Tag Archives: NATO

UK requests for taking extreme care of ‘Challenger 2’ tanks make them useless for Ukranian army

Posted on by Leave a comment

It seems the UK is now “expressing frustration” at the way its MBTs are being used, complaining that the “guarantees” given by the Kiev regime forces are “simply insufficient”. Afraid of heavy losses, as demonstrated by the disastrous performance of German MBTs, long considered the best in NATO, London is looking for ways to limit their usage by the Neo-Nazi junta forces in order to prevent a similar fate for its prized MBTs. 

 

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

It has been only a few weeks after the entire world saw the absolute debacle of NATO’s much-touted heavy armor. The event was accurately predicted by various independent experts and analysts mere days before the wanton counteroffensive. At that point, it became obvious that decades of close cooperation between the former Ukrainian military and NATO were effectively pointless. This also includes nearly a decade of much more intensive cooperation between the belligerent alliance and the (then newly installed) Neo-Nazi junta that focused on interoperability and the implementation of NATO standards.

However, the Kiev regime forces’ performance against even the conscripted (although battle-hardened) Donbass militias within the Russian military has not only left much to be desired, but is essentially quite poor in comparison to the massive amount of funds the Neo-Nazi junta is getting. And although the counteroffensive is still ongoing, resulting in largely insignificant gains (that are still firmly under Russian fire control), the results for heavy armor have been catastrophic, to say the least. The mainstream propaganda machine initially kept trying to conceal the horrible losses of NATO-sourced tanks and armored vehicles.

However, ample battlefield footage published by alternative platforms (particularly those on Telegram) made this an impossible task. As a result, the delivery of Western-made weapons, munitions and other equipment that was previously spearheaded by countries such as the US, UK, Poland, the Baltic states, etc. seems to be slowing down. Although London was the first to pledge heavy armor and long-range missiles, as well as banned depleted uranium munitions that can leave disastrous consequences, it is now quietly backing down from its commitments to fight Russia “to the last Ukrainian”.

Namely, the UK command is now seeking “guarantees” from the Kiev regime forces that will “ensure” no UK-supplied “Challenger 2” MBTs (main battle tanks) are destroyed or captured by the Russian military. Apart from the effectively impossible ROE (rules of engagement), London wants the Neo-Nazi junta to follow other strict requirements that also apply to their every movement even in western parts of Ukraine, which is hundreds of kilometers away from the frontline. This includes special requests for storage to prevent long-range strikes, which effectively makes the “Challenger 2” the most pampered weapon system in the conflict.

“Imagine the propaganda coup of a captured, intact Challenger 2 being paraded in Red Square in Moscow! It doesn’t bear thinking about,” British Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Crawford told the British Daily Express a few months back.

It seems the UK is now “expressing frustration” at the way its MBTs are being used, complaining that the “guarantees” given by the Kiev regime forces are “simply insufficient”. Afraid of heavy losses, as demonstrated by the disastrous performance of German MBTs, long considered the best in NATO, London is looking for ways to limit their usage by the Neo-Nazi junta forces in order to prevent a similar fate for its prized MBTs. Interestingly, Washington DC seems to be doing the exact same thing, as it has also been strangely quiet, a stark contrast to the previously boastful pledge to send its M1 “Abrams” MBTs.

Back in January, I argued that Western heavy armor, including the British “Challenger 2”, American M1 “Abrams” and German “Leopard 2” are simply not suitable for the Kiev regime, as they weren’t designed to either fight in such terrain or under such conditions (complete lack of air superiority and extremely limited or even nonexistent CAS (close air support)). The same goes for the US-made “Bradley” armored fighting vehicle (AFV) and French AMX-10 wheeled tank destroyers. Western-made tanks are infamous for their size and weight, being up to 30% bigger and heavier than their Soviet/Russian counterparts.

Weighing 75 tonnes with additional combat armor modules, “Challenger 2” is nearly twice as heavy as the Ukrainian T-64BV (38 tonnes), which is the Kiev regime’s most commonly used tank. Extensive Soviet WWII-era experience and the pedological properties of the former USSR’s western areas prompted the superpower to build lighter tanks, as heavier vehicles would nearly always get hopelessly stuck in an ocean of mud caused by the infamous rasputitsa. Video and photo evidence shows even Russian and Ukrainian tanks getting bogged down, forcing their crews to abandon the vehicles to avoid ATGMs.

And indeed, even highly mobile targets have been picked off by infantry armed with ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles) such as the Russian 9K135 “Kornet”, making immobile heavy armor a much easier target, even for artillery that is normally used against stationary objects. Even the much lighter Soviet-era APCs (armored personnel carriers) have trouble moving through the steppe mud, making it virtually impossible to conduct off-road maneuvers for either side. In turn, this forces military units to use roads, making them easier targets for warplanes, drones, artillery, attack helicopters and the aforementioned ATGM-armed infantry, etc.

With this in mind, fielding the much heavier Western-made tanks such as the “Challenger 2” (and other NATO-sourced armor) has proven to be not only militarily useless for the Kiev regime, but also quite deadly for countless forcibly conscripted Ukrainians that have been pointlessly killed during recent counteroffensive operations against the Russian military. With that in mind, by denying or at least postponing the usage of its “Challenger 2” MBTs in Ukraine, the UK might be sparing the lives of many Ukrainians. Of course, this is being done completely inadvertently, as London is one of the most prominent proponents of the “to the last Ukrainian” approach.

US going to send cluster munitions to Kiev in new military package

Posted on by Leave a comment

The measure is highly controversial and dangerous, canirresponsibly escalate the conflict.

