protect the region from piracy.

The USS Laboon, a guided missile Destroyer, patrolled the waters around Yemen as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian over the weekend. Meanwhile, the country exploded in a planned protest to show support for Gaza, where an estimated 2.2 million Yemenis marched through Sanaa.

Many people waved Palestinian flags and banners that read, “Your coalition does not intimidate us!” The Supreme Leader of the Sanaa government, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, addressed the crowd via a large screen and loudspeakers, stating that if the US or the UK interrupted their operations on Israeli-linked ships, they would directly target “American and British ships in the region.”

Hours later, CENTCOM announced that the USS Laboon shot down four drones fired from Houthi-controlled northern Yemen that were “inbound to the USS Laboon.” The USS Laboon reported no damage or injuries and continued its mission, guiding a US cargo ship through the Bel el Mandeb Strait to the Suez Canal. Reports then began to surface about a secret plan between the US and the UK to attack Houthi missile sites in northern Yemen with Reaper drones from Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti.

Keep reading

The Coming War — Time to Speak Up

In 1935, the Congress of American Writers was held in New York City, followed by another two years later. They called on “the hundreds of poets, novelists, dramatists, critics, short story writers and journalists” to discuss the “rapid crumbling of capitalism” and the beckoning of another war. They were electric events which, according to one account, were attended by 3,500 members of the public with more than a thousand turned away. 

Arthur Miller, Myra Page, Lillian Hellman, Dashiell Hammett warned that fascism was rising, often disguised, and the responsibility lay with writers and journalists to speak out. Telegrams of support from Thomas Mann, John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway, C Day Lewis, Upton Sinclair and Albert Einstein were read out. 

The journalist and novelist Martha Gellhorn spoke up for the homeless and unemployed, and “all of us under the shadow of violent great power.” 

Martha, who became a close friend, told me later over her customary glass of Famous Grouse and soda:

“The responsibility I felt as a journalist was immense. I had witnessed the injustices and suffering delivered by the Depression, and I knew, we all knew, what was coming if silences were not broken.”

Her words echo across the silences today: they are silences filled with a consensus of propaganda that contaminates almost everything we read, see and hear.  Let me give you one example: 

On March 7, the two oldest newspapers in Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, published several pages on “the looming threat” of China. They coloured the Pacific Ocean red. Chinese eyes were martial, on the march and menacing. The Yellow Peril was about to fall down as if by the weight of gravity.

No logical reason was given for an attack on Australia by China. A “panel of experts” presented no credible evidence: one of them is a former director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a front for the Defence Department in Canberra, the Pentagon in Washington, the governments of Britain, Japan and Taiwan and the West’s war industry.

“Beijing could strike within three years,” they warned. “We are not ready.” Billions of dollars are to be spent on American nuclear submarines, but that, it seems, is not enough.”‘Australia’s holiday from history is over”: whatever that might mean. 

There is no threat to Australia, none. The faraway “lucky” country has no enemies, least of all China, its largest trading partner. Yet China-bashing that draws on Australia’s long history of racism towards Asia has become something of a sport for the self-ordained “experts.” What do Chinese-Australians make of this? Many are confused and fearful. 

The authors of this grotesque piece of dog-whistling and obsequiousness to American power are Peter Hartcher and Matthew Knott, “national security reporters” I think they are called. I remember Hartcher from his Israeli government-paid jaunts. The other one, Knott, is a mouthpiece for the suits in Canberra.  Neither has ever seen a war zone and its extremes of human degradation and suffering.  

“How did it come to this?” Martha Gellhorn would say if she were here. “Where on earth are the voices saying no? Where is the comradeship?”

Keep reading

Elon Musk: “Most Are Oblivious” to the Danger of World War 3

Tesla founder Elon Musk warned that “most are oblivious to the danger” of World War 3 as the conflict in Ukraine continues to escalate.

The comment was in response to a speech by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to the General Assembly on Monday during which he expressed his fear that humanity was marching toward a “wider war” with its “eyes wide open”.

“Could we please not do WWIII,” asked commentator Luke Rudkowski.

“Most are oblivious to the danger,” responded Musk.

Despite Musk providing his SpaceX Starlink satellite internet systems to the Ukrainian government, supporters of prolonging the war have attacked Musk for calling for peace.

