Iran's Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei with Masoud Pezeshkian. Photo Credit: Tasnim News Agency
John Kerry, just last week at the World Economic Forum, so clearly blurting out the truth: “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to our ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence”.
Translated: Governing is all about narrative control. Kerry articulates the ‘International Order’s’ solution to the unwelcome phenomenon of an uncontrolled populism and of a potential leader who speaks for the people: Simply, ‘freedom to speak’ is unacceptable to the prescriptions agreed by the ‘inter-agency’ – the institutionalised distillation of the ‘International Order’.
Today’s reality unhinged narration is that Iran’s launch on Tuesday of 200 ballistic missiles – of which 181 reached Israel – were overwhelmingly intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow missile defence systems. and with no deaths to show for the assault. It was “defeated and ineffective”, Biden pronounced.
Will Schryver however, a technical engineer and security commentator, writes: “I don’t understand how anyone who has seen the many video clips of the Iranian missile strikes on Israel cannot recognize and acknowledge that it was a stunning demonstration of Iranian capabilities. Iran’s ballistic missiles smashed through U.S./Israeli air defences and delivered several large-warhead strikes to Israeli military targets”.
The effect and the substance then lies in ‘proven capacity’ – the capacity to select other targets, the capacity to do more. It was in fact a restrained demonstrative exercise, not a full attack.
But the message has been erased from sight.
How is it that the U.S. Administration refuses to look truth in the eye and acknowledge what occurred, and prefers instead to ask the entire world, who saw the videos of missiles impacting in Israel, to ‘move along’ – as the authorities advise, pretending that there was ‘nothing substantive to see here’. Was ‘the affair’ just a nuisance to system governance and ‘consensus’, as Kerry so branded free speech? It seems so.
The structural problem, essayist Aurelienwrites is not simply that the western professional class holds to an ideology – one that is the opposite to how ordinary people experience the world. That certainly is one aspect. But the bigger problem lies rather, with a technocratic conception of politics that is not ‘about’ anything. It is not really politics at all (as Tony Blair once said), but is nihilistic and absent of moral considerations.
Having no real culture of its own, the western professional class views religion as outdated and sees history as dangerous since it contains components that can be misused by ‘extremists’. It prefers therefore not to know history.
This produces the mixture of the conviction of superiority, yet deep insecurity, which typifies western leadership. The ignorance and fear of events and ideas that fall outside the confines of their rigid zeitgeist, they perceive, almost invariably, as innately inimical to their interests. And rather than seek to discuss and understand, that which is outside their capabilities, they use disparagement and character assassination instead to remove the nuisance.
Does this matter?
Yes, it matters, because it makes Iran’s ability to communicate effectively with the International Order’s ideological alignment highly problematic.
The West sought and pressured for a mitigated response from Iran – firstly after Israel’s April assassination of an Iranian General and his colleagues at the Iranian Consulate in Damascus.
Iran obliged. It launched drones and missiles towards Israel on 13 April in such a manner that sent a short (pre-warned) concerted message of capability, yet did not invite all-out war (as requested by the West).
Subsequent to the Israeli assassination of Ismail Haniyeh (a guest of Tehran participating in the inauguration of the new Iranian President), western states once again pleaded with Iran that it should again refrain from any military retaliation against Israel.
The new President has said publicly, that European and American officials offered Iran the removal of substantive sanctions on the Iranian Republic and a guaranteed ceasefire in Gaza in line with Hamas’ terms – if Israel was not attacked.
Iran held fire, accepting to appear weak to the outside world (for which it was harshly criticised). Yet western action shocked the inexperienced new President, Pezeshkian:
“They (the western states) lied”, he said. None of the promises were kept.
Then followed the ‘pager assault’ and assassinations of the Hizbullah leadership, including the iconic figure of its leader, Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, amidst huge civilian collateral deaths. The U.S. Administration (President Biden) said simply that this was ‘justice’ being done.
And once again, the West importuned, and threatened Iran against any retaliation towards Israel. But on this occasion, Iran launched a more effective ballistic missile attack, though one which deliberately omitted targeting Israel’s economic and industrial infrastructure, or the Israeli people, focusing instead on key military and intelligence sites. It was, in short, a demonstrative signal – albeit one with an effective component of inflicting damage on air bases and military and intelligence sites. It was yet again, a limited response.
And for what?
Open sneering from the West that Iran was deterred/ too frightened/ too divided to fully respond. In fact, the U.S. – knowing well that Netanyahu is looking for the pretext for war with Iran – offered Israel full support of the U.S. for a major retribution against Iran: “There will be severe consequences for this attack and we will work with Israel to make that the case”, Jake Sullivan said. “Make no mistake, the United States is fully, fully, fully supportive of Israel”, Biden said.
The ‘professional permanent class’ (the western deep state) eschews any moral underpinning. It makes a virtue of its nihilism. Perhaps the last leader capable of real diplomacy that springs to mind was JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis and in his subsequent dealings with the Soviet leaders. And what happened? … He was killed by the system.
Of course, many are angry in Iran. They ask whether Iran projected weakness too readily, and question whether that manifestation in some way contributed to Israel’s readiness to strike Lebanon so ruthlessly and without limitations, as in the Gaza model. Later reports suggest that the U.S. has new technological intel (not available to Israel) that pinpointed Sayyed Nasrallah’s whereabouts, and was supplied to Israel, which led to his assassination.
If the West insists to so demean Iranian restraint – wrongly attributing restraint to impotence – is the European and U.S. world order ‘uni-party’ ever capable of cold realism? Can they make a sound assessment of the consequences should Israel launch war on Iran? Netanyahu has made it clear that this is the Israeli government’s aim – war with Iran.
Hubristic misperception of an adversary, and the misperception of his hidden strengths, is so often the precursor to wider war (WW1). And Israel is awash with fervour for war to establish its ‘New Order’ for the Middle East.