 

Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

A serious measure is about to be taken by American authorities in their policy of unrestricted support for Kiev. According to CBS News on July 5, Washington is considering sending cluster munitions to the neo-Nazi regime in its new military assistance package. Anonymous sources familiar with government affairs told the outlet that the decision on this issue could be announced in July.

The cluster munitions that the US government is considering sending are the so-called “dual-purpose improved conventional munitions, or DPICM”. According to Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, mentioned by CBS, these weapons would be “useful” on the battlefield, despite restrictions on their use imposed by domestic and international law.

“Our military analysts have confirmed that DPICMs would be useful, especially against dug-in Russian positions on the battlefield (…) The reason why you have not seen a move forward in providing this capability relates both to the existing Congressional restrictions on the provision of DPICMs and concerns about allied unity. But from a battlefield effectiveness perspective, we do believe it would be useful”, she said.

By “impositions,” Cooper is referring to US laws and congressional regulations that prohibit the export of cluster munitions. Likewise, by “allied unity”, she is referring to how NATO partners would react to the US measure, as these weapons are banned by a 2008 UN convention signed by more than 110 countries. In practice, the US would be violating both its domestic norms and international law, but Cooper believes that there would be no major consequences for the country, as there now appears to be a “consensus” that cluster munitions are “useful”.

The request for these weapons is old, but until now the US has maintained a rational stance on the matter. Both the Kiev regime and pro-war politicians within the US Congress have been pressing the Biden government for months to approve the supply of cluster munitions, ignoring the anti-humanitarian aspect of the measure and all the consequences this could bring to the civilian population of the disputed territory.

For example, in March, a group of pro-war Republican senators launched a campaign in favor of cluster munitions, urging the Biden administration to “not hesitate” to send them to the Ukrainian regime. At the time, they said the government should ignore “vague concerns about the reaction of allies and partners and unfounded fears of ‘escalation'”. Apparently, now this reckless speech has reached hegemonic status among American politicians, increasing the chances of approval of the request.

In fact, what makes cluster munitions so controversial and restricted is the detail that they contain a great number of small projectiles inside, which spread in the air after the shot, reaching a much higher number of victims than conventional weapons. There is, however, an even bigger problem, which is the fact that not all “bomblets” detonate at the time of attack, often falling in places far from the front and exploding sometime later, when touched by a civilian. This generates insecurity and unnecessary human suffering in the long term, mainly affecting innocent people without military involvement.

In addition, US officials also seem to ignore the numerous reports made by international organizations about evidence that Kiev has already used cluster munitions several times against civilians in the disputed areas. In reaction to the news that Washington was about to sendsuch weapons, Human Rights Watch published an article on July 6 called “Ukraine: Civilian Deaths from Cluster Munitions“, which reads:

“Ukrainian forces have used cluster munitions that caused numerous deaths and serious injuries to civilians, Human Rights Watch said today (…) New Human Rights Watch research found that Ukrainian cluster munition rocket attacks on Russian-controlled areas in and around the city of Izium in eastern Ukraine during 2022 caused many casualties among Ukrainian civilians”.

Also, last March the UN had already published a report on the subject reporting some cases of use of cluster munitions by Kiev: 

“The Commission has found instances where Ukrainian armed forces likely used cluster munitions and rocket-delivered antipersonnel landmines to carry out attacks in Izium city, Kharkiv region, from March to September 2022 (…) The three following examples illustrate the use of weapons that bear the characteristics of cluster munitions in the city of Izium during that period. On 9 May 2022, an attack struck a residential area, killing three people and injuring six. On 14 July 2022, an attack hit the area around the central market, injuring two older women. On 16 July 2022, several submunitions impacted a residential area, including a kindergarten, where about 250 people had sought shelter, killing two older persons”, the report reads. 

Considering that cluster munitions are banned in US and internationally by the UN, and that there is already evidence that Kiev is using them against civilians, there does not seem to be any justification for Washington to take such attitude. Perhaps NATO’s “unity” will be really unaffected by US war intentions, as the bloc has also remained silent in the face of previous dangerous initiatives such as the supply of British radioactive weapons to Ukraine.

The alliance seems totally committed to the US’ project of total war against Russia, but this does not change the fact that the action Washington is about to take is illegal and unjustified.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram. 

By allowing these munitions to be used in Ukraine (where they are sure to be used against the civilian population), shows you that the US government is an international terrorist organization. Period.

You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below.  Patreon is gone so now we have Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options.  The new buy me a coffee link is below. 

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

US military short of recruits with most youth disqualified

Posted on by Leave a comment

This is an excellent guest post by Uriel Araujo and it really tells the sad state of Americas youth and the sad state of Americas overstretched military. The war won’t last long.

Meanwhile the US and its allies have been sending tons of weapons, ammunition and tens of billions to Ukraine despite so many domestic and systemic issues.

Uriel Araujo, researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts

Already in September 2022 the Pentagon was voicing concerns about ammunition and arsenal shortages while US President Joe Biden was announcing an extra $3 billion military aid to Ukraine. Things are not so good with its transatlantic allies: in March 2023, Europe’s military was described as being in an “appalling state” by a Foreign Affairs article – a situation which is hard to escapeamid today’s deindustrialization. 

Last month, the US was announcing it would spend yet another $325 million to replace tanks destroyed by Russia during Ukraine’s costly and failed counteroffensive. The hard economic costs and depletion or arsenals, however, should not be Washington’s only concern: since 2020, merely 23% of young Americans (aged 17-24) are “eligible for military service without a waiver” and most ineligible youth are disqualified “for multiple reasons”, such as overweight, poor medical health, and drug abuse.

In their Atlantic piece, Former US Army Officer Jason Dempsey (an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security) and former US Marine officer Gil Barndollar (a senior fellow at Defense Priorities) paint a very worrisome picture, from an American point of view. The 50-year old “all-volunteer force” (AVF), as the US military has come to be known after its last draftee in 1973, they write, has become “unsustainable”, facing threats in “three fronts” – namely cost, capacity, and, more importantly, “continued ability to find enough Americans willing and able to serve.”