Last week, Mikhail Podoliak, an aide to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, even claimed, without evidence, that Musk was restricting the reach of pro-Ukraine Twitter accounts in order to help spread “Russian propaganda”.

“Maybe a regulator is needed to explain competition rules to the owner?” Podoliak suggested.

The Twitter CEO previously warned that the “relentless escalation” of the conflict in Ukraine was placing the security of the world in jeopardy.

In January, German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock caused consternation after saying “we are fighting a war against Russia.”

This prompted Croatian President Zoran Milanovic to respond by calling the remark “madness” and wishing Germany better luck than with the last war they had with Russia 70 years ago.

Keep reading

Associated Press Issues Correction After Publishing False Report that Could’ve Started WW3

The Associated Press has issued an official correction for its not-so-inconsequential bit of reporting Tuesday that could have easily set off a chain of events leading to a WWIII scenario.

“The Associated Press reported erroneously, based on information from a senior American intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity” …and we the know rest which unleashed a day of incessant warmongering based on the allegation that Russia attacked a NATO member. The incredibly embarrassing correction further states, “Subsequent reporting showed that the missiles were Russian-made and most likely fired by Ukraine in defense against a Russian attack.”

And the next time this happens will it be too late for a “correction”?

Keep reading

Let’s Be Clear: If WW3 Happens It Will Be The Result Of Choices Made By The US Empire

The commander of the US nuclear arsenal has stated unequivocally that the war in Ukraine is just a warmup exercise for a much larger conflict that’s already in the mail.

Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp reports:

The commander that oversees US nuclear forces delivered an ominous warning at a naval conference last week by calling the war in Ukraine a “warmup” for the “big one” that is to come.

“This Ukraine crisis that we’re in right now, this is just the warmup,” said Navy Adm. Charles Richard, the commander of US Strategic command. “The big one is coming. And it isn’t going to be very long before we’re going to get tested in ways that we haven’t been tested [in] a long time.”

Richard’s warning came after the US released its new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which reaffirms that the US doctrine allows for the first use of nuclear weapons. The review says that the purpose of the US nuclear arsenal is to “deter strategic attacks, assure allies and partners, and achieve US objectives if deterrence fails.”

Not only does Richard appear to believe that a hot war between major world powers is a foregone conclusion, he has also previously stated that a nuclear war with Russia or China is now “a very real possibility.”

Again, this is not some armchair warrior opining from his desk at a corporate newspaper or DC think tank, this is the head of STRATCOM. Richard would be personally overseeing the very warfare he is talking about.

What I find most striking about remarks like these is how passive they always make it sound. Richard talks about “The Big One” like other people talk about California earthquakes, as though a hot war with China would be some kind of natural disaster that just happened out of nowhere.

This type of rhetoric is becoming more and more common. Describing an Atomic Age world war as something that would happen to the US empire, rather than the direct result of concrete A-or-B decisions made by the empire, is becoming its own genre of foreign policy punditry.

Keep reading

Advocating World War Three Is Just Mainstream Punditry Now

Mainstream punditry in the latter half of 2022 is rife with op-eds arguing that the US needs to vastly increase military spending because a world war is about to erupt, and they always frame it as though this would be something that happens to the US, as though its own actions would have nothing to do with it. As though it would not be the direct result of the US-centralized empire continually accelerating towards that horrific event while refusing every possible diplomatic off-ramp due to its inability to relinquish its goal of total unipolar planetary domination.

The latest example of this trend is an article titled “Could America Win a New World War? — What It Would Take to Defeat Both China and Russia” published by Foreign Affairs, a magazine that is owned and operated by the supremely influential think tank Council on Foreign Relations.

“The United States and its allies must plan for how to simultaneously win wars in Asia and Europe, as unpalatable as the prospect may seem,” writes the article’s author Thomas G Mahnken, adding that in some ways “the United States and its allies will have an advantage in any simultaneous war” in those two continents.

But Mahnken doesn’t claim a world war against Russia and China would be a walk in the park; he also argues that in order to win such a war the US will need to — you guessed it — drastically increase its military spending.

“The United States clearly needs to increase its defense manufacturing capacity and speed,” Mahnken writes. “In the short term, that involves adding shifts to existing factories. With more time, it involves expanding factories and opening new production lines. To do both, Congress will have to act now to allocate more money to increase manufacturing.”

