NATO’s 'war against Russia' inches 'closer to direct conflict'

"We are fighting a war against Russia," the German Foreign Minister says, as the US and Germany authorize tank shipments, and new dangers, in the Ukraine proxy war.

https://mate.substack.com/p/natos-war-against-russia-inches-closer

Aaron Maté

Jan 26

Since the first week of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron has repeated a mantra on behalf of his NATO partners: “We are not at war with Russia.”

Nearly one year in, that notion has officially been dispelled.  

“We are fighting a war against Russia,” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said this week.

Baerbock was trying to assuage NATO allies’ frustration over German reluctance to send Leopard 2 tanks into Ukraine. She can now claim vindication. In a reversal of its initial position, the German government has announced it that will deliver Leopard 2 tanks to the Ukrainian army.

To overcome German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s jitters, the White House engaged in an about-face of its own, approving the shipment of 31 US-made M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. Scholz had insisted on conditioning any German tanks to a similar US commitment. Up until this week, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin was “dead set against providing” the M1s, and declared there to be “no linkage between providing M1s and providing Leopards.” Austin had argued that the M1s are too cumbersome for Ukraine, requiring costly jet fuel, heavy maintenance, and lengthy training.

Just last month, a senior US defense official declared that “even one M1 was out of the question,” according to the Washington Post. When used by US troops in Iraq, the M1s were “hard for us to sustain and maintain,” the official noted. For Ukraine, “it would be impossible.” Even last week, senior Pentagon official Colin Kahl dismissed the prospect of sending the “very complicated” M1, because “we should not be providing the Ukrainians systems they can’t repair, they can’t sustain, and that they, over the long term, can’t afford.”

As Gen. Mark Milley learned when he came out in favor of diplomacy with Russia to end the fighting, the Pentagon’s outlook is no match for Washington’s proxy war fever. The White House reversed course, Politico notes, after “a parade of Democrats and Republicans” in Congress “pressured the Biden administration to grant Berlin’s request to send U.S. tanks first.” What the Pentagon “was not taking into enough account,” the New York Times reports, citing a US official, “was the intense fear among European governments of doing anything to provoke Russia without having the cover of the United States doing the same thing first.” When it comes to provoking Russia, the US is undoubtedly first.

When President Biden overruled the Pentagon and unveiled the M1 approval, Austin stood by his side. “These tanks are further evidence of our enduring, unflagging commitment to Ukraine and our confidence in the skill of Ukrainian forces,” Biden declared.

Yet the publicly trumpeted US tank shipment comes with a quietly disclosed delay.

The M1s are “probably not for the near fight,” and in fact “are not likely to arrive for many months, if not years,” a US official told the Washington Post. The M1 tanks’ slow journey, the Post explains, results from plans to have them “ordered from manufacturers, rather than transferred from existing U.S. stocks.” The administration’s bespoke tank orders are undoubtedly a new boon for the already booming US weapons industry, to the detriment of a Ukrainian military that would prefer an expedited delivery.

At this stage, NATO has pledged at least 105 tanks for Ukraine, well short of the 300 tanks that the head of Ukraine’s armed forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, has said are “urgent needs” to turn the tide. Germany aims to have the tanks deployed in Ukraine by the end of March, around the time of an expected Russian spring offensive. But whether the tanks “will arrive in Ukraine for the next phase of the war is uncertain,” the Wall Street Journal notes.

If the tanks’ likely impact on the battlefield is unclear, they do guarantee another ascent up the proxy war’s ever-growing escalation ladder. As Branko Marcetic observes, “the United States and its NATO allies have serially blown past their own self-imposed lines over arms transfers,” which “have now escalated well beyond what governments had worried just months ago could draw the alliance into direct war with Russia.” In an October 2022 interview, Ukraine’s defense minister, Oleksii Reznikov, predicted:

“When I was in D.C. in November [2021], before the invasion, and asked for Stingers, they told me it was impossible. Now it’s possible. When I asked for 155-millimeter guns, the answer was no. HIMARS, no. HARM, no. Now all of that is a yes. Therefore, I’m certain that tomorrow there will be tanks and ATACMS and F-16s.”

Reznikov’s prescience on the tanks could well continue. Just hours after the US and Germany committed tanks, the Ukrainian government began calling for F-16 fighter jets.

The F-16’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, is happy to oblige. Lockheed will be “ramping production on F-16s... to get to the place where we will be able to backfill pretty capably any countries that choose to do third party transfers to help with the current conflict,” Frank St. John, the military giant’s chief contracting officer, told the Financial Times. According to European officials, talks on such transfers are at an “early stage.”

Just as the prospect of diplomacy with Moscow is off-limits to Western policymakers, so is serious consideration of Russia’s response. The more advanced NATO weaponry pours in, the more that Russia will play its part in “permanent escalation”, as Russia’s Berlin embassy described the new tank deliveries. “While it is unclear whether” the German tanks “will make a decisive difference in the spring offensive” planned by Ukraine, the New York Times notes, “it is the latest in a series of gradual escalations that has inched the United States and its NATO allies closer to direct conflict with Russia.”

Whatever the impact of the German tank shipments on the battlefield, their utility is not strictly military. By convincing Germany to send tanks for battle with Russian forces, the White House is advancing a goal that long predates the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine: undermine ties between Germany, Western Europe’s biggest power, and neighboring Russia, the United States’ biggest adversary.

“Germany built its postwar economy on cheap Russian energy,” the New York Times notes. The US-forced cancellation and then US-welcomed (if not planned) bombing of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline took care of Germany’s cheap energy supply from Russia. The new German tank shipment further buries the chance of any possible reconciliation.

“Russia does not threaten America’s global position, but the mere possibility that it might collaborate with Europe and particularly Germany opens up the most significant threat in the decade, a long-term threat that needs to be nipped in the bud,” George Friedman, founder of the private US intelligence firm Stratfor, explained in a 2010 book. Therefore, he concluded, “maintaining a powerful wedge between Germany and Russia is of overwhelming interest to the United States.”