Military pay and benefits have skyrocketed since 911, actually rising by more than 50 percent. Its high cost is one of the factors that make the US military small. When faced with medium-sized campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, it already found it challengefull to provide just enough troops. Thus, Dempsey and Barndollar argue it could be broken by any “major conflict”. For example, they write, just over the past year of confrontation, Russia and Ukraine both have had casualties that are equal to at least half the active-duty U.S. Army, and current US military doctrine says that a force is destroyed after taking 30 percent casualties. In other words, the US itself could not endure what its ally Ukraine does.

In any case, merely 9 percent of young US citizens would seriously consider military service, a figure which is near the all-time low since the so-called All-Volunteer Force began. To broaden the recruiting pool, service branches loosened their restrictions on things such as neck tattoos and other standards. In June last year, the US Army went so far as to briefly drop its requirement for a high school diploma. Even so, the US military simply can’t seem to find recruits and keeps falling short of its enlistment quotas.

The AVF crisis is part of a larger societal crisis, even civilizational. Consider this fact: US citizens are currently enduring its worst drug crisis ever, fueled by epidemic opioid abuse. According to Council on Foreign Relations deputy editor Claire Klobucista and expert Alejandra  Martinez, this state of affairs endangers the US “public health, economic output, and national security.” Opioid drugs (both legally manufactured medications and illicit narcotics) already are by far the leading cause of fatal overdoses in the country.

Or consider this: right now, the US Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services says that the Food and Drug Administration agency (FDA) is still dodging oversight and failing to provide answers regarding an ongoing baby formula shortage crisis. There is more: even though it is supposedly the world’s richest nation, the US healthcare system is collapsing, with hospitals closing down, overcrowded and understaffed facilities, and lack of items such as ICU beds. The country is also facing a mental health crisis, with 40% of parents reporting their children struggle with anxiety or depression, among other issues.

Given all these domestic and systemic issues, it is no wonder that most youth either do not qualify or do not want to be part of the military. Considering that many young people, due to so many factors, simply do not qualify for service, bringing back the draftee (with all the political costs) would simply not solve the issue. This is one of the reasons why the US increasingly needs to fight proxy wars.

In November 2022, while addressing the Naval Submarine League’s annual gathering in Arlington, Virginia, US Navy Admiral Charles Richard, then head of US Strategic Command had this to say about the Ukraine crisis: “this is just the warmup. The big one is coming.” He added: “It isn’t going to be very long before we’re going to get tested in ways that we haven’t been tested a long time.” At the time he urged policy makers and Pentagon chiefs to return to the 1950s and 1960s dynamism in order to face such challenges.

Those are bold and ambitious calls for a declining, overburdenedand overextended superpower which is actively pursuing a dual containment policy targeting both Russia and China simultaneously. In addition, it aims to maintain its naval hegemony as a sea power while also engaging in land wars as part of a Mackinder-like struggle for the Heartland. Like the meme-famous pelican, it seems to want it all. However, appetite and capacity are not to be confused. It remains to be seen whether or not American society will continue to have what it takes for all that and just for how long. Right now, the prospect is not looking good.

Special op to end in days if NATO stops shipping weapons to Ukraine — Medvedev

Posted on by One comment

The special military operation would end in several days if the US and its vassals stop sending weapons to Ukraine, Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday, answering a question from TASS.

“In NATO, primarily the US and its vassals, stop shipping weapons and munitions to Ukraine, the special military operation would end in several months; and if they stop shipping their weapons now, then the special op will end in mere days,” Medvedev said.

“Actually, any war, even a world war, can stop very fast,” he continued. “Either if a peace treaty is signed or if one does what the US did in 1945, when it used its nuclear weapons and bomber to Japanese cities – Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They have, indeed, ended the war campaign back then, at a cost of lives of almost 300,000 civilians.”

In other news Belarus’ President Lukashenko said Putin promised him that any attack on Belarus would be considered an attack on Russia itself. Lukashenko also pointed out that NATO was quickly building up forces on the border with Belarus in Poland and in the Baltic countries.

“We have a joint group. Part of it is on the western border of Russia. I asked him (the Russian president – TASS) to avoid using part of that group. To keep it in reserve just in case, if something happens. His reply was: ‘I promise you that any attack against or just one step across the border into the Belarusian territory would mean that they attack Russia’,” Lukashenko cited Putin as saying.

Also a French General forecasted the utter failure of the so called “counteroffensive” being attempted by Ukraine. Jean-Bernard Pinatel also said that the ratio of losses in equipment and personnel is 5 to 1 in favor of Russia (at least).

“Ukraine’s counteroffensive is doomed to fail as the Russian military has the edge over its adversary in all respects, Jean-Bernard Pinatel, a retired French general and the owner of the company called LexisNexis Business Information Solutions, said in a video interview provided to TASS.

“I absolutely do not believe in the success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. The Russians have a significant air superiority. But they also have an advantage on the ground. Even the Ukrainians themselves admit that they fire 4,000 shells a day, while Russia fires 20,000,” said Pinatel, who specializes in Russia and the Middle East.

The general also said that the ratio of losses in equipment and personnel is 5 to 1 in favor of Russia. According to Pinatel, the Kiev regime is severely hampered by its lack of human resources.

“What we are witnessing today is a confrontation between a nuclear power and a country that, of course, is sponsored by the Anglo-Saxons, but which does not have significant technical and human potential,” he said. “And I don’t think that the biggest disadvantage Ukraine faces is so much the amount of military equipment, which, by the way, is not always of high quality, because the West supplies Kiev with outdated equipment. Ukraine’s greatest vulnerability is its people, or rather a lack of them. Its best fighters have long been dead.”