The Biden Administration is ‘more than willing’ – laying the ‘revolver on the table’ – for Netanyahu to pick it up and discharge it, whilst Washington pretends to stand aloof from the act. Washington’s ultimate target is of course Russia.
That in diplomacy the West is not to be trusted is understood. The story’s moral, however, has wider implications. How exactly, in such circumstances, can Russia bring an end to the Ukraine conflict? It would appear that many more will needlessly die, simply because of the uni-party’s rigidity and its incapacity to ‘do’ diplomacy.
Just as many more Ukrainians have perished since the Istanbul II process was trashed.
The West is in the throes of at least one, potentially two, crushing defeats at the moment – and so the question arises: Will lessons be learned? Can the right lessons be learned? Does the professional world order class even accept that there are lessons to be learned?
Lili News 029
In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.
GARLAND NIXON DISPATCHES: The End of Ukraine, with Scott Ritter, Andrei Martyanov
Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
Garland Nixon
Resize text-+=
IMPENDING DOOM - THE END OF UKRAINE & ISRAEL- SCOTT RITTER AND ANDREI MARTYANOV
Garland Nixon Streamed live on Jul 23, 2024
An in-depth discussion of current conditions in Ukraine and the Middle East with analysts Ritter and Martyanov concluding that both conflicts will end with a huge setback for the US empire, and most shocking to many, with the complete defeat of Ukraine's Neonazi regime, and the beginning of the dissolution of Israel as an Apartheid state. This discussion is quite probably the most important forecast of what the world will likely see in the near future, barring a nuclear Armageddon triggered by a desperate Empire. The second part (Bonus Feature) is Garland's conversation with leading analyst Joti Brar, head of Great Britain's Communist Party, about the US Empire's rapid unraveling due to over-reach, arrogance and the appalling mediocrity of its leadership (which is, in itself, a huge danger to all of humanity).
Bonus Feature
THE FALL OF IMPERIALISM WITH JOTI BRAR - EPISODE 18 - US COMING UNRAVELED
Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
Pepe Escobar
Resize text-+=
So Le Petit Roi in Paris was predictably crushed in the European polls. He has called parliamentary snap elections, dissolving the Assemblée Nationale in an act of blind, puerile revenge on French citizens, de facto attacking French institutional democracy.
That doesn’t mean much anyway, because the lineaments of “liberty, equality, fraternity” have long been usurped by a crass oligarchy.
The second round of these fresh French elections will be on July 7 – nearly coinciding with the British snap elections on July 11, and only a few days before the slow-burning urban catastrophe which will be the Olympics in Paris.
Paris salons are ablaze with intrigue on why the little Rothschild stooge with a Napoleon complex is throwing all his toys out of the pram now because he’s not getting what he wants.
After all what he really craves is to become a “War President” – together with the Cadaver in the White House, Starmer in the UK, Rutte in the Netherlands, the Toxic Medusa von der Lugen in Brussels, Tusk in Poland, without having to answer to the French people.
Bigger things though are in play. Following the – auspicious – game-changing messages to the Global Majority coming out of the St. Petersburg forum last week, anchored on openness and inclusiveness, the BRICS 10 meeting of Foreign Ministers in Nizhny Novgorod carried the baton early this week.
Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed three key points:
“The countries of the Global South no longer want to be dependent on the double standards of the West and its whims.”
“Everyone knows that the BRICS countries already serve as the locomotive of the world economy.”
“We [at the BRICS FMs meeting] stressed the need for consistent efforts to create a new world order, where the equality of independent states will be the key.”
Now compare it with the shrinking G7 meeting later this week in Puglia in southern Italy: the same old song, from a “tough new warning” to Chinese banks (“Don’t do business with Russia or else!”) to vociferous threats against the China-Russia strategic partnership.
As for U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell – the man who invented the defunct “pivot to Asia” during Harpy Hillary Clinton’s tenure in the early 2010s – he had already advanced that Washington will sanction Chinese companies and banks over Beijing’s relations with Russia’s military-industrial complex.
False flags and perfect symmetry
By several metrics, Europe is about to implode/explode not with a bang but an agonizing whimper anytime within the next few months. It’s crucial to remember that the snap elections in France and Britain will also coincide with the NATO summit on July 11 – where Russophobia-fueled warmongering will reach paroxysm.
— 🅰🅸 🅼🅻 🅱🆄🆂🅸🅽🅴🆂🆂 🅶🅰🅼🅴🆂 🅿🅾🅳 (@BusinessGamesAI) March 14, 2024
The fact remains that the only way these “leaders” across NATOstan plus their lowly MI6 agent in a green sweaty T-shirt in Kiev will survive is by manufacturing a casus belli.
October will be too late: too close to the U.S. elections.
So be prepared for the Summer of Living Dangerously.
Meanwhile, The Bear is not exactly hibernating. President Putin, before and during the St. Petersburg forum, elaborated on how “symmetric” Moscow’s response will be to attacks by Kiev using NATOstan missiles – already ongoing.
There are three NATOstan members which are supplying missiles with a range of 350 km and more: U.S., UK and France.
So a “symmetric” response would imply Russia providing Global South nations with advanced weaponry – capable of causing serious damage to nodes of the Empire of Bases.
And here are the top candidates to receive these weapons – as extensively debated not only on Russian TV channels but also in the St. Petersburg forum corridors.
Central, Northeast, Southeast Asia: Afghanistan, Myanmar (these two were present in St. Petersburg) and North Korea.
Latin America: Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua (just look at the current Russian foray in the Caribbean).
Africa: Central African Republic, Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Southern Sudan and Zimbabwe (just look at Lavrov’s recent African tour).
Mr. Zircon says hello
And that brings us the jolly matter of a Russian naval force hangin’ out in the Caribbean, headed by the hypersonic missile-armed frigate Admiral Gorshkov and the Kazan nuclear submarine.