For the US, Friedman added in 2015, “the primordial fear” is “German technology and German capital” combining with “Russian natural resources and Russian manpower” to form “the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States.” In this showdown, the US aims to control “the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea.” Russia, by contrast, “must have at least a neutral Ukraine, not a pro-western Ukraine.” Because a neutral Ukraine would impede the primordial US goal of a Russia-German fissure, the US has opted for a proxy war instead.

Before Scholz caved to their pressure campaign, US officials noted that the German Chancellor “does not believe the world is ready to see German tanks near the borders of Russia, a reminder of the Nazi invasion in World War II,” according to the New York Times. Although the Times no longer allows itself to acknowledge it, there is another fraught historical irony: Germany is now sending tanks to a Ukrainian military that has formally incorporated what the Paper of Record once described as the "openly neo-Nazi" Azov Battalion.

One inconvenience acknowledged by the Times is opinion polling showing that “half of Germans do not want to send tanks,” with their country “profoundly divided about being a military leader and risking a direct confrontation with Russia.” According to German officials, Scholz was also “concerned about ending up with a fleet of almost exclusively German-made tanks being used to fight the Russians in Ukraine, a scenario that could single his country out as a party to the conflict,” the Wall Street Journal adds.

In seeking to force Germany to send its tanks into battle with Russia, the US wants Germany “to draw Russia’s counterfire,” German parliamentarian Sevim Dağdelen writes. “One cannot escape the impression that it is hoped a possible counterstrike would hit Berlin first and foremost. The United States would thus have achieved one of its long-term strategic objectives, namely to prevent cooperation between Germany and Russia forever.” US officials, Dağdelen warns, are “forcing their ally, like a vassal, to sacrifice itself.”

Dağdelen’s characterization of the US use of Germany applies to Ukraine as well. According to Der Spiegel, Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) is “alarmed by the high losses of the Ukrainian army in the battle for the strategically important city of Bakhmut,” where a “three-digit number” of Ukrainian soldiers are losing their lives daily. Russia’s capture of Bakhmut, the BND warns, “would have significant consequences, as it would allow Russia to make further forays into the interior of the country.” Russian advances on Bakhmut follow a 300,000-plus troop mobilization that has “appeared to tilt the calculus of attrition in Moscow’s favor,” the Wall Street Journal notes.

Perhaps the coming influx of NATO tanks will reverse that trend. If not, the proxy war’s NATO architects can point to other victories: Russian forces depleted, Berlin-Moscow ties severed, and US dominance of NATO strengthened. After all, it is mainly Ukrainians paying the price of the “war against Russia” fueled from afar.

The West Is Incentivizing Russia To Hit Back

https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-west-is-incentivizing-russia

Caitlin Johnstone

Jan 26

Well, the omnicidal war sluts won the debate over sending tanks to Ukraine, so now it's time to start arguing for sending F-16s.

In an article titled "Ukraine sets sights on fighter jets after securing tank supplies," Reuters reports the following:

"Ukraine will now push for Western fourth generation fighter jets such as the U.S. F-16 after securing supplies of main battle tanks, an adviser to Ukraine's defense minister said on Wednesday.

Ukraine won a huge boost for its troops as Germany announced plans to provide heavy tanks for Kyiv on Wednesday, ending weeks of diplomatic deadlock on the issue. The United States is poised to make a similar announcement.

Just in time for the good news, Lockheed Martin has announced that the arms manufacturing giant happens to be all set to ramp up production of F-16s should they be needed for shipment to Ukraine.

"Lockheed Martin has said that it’s ready to meet demands for F-16 fighter jets if the US and its allies choose to ship them to Ukraine," Antiwar's Dave DeCamp reports. "So far, the US and its allies have been hesitant to send fighter jets to Ukraine due to concerns that they could be used to target Russian territory. But the Western powers seem less and less concerned about escalation as the US and Germany have now pledged to send their main battle tanks."

The New York Times has a new article out titled "How Biden Reluctantly Agreed to Send Tanks to Ukraine," subtitled "The decision unlocked a flow of heavy arms from Europe and inched the United States and its NATO allies closer to direct conflict with Russia." Its authors David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt and Helene Cooper write:

President Biden’s announcement Wednesday that he would send M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine came after weeks of tense back-channel negotiations with the chancellor of Germany and other European leaders, who insisted that the only way to unlock a flow of heavy European arms was for the United States to send tanks of its own.

His decision, however reluctant, now paves the way for German-made Leopard 2 tanks to be delivered to Ukraine in two or three months, provided by several European nations. While it is unclear whether it will make a decisive difference in the spring offensive that President Volodymyr Zelensky is now planning to take back territory seized by Russia, it is the latest in a series of gradual escalations that have inched the United States and its NATO allies closer to direct conflict with Russia.

When even the myopic empire simps at The New York Times acknowledging that western powers are escalating aggressions in a very dangerous direction, you should probably sit up and pay attention. 

In a recent article for Responsible Statecraft titled "Mission Creep? How the US role in Ukraine has slowly escalated," Branko Marcetic outlines the ways the US empire has "serially blown past their own self-imposed lines over arms transfers," over and over again relenting to war hawks and requests from Ukrainian officials to supply weapons which it had previously refrained from supplying for fear that they would be too escalatory and lead to hot warfare between nuclear superpowers. Marcetic notes the way previously unthinkable aggressions like NATO spy agencies conducting sabotage operations on Russian infrastructure are now accepted, with more escalations being called for as soon as the previous one was made.

Toward the end of his article, Marcetic drives home a very important point that needs more attention: the western alliance has established a policy of continually escalating every time Russia doesn't react forcefully to a previous western escalation, which necessarily means Russia is being actively incentivized to react forcefully to those escalations.