But exploding US weapons spending is still inadequate, Mahnken argues, saying that “the United States should work with its allies to increase their military production and the size of their weapons and munitions stockpiles” as well.

Mahnken says this world war could be sparked “if China initiated a military operation to take Taiwan, forcing the United States and its allies to respond,” as though there would be no other options on the table besides launching into nuclear age World War Three to defend an island next to the Chinese mainland that calls itself the Republic of China. He writes that “Moscow, meanwhile, could decide that with the United States bogged down in the western Pacific, it could get away with invading more of Europe,” demonstrating the bizarre Schrödinger’s cat western propaganda paradox that Putin is always simultaneously (A) getting destroyed and humiliated in Ukraine and (B) on the cusp of waging hot war with NATO.

Keep reading

Are We on the Verge of World War 3? Here Are Some Facts We Know for Sure.

Sometimes it is best to take a step back and look at the facts that we know without a doubt so that we can then take a look at the bigger picture. Within the context of World War 3, here is a bit of what we have seen.

Draw your own conclusions.

Does Washington’s opinion here matter?

Out of the blue, New York City recently released a PSA instructing New Yorkers on what they needed to do in order to survive a nuclear strike on American soil. This hasn’t been done since the Cold War. If you want information about nuclear survival that isn’t glossed over by the government, you should check out our live nuclear survival webinar that is coming up with Army Ranger NBC Specialist Chuck Hudson. Go here to learn more.

The United States is now stockpiling anti-radiation medicine. Washington recently ordered $290 million worth of the drug Nplate, a drug used to treat “blood cell injuries that accompany acute radiation syndrome in adult and pediatric patients (ARS).”

Biden recently said that Putin was “not joking” about a potential Russian attack with “tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons.” Anybody who has read Soviet defector Ken Alibek’s Biohazard is well-familiar with what some of these biological weapons are.

Does the market speak?

Potassium iodide pills are out of stock just about everywhere you check now.

Sales of gas masks, Geiger counters, and dosimeters have absolutely exploded.

Keep reading

Russian official warns of World War Three if Ukraine joins NATO

If Ukraine is admitted into the U.S.-led NATO military alliance, then the conflict in Ukraine would be guaranteed to escalate into World War Three, a Russian Security Council official was quoted as saying on Thursday.

Just hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin formally proclaimed the annexation of up to 18% of Ukraine on Sept. 30, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announced a surprise bid for fast-track membership of NATO.

Full NATO membership for Ukraine is far off because all the alliance’s 30 members would have to give their consent.

“Kyiv is well aware that such a step would mean a guaranteed escalation to World War Three,” TASS quoted Alexander Venediktov, the deputy secretary of Russia’s Security Council, as saying.

Venediktov, who is deputy to Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, a powerful Putin ally, said he felt Ukraine’s application was propaganda as the West understood the consequences of Ukrainian membership of NATO.

Keep reading

The Road to World War III: How US-NATO Forces Turned Libya into Hell on Earth

The war in Ukraine is basically about the US-NATO’s long-term plan to destroy Russia’s rise as a major player on the world stage.  In 2019, The Rand Corporation published ‘Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options’ which recommended several measures that would essentially disrupt Russia’s inevitable rise. 

The Rand Corporation’s measures are extremely dangerous and irresponsible, in fact, one of the measures that has been already implemented since the war began between Russia and Ukraine has resulted in serious consequences that can lead the world into a nuclear war:

“Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages”

The other measure that would be a direct threat to Russia which would have allowed NATO to place all sorts of military weapons in Ukrainian territory and that is something Russia would not allow close to its borders,

“Reposturing bombers within easy striking range of key Russian strategic targets has a high likelihood of success and would certainly get Moscow’s attention and raise Russian anxieties.”  

Lastly, deploying tactical nuclear weapons pointing at Russia as a measure would be an open invitation to a nuclear war between the West and Russia,

“deploying additional tactical nuclear weapons to locations in Europe and Asia could heighten Russia’s anxiety enough to significantly increase investments in its air defenses.” 

To the West, it seems like a risk they are willing to take,

“In conjunction with the bomber option, it has a high likelihood of success, but deploying more such weapons might lead Moscow to react in ways contrary to U.S. and allied interests.”

Keep reading