The general said he believes that, provided NATO doesn’t directly step into the conflict, Kiev’s defeat is only a matter of time. The West’s policy of prolonging the Ukrainian conflict “is only leading to more casualties,” Pinatel said.

“Conversations about helping Ukraine until it wins are completely stupid and nonsensical. It will achieve nothing and will only increase the number of deaths among young Ukrainians and Russians,” he said.

However, the US and Europe do not care, the retired French general said, because their main goal is not the victory of Ukraine, but the weakening of Russia.

Johnny’s Commentary

As I’ve said before the war in Ukraine is just the beginning and it’s designed to kill off the Slavic people, Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian etc. You can see that story here: https://dontspeaknews.com/2023/06/15/the-real-origins-of-the-russia-ukraine-war/

That being said it certainly appears we are headed for the next phase of the shooting war. As I reported HERE yesterday, both Russia and Ukraine are accusing the other of getting ready to blow up the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant. If that happens then NATO is on record saying that it would invoke Article 5 which commits them all to war against Russia. There would be no more proxy war using Ukrainians as the cannon fodder, but rather they would finally be fighting each other directly, NATO troops vs Russian troops of which we’ve already seen small scale skirmishes.

Russia for their part says that if NATO invokes article 5 that they would begin launching nuclear weapons. Why? Because Russia knows and even admits that it can’t defeat NATO in a full blown conventional war without them so I would expect those to be deployed right away. Great Britain has already been looking for Russian subs off of their East Coast (they didn’t tell the public) as they feared Russian retaliation for giving long range missiles to Ukraine.

British news services did NOT carry any information about this search, nor did they even report the vast parts of the ocean closed-off for the intense searches.  The British public was left blissfully unaware.

As I’ve said many times there won’t be any warnings when the missiles start flying towards the US and Europe. The powers that be want maximum death and carnage and they don’t want survivors so I would expect the major population centers and key military bases to be hit in the US. As you can see from the UK the governments of the world don’t give 2 rips about you and me, just themselves and those they deem worthy of survival.

Stay ready guys, this could erupt without warning at any moment. No fear, just stay PRAYED UP and PREPPED UP!

You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below.  Patreon is gone so now we have Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options.  The new buy me a coffee link is below. 

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

West asked Kiev to kill as many Russians as possible – Ukrainian MD

Posted on by Leave a comment

The case works as a key to understand US’ war strategy against Russia.

Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

According to the Ukrainian Minister of Defense, Kiev’s sponsors reportedly demanded that the regime eliminate as many Russians as possible as a condition for sending weapons. The case shows how the West really does not expect a Ukrainian victory on the battlefield, only seeking to weaken Russia as much as possible.

Kiev’s defense chief Aleksey Reznikov claimed during an interview to Foreign Policy that Western supporters, before establishing a policy of unlimited military aid, demanded from Ukraine that as many Russian citizens as possible be killed. Once the extermination of Russians is guaranteed, Western support will be maintained “as long as it takes”, informed the minister.

He told interviewers that, at first, NATO expected Ukraine to manage the challenge of facing Russian troops alone, without Western military support. However, with the worsening of combat conditions and the imminence of the Ukrainian defeat, the receiving of weapons became inevitable. So, the sponsors imposed a condition on the Ukrainians: before admitting any defeat on the battlefield, they must at least achieve the goal of eliminating a large number of Russian soldiers.

“We asked, ‘can we have stingers?’ We were told, ‘No, dig trenches and kill as many Russians as you can before it’s over.’ People thought our victory was impossible”, he said during the interview.

Reznikov made it clear that now Kiev has “Bradleys, Strykers, Abrams, Leopards, and more” because it is fulfilling the imposed objective of killing the enemies. Also, for this same reason Kiev “will soon be equipped with American-made F-16 fighter jets”.

Indeed, the minister’s words bring answers to several questions. For example, previously, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham had said during a meeting with Zelensky in Kiev that the US was making a “good investment” by sending money to “kill Russians”. Now, with the information revealed by Reznikov, it becomes more and more evident that the US really plans to cause the death of Russians with its help to Ukraine.

At first, Reznikov’s words may sound banal, since in a context of conflict there is obviously always the goal of eliminating enemy fighters. However, there are a series of nuances that make the American attitude problematic and highly anti-humanitarian with the Ukrainian proxies themselves.

As the minister made clear, the Western intention was to let the Ukrainians fight alone and achieve the expected result without receiving any military assistance. This is consistent with NATO’s attitude in the early days of Russia’s special operation, which was to refuse the supply of military support, focusing only on humanitarian and financial aid.

However, the situation changed dramatically after April 2022, when NATO started sending tanks to the Ukrainian regime. This change in attitude on the part of the alliance is now perfectly explained: the initial objective was to leave the Ukrainians without help, but this would lead to a quick defeat of Kiev, so an agreement was reached for the country to start receiving unlimited aid in exchange for the elimination of Russian soldiers.

In other words, the alleged “Ukrainian victory”, which the mainstream media talks about so much, was never in NATO’s plans. What the alliance only wants is to kill Russians. It is the plan to kill Moscow’s fighters that justifies the support for Kiev, not any concern for “democracy” or “Ukraine’s territorial integrity”.

This agreement between the Ukrainians and their sponsors is also an important key for understanding the West’s war plans. The US-led military alliance does not aim for victory against the Russians, but for the massive elimination of troops. Usually in wars the goal is victory, and the death of soldiers is just a tool in order to achieve this aim. But in NATO’s proxy war, the final goal is actually restricted to killing Russian soldiers, with no greater ambitions, since defeating Russia currently seems unfeasible.