"By escalating their support for Ukraine’s military, the U.S. and NATO have created an incentive structure for Moscow to take a drastic, aggressive step to show the seriousness of its own red lines," Marcetic writes. "This would be dangerous at the best of times, but particularly so when Russian officials are making clear they increasingly view the war as one against NATO as a whole, not merely Ukraine while threatening nuclear response to the alliance’s escalation in weapons deliveries."

"Moscow keeps saying escalatory arms transfers are unacceptable and could mean wider war; US officials say since Moscow hasn't acted on those threats, they can freely escalate. Russia is effectively told it has to escalate to show it's serious about lines," Marcetic added on Twitter.

A good recent example of this dynamic is the recent New York Times report that the Biden administration is considering backing a Ukrainian offensive on Crimea, which many experts agree is one of the most likely ways this conflict could lead to nuclear warfare. The article reports that the Biden administration has assessed that Russia is unlikely to reciprocate an escalatory aggression, but the basis for that assessment apparently comes from nothing other than the fact that Russia hasn't done so yet.

“Crimea has already been hit many times without a massive escalation from the Kremlin," the Times quotes a RAND Corporation think tanker as saying in explanation for the Biden administration's belief that it can get away with backing a Crimea offensive. But as Dave DeCamp explained at the time, that's not even true; Russia did significantly escalate its aggressions in response to strikes on Crimea, beginning to target critical Ukrainian infrastructure in ways it previously had not.

So Russia has in fact been escalating its aggressions in response to attacks on Crimea; it just hasn't been escalating them against NATO powers. As long as Russia is only escalating in ways that hurt Ukrainians, the US-centralized power structure does not regard them as real escalations. The take-home message to Moscow is that they're going to get squeezed harder and harder until they attack NATO itself.

And of course, that won't de-escalate things either; it will be seized on and spun as evidence that Putin is a reckless madman who is attacking the free world completely unprovoked and must be stopped at all cost, even if it means risking nuclear armageddon. Russia would of course be aware of this obvious reality, so the only way it takes the bait is if the pain of not reacting gets to a point where it is perceived as outweighing the pain of reacting. But judging by its actions the empire seems determined to push them to that point.

It really is spooky how much de-escalation and detente have disappeared from public discourse about Russia. People genuinely don't seem to know it's an option. They really do think the only option is continually escalating nuclear brinkmanship, and that anything else is obsequious appeasement. They think that because that's the message they are being fed by the imperial propaganda machine, and they're being fed that message because that is the empire's actual position.

I've been warning about the increasing risk of nuclear armageddon for as long as I've been publicly engaged in political commentary, and people have been calling me a hysterical idiot and a Putin puppet the entire time even as we've moved closer and closer to the exact point I've been screaming about at the top of my lungs all these years. Now there's not a whole lot closer it can get without being directly upon us. I deeply, deeply hope we turn this thing around before it's too late.

Russia Warns of ‘Full-Blown Conflict in Europe’

by Will Porter | Jan 27, 2023

https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/russia-warns-of-full-blown-conflict-in-europe/

The decision by the United States and several allies to supply Ukraine with main battle tanks is paving a “direct path” to a full-scale war in Europe, Russia’s deputy envoy to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) warned.

In a statement issued on Thursday concerning the “dangerous policy of the Western Alliance countries to escalate tensions” in Ukraine, deputy OSCE representative Maxim Buyakevich said foreign arms deliveries to Kiev would only prolong the current conflict, or kick off a larger regional war.

“The leaders of the US and their NATO client states have come close to a red line. Their deliberate actions to escalate the military confrontation in Ukraine – provoking the regime into military action against the Russian population using Western heavy weapons and NATO intelligence – is a direct path to a full-blown military conflict in Europe,” he said, arguing that all people on the continent “definitely stand to lose” from such a war.

The Anglo-Saxon puppeteers of this escalation will not sit on the sidelines this time.

The statement followed an agreement between Washington, Berlin and other European partners to send heavy armor to Ukrainian forces earlier this week, with the US preparing to ship more than 30 M1 Abrams tanks in addition to about a dozen Leopard 2s from Germany and Challenger tanks from the UK.  

While it will take some time before the tanks reach the battlefield, the decision marked a sharp reversal for the US, which had repeatedly declined to send the M1 Abrams in the past. The White House made a similar about-face on the Patriot missile defense battery, one of which was authorized for Kiev last year despite previous refusals.  

Germany, the UK and Poland have said their tanks will arrive in Ukraine in a matter of weeks, but the timeline for the American weapons remains hazy given a large backlog of orders for General Dynamics, which produces the Abrams. Poland currently expects to receive 250 M1A2 tanks, while Taiwan previously ordered 108 units of the same model. Deliveries aren’t expected until 2024 and 2025, however, and the single facility capable of manufacturing the Abrams can produce only 12 units per month. It is unclear, then, how long it will take before Ukraine gets the 31 tanks pledged this week. 

Russia’s OSCE rep went on to say that military aid from Western states only “deepens their involvement in an armed confrontation with Russian troops,” claiming their support is not “pro-Ukrainian,” but rather “anti-Russian.” 

“Their masks have long been thrown off. They are no longer embarrassed to say directly that this is not at all about the struggle for some kind of Ukrainian statehood, but about the promotion of the ‘rules-based world order’ being formed by the West,” Buyakevich continued, citing recent comments by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, who declared that “we are fighting a war against Russia” earlier this week.

Moscow has vowed to “destroy” all NATO weaponry sent to Kiev and said it would respond to Western tank deliveries, with Russian Ambassador to Germany Sergei Nechayev saying the move “takes the conflict to a new level of confrontation.” It remains unclear how Russian forces will react to the decision, though a large round of airstrikes was reported around Ukraine on Thursday, including in its capital city.