The indispensable Andrei Martyanov has noted how the Gorshkov “carries 32 Onyx, Zircon, Kalibrs and Otvet. These are the most advanced and deadly cruise missiles in history, with a serious combat pedigree. Kazan, which is Yasen-class SSGN carries also 32 VLS and, in addition, has 10 torpedo tubes which can shoot not just torpedoes.”
Well, this naval force is obviously not there to launch WWIII. Martyanov explains that “while both can strike all of the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. and Canada, they are there not for that reason. God forbid if it comes to real WWIII there are plenty of Bulavas, Avangards, Sarmats and Yarses to deal with this horrifying business. No, both Gorshkov and Kazan are there to show that they can reach any combat ship or strategic sea lift vessel carrying any military combat set from North America to Europe in case of some nutjob deciding to try to survive a conventional war with Russia in 404.”
What’s even more intriguing is that after spending time in Havana, the naval force will remain in the Caribbean for a series of exercises – and will be joined by other Russian Navy vessels. They will remain in these waters until the end of The Summer of Living Dangerously. Just in case some nutjob has fancy ideas.
Meanwhile, the possible escalation towards Hot War in Europe proceeds unabated, with NATO via its epileptic slab of Norwegian wood radically changing the established rules of proxy wars with one nonsense outburst after another.
The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) are already capable, via NATO, to destroy both military and civilian Russian assets – oil storage, airports, energy facilities, railway junctions, even concentration of troops.
Everyone and his neighbor will be waiting for the “symmetric” responses.
For all practical purposes the crucial decision has been made by the rarified plutocracy which really runs the show: force Europe into war on Russia. That’s the rationale behind all the rhetorical kabuki about a “military Schengen” and a New Iron Curtain from the Arctic through the Baltic chihuahuas all the way to rabid Poland.
The plutocracy actually believes that afterwards they can buy the whole thing for a pittance while flies are still laying eggs in radioactive European carcasses.
Lili News 029
In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.
Should Vladimir Putin Call His Shot on a NATO Brushback Pitch? • 24m
Whether or not it actually happened, the story of Babe Ruth’s famous “called shot” in Game 3 of the 1932 World Series has become one of the great legends of baseball’s Golden Age.
The Chicago Cubs fans in Wrigley Field had been relentlessly hectoring the renowned Yankee slugger and the cat-calls and insults intensified as he came to bat in the fifth inning with the score tied 4-4, especially after he took a first strike. At that point, the Bambino raised his hand, pointed to the bleachers, then hit the next pitch as a towering home run to deep center field, the same spot he had just indicated. Or at least so goes the legend. Details aside, that homer helped the Yankees win the game, eventually leading to their 4-0 sweep of the entire series, and Ruth later included the tale as a centerpiece of his 1948 autobiography.
Calling your shot before you take it seems a very effective means of intimidating your opponents by demonstrating your effortless superiority. So perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin should consider doing something similar in his current confrontation with NATO over the Ukraine war.
As everyone knows, the Western mainstream media has spent more than two years demonizing Russia and its president following the February 2022 outbreak of the Ukraine war, with Putin having become the most reviled world leader since Adolf Hitler more than three generations ago. And although Russia’s military attack only came after many years of the most extreme military and political provocations by America and its NATO allies, our astonishingly dishonest media outlets have uniformly plastered the word “unprovoked” on all their accounts of the conflict.
Prof. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago ranks as one of our most distinguished political scientists and his 2016 lecture on those Western provocations and the major risks of a future war has now been viewed some 29 million times on YouTube, quite possibly more than any other academic lecture in the history of the Internet.
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University spent decades as an important economic advisor to Russia, Ukraine, and other countries in the region, making him a direct eyewitness to many of the important developments responsible for the conflict. He recently provided his first-hand account in a two-and-a-half hour interview with Tucker Carlson. The Tweet containing that interview has already been viewed more than 6 million times and I would highly recommend watching the entire segment, either on that platform or on YouTube:
Despite their enormous scholarly credentials and their deep knowledge of the issues, both these leading academics have been almost completely banned from our rabidly anti-Russian mainstream media outlets. In past generations they would have quickly disappeared from the public discussion, preventing any concerned citizens here or elsewhere from getting both sides of the story. But fortunately, the growth of the Internet and its video platforms have now begun to partially level the skewed playing field, reducing the power of the media gatekeepers to prevent the dissemination of important information.
As an example, over the last year or two both these individuals have become regular weekly interview guests on the popular podcast channel of Judge Andrew Napolitano, reaching an audience easily comparable to that of various cable news shows on network television. They have been joined by numerous other experts and analysts, equally blacklisted by mainstream outlets. These latter individuals include Ray McGovern, who spent 27 years as a leading CIA analyst, rising to become head of the Soviet policy group and serving as the morning intelligence briefer for a half-dozen American presidents. Col. Douglas Macgregor has been an influential military analyst and an advisor to our Secretary of Defense, while Col. Larry Wilkinson was the long-time chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Dr. Philip Giraldi, Larry Johnson, and Scott Ritter are experienced former CIA officers and military experts, Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat and senior MI6 officer, while Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté are young Jewish progressives who have published award-winning journalism on the Middle East conflict. Despite having such a wide variety of different backgrounds and ideological orientations, all these individuals generally find themselves in strong agreement on the extremely dangerous nature of the current NATO confrontation with Russia over Ukraine.
During the last week or two, their concerns reached new heights as Ukrainian drones attacked and damaged several of Russia’s early warning radar installations intended to detect incoming nuclear missiles. These attacks may have seriously degraded Moscow’s ability to spot an American first-strike, possibly lowering that country’s own threshold for triggering a nuclear response, an exceptionally dangerous and destabilizing situation. A recent Mike Whitney column discussed these important developments:
Mike Whitney • The Unz Review • May 26, 2024 • 1,100 Words
Prof. Sachs is an extremely level-headed academic, who has spent his long career working closely with top political figures in America and across the rest of the world. But in his Thursday interview, he sounded the alarm, declaring the unprecedented danger from this attempt to blind Russia to a potential nuclear first strike. He felt these were acts of madness by Western governments that had raised the threat of nuclear war to the highest level since the end of World War II, but our ignorant and oblivious leaders seemed entirely unaware of the perilous nature of this situation.
