Why Russia needs another 300,000 “bayonets”?

The West understood why Russia needed another 300,000 “bayonets”. It is Odessa and Kharkov stupid!

Did the west finally understand why Russia is calling for partial mobilisation? Could it be Odessa and Kharkov?

The mainstream newspaper of America, the New York Times, and part-time “brain and laundry” of the US Democratic Party published a forecast for a plebiscite in 4 regions – the DPR, the LPR, part of Zaporozhye and the Kherson region – on their entry into the Russian Federation.

According to author Carly Olson, “Russian-led referendums in parts of Ukraine are expected to show that most residents voted in favour of joining Russia. After that the Kremlin will formally announce the annexation as early as this week.”

Yeah, the Russian people living on Russian lands, who, due to a misunderstanding, found themselves in the “Ukraine”, categorically do not want to be part of the Banderstat. They confirmed their desire to return to their fatherland during the popular vote. The Yankees still scribble all sorts of nonsense about annexation. On the other hand, whether Olson from the NYT wanted it or not, she declared the referendum’s legitimacy.

As for the future of the territories where the referendum ends. It is clear the Americans have no doubts that these regions are lost to Ukraine. “Russia has stated that it will protect them as if they were Russian territory. Including an arsenal of nuclear weapons.” I don’t see how more clear one can make it.

A much more important question for the West, and for us Russians is what will happen next? Or rather, where the Kremlin will send new forces? Does anyone want to guess?

All those western “institutes” and think tanks

The authors of the ASB Military News Internet resource are confident that a third of a million recruits with combat experience or a military profession will be enough to ensure security. At least within the new territories of Russia. Of course, the necessary reserve will be created from them in case of crisis situations. But it is unlikely that those mobilized will immediately be sent to the front. Significant parts of the regular Russian army are being released. Reservists will replace them. That would allow for unrushed additional training as well.

In turn, American military expert Scott Ritter believes that the real military campaign will not end until other territorial tasks are resolved. After that, the West’s interest in Ukraine will drop sharply. He writes: “Partial mobilization is taking place in parallel with political referendums that will lead to the annexation of Donbass and other Ukrainian territories to the Russian Federation … I believe that at some point the absorption of Ukrainian territory will be expanded to include Odessa, and Kharkiv.” My advice would be to listen to Scott. He knows what he is talking about.

“If the figures voiced by Shoigu turn out to be true, then the mobilization of an additional 300 thousand enemy soldiers will create serious problems for us… it is worth recognizing that the actions [of the Armed Forces of Ukraine] are partially successful due to the stretching of the front and the low density of distribution of manpower of the RF Armed Forces, weapons and enemy equipment,”

Don’t panic, we are British

According to insiders from the [Ukraine] president’s office, Zelensky, together with MI6, is trying to minimize the fears of independent soldiers associated with mobilization in our country.

Dear Brits, for the first time since WWII you are a more “popular” candidate for free heating supplied by Russia. Germans were leaders till recently. Now, God saves the Queen. Or… Something like that… God might be busy blessing America instead. Or… He might be sick of all that scum after all.

Sources inside of Banderstat claim that the Anglo-Saxons have divided their responsibilities. The Yankees run the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They connected the entire apparatus of the Pentagon. The Britons took over the psychological operations. 

Now the British are trying in every possible way to discredit the conscription of 300,000 reservists. eh, those Russians cannot get it right! We have told you so!

A variety of sources have reported that the Kyiv regime is preparing to issue subpoenas to another million people to maintain a manpower advantage.

The Britons believe that Moscow will be forced to respond to new waves of graves full of (forced) Nazis with additional conscription of Russians for military service. MI6 still relies on anti-war protests in the Russian Federation.

In Ukraine, any dissent ends up in the basement of the SBU and getting on the list of missing persons. All by the Fourth Reich “value” called “rule of law”

The news is just in – some “accidents” hit Nord Stream 1 and 2. What a coincidence! Novichok anyone? Was it MI6 alone or with the help of “Polish fishermen”? Wait and see

What do Russians need to know about Ukraine?

Do not be seduced by the illusions made by the Bolsheviks!

Soviet and Russian propaganda for a long time and stubbornly hushed up uncomfortable facts about the “fraternal people” – now we are getting burned on this

By Alexander Shirokorad

In Soviet times, we were told daily about the great friendship between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples. Yes, it was true to some extent. But in Ukraine, millions of Banderists hated Russians, as well as Poles and Jews.

In the special depository of Leninka, I saw several yellowed books published in the 1920s which spoke about the wildest crimes of the Petliurists. In the photographs, people are quartered, impaled, and burned alive. However, in the 1930s, all these books were confiscated and destroyed, and several copies were handed over to the special depository.

During the Great Patriotic War, only in Belarus, 17 police battalions formed from Ukrainians committed atrocities. They destroyed the village of Khatyn. Moreover, they did it on their initiative, without the sanction of the Germans. The participation of Ukrainians in the mass executions at Babi Yar in Kyiv was also concealed from us.

There were hundreds of thousands of Bandera, and they got off with a slight fright for their terrible crimes. After 1936 and until 1950, the death penalty in the USSR was abolished. And all the acts of the Bandera agitprop hid from the Soviet people. Like, “someone here and there in Ukraine at times” was an assistant to the SS, but the entire population of Western Ukraine was partisan and hated the Germans.

After 1991

After 1991, agitprop, already anti-Soviet, utterly lied about the events in Ukraine. Everything connected with the Ukrainian SSR was cursed or consigned to oblivion. The press was filled with Russophobic articles. The monuments to Lenin were demolished after 1992. Several monuments to Suvorov and Kutuzov were demolished. Monuments to Bandera, Petlyura, and Hetman Skoropadsky were erected everywhere.

It reached the point that a monument was erected in Kiev to the “king of all Ukraine”, Vasil Vyshyvanny, nee Wilhelm von Habsburg. Alas, the Austrian henchman Vasil did not have to become king – the Kaiser slammed his fist on the table: “Our Hauptmann Skoropadsky and no kings should rule Ukraine!”

All this agitprop was kept secret from the people and, as before, chattered about the great friendship. Anti-Russia began to be created in 1992 – however, the term “AntiRussia” was first mentioned by President Putin only in June 2021.

Stalin made a mistake by annexing Western Ukraine to the Ukrainian SSR. It should have been left as part of Poland. As a last resort, it was necessary to completely clean up the region from all Bandera and their accomplices. This is exactly what the Poles did, completely “sanitizing” the lands inhabited by Ukrainians that remained in Poland. These guys professed the Bandera ideology, and the Poles sent some to concentration camps and some to the territories seized from the Germans.

2014 Coup

In 2014, the Kyiv junta was supported by the absolute majority of the population of Western Ukraine. But in the east, they were against it. In Sevastopol – 99.9% of the inhabitants, and in Crimea – about 90%. As a result, the peninsula returned without blood to Russia.

Since 1992, Kyiv has been preparing its troops in Crimea to suppress the uprising of the Russian population. By February 2014, about half of the special forces of Ukraine and the forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the SBU were based in Crimea. 

However, in the spring of 2014, most of the units immediately went over to the side of the Crimeans, and only a few units maintained hostile neutrality. Nobody dared to use weapons. Over 70% of SBU officers went over to the side of the Russian Federation. Whoever does not believe, let him look at the lists of these “traitor” officers on the website “Peacemaker” **.

In Donbas, most of the Ministry of Internal Affairs employees joined the junta’s opponents. In the spring of 2014, regular units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine did not want to fight for the LPR and DPR. Then, in April-May, the battalions Azov *, Donbass *, Aidar * and others were formed from zealous nationalists and criminals with the money of the oligarchs. They suppressed popular uprisings in Mariupol, Nikolaev, Odessa, Severodonetsk and others cities.

Post 2014

Since 2014, regular troops have also been involved in the ATO. Over the next 8 years, about 400 thousand Ukrainian soldiers passed through the ATO. Many marched involuntarily, but falling under the fire of the militias and intense artillery fire from the adjacent territory, they gradually began to consider both the Donbass and Russia as enemies. Each fighter had families who worried about their father or son and cursed the inhabitants of Donbass and the Russian Federation.

since 2014, the population of Ukraine has been subjected to massive processing by the propaganda apparatus of Kyiv from above, and from below, every day they heard the curses of two million refugees and participants in the ATO.

As a result, the same thing happened in Ukraine from 2014 to 2022 as in Germany from 1932 to 1939. The majority of the population of Ukraine managed to instil the ideology of Bandera and pathological Russophobia. Playing with wooden machine guns and killing Russians began to be taught in kindergartens. And again, agitprop framed the Russians, banning any information about the evolution of Ukrainian attitudes towards Russia.

It could be stopped in 2014

I will not be surprised that people in the Kremlin became victims of agitprop. In 2014, a landing on Kyiv and Odessa in a week would have led to the junta’s fall.

However, after eight years of Bandera propaganda, our troops faced stubborn resistance from the Armed Forces of Ukraine, most of whose servicemen hated Russia. In terms of durability, they can be compared with the Wehrmacht soldiers of 1943-1944. They do not desert in droves and do not surrender whole units, as was the case in 2014.

To defeat the Armed Forces of Ukraine, decisive strikes are now needed. Decisive victory and complete destruction of their military capabilities must be achieved. Only then can the psychology of the majority of Ukrainian citizens be reversed.


Originally published by

“Ukraine as a state must be liquidated”

What awaits Ukrainian culture in the new Russian territories, will the pendulum swing in the opposite direction?

Alexey Peskov

Our today’s conversation with Rostislav Ishchenko , a well-known political scientist and columnist for Rossiya Segodnya news agency, was devoted to a very vague topic – the very idea of ​​Ukrainianism, which has grown before our eyes into outright “Nazism with a Ukrainian face.” Nevertheless, there is such an idea, it owns the minds of many, and it is impossible to ignore this fact. This is where we started.

What awaits Ukrainians as a national idea? What are the options?

– The options are endless – from complete oblivion to global success. The implementation of any idea depends on who undertakes it. There are no guarantees that tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, some local genius will not appear who will tear Ukrainians out of the current hole and lift them to shining heights.

Is it with irony or without it?

– Without any irony. Let’s remember history. France, 1799. The Directory has ruled for four years – a decomposed, corrupt regime. The country is on the verge of disaster. People plotting a coup d’état are no better than those in power. And then Bonaparte appears, who was involved in overthrowing the directory, but they were not going to give him power. The rest is known.

Or the history of the Russian Empire. 1917 Catastrophe. The Bolsheviks come to power intending to build an unbuildable society. And by 1920, it became clear that the country was about to explode from the inside – peasant uprisings, military riots, the Kronstadt rebellion … Few politicians could do what Lenin did , who suddenly switched from military communism and mass repressions to capitalism within the framework of the NEP. And he kept the power. And after his death, Stalin cleared out the petty-bourgeois strata of society and switched to paramilitary communism. But as a result, Soviet, or rather Bolshevik, power collapsed not in 1920 but in 1991. But it might not have collapsed because the potential for reforms existed, and we see this in China.

What if?

So the implementation of any idea depends on the individual and their efforts. Mussolini’s regime arose in Italy in 1922. If comrades from Germany had not dragged him into the world war, he could have existed for a long time. Like the similar fascist regimes of Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal. Yes, doomed to fall since a totalitarian regime cannot exist for too long, but a few decades is enough. It’s just that Francisco Franco did not buy into Hitler’s proposals to return Gibraltar to Spain. However, everything looked tempting: France was defeated, Great Britain was driven to its islands, and powerful Germany was in the allies. Take Gibraltar and rejoice. But Spain remained neutral, and Franco was in power until the end of his life.

In relation to Ukraine, this historical digression, what can it mean?

– Let’s compare the regimes of