 ¿CÓMO SALVAR LA CANDIDATURA DE SHEINBAUM?

Esa es la pregunta diaria que se hace el presidente López Obrador, ante un nuevo estancamiento en las preferencias ciudadanas por su precandidata favorita (la jefa de gobierno de la Ciudad de México), a raíz de los “incidentes atípicos” que han estado sucediendo en el Sistema de Transporte Colectivo Metro (incluido un nuevo accidente con una víctima mortal y varios heridos), que los propagandistas gubernamentales[1] quieren adjudicar a un “complot” de los conservadores y la derecha para descarrilar las aspiraciones presidenciales de la favorita de López Obrador.

Por su parte la oposición (PAN, PRI y PRD), tratan de explotar la ineficiencia del mencionado sistema de transporte y las justificaciones gubernamentales, para debilitar la precandidatura de Claudia Sheinbaum, jefa de gobierno capitalina.

En este contexto, López Obrador está impulsando una serie de reformas legislativas a las instituciones encargadas de organizar las elecciones en el país, con las que dejará literalmente ”en los huesos” a las mismas, Instituto Nacional Electoral (INE) y Tribunal Electoral (TEPJF)[2], devastando hasta el 85% de la estructura de dichos organismos, con el objetivo de que el partido político que concentra la mayoría de gubernaturas y presidencias municipales, el oficialista Morena, cuente con predominio en el terreno sobre sus competidores, puesto que ante la ausencia de autoridades electorales para planear, capacitar personal y organizar las elecciones, serán los gobiernos quienes de facto asuman dicha función, dándole así una clara ventaja al partido en el gobierno.

Para López Obrador y su coalición gobernante, no importa en lo absoluto violar la legislación aún vigente que prohíbe las precampañas presidenciales, pues saben que el que tendría que aplicar las sanciones que impongan el INE y el Tribunal Electoral, es el mismo gobierno federal, y por lo tanto eso no va a suceder.

Hay así una violación cínica y flagrante de la normatividad electoral aún vigente, con claro uso de recursos públicos para favorecer la precandidatura de la favorita presidencial, en espera de que la mayoría oficialista en el Congreso apruebe normas que “legalicen” esas violaciones a la actual legislación; y que esa misma mayoría nombre próximamente a 4 nuevos consejeros electorales que cambien la correlación de fuerzas en el Consejo General del Instituto Nacional Electoral, para desde ahí avalar el uso de recursos públicos para apoyar a la precandidata oficial y para bloquear cualquier intento de sanción contra nuevas posibles violaciones a la legislación electoral.

Con todo ello, la “democracia mexicana” se ha convertido en una farsa, pues todo el poder del Estado está siendo utilizado para que el partido en el poder logre el triunfo en las elecciones federales del 2024, tanto a la presidencia de la República como en la renovación del Congreso de la Unión, sin que la sociedad mexicana pueda detener tan grosera imposición.

---

[1] https://www.jornada.com.mx/2023/01/27/opinion/010a1pol

 

[2] https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/nacional/2023/01/25/plan-b-de-reforma-electoral-ine-prepara-impugnaciones/

 

Ukraine War: Those Who Fail to Call for Negotiations, Fail to Understand the Dangerous Predicament that Faces Our Planet!

U.S. Peace Council
January 25, 2023

At no time since the Cuban missile crisis has our world has been so close to disaster. As the war in Ukraine approaches its first anniversary, it is being increasingly transformed by the Biden administration and the “collective west” into a war between NATO and Russia. The danger of turning into a nuclear confrontation is imminent.

The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a wake-up call in the midst of Cold War, warning just how close a nuclear World War III could be. Unlike today, both sides sought accommodation. They understood that a retreat from war was in their mutual interest. The Anti-Ballistic Missile and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaties, now scrapped, were negotiated.

Back then, an international peace movement with a robust US contingent amplified the demand for a peaceful world. Such voices are much diminished now. Unlike in the past, not a single Democrat in Congress spoke out for peace, leaving the ideological terrain for war virtually uncontested. Particularly unfortunate are the voices, including some in the U.S. “left,” who continue to beat the drums of war by calling for the continuation of war until the victory of Ukraine. That would only mean the victory of NATO in an all-out war with Russia.

Negotiated peace agreements are not based so much on trust as on the mutual understanding that the alternative is in neither side’s interest. Arguing as some on the “left” do that “Putin’s Russia cannot be trusted,” disregards the fact that no negotiation between warring parties has ever been based on trust.

The undeniable reality facing us should make us all aware of the urgency for negotiations and a diplomatic solution to this war.

The war in and around Ukraine must end. There should be no dispute about that. All wars end either with negotiations or with the victory of one side or the other. Given that this war is not merely between Russia and Ukraine but is between Russia and a Western-backed Ukraine, the first option — for victory — is impossible. Neither Russia (a major nuclear power) nor the Western powers (many of them being major nuclear powers) will tolerate anything near defeat.

If a military victory is not possible, then the only way forward is for negotiations. War is not an answer. Escalating this war should not be promoted by those who believe in international cooperation and genuine peace. Those who fail to call for negotiations in the midst of this contentious period — with the war ongoing and its impact intensifying a cost-of-living crisis around the world — fail to understand the dangerous predicament that faces the planet.

 

***

U.S. Peace Council • P.O. Box 3105, New Haven, CT 06515 • (203) 387-0370 • USPC@USPeaceCouncil.org

• https://uspeacecouncil.org • https://www.facebook.com/USPeaceCouncil/ • @USPeaceCouncil

Erdogan Says Turkey Won’t Support Sweden’s NATO Bid Over Protest

A Quran-burning protest took place outside the Turkish embassy in Sweden

by Dave DeCamp

Posted on January 23, 2023

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/01/23/erdogan-says-turkey-wont-support-swedens-nato-bid-over-protest/

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Monday said that Sweden should not expect support from Ankara on its NATO bid in response to anti-Islam protests that took place in Sweden over the weekend.