Then late last week, Politico reported that President Joseph Biden had secretly agreed to allow the missiles we were providing Ukraine to be used in deep strikes against Russian territory, multiplying these dangers. It also appears likely that any actual Ukrainian involvement in use of these advanced missile systems is relatively minimal, with their control and targeting remaining in the hands of American or other NATO personnel. Another Mike Whitney column a couple of days ago usefully summarized these crucial facts:
1. The long-range precision weapons (missiles) are provided by NATO countries
2. The long-range precision weapons are manned by experts or contractors from the country of origin
3. The long-range precision weapons must be linked to space reconnaissance data provide by the US or NATO
4. The targets in Russia are also provided by space reconnaissance data provide by the US or NATO
The point that Putin is trying to make is that the long-range missiles are made by NATO, furnished by NATO, operated and launched by NATO contractors, whose targets are selected by NATO experts using space reconnaissance data provided by NATO. In every respect, the prospective firing of long-range precision weapons at targets in Russia, is a NATO-US operation. Thus, there should be no confusion about who is responsible. NATO is responsible which means that NATO is effectively declaring war on Russia. Putin’s lengthy comments merely underscore this critical point.
Thus, NATO is on the verge of firing a barrage of advanced missiles deep into Russian territory, an obvious act of war against a country possessing an arsenal of some six thousand strategic nuclear warheads, a decision of extraordinary recklessness. The leaders of some NATO members have even explicitly declared that they believe that Russia must be destroyed, exceptionally provocative public statements.
Unlike his Western counterparts, President Putin certainly recognizes the extreme gravity of this situation and Whitney quoted the threatening remarks he made at a press conference in Tashkent:
So, these officials from NATO countries, especially the ones based in Europe, particularly in small European countries, should be fully aware of what is at stake. They should keep in mind that theirs are small and densely populated countries, which is a factor to reckon with before they start talking about striking deep into the Russian territory. It is a serious matter and, without a doubt, we are watching this very carefully.
The Russians have also expressed considerable alarm that Ukrainian forces may soon be bolstered by the addition of Western F-16s. Those aircraft are nuclear-weapons capable, and the Russians have indicated that they may be forced to assume that they are so armed.
Version 1.0.0
Thus, both America and its NATO vassals seem to be sleepwalking into a potential Third World War fought with strategic nuclear weapons. This recalls the extreme hubris of their European political predecessors more than a century ago who led their continent into the First World War.
The main focus of Whitney’s most recent column was to argue that President Putin needed to take some sufficiently strong public steps to awaken the Western leaders from their slumber and force them to recognize the terrible dangers that they and the rest of the world faced, perhaps causing them to abandon their extremely dangerous and reckless behavior. Put in baseball terms, he believed that Russia needed to throw t he sort of “brushback pitch” intended to intimidate a batter.
Mike Whitney • The Unz Review • May 31, 2024 • 1,900 Words
This suggestion seems a very reasonable one. So the issue now becomes what sort of Russian action would be most advisable.
NATO troops may soon be firing NATO missiles guided by NATO reconnaissance data against military targets deep within Russia so there remains only the thinnest of Ukrainian fig-leafs to camouflage what is actually taking place. Hence the Russians should take forceful steps to convince NATO that such actions are totally unacceptable and must be stopped. However, any such Russian military response should be carefully calibrated to thread the needle, neither being so mild that it fails to bring American and NATO leaders to their senses nor so severe that it risks triggering a direct, full-scale war with NATO, with such a war probably being the intended goal of those provocations.
If such deep strikes into Russia take place, the Russians could target the firing locations in Ukraine with retaliatory missile attacks, perhaps killing some of the NATO servicemen responsible, professionals who had been “sheep dipped” and deployed there under the guise of being independent contractors or trainers. However, Russia has already done this in the past, and there are credible claims that substantial numbers of such NATO personnel have already died in Ukraine with no evidence that such losses had deterred escalating NATO provocations. The same problem applies if Russia merely intensified its bombardment of Ukrainian command and control facilities or critical infrastructure. Both America and NATO political leaders seem to have ignored such Russian responses in the past and would probably continue to do so.
Recognizing this problem, the Russians have begun raising the temperature. A couple of weeks ago, Russia publicized an important training drill for their potential use of tactical nuclear weapons and this produced a great deal of coverage in the global media. But it seemed to have had little impact upon Western leaders, who are probably very skeptical that the Russians would actually break the seven-decade-long nuclear taboo by resorting to first use of such destructive weapons. So any Russian use seems unlikely and if it did occur, there might be a serious risk of nuclear escalation. Therefore, I think that any Russian threats or actual use of battlefield nuclear weapons would be very ill-advised.
But I think that an even stronger reason for the Russians to avoid focusing on their nuclear arsenal is that their superiority is actually considerably greater on the conventional level. Over the last few years, the Russians have deployed a full suite of powerful hypersonic missiles, an important weapons system that the Americans have so far been unable to match. From everything I’ve read, these hypersonic delivery systems are almost unstoppable by any existing American or NATO defenses, which currently gives the Russians escalation-dominance on the conventional level. So the question is how the Russians can best exploit this existing advantage and force NATO to back down without risking a wider war.
During the last two years, anti-shipping missiles fired from Ukraine but presumably supplied and guided by NATO forces have inflicted very serious losses upon Russia’s Black Sea fleet, sinking or severely damaging a number of its major vessels. But turnabout is fair play and America’s geopolitical and military power is far more heavily dependent upon its own naval forces. Most analysts believe that our carrier fleet would be sitting ducks for Russian missiles, especially hypersonic ones. The loss of one or more of our carriers would have devastating impact upon American military credibility, and if taken seriously, Russian threats along such lines might force American leaders to change their Ukraine policy. But the arrogant Americans may stubbornly believe that their anti-missile defenses are capable of handling such a threat, while any successful attack against an American carrier battle-group might easily kill many thousands of Americans, leading to all-out war. So this should remain a last option.