NATO’s strategists know that in an eventual scenario of open and direct confrontation against Russia, the chances of victory are minimal, since Moscow is the greatest nuclear power in the world. So, the alliance focuses on promoting proxy wars in which as many Russians as possible die, thus achieving enough attrition to generate long-term damage to the Russians. Therefore, in the face of the imminent Ukrainian defeat, NATO seems now “hurried” to generate new anti-Russian flanks in Eurasia, as it is possible to see in regions such as Transnistria, Kosovo, Artsakh, Georgia and Belarus.

Reznikov has, perhaps unintentionally, given an end to the entire narrative spread by his own regime and Western media that the aim of military aid is for Kiev to “win the war” and regain its pre-2014 territory. There are no such goals in the alliance’s plans, which only want Ukrainian forces to kill as many Russians as possible in order to generate losses on America’s biggest geopolitical enemy.

It is important that this information be shared and reach the western public opinion to make it clear to the citizens of NATO’s countries that their tax money is not being invested in any “resistance against the invader”, but, exactly as in Graham’s words, in the death of Russians.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below.  Patreon is gone so now we have Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options.  The new buy me a coffee link is below. 

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

Are Lavrov’s concerns about nuclear-capable F-16s for Kiev really ‘baseless fearmongering’?

Posted on by Leave a comment

The F-16 is designed to be capable of launching nuclear strikes, usually with B61 thermonuclear bombs. The units deployed by NATO members such as Belgium and the Netherlands operate F-16 fighter jets capable of delivering nuclear weapons, specifically as part of their nuclear sharing agreements with the US. And it’s precisely these countries that still operate F-16s and could very well be the first to send them to the Kiev regime.

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

Back in late May, the United States government “finally gave in to pressure” and decided to greenlight the delivery of F-16s to the Kiev regime. As a result, NATO’s European members were given the legal basis to deliver these old fighter jets to the Neo-Nazi junta. The troubled Biden administration has been mulling the move for months, while Ukrainian pilots have been conducting training in several NATO countries, including the US itself. Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov issued a stark warning to the political West regarding the delivery of nuclear-capable US-made F-16 fighter jets to the Kiev regime.

“We can expect anything from the leaders of the United States and other Western countries whom Washington has brought to its heel. They are proving the truth of this statement now that following the supplies of modern long-range artillery and tanks, they are getting ready, in earnest, to supply the F-16 jets. Some say they will make two squadrons available, others say eight. They are gearing up to continue the escalation of the war against us,” Lavrov stated and then added a stark warning: “We must keep in mind that one version of the F-16 can carry nuclear weapons.”

The Russian Foreign Minister made these comments mere days after troops from NATO took part in incursions into Russia proper, accompanied by escalating drone strikes against targets as far as Moscow itself. However, the mainstream propaganda machine was quick to decry Lavrov’s warnings as supposed “disinformation” and “baseless fearmongering”. The Business Insider claims, citing Hans Kristensen, the director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, that “Lavrov’s comments were misinformation, perhaps even disinformation”.

“It’s misinformation because he’s saying things that are not real and using it in a way to, I assume, create public concern or fearmongering about Western intentions,” Kristensen told the Business Insider, adding that “Lavrov is using the nominal capability of the F-16 aircraft to say that the ones that might be sent to Ukraine could also be converted to nuclear, but that’s not the case. The F-16s that Ukraine is going to get — if and when it gets them — they’re not from the units that have the nuclear mission. There’s no way at all that any nuclear state in the West would give nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons capability, to Ukraine. It’s completely out of the question.”

The F-16 is designed to be capable of launching nuclear strikes, usually with B61 thermonuclear bombs. The units deployed by NATO members such as Belgium and the Netherlands operate F-16 fighter jets capable of delivering nuclear weapons, specifically as part of their nuclear sharing agreements with the US. And it’s precisely these countries (in addition to Denmarkand others) that still operate F-16s and could very well be the first to send them to the Kiev regime. On the other hand, members such as Poland and Romania are extremely unlikely to do so, as the move would undermine their own security. This further reinforces the idea that the jets destined for the Neo-Nazijunta will be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

This alone makes Lavrov’s concerns all the more factual, rather than “disinformation” and “baseless fearmongering”. Russia has repeatedly warned that the Kiev regime could attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, or at the very least a so-called “dirty bomb”. Such plans were publicly announced by the Neo-Nazi junta’s top officials themselves, including its frontman Volodymyr Zelensky, which is another proof that Moscow’s warnings are not to be dismissed. In addition, Russian intelligence services have found crucial evidence pointing out that the US has been conducting experiments and deploying “sensitive nuclear technologies” in former Ukrainian nuclear power plants (NPPs), such as the Zaporozhye NPP, possibly to even attempt a nuclear false flag operation.

Although the US is by far the largest operator of F-16 fighter jets, it still hasn’t announced plans to deliver them to the Neo-Nazi junta forces. Washington DC’s propaganda machine insists that this is supposedly because “the US is reluctant to do so to avoid escalation with Moscow”. However, this is a moot point, as the belligerent thalassocracy has so far done everything in its power to antagonize Russia through a series of moves that have pushed the world dangerously close to a world-ending thermonuclear conflict. Still, this doesn’t seem to stop the US from going ahead with such plans, at the very least covertly. National Security Council coordinator John Kirby recently admitted this, stating that “the US has been forward-looking about future capabilities and needs”.

According to CNN, back in March, the US hosted two Ukrainian pilots at a military base in Tucson, Arizona, where USAF has been evaluating their skills to assess how much time they would need to learn to fly various American military aircraft, including the F-16. Still, while Washington DC is directly taking part in these efforts, it’s obvious they want to make it look like they’re not, which would explain why the US doesn’t want to send its own jets, but expects its overseas vassals and satellite states to do so.