Demonstrators burned Qurans in front of the Turkish embassy on Saturday, and Erdogan said Stockholm should not have allowed the protests to take place at that location.

“It is clear that those who allowed such vileness to take place in front of our embassy can no longer expect any charity from us regarding their NATO membership application,” Erdogan said.

Pro-Kurdish demonstrations also took place in Sweden, which Erdogan said were in support of the PKK, a group Turkey and the EU consider a terrorist organization. “So you will let terror organizations run wild on your avenues and streets and then expect our support for getting into NATO. That’s not happening,” he said.

Turkey has delayed both Sweden and Finland’s NATO bids mainly over their alleged support for the PKK. Erdogan has been demanding Sweden approve more extraditions to Turkey and has been critical of Stockholm’s cooperation, but his comments Monday were his strongest yet.

Erdogan’s comments come as he is preparing to run for reelection. The election was originally scheduled to take place in June, but it might be rescheduled for May. A spokesman for Erdogan recently said they don’t want to bring the NATO issue to Turkey’s parliament ahead of the elections.

While Erdogan made no mention of Finland on Monday, the two Nordic nations have said that their NATO bids are linked and that they wouldn’t join the alliance without each other. Turkey and Hungary are the only two NATO nations that haven’t approved Sweden and Finland’s NATO bids, although the Hungarian parliament is expected to hold a vote on the issue soon.

If Sweden and Finland join NATO, it will raise tensions with Moscow in the region as Finland shares an over 800-mile border with Russia. The Russian military is planning to boost its presence in western Russia and along the border if Finland ends up joining the alliance.

Celac: la integración en disputa

Carlos Fazio

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2023/01/23/opinion/015a1pol

En medio de una fractura geopolítica y geoeconómica epocal, signada por la transición del modelo unipolar globalista/atlantista hegemonizado por Estados Unidos (el llamado Occidente colectivo que tiene de brazo armado al Pentágono y la OTAN y su buró político/financiero corporativo privado en Davos, Suiza, con sus perros guardianes, el Banco Mundial y el FMI), a otro multipolar, cuyos principales centros de poder emergentes son las naciones del BRICS (Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica), la séptima Cumbre de la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (Celac), en Buenos Aires, será escenario de una discusión estratégica sobre modelos de integración regional.

La cumbre de la Celac, mecanismo intergubernamental que agrupa a 33 países con independencia de sus sistemas políticos y económicos (unidad en la diversidad), se da en el contexto de la guerra comercial-financiera-tecnológica de las administraciones Trump/Biden contra China, nación definida como principal amenaza a la hegemonía imperial en la Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional que orienta el accionar del Pentágono y la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA). Sin ambages, en diciembre último el secretario de Defensa, general Lloyd Austin, dijo que EU debe usar su poder militar para frenar la influencia de China en el orbe, y mientras arma a Taiwán, ha buscado incluir al gigante asiático como objetivo de la OTAN en la región Indo-Pacífico.

A su vez, la guerra híbrida por delegación de EU contra Rusia en Ucrania, que China no quería, está dirigida a impedir militarmente la integración euroasiática, eje fundamental de la estrategia de la Nueva Ruta de la Seda del presidente chino, Xi Jinping. El sabotaje anglosajón contra los gasoductos rusos Nord Stream en el Báltico, buscó romper nexos vitales de Europa comunitaria (Alemania, en particular) con Rusia y China. Ucrania forma parte y es prolegómeno de la guerra fría de Joe Biden contra China en Asia Oriental.

La Ruta de la Seda, red de infraestructura multimodal (carreteras, ferrocarriles, puertos, aeropuertos, parques agroindustriales) que abarca los cinco continentes, permitió que en la última década la inversión extranjera directa (IED) de China en América Latina creciera casi siete veces, situándose en 171 mil millones de dólares, desplazando a EU como principal inversor regional.

En ese marco de relaciones geopolíticas y geoeconómicas complejas se inscriben sendas guerras de la administración Biden contra China: la de los chips y la del litio. Los chips informáticos avanzados son la columna vertebral de las capacidades económicas y militares de la era digital. La tecnología es la base del poder militar y también de la productividad económica y la posición competitiva en el mercado mundial. Y Biden, como antes Trump, intenta por todos los medios bloquear el desarrollo tecnológico chino, aislándolo de las cadenas mundiales de suministro de chips de última generación; lo que forma parte de la estrategia provocadora de EU contra China en Taiwán.

Paralelamente, con el telón de fondo del asimétrico y neomercantilista ­T-MEC (Tratado México, EU, Canadá), durante la décima Cumbre de Líderes de América del Norte a principios de enero, Biden, Justin Trudeau y Andrés Manuel López Obrador acordaron impulsar una industria de chips subregional para frenar la dependencia de semiconductores de Asia. Asimismo, como parte de la repotenciación de México como país maquilador −dada las ventajas para la relocalización de empresas asiáticas en su territorio ( nearshoring)−, Biden y Trudeau consiguieron que las corporaciones privadas de EU y Canadá tengan preferencia en la explotación del litio mexicano (declarado con un tono épico similar al de la expropiación petrolera de Lázaro Cárdenas, de utilidad pública y reservado en exclusiva para México y los mexicanos según la reforma a la Ley Minera del 20 de abril de 2022).