The Russians have given strong hints that if their own bases deep inside Russia are attacked by NATO missiles, they might very well retaliate against NATO military installations in countries such as Poland. But any such attacks, especially if they involved heavy casualties, might once again trigger a full-scale NATO war with Russia under Article Five of the NATO Charter. Indeed, this is probably the exact goal of many Ukrainian and NATO leaders who have realized that the current war is lost but believe they can still achieve success by broadening it into a much wider conflict. So by taking such action, Russia might be falling into a NATO trap.
Since most of these other options seem so unsatisfactory, I think the best solution to this dilemma is for the Russians to take a page from the playbook of their Iranian allies.
A few weeks ago, the Israelis violated international law by launching an unprecedented bombing attack against an Iranian embassy building in Damascus, killing several top Iranian generals. This was merely the latest in a long series of such Israeli assassinations obviously intended to provoke the sort of heavy Iranian military response that could be used to draw in America, leading to a wider regional war and perhaps resulting in Iran’s destruction.
However, the Iranians shrewdly refused to take the bait and instead retaliated by bombarding very heavily-defended Israeli military bases with a huge salvo of some 300 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, but first providing several days of advance warning. Although the resulting full mobilization of American, British, and Israeli air defenses destroyed the overwhelming majority of the attacking units, quite a number still got through and inflicted serious damage on the installations, but without killing a single Israeli serviceman.
This Iranian attack had been skewed towards their older systems and only represented one or two percent of the country’s enormous arsenal. Therefore, it proved that even under the best of circumstances, Israel was entirely vulnerable to Iranian military retaliation. This demonstrated that Iran had achieved conventional escalation-dominance and military superiority over Israel, so the latter responded with only the most feeble and face-saving pinprick retaliation. Alastair Crooke described the enormous impact these developments had upon the Middle East strategic landscape:
Now suppose that NATO missiles based in Ukraine struck deep within Russia against important military targets, perhaps inflicting considerable casualties or loss of important equipment. The Russian government could publicly declare that since those missiles had been supplied, aimed, and controlled by NATO personnel, NATO had obviously become a co-belligerent and they would directly retaliate against that organization.
They could then announce that such retaliation would take the form of a hypersonic missile strike destroying the NATO headquarters building in Brussels, Belgium, with the attack scheduled for 12 Noon in two days’ time. That sort of advance warning would attract enormous international media coverage while allowing NATO plenty of time to fully evacuate that building and those nearby and also deploy a large number of its best anti-missile systems to defend the facility. Therefore, assuming that the multi-missile strike still succeeded in totally leveling the NATO HQ, the result would be few if any human casualties and a simultaneous demonstration that Russian hypersonics were unstoppable by any NATO defenses.
NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium
The Russians could then announce that their next retaliatory strikes would sink several of our aircraft carriers, a warning that American military leaders would now be forced to take very seriously.
Under such circumstances, both the political leaders and electorates of the West might draw some important conclusions from that very high-profile military demonstration. If despite such considerable advance warning, NATO still proved completely unable to defend its own headquarters from total destruction in a Russian attack, the perceived value of that military alliance would crumble, perhaps causing it to dissolve, as should have happened after the end of the Cold War more than thirty years ago.
It would also be difficult for Western media outlets to continue demonizing a Russian government that had gone to such great lengths to minimize any human casualties, while the extreme effectiveness of Russian hypersonics would have been proven by the wreckage and craters suddenly appearing in the heart of Brussels. Taken together, this would constitute a velvet glove on an iron fist.
Many Americans might ask themselves why they were annually spending a trillion dollars on their military if our defense contractors were unable to produce hypersonic weapons or to successfully defend against those produced by the Russians.
And American political and military leaders would probably recognize that if despite such advance warning they were unable to defend their own NATO headquarters from destruction, our aircraft carriers would have little hope of surviving a Russian attack. Our country’s global power-projection relies very heavily upon these carriers, whose military credibility supports our inflated US dollar. If several of those carriers were easily sunk, that credibility would be lost, probably causing a collapse in the dollar. Our ruling political regime might collapse along with it, much like the Japanese victory in 1905 had triggered a revolution in Czarist Russia.
More than three decades ago, the mighty Soviet Union crumbled and dissolved with almost no bloodshed. Under the right circumstances, I think that the Russian destruction of the NATO headquarters building might lead to an equally bloodless and long overdue dissolution of that military alliance.
Finally, on a somewhat different matter, tomorrow marks the 35th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, in which hundreds or even thousands of peaceful pro-democracy student protests were supposedly slaughtered by Chinese troops, a watershed event in China’s relations with the West. Last month I published an article pointing that the alleged massacre had almost certainly never happened and was merely a hoax long maintained by the Western media:
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • May 13, 2024 • 8,700 Words
Given our sharp current conflict with China, it will be interesting to see how the media covers that story. Several days ago, the Wall Street Journal already began running articles in commemoration, with their content and tone indicated by this lead sentence in one of them:
On its 35th anniversary, the 1989 massacre of unarmed protestors in Tiananmen Square remains such a source of embarrassment to the Chinese government that public acknowledgement of the event still faces automatic censorship.
I wonder how long our media will continue to maintain this historical fraud.