And while the F-16’s capabilities against Russian jets such as the Su-35S or MiG-31BM are questionable at best (to say nothing of the Su-57), it’s not impossible that Washington DC is trying to give the Kiev regime a nuclear capability to deter a potential Russian counteroffensive that might ensue as the Neo-Nazi junta’s own offensive is failing miserably.

Ukrainian military lost most of its US-made M2 Bradley AFVs in counterattack

Posted on by Leave a comment

Russian forces repulse Ukrainian counterattack in Zaporozhye.

 

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher

Ukrainian soldiers said that most US-made M2 Bradley armoured vehicles were destroyed during the counter-offensive in the Zaporozhye region. According to AFP, the vehicles were destroyed just outside the small town of Orikhiv.

“Of nine vehicles attached to the group’s mechanised infantry unit — not the only one involved in the battle — six were wrecked, three damaged but reparable, and one was unscathed,” AFP reported, adding that a Ukrainian soldier said only “very small progress” was made against the Russian army.

“Who would be happy receiving those orders, ‘Go and take those Russian positions which are well protected’?” a senior officer, who asked not to be identified, said according to AFP.

In early June, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said that in the direction of Zaporozhye, Ukrainian troops consisting of 1,500 fighters and 150 armoured vehicles tried to break through Russian defences but lost up to 350 troops and 30 tanks in two hours. The minister stressed that the Ukrainian brigade was stopped in all zones towardZaporozhye.

With the Ukrainian offensive underway, Kiev has virtually no gains to show. In contrast, images of destroyed Leopard tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles used by Ukrainian troops have circulated on social media. For this reason, several experts have warned about a heavy military defeat for Ukraine and another geopolitical failure for NATO, which again is resorting to intervention in remote territories outside its jurisdiction to achieve its objectives against Russia. 

While the US and its allies have generously provided Ukraine with weapons and military vehicles during the current conflict, Ukrainian forces are institutionally and operationally incapable of successfully absorbing the wide and inconsistent array of equipment and weaponry on the battlefield.

Nonetheless, the US and the UK need Ukraine to launch acounteroffensive as they are the main financiers of Kiev’s escalation but are experiencing growing poverty and economic crises and therefore need to justify to their citizens the vast money sent to Ukraine.

Former Central Intelligence Agency agent and Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, Philip Giraldi, warned that Western media are trying to make it appear that the Ukrainian counter-offensive is succeeding and that Ukraine’s forces are encroaching on Russian positions. In this sense, and despite what is happening on the battlefield, Giraldi stressed that US, UK, and German politicians are obliged to speak positively about the situation in Ukraine.

Despite the rhetoric, images of destroyed M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and German-built Leopard 2A6 tanks abandoned and burning on the Ukrainian battlefield, the harsh truth about the futility of defeating Russia is starting to sink in. The reality is that Ukraine never had the capabilities to achieve its stated goal of piercing Russian defences to sever the land bridge connecting Crimea to Russia proper. 

The Western hope was that Russia would be demoralised by these casualties and accept a negotiated end to the conflict on terms acceptable to Ukraine and its Western allies. Evidently, Ukraine and its allies have failed. 

The genesis of this failure can be attributed to two things.First, the low opinion that Ukraine and its NATO allies had of the combat capabilities of the Russian Army and the forces deployed in the Zaporozhye region, and second, the unrealistic expectations placed on the NATO training and equipment that were provided to Ukrainian forces and assigned to the task of breaking through Russian defences.

It is reasonable to assume that, using intelligence assessments that highlighted perceived command and control weaknesses and low morale among Russian forces, NATO and Ukrainian military planners believed that Russian defences in the Zaporozhye sector would collapse under the weight of a NATO-style assault.

Although fighting in Zaporozhye is not yet over, initial results on the battlefield show that contrary to the expectations of Ukraine and its NATO partners, the Russian military professionally performed their tasks, decisively defeating Ukrainian forces. NATO and Ukraine gambled that Russia lacked the military capability to successfully implement its military doctrine, believing that Russian command teams lacked the necessary communications to coordinate the complex operations needed and that Russian forces — especially those that were recently mobilised — lacked the training and morale to perform well in stressful combat conditions. 

NATO and the Ukrainian high command threw the Ukrainian brigades into the grip of the Russian defensive lines without adequate fire support, thinking that the Russians were unableto maximise their superiority in artillery and air power to neutralise and destroy the forces of Ukrainian attackers before they could generate the momentum expected. Instead, this led to the humiliating loss of most of the US-made M2 Bradley provided to the Ukrainian military for this front. 

 

Poland and Baltic countries could send troops to Ukraine – former NATO chief

Posted on by Leave a comment

Ukraine continues pursuing false hope of NATO membership.

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher

Former NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen told The Guardian on June 7 that a group of countries in the Atlantic Alliance could take individual action and send troops to Ukraine in case member states fail to provide security assurances to Kiev at the NATO summit in Lithuania’s capital Vilnius in July.

Rasmussen said: “If Nato cannot agree on a clear path forward for Ukraine, there is a clear possibility that some countries individually might take action. We know that Poland is very engaged in providing concrete assistance to Ukraine. And I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that Poland would engage even stronger in this context on a national basis and be followed by the Baltic states, maybe including the possibility of troops on the ground.

“I think the Poles would seriously consider going in and assemble a coalition of the willing if Ukraine doesn’t get anything in Vilnius. We shouldn’t underestimate the Polish feelings, the Poles feel that for too long western Europe did not listen to their warnings against the true Russian mentality.”

Rasmussen said security guarantees needed to cover intelligence sharing, Ukraine’s joint training, NATO interoperability, and improved munitions production and weapons supply.