Es decir, en la disputa por el liderazgo de la transición energética que está en el centro de la actual confrontación geopolítica −donde los países de América Latina constituyen un importante reservorio de recursos naturales críticos como las tierras raras y el litio, que junto con el níquel, el cobalto y el manganeso es un componente crítico de las baterías−, la flamante Asociación de Seguridad de Minerales, creada por EU con Canadá, Reino Unido, la Unión Europea, Australia, Japón y Corea del Sur (la OTAN metálica la bautizó Reuters), no tendrá que usar contra México el sambenito que el Comando Sur del Pentágono esgrime en el Triángulo del Litio (Chile, Argentina y Bolivia): que China y Rusia están allí para socavar a EU y la democracia. Además de que la cooperación táctica y estratégica de las fuerzas armadas de México y EU busca alcanzar hacia 2030 una gran compatibilidad operativa como socios en defensa para la protección de Norteamérica y la promoción de la seguridad y el liderazgo regional.

Ante la rebelión directa de Rusia y China contra la unipolaridad globalista de EU, Davos y sus vasallos eu­ropeos –dirigida a imponer un gobierno mundial al margen de la ONU con los valores y las reglas extraterritoriales de Washington−, y de cara a los procesos golpistas impulsados por el complejo militar industrial y los poderes fácticos en Perú, Brasil y Bolivia en la coyuntura, la reunión de la Celac tiene la alternativa de profundizar los intentos de una integración regional consensuada, como herramienta estratégica basada en la autodeterminación, la soberanía, la cooperación, la complementariedad económica y la solidaridad; sin el neomonroísmo de la Alianza para el Progreso, la OEA y el ALCA.

Una integración regional con enfoque de multipolaridad y multilateralismo; sin medidas coercitivas unilaterales y sanciones ilegales desestabilizadoras, exenta de militarización, bases castrenses y paramilitarismo. Libre de colonialismo interno y externo y que valorice el legado multicultural y la memoria histórica de los pueblos originarios. Que coloque al hombre y la mujer de a pie como centro de sus políticas económicas y no al Dios mercado, eje de la corrupción, que significa acumulación de dinero y poder por medio del soborno, la extorsión y el asesinato. Una integración con horizontes del buen vivir/vivir bien, y por qué no, socialista.

Ukraine War Spills Over Into the Middle East

US and Israel will prevent the sale of Iranian drones to Russia

PHILIP GIRALDI • JANUARY 17, 2023

https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/ukraine-war-spills-over-into-the-middle-east/

In spite of an overwhelming flood of disinformation coming from the Western mainstream media and governments, there continue to be obviously widely divergent views on the current war between Ukraine and Russia. The official and media-supported narrative are that Moscow attacked its neighbor in violation of “rule-based” principles of international relations, whereby an attack on any nation by a neighbor with the intent to seize territory is always and unambiguously wrong. That line of thinking, summed up in the media by the endlessly repeated phrase “Russia’s unprovoked war of aggression” has provided justification for the US/NATO intervention to support the Volodymyr Zelensky government’s effort to fight back against the Russians. It has also fed into the line that Ukraine and its supporters are standing up for “freedom,” “democracy” and even “good against evil.”

Flipping the argument to the Russian point of view, the Kremlin has argued that it has repeatedly sought to negotiate a settlement with Ukraine based on two fundamental issues that it claims threaten its own national security and identity. First is the failure of Ukraine to comply with the Minsk Accords of 2014-5 which conceded a large measure of autonomy to the Donbas region, an area indisputably inhabited by ethnic Russians, as is Crimea. Since that agreement, however, Ukrainian militias and other armed elements have been using artillery to shell the Donbas, killing an estimated 15,000 mostly Russian residents. Second, Russia has balked at plans for NATO to offer membership to Ukraine, which would place a possibly superior hostile military alliance at its doorstep. Russian President Vladimir Putin has observed that the issues were both negotiable and that Zelensky only had to agree to maintain his country as “neutral,” i.e. not linked to any military alliance. Reportedly it was the United States and Britain that pushed Ukraine into rejecting any and all of the Russian demands in a bid to initiate a war of attrition using Ukrainian lives to destabilize Putin’s government and reduce its ability to oppose US and Western dominance.

There is considerable hypocrisy from the US/European point of view as the US and NATO have been invading and regime-changing governments in a number of countries since 9/11, including Ukraine in 2014. Some critics of the fighting consider the Russian demands to be legitimate in that Putin has laid down very clear markers and is genuinely protective of his country’s security, though one might agree that it is a step too far to embrace any armed attack by one country on another unless there is a clear and imminent threat. But in this case, the escalating involvement of the US and NATO in the fighting is an extremely dangerous development because it could easily escalate the conflict and turn it into what might become a devastating nuclear exchange. One would like to see a truce initiated to stop the fighting right now followed by serious negotiations to come to a settlement of the territorial dispute. But, of course, the United States, which has provided Zelensky with more than $100 billion in aid, has made it clear that it is not interested in a negotiated settlement unless Putin is willing as a confidence-building first step to surrender all occupied Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. In other words, he must surrender.

Concerns that the fighting in Ukraine might somehow involve more players and could become regional and even grow beyond that point seem to be borne out by the content of a New York Times article that appeared recently. It is entitled U.S. Scrambles to Stop Iran From Providing Drones for Russia and subtitled “As the war in Ukraine grinds on, some officials have become convinced that Iran and Russia are building a new alliance of convenience.” Now bear in mind that anything appearing in a major American news outlet is likely to be a placement or leak by the US government itself. The Times sources the report to “…interviews in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East, a range of intelligence, military, and national security officials [who] have described an expanding US program that aims to choke off Iran’s ability to manufacture the drones, make it harder for the Russians to launch the unmanned ‘kamikaze’ aircraft and — if all else fails — to provide the Ukrainians with the defenses necessary to shoot them out of the sky.”

All of that means that the sources of the information are unnamed and should be considered anonymous and therefore not verifiable, but the article is intriguing nevertheless. Its lead paragraph states “The Biden administration has embarked on a broad effort to halt Iran’s ability to produce and deliver drones to Russia for use in the war in Ukraine, an endeavor that has echoes of its yearslong program to cut off Tehran’s access to nuclear technology.”