President Putin’s press conference on Wednesday in Uzbekistan might have been the most unusual and extraordinary event in his 24-year political career. After addressing the Constitutional issues surrounding Ukrainian President Zelensky’s decision to remain in office beyond his four-year term, Putin delivered a brief but disturbing statement on NATO’s plan to fire long-range weapons at targets inside Russia. Putin made it clear that Russia would respond to these attacks and that the countries that provided the weapons systems would be held responsible. He also gave a very detailed description of how the systems work and how they require contractors from the country-of-origin be directly involved in their operation. What is so remarkable about Putin’s comments is not the fact that they bring the world closer to a direct confrontation between nuclear-armed adversaries, but that he had to remind political leaders in the West that Russia is not going to sit back and be their punching bag. Here’s part of what Putin said:
With regard to the strikes, frankly, I am not sure what the NATO Secretary General is talking about. When he was the Prime Minister of Norway, (we had good relations) and I am positive he was not suffering from dementia back then. If he is talking about potentially attacking Russia’s territory with long-range precision weapons, he, as a person who heads a military-political organisation, even though he is a civilian like me, should be aware of the fact that long-range precision weapons cannot be used without space-based reconnaissance. This is my first point.
My second point is that the final target selection and what is known as launch mission can only be made by highly skilled specialists who rely on this reconnaissance data, technical reconnaissance data. For some attack systems, such as Storm Shadow, these launch missions can be put in automatically, without the need to use Ukrainian military. Who does it? Those who manufacture and those who allegedly supply these attack systems to Ukraine do. This can and does happen without the participation of the Ukrainian military. Launching other systems, such as ATACMS, for example, also relies on space reconnaissance data, targets are identified and automatically communicated to the relevant crews that may not even realise what exactly they are putting in. A crew, maybe even a Ukrainian crew, then puts in the corresponding launch mission. However, the mission is put together by representatives of NATO countries, not the Ukrainian military. Putin Presser in Uzbekistan, Kremlin
Let’s summarize:
The long-range precision weapons (missiles) are provided by NATO countries
The long-range precision weapons are manned by experts or contractors from the country of origin
The long-range precision weapons must be linked to space reconnaissance data provide by the US or NATO
The targets in Russia are also provided by space reconnaissance data provide by the US or NATO
The point that Putin is trying to make is that the long-range missiles are made by NATO, furnished by NATO, operated and launched by NATO contractors, whose targets are selected by NATO experts using space reconnaissance data provided by NATO. In every respect, the prospective firing of long-range precision weapons at targets in Russia, is a NATO-US operation. Thus, there should be no confusion about who is responsible. NATO is responsible which means that NATO is effectively declaring war on Russia. Putin’s lengthy comments merely underscore this critical point. Here’s more from Putin:
So, these officials from NATO countries, especially the ones based in Europe, particularly in small European countries, should be fully aware of what is at stake. They should keep in mind that theirs are small and densely populated countries, which is a factor to reckon with before they start talking about striking deep into the Russian territory. It is a serious matter and, without a doubt, we are watching this very carefully. Putin Presser in Uzbekistan, Kremlin
Vladimir Putin Threatens ‘All-Out War’ if Ukraine Uses Western Weapons to Hit Russia — as Volodymyr Zelensky Asks Allies for Their Permission, MSN.com
Why is Putin again threatening a nuclear war?, The Interpreter
Putin warns the West: Russia is ready for nuclear war, Reuters
TYRANT’S THREAT: Vladimir Putin threatens all-out war if Ukraine uses Western weapons to hit Russia, The Sun
(and the best of all) Time to Call Putin’s Bluff, CNN
If it is, it is a uniquely risky strategy. But there is a grain of truth to what they say. After all, Putin is warning that any attack on Russia will trigger an immediate and ferocious retaliatory strike. And he is advising the leaders of ‘small, densely populated NATO countries’ to consider how a nuclear attack by Russia might impact their prospects for the future. Would they really put their entire civilization at risk to find out whether Putin is bluffing or not? Here’s Putin again:
Look at what your Western colleagues are reporting. No one is talking about shelling Belgorod (in Russia) or other adjacent territories. The only thing they are talking about is Russia opening a new front and attacking Kharkov. Not a word. Why is that? They did it with their own hands. Well, let them reap the fruits of their ingenuity. The same thing can happen in case the long-range precision weapons which you asked about is used.
More broadly, this unending escalation can lead to serious consequences. If Europe were to face those serious consequences, what will the United States do, considering our strategic arms parity? It is hard to tell. Putin Presser in Uzbekistan, Kremlin
Putin seems genuinely mystified by the West’s behavior. Do US and NATO leaders really think they can attack Russia with long-range missiles and Russia won’t respond? Do they really think their ridiculous propaganda can impact the outcome of a clash between two nuclear-armed superpowers? What are they thinking or ARE they thinking? We don’t know. We seem to have entered ‘uncharted stupidity’ where desperation and ignorance converge to create a foreign policy that is utter madness. This is from an article at Tass News Service:
NATO countries that have approved strikes with their weapons on Russian territory should be aware that their equipment and specialists will be destroyed not only in Ukraine, but also at any point from where Russian territory is attacked, the Russian Security Council’s Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev said on his Telegram channel, noting that the participation of NATO specialists could be seen as a casus belli.
“All their military equipment and specialists fighting against us will be destroyed both on the territory of former Ukraine and on the territory of other countries, should strikes be carried out from there against Russian territory,” Medvedev warned.
He added that Moscow proceeded from the fact that all long-range weapons supplied to Ukraine were already “directly operated by servicemen from NATO countries”, which is tantamount to participation in the war against Russia and a reason to start combat operations. NATO weapons to be hit in any country from where Russia may be attacked — Medvedev, Tass
There it is in black and white. Where Putin chose to take the diplomatic approach, Medvedev opted for the hammer-blow. ‘If you attack Russia, we will bomb you back to the Stone Age.’ Not much wiggle-room there. But perhaps clarity is what’s needed for people who do not understand the potential consequences of their actions. In any event, no one in Washington or Brussels can say they weren’t warned.