The former NATO chief also noted that some NATO allies might favour security guarantees to avoid a real discussion about Ukraine’s membership aspirations, adding, “They hope that by providing security guarantees, they can avoid this question.”

“I don’t think that is possible. I think the Nato issue will be raised at the summit in Vilnius. I’ve spoken with several eastern European leaders, and there is a group of hardcore, eastern central European allies that want at least a clear path for Ukraine towards Nato membership,” he added.

Despite what Poland and the Baltic states (Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia) want, according to Rasmussen, Ukraine’s accession to the alliance is impossible. Even if Ukraine does not receive the invitation to the NATO summit, it could very well be extended for the summit in Washington next year because, as Rasmussen noted, “Anything less than that would be a disappointment to Ukraine.”

Earlier, the current NATO secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said that Ukraine’s security would be the first issue at the summit in Vilnius. The problem for Ukraine is that complete guarantees are provided only to full members of the bloc.

Ukraine’s application process to join the military bloc accelerated in September last year. However, as White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan later pointed out, such a procedure is ill-timed.

For his part, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stressed that Moscow is monitoring the situation and recalled that Ukraine’s persistence in wanting to join the Atlantic Alliance was one of the reasons for launching the special military operation.

According to Stoltenberg, NATO countries will agree on the intensification of aid to Ukraine and make a significant decision at the upcoming summit. He specified that the alliance members would increase aid to Ukraine with a comprehensive package that would enable the transfer of the armed forces of Ukraine to NATO standards and bring Ukraine closer to the Western military bloc.

Stoltenberg has stressed that Ukraine will not be admitted into the Western military alliance while the war continues, but NATO has prepared a consolation plan for Kiev. The first is the creation of the Ukraine-NATO Council, based on the one that exists with Israel, and the second concerns some steps that will be taken so that Ukraine has the false impression that it is on the cusp of becoming a NATO member.

Ukraine is asking to join the alliance hoping that Article 5, NATO’s mutual defence pact, will be activated immediately and force other countries to go to war with Russia. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of NATO countries, including the US, categorically refuse this. The main exceptions to this line of thinking are the countries Rasmussen believes “would seriously consider […] assembling a coalition of the willing” to fight Russia – Poland and the Baltic countries.

Stoltenberg claims that all allies agree that NATO’s “door remains open,” that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance, and that Russia has no right to veto it. However, the alliance only deceives Kiev by promising to sell its weapons and eventual membership. Therefore, the “open door” is just a false promise that Ukraine has fully believed.

Ukraine’s purpose for the US is to serve as a permanent threat and tension point against Russia. This is why Ukraine will not be accepted into NATO in the foreseeable future , even if Poland and the Baltic countries push for it, as the rest of the member states do not want Article 5 invoked for the sake of Ukraine. 

You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below.  Patreon is gone so now we have Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options.  The new buy me a coffee link is below. 

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

Mainstream propaganda finally admits whitewashing Nazi affiliation of Kiev regime

Posted on by Leave a comment

Astonishingly (although unsurprisingly), the NYT somehow managed to find the “evil hand of Putin” behind all this with claims that “in the short term, that threatens to reinforce Putin’s propaganda and giving fuel to his false claims that Ukraine must be ‘de-Nazified’ — a position that ignores the fact that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish”. 

 

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

The unashamed glorification of Nazism has been the “new normal” in former Ukraine for nearly a decade now. And while even the mainstream propaganda machine has been reporting on it relatively regularly until early 2022, ever since, there’s been a disturbing trend of whitewashing amid attempts to portray the Neo-Nazi junta as some sort of “heroes of the free world”. Worse yet, it was Russia and its leadership that have been openly portrayed as the “new Nazi Germany”. Still, such analogies are quite laughable as it was the other side that has effectively institutionalized celebrating actual Nazis as “national heroes”.

Mainstream propaganda machine flagships such as The New York Times have recently been forced to admit their central role in whitewashing attempts that had long been obvious and known to virtually all independent analysts and media outlets. On June 5, NYT published a surprisingly honest report headlined “Nazi Symbols on Ukraine’s Front Lines Highlight Thorny Issues of History.” This rather unexpected admission comes after years of countless people trying to point out the obvious adoration of Nazi insignia and symbolism among the Neo-Nazi junta forces, particularly the volunteer battalions that have been fighting the Donbass republics since 2014.

The sheer amount of footage, reports and other rather conclusive evidence about this makes anyone thinking otherwise willfully blind and/or ignorant. However, even in this case, the mainstream propaganda machine hadn’t engaged in honest reporting to try and expose (or at least criticize) the Kiev regime forces for what they are, but to complain about the fact that they’re not hiding this well enough. This obviously suggests that the real problem for the political West is the clear lack of PR optics from the Neo-Nazi junta. This is why numerous members of its armed forces are being asked to cover their openly Nazi symbols.

The NYT report expresses frustration over the PR effects of having so many Kiev regime soldiers displaying their Nazi symbols so proudly. However, even in this case, the mainstream propaganda machine is still trying to justify their favorite puppet regime by suggesting that countless photographs and videos of Neo-Nazi junta forces displaying their ideological forefathers’ insignia are merely “unfortunate” or even “misleading”. For instance, the report admits that “in each photograph, Ukrainians in uniform wore patches featuring symbols that were made notorious by Nazi Germany and have since become part of the iconography of far-right hate groups”.

Despite this admission, once again, we can see the obvious whitewashing attempt to imply that the Kiev regime forces have “inadvertently” adopted this from the aforementioned “far-right hate groups” instead from the Wehrmacht or their many European allies. The authors then begrudgingly admit that this has forced mainstream media editors and writers to delete footage of soldiers displaying Nazi insignia. However, even this admission is then wrapped into another layer of propaganda, as the report claims that “the photographs, and their deletions, highlight the Ukrainian military’s complicated relationship with Nazi imagery, a relationship forged under both Soviet and German occupation during World War II”.

Here we see yet another attempt to equate the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany while once again whitewashing the openly Neo-Nazi Kiev regime. Not to mention there’s nothing “complicated” about someone displaying the swastika or insignia of various SS units. Quite the contrary, it’s disturbingly simple to accurately assess the ideological affiliation of soldiers using such symbols. However, the NYT claims these are being displayed “only with some regularity”.

“In November, during a meeting with Times reporters near the front line, a Ukrainian press officer wore a Totenkopf variation made by a company called R3ICH (pronounced “Reich”). He said he did not believe the patch was affiliated with the Nazis. A second press officer present said other journalists had asked soldiers to remove the patch before taking photographs,” the NYT report states.

“But some members of these groups have been fighting Russia since the Kremlin illegally annexed part of the Crimea region of Ukraine in 2014 and are now part of the broader military structure. Some are regarded as national heroes, even as the far-right remains marginalized politically,” the whitewashing continues, with the authors further adding: “The iconography of these groups, including a skull-and-crossbones patch worn by concentration camp guards and a symbol known as the Black Sun, now appears with some regularity on the uniforms of soldiers fighting on the front line, including soldiers who say the imagery symbolizes Ukrainian sovereignty and pride, not Nazism.”

So, once again, unashamed glorification of Nazism is “not really Nazism” because it “symbolizes Ukrainian sovereignty and pride”. Such assertions are an obvious insult to millions of Ukrainians themselves who have been brutally murdered by the Wehrmacht, not to mention the numerous SS units that committed the most heinous war crimes in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, in addition to the rest of Europe. Still, it seems rabid Russophobia “justifies” such policies. The report then states:

“In April, Ukraine’s Defense Ministry posted a photograph on its Twitter account of a soldier wearing a patch featuring a skull and crossbones known as the Totenkopf, or Death’s Head. The specific symbol in the picture was made notorious by a Nazi unit that committed war crimes and guarded concentration camps during World War II… …The patch in the photograph sets the Totenkopf atop a Ukrainian flag with a small No. 6 below. That patch is the official merchandise of Death in June, a British neo-folk band that the Southern Poverty Law Center has said produces ‘hate speech’ that ‘exploits themes and images of fascism and Nazism’.”

Astonishingly (although unsurprisingly), the NYT somehow managed to find the “evil hand of Putin” behind all this with claims that “in the short term, that threatens to reinforce Putin’s propaganda and giving fuel to his false claims that Ukraine must be ‘de-Nazified’ — a position that ignores the fact that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish”. However, the fact that the Neo-Nazi junta frontman is of Jewish ancestry means nothing, as the infamous neoliberal billionaire George Soros, whose role has been instrumental in many Western-backed “color revolutions”, openly admitted that he was collaborating with the Nazis, leading to the deaths of his Jewish compatriots.

You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below.  Patreon is gone so now we have Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options.  The new buy me a coffee link is below. 

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

Preparing to Wage a Nuclear War? Nuclear Attack F-16 Fighters to Ukraine

Posted on by Leave a comment

Nuclear War is on the Drawing Board of the Pentagon. Deploying “Conventional dual-capable and nuclear fighters”

By Manlio Dinucci

Dear Readers, Please forward this important article by Manlio Dinucci. 

The World is at a dangerous crossroads. 

US-NATO is preparing to wage nuclear war. 

***

The United States has begun a training programme for the Ukrainian Air Force in the use of F-16 fighters. Several European NATO countries participate in this programme: Denmark, Holland, Poland, Norway, Belgium, and Portugal. Other countries have offered to help with the training. The same countries will supply Ukraine with F-16 fighters. They are conventional dual-capable and nuclear fighters.

An F-16 aircraft was used in the B61-12 nuclear bomb test firing, which the US is already deploying in Italy, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. Probably, the B61-12 bombs are also supplied by the USA to Poland: Polish F-16 fighters have been participating in NATO nuclear attack exercises since 2014.

Vladimir Kozin – chief expert of the Moscow Political-Military Studies Centre – declares, in an interview on Grandangolo TV programme, that there is a deep suspicion based on precise facts, that US nuclear weapons have also been deployed in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, or could be rapidly sent to their territories and also to that of Poland. 

These countries participate in the “Baltic air patrol“, close to Russian territory, with dual conventional and nuclear capability aircraft. In addition, US strategic bombers, certified to carry nuclear weapons, are engaged in “exercises” over the Baltic Sea and other areas adjacent to Russian territory,

After having unsuccessfully proposed negotiations to the USA and NATO to reduce the risk of a nuclear conflict in Europe, Moscow is deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus in a position close to the US-NATO nuclear bases in Europe in agreement with Minsk. 

To Grandangolo’s question:

“Do the tactical nuclear weapons deployed by Russia in Belarus have a range beyond Poland and therefore constitute a deterrent to US nuclear weapons deployed in Italy and other European countries?”, 

Vladimir Kozin replies: 

“Yes, Russian tactical nuclear weapons that will be deployed in Belarus and possibly in the Kaliningrad region and the Crimean Peninsula can achieve various military objectives in Poland, Italy and many other European NATO member countries.”

The US-NATO escalation against Russia brings Europe ever closer to the threshold of nuclear war. The political-media complex falls a curtain of silence on all this as not to alarm European public opinion and prevent it from reacting.

Original article in Italian https://www.byoblu.com/2023/06/02/allucraina-gli-f-16-da-attacco-nucleare-grandangolo-pangea/

« Older Entries Recent Entries »