So, it would appear that the proxy war against Russia has now entered the Middle East, more specifically Iran, where the United States and Israel have long engaged in assassinations of scientists and technicians as well as sabotage of facilities and introduction of cyberattack “worms” (Stuxnet) into computer operating systems at research facilities. Indeed, the article states that Israel and the US have been engaging in discussions regarding exactly how to proceed in targeting Iranian drone production. On December 22^nd, a secure video meeting took place between Israel’s top national security, military, and intelligence officials and Jake Sullivan, the Biden Administration’s national security adviser. The participants “discussed Iran’s growing military relationship with Russia, including the transfer of weapons the Kremlin is deploying against Ukraine, targeting its civilian infrastructure and Russia’s provision of military technology to Iran in return.”

There certainly is a large measure of hypocrisy clearly evident in Washington’s efforts to stop Iran’s sale of weapons to Russia while the US is simultaneously giving many billions of dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine. Initial US efforts to reduce the alleged impact of drones on the battlefield have up until now focused on blocking the sale or distribution of the non-Iranian-produced technology that goes into the construction of the drones. The US military has, as well, provided Ukraine with intelligence that would enable counter-strikes on the Russian launch sites. But these efforts have only been partially successful as the electronic components being used are widely available or can be adapted employing “dual use” components if one source of supply is cut off. Also, those crafty Russians have apparently learned to change launch sites frequently as the drones and the trucks they are mounted on are very mobile.

But the Times article raises more questions than it answers. For example, it appears that the Iranians have sold to the Russians something like 1,700 drones and as of mid-December an estimated 300 of them have been used, hardly a game changer in the type of fighting taking place in Ukraine, particularly as their use in a so-called kamikaze role means that they strike their target detonating an explosive attached to the drone. That means they are destroyed in one use. And there have also been reports of supply chain problems, so it is not clear how many of the drones have actually been delivered. And the Russians certainly have their own drone factories as part of their highly sophisticated arms industry, so it is not like they were desperate for assistance from Iran in spite of claims to that effect in the US media.

To be sure, Iran has an active drone program and Iranian drones have been used in attacks directed against US military bases in Syria as well as against Saudi Arabian refineries. The “Shahed” drones are cheap and simple but effective and it is believed that Iran can mass produce them, if necessary, as long as it can continue to obtain the necessary components. It might be said that they constitute a “poor man’s” choice of weapon to use against much more powerful and sophisticated enemies like the United States or Israel.

Be that as it may, there is something that makes no sense about the Biden Administration’s sudden desire to take on Iran in a more active way, with Israel as a partner, using the Ukraine war and Russia as an excuse. Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have walked away from renewing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear monitoring agreement with Iran even though Tehran was prepared to make concessions and it is in the US national security interest to have such an agreement in place. Newly reinstalled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already addressed the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and called for a “close alignment” with Washington to work aggressively against Iran. A series of meetings between Israeli and US intelligence and national security personnel are now scheduled to be held in January. And, of course, the Biden State Department and National Security agencies are full of advocates for a hard line vis-à-vis Iran, Russia, and now even China. Most of them are also outspoken Zionists, many with close ties to Benjamin Netanyahu, which makes them partial to Israeli interests.

Iran, which does not actually threaten either the US or any identifiable strategic interests of Washington, is already on the receiving end of virtually every sanction imaginable put in place over more than forty years by successive American presidents. And now, because Iran is friendly with Russia and supplying that country with weapons that are surely welcome but unlikely to change the course of the war, the US is again preparing to make and take on yet another enemy, possibly with Israeli clandestine or even open help. One wonders nevertheless how much of the posturing by the White House is real and how much of it is fake. Since the United States is now approaching a $1 trillion defense budget for 2023, somebody has to figure out a way to justify the expenditure while also making all that money politically useful by telling the public that the spending is making Americans “safe.” And what could be better than using all those shiny new weapons on a few “enemies” here and there, guaranteeing that the defense contractors will get even richer and will kick back even more to the very politicians who are the source of the largesse? Could it all be as simple as that?

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax-deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, the address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134, and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

 Israel 'cancels settlement expansion project' following 'US pressure

The New Arab Staff

19 January 2023

The settlement expansion project was reportedly cancelled following a request by the US embassy ahead of National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan's visit to Israel.

https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-cancels-settlement-project-after-us-pressure

The Israeli government on Wednesday reportedly cancelled or delayed a plan to construct 100 construction projects in settlements in occupied East Jerusalem, following pressure from its ally, the US.

According to Israeli media, the cancellation came ahead of US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan’s visit to Israel.

Israel’s Channel 12 said the construction projects in the East Jerusalem settlement of Nof Zion were due to be announced during Sullivan's visit, but this was cancelled at the last minute following a request from the US embassy in Israel.

The Israeli outlet added that the Israeli municipality in Jerusalem agreed to the decision in coordination with the government – to not cause any "embarrassment" to its American ally.

Haaretz reported that local planning and building committee at Jerusalem municipality took the settlement expansion off the agenda for Wednesday at the last minute, coinciding with the US visit.

It is not clear if the expansion is permanently cancelled or put on hold for now.

Last November, far-right Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assumed office at the head of what is considered to be the most extremist government in Israel's history.

His coalition includes settler leaders who have engaged in racist rhetoric against Palestinians and vowed to increase the construction of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which are illegal under international law.

It remains unclear whether the decision to not go ahead with the construction project is temporary or permanent.

Sullivan arrived in Israel on Wednesday and met with President Isaac Herzog, kicking off talks that The Times of Israel described as "aimed at developing a baseline with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new hardline government".

The National Security Adviser is the first senior US official to visit Israel following Netanyahu’s victory in the November election, which saw a host of far-right ministers given ministerial posts. 

Sullivan plans to meet Netanyahu later on, where Iran will be top of the agenda, according to the Israeli website Walla.