We cannot exclude the possibility that Washington actually wants to expand the war despite the fact that cities across Eastern Europe could be incinerated in the process. It could be that beltway warhawks see a broader conflict as the only way to achieve their geopolitical ambitions. Putin knows that this is a real possibility, just as he knows that there is a sizable constituency in Washington that support the use of nuclear weapons. This might explain why he is proceeding so cautiously, because he knows there are crazies within the US establishment who look forward to a clash with their old rival Russia so they can implement their pet-theories about “usable” nukes for tactical advantage. Here’s Putin:
The United States has a theory of a ‘preventive strike’…Now they are developing a system for a ‘disarming strike’. What does that mean? It means striking at control centres with modern high-tech weapons to destroy the opponent’s ability to counterattack.
And hasn’t the US (via its Nuclear Posture Review) rebranded the offensive use of nuclear weapons as a justifiable act of defense?
It has.
And doesn’t this revision provide US warhawks with the institutional framework needed to launch a nuclear attack without fear of legal prosecution?
It does.
And haven’t these same warhawks developed their respective theories on “first-strike”, “preemption” and “disarming strike” in order to lay the groundwork for a first-strike nuclear attack on a geopolitical rival of Washington?
They have.
And doesn’t US Nuclear Doctrine state that nuclear weapons can be used “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”
It does.
And does that definition include economic rivals like China?
Yes.
And is that a defense of a “first strike” nuclear weapon attack?
It is.
And does that mean that the United States no longer regards its nuclear arsenal as purely defensive but as an essential instrument for preserving the “rules-based order”?
Yes, it does.
And does Putin know that there are powerful actors in the political establishment and deep state who would like to see the taboo on nuclear weapons lifted so they can be used in more situations and with greater frequency?
He does.
And does he know that Washington regards Russia and China as the primary threats to US global hegemony and the “rules-based order”?
Yes.
And does he realize that if the US implements its first-strike policy Russia may not have the time to retaliate?
He does.
And does Putin realize that foreign policy analysts regard him as a restrained and reasonable man who may not pull the trigger or respond promptly when Russia faces a preemptive attack that will inflict the strategic defeat on Moscow the West seeks?
No, he doesn’t. He still thinks that possessing a large cache of nuclear weapons will deter US aggression. But a large cache of nuclear weapons is no deterrent when your opponent is convinced you won’t use them.
Sometimes being reasonable is not the best way to fend off an adversary. Sometimes you have to be a little crazy.
That’s a lesson Putin needs to learn. Fast.
Lili News 029
In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.
Things to keep in mind...
Neo-Nazi ideology has become one of the main protagonists of political and social life in Ukraine since the 2014 coup d'état. Meanwhile, fascist ideology and blatant lies also permeate the consciousness of most people in the West. Those in the comfortable top 10%, the "PMCs" (Professional Managerial Class), are especially vulnerable. They support and disseminate such ideas. They are the executors of the actual ruling class' orders, those in the 0.001%, who remain largely invisible. The PMCs are the political class, the media whores, the top military brass, some people in academia, and the "national security/foreign policy" industry honchos. Push back against these unethical, contaminated people with the truth while you can.
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.
Since the overpaid media shills will never risk their careers to report the truth, the world must rely on citizen journalists to provide the facts that explain reality.
Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted. DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… PLEASE send what you can today! JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW
Salome Zourabichvili with Pelosi. The proud desdendant of an old Georgian gusano family, she might soon conveniently become a US citizen, too.
GEORGIA ON MY MIND
18 May 2024
Yes, I will post Ray Charles, but I am not thinking about Ray’s Georgia. Nope. I am thinking about the frantic Western effort to launch a color revolution in Georgia, because that country’s legislature has the audacity to believe that domestic political groups should report if they are receiving at least 20% of their funding from foreigners. This is just one more example of the stinking hypocrisy I described in my previous article.
The spectacle unfolding in Tbilisi is reminiscent of a Monty Python skit, only this one includes real violence and bloodshed. We have seen the Foreign Ministers of Lithuania, Estonia and Iceland show up in Tbilisi and join the protests, by giving speeches to seething crowds, denouncing the actions of the Georgian legislature. Can you imagine the freakout in Washington if Russia’s Lavrov, China’s Wang Yi, and Hungary’s Szijjártó showed up at a Trump rally to denounce Biden’s policy in Ukraine? Exactly. The United States would not tolerate that shit for one minute. Talk about double standards.
Salome with the EU's Charles Michel. EU meddlers are welcome.
Then you have the Georgian President, who was born in France and is a French citizen. Salome Zourabichvili, if she had the same pedigree (i.e., born in France but granted U.S. citizenship) in the United States, she would be banned by the Constitution from serving as President. Yet, here she is, [ethnically Georgian 100%] shamelessly promoting foreign interests over those of the people she was elected to serve. And the majority of the European governments, as well as the Biden Administration, are vowing to impose sanctions if the legislature dares to override Zourabichvili’s veto.
It may be that the West, stupidly in my view, sees this as a baited trap to lure Russia to intervene if the color revolution picks up steam. I believe that Russia, in light of its failure to respond to the Maidan revolution in 2014, is not going to sit passively and see how things work out. At a minimum, Russia’s intelligence service is probably passing information to its intelligence counterparts in Tbilisi about the identities of foreign operators working to manufacture chaos and the source of the funds pouring into Georgia.
The obsession* of the West to meddle in other governments and foment regime change must end. I think Russia and China, as a result of their latest summit, are committed to achieving that goal. The weaker nations of the world, especially in the Global South, are awakened to this threat. That’s one of the reasons that the nations in the African Sahel have given the French and the United States the boot. I personally hope that marks the beginning of a welcome turn in world affairs.
* It's actually not an obsession, Larry. It's worse than that. It's merely the ineluctable course followed by all imperialist nations, and the US is the Summum malum of all imperialisms.
SELECT COMMENTS
Michael56
3 days ago
Angelo Giuliano put an interesting post on Twitter/X about her:
“She started as French ambassador to Georgia. She became president of Georgia after getting Georgian passport… seriously.