The security advisor will also seek to gain "a better understanding" of the hardline government’s policies, according to The Times of Israel.

This comes amid pledges by the far-right to annex Palestinian territory in the occupied West Bank and expand illegal Jewish settlements, both of which are expected to make life more difficult for Palestinians in the West Bank and increase violence against them.

Israel’s effort to normalise relations with Saudi Arabia will also be a topic of discussion, although the Gulf kingdom insists it will only establish ties with Israel after "a two-state solution" is implemented.

Settlement expansion was declared a "top priority" for Netanyahu's new government, with the prime minister vowing to develop illegal settlements in the West Bank, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, as well as areas within Israel with a high concentration of Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The US formally opposes settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem although it has vetoed many UN resolutions condemning Israel for this activity. 

Russia to Boost Troops in West, Expanding Army to 1.5 Million People

Story by Bloomberg News • Tuesday

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-to-boost-troops-in-west-expanding-army-to-1-5-million-people/ar-AA16qHhG

(Bloomberg) -- Russia will create new commands near Europe as it expands its military to 1.5 million people amid deepening tensions with the US and its allies over the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine.

New structures in the regions around Moscow, St. Petersburg and Karelia on the border with Finland will be created under the program, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu told commanders Tuesday, saying the major changes will start this year and continue through 2026. In addition, he said, “self-sufficient” units will be set up on the Ukrainian territories that Russia has illegally annexed.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the military expansion came in response to the “proxy war” he claimed the US and its allies are waging against Russia in Ukraine, Interfax reported. Kyiv and its allies are fighting to fend off Russia’s invasion of its neighbor.

Russian President Vladimir Putin last month approved Shoigu’s plan to boost the size of his military from the current target level of 1.15 million but the Kremlin hasn’t said how fast that will take place. 

Shoigu said the expansion will be spread across all branches of Russia’s military and will be coordinated with the delivery of new weapons to equip them, the Defense Ministry said in a statement, according to Interfax.

Russia will create three new motorized-infantry divisions and two airborne divisions, combining a number of brigades, Shoigu said in comments posted on the ministry’s Telegram channel. He also called for special attention to the recruitment of contract soldiers to fill out the ranks of the expanded military.

Since ordering the invasion nearly a year ago, Putin has laid plans to reverse years of reductions in the ranks of Russia’s military. The Kremlin hasn’t said how it will recruit all the new troops but has proposed raising the draft age, which may increase the number of men eligible for conscription.

Russia has repeatedly said it plans to boost deployments in the northwest in response to a pending expansion of NATO, where Finland and Sweden are in the process of joining, with their applications ratified by 28 of 30 alliance members. The Nordic countries’ entry into the military bloc would double its land border with Russia.

 PREFERENCIAS ELECTORALES PARA 2024 EN MÉXICO

En la última encuesta del periódico El Financiero[1] sobre las preferencias electorales por partido, coalición y posibles candidatos presidenciales, el partido y coalición gobernante (Morena, PT, PVEM) saca 10 puntos de ventaja 49 a 39, a la coalición opositora Va por México (PAN, PRI y PRD), dejando a un lado al Movimiento Ciudadano que suma sólo 8 puntos.

A nivel de partido, Morena obtiene el 45% de las menciones favorables del electorado (PVEM 2% y PT 2%); mientras que el PAN logra sólo el 18%, el PRI el 17% y el PRD el 4%.

A nivel candidatos, en careos hipotéticos entre la precandidata más conocida de la oposición, la senadora del PAN, Lilly Téllez, contra la preferida del presidente López Obrador para encabezar a la coalición oficial, la jefa de Gobierno, Claudia Sheinbaum, la senadora perdería ampliamente ante Sheinbaum 44% vs. 27%; entendiendo que habría un tercer candidato, el actual gobernador de Nuevo León, del Movimiento Ciudadano Samuel García, que obtendría el 13% de la votación.

Como se ve la situación, la oposición, es decir PAN, PRI y PRD, tienen que ir unidos, si quieren tener alguna posibilidad de competir ante el oficialismo. Y además, requieren forzosamente que Movimiento Ciudadano se les una, porque si no, dicho partido les va a quitar suficientes votos como para hacerlos perder estrepitosamente ante Morena y sus aliados.

Aún sumando las preferencias de Téllez y García, quedarían 4 puntos debajo de la probable preferencia por Sheinbaum; pero al menos ya sería una competencia más cerrada.

Como lo hemos comentado aquí en otros artículos de este blog, el presidente López Obrador va a usar todos los recursos públicos e instituciones del gobierno federal para apoyar a su candidata/o a la presidencia, junto con los de los 20 gobernadores de su partido y los de cientos de alcaldes de su coalición gobernante en todo el país, tal como lo hacía el viejo PRI, para aplastar a la oposición en las elecciones.

Asimismo, en las próximas semanas cambiará varias disposiciones electorales con su mayoría en el Congreso, para evitar que ese impúdico uso de recursos públicos en favor de su partido y de sus candidatos, sea sancionado por las autoridades electorales.

Asimismo, en abril, el partido oficial Morena, podrá nombrar con su mayoría en el Congreso, hasta 4 consejeros electorales en el Instituto Nacional Electoral, que seguramente avalarán y encubrirán el ilegal uso de recursos públicos por parte del gobierno federal, estatales y municipales de Morena y aliados, para favorecer a sus candidatos en las próximas elecciones federales y locales.

Si el presidente y sus aliados logran conformar el escenario descrito, lo más probable es que la oposición no tenga oportunidad en las elecciones del 2024; en especial si el partido Movimiento Ciudadano mantiene su negativa a sumarse a la coalición opositora.

---

[1] https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/nacional/2023/01/18/lilly-tellez-candidatos-oposicion-con-mas-apoyo-para-2024-encuesta-ef/