Meet Georgian president Salome Zourabichvili – Born French citizen, later she got her Georgian citizenship – She previously worked in NATO Brussels. – Worked at French Embassy in Washington – She is an ex-student of Zbigniew Brzezinski – She worked as Foreign minister for US/EU agent Mikheil Saakashvili.
She is clearly a foreign agent acting now as Georgian president.
Now you know why she wants to veto the “foreign agent bill”
I don’t think foreign interference gets more blatant than that.
It shows that when you control the media and you can inject millions of USD into a relatively poor country it is easy to capture people who are struggling to survive. They see these phony groups and associations saying IF only you become EU or NATO you will become wealthy. Yes, it is a pipe dream but they fall for it every single time. The US has done this over and over, even though it is a bankrupt country and more of its own people live in poverty than in many of the countries who fall for the trap.
Generally true but with the present Georgian relationship with Russia Georgia’s economy is booming. This may be poorly understood by the protesters or perhaps buying rioters with Western dollars is just too tempting, but as in the past joining with the West was not a pleasant history as Russians were being shelled in the south.and Russia did react. It will be proactive again.
They should hang her. In public. Then bury the body in an unmarked grave.
Victor 3 days ago
The fact that the USA, UK, Australia and others (the EU is currently considering such a law, along with its hypocritical total ban on Russian media in Europe) all have exactly the same laws in place requiring foreign agent registration just highlights the incredible hypocrisy at work here.
Julianne
3 days ago
The Georgian government backed by Russia will do what China did with HK unrest fomented by the West. Allow it to run to gain maximum information about the dissident forces and then crack down on it…. conclusively. If the West wants a tide of Georgian refugees it can give them passports and take them in…. Or send them where the West needs bodies- on the Russian front. They can fight and die gloriously for their ideals.
There are not going to be any more pushover revolutions.
Winchcombe
3 days ago
Larry you are absolutely right to focus on Georgia. It is becoming clear to me that Ukraine is far from the only game in town for our globalist masters. They are determined to take down (or rather over) Russia and pinch its resources and don’t care who they sacrifice in the process. It’s easy to buy up/blackmail/intimidate most Western leaders. If all else fails they will try to kill them (Fico). Rent-a-mobs are also relatively easy to conjure up with the right resources. As for the presstitute media, they are the worst type of lying scum.
When Ukraine has had enough, Georgia, Moldova, and Lithuania (think Kalingrad) are in the wings. Think of a top professional boxer up against inferior sparring partners. Throw enough of them at him, he’ll eventually be beaten. That’s their thinking, I imagine. They are not going to give up until and unless the mugs being thrown into the fight wake up. I hope and pray that the wretched Ukrainian population – at least those that remain – will soon realize they’ve been suckered by their western supposed allies. Ditto the populations of those countries who’ve been impoverished by their deeply corrupt ‘leaders’. The upcoming European elections are critical. I also think Trump’s choice of Vice President is equally important. I fear he’ll be talked into appointing another Establishment shill like Pence was. I fear the UK – my own country – is beyond redemption. (Incidentally, if someone can explain to me why our Indian Prime Minister with his Indian wife and her billionaire father-in-law, will decamp to the US, where he’s already a citizen, the moment he’s booted out of Downing Street), cares so strongly about Ukraine, I would be most grateful? It can’t be money, which easily explains Buffoon Boris)
“We have seen the Foreign Ministers of Lithuania, Estonia and Iceland show up in Tbilisi and join the protests, by giving speeches to seething crowds, denouncing the actions of the Georgian legislature.”
I’d suggest the only “president” that needs to be called is sitting in Columbia University. S/he has a delinquent recidivist in the international “Home Science” department cooking up hate-cookies again. If V. Nuland is not behind this, I’ll eat my hat (figuratively speaking).
Based on the other comments (herein) this Salome Zourabichvili seems like a slippery eel to deal with. She’s unlikely to call for help (from Russia). And the Russians have plenty on their plate to deal with at the moment. But hopefully they act swiftly — as they did in Kazakhstan (2022?) once help was requested. I think one seemingly eternal ongoing “cat playing with a soon to be dead mouse” game in the Ukraine is enough for the public bloodlust moment (neocons exempted).
I agree about not voting as some wag said “it only encourages them”. I haven’t voted in UK national elections for thirty years. Tweedle dum and Tweeedle Dee. Don’t give them legitimacy – not that they care, but true freedom is being able to think for oneself. I’d lay odds that Trump will surround himself with as many Neocons if he’s elected as he did last time, with son-in-law Jared still skulking in the background.
Sounds like it’s time for some counter-riots at the US Embassy. Not to mention arrest, expulsion and lifetime bans of all foreigners involved in the protests. The ‘president,’ herself an obvious foreign agent, should be deported back to France and have her Georgian passport revoked.
Lili News 029
In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.
Things to keep in mind...
Neo-Nazi ideology has become one of the main protagonists of political and social life in Ukraine since the 2014 coup d'état. Meanwhile, fascist ideology and blatant lies also permeate the consciousness of most people in the West. Those in the comfortable top 10%, the "PMCs" (Professional Managerial Class), are especially vulnerable. They support and disseminate such ideas. They are the executors of the actual ruling class' orders, those in the 0.001%, who remain largely invisible. The PMCs are the political class, the media whores, the top military brass, some people in academia, and the "national security/foreign policy" industry honchos. Push back against these unethical, contaminated people with the truth while you can.
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.
Since the overpaid media shills will never risk their careers to report the truth, the world must rely on citizen journalists to provide the facts that explain reality.
Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted. DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… PLEASE send what you can today! JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW
It shows that when you control the media and you can inject millions of USD into a relatively poor country it is easy to capture people who are struggling to survive. They see these phony groups and associations saying IF only you become EU or NATO you will become wealthy. Yes, it is a pipe dream but they fall for it every single time. The US has done this over and over, even though it is a bankrupt country and more of its own people live in poverty than in many of the countries who fall for the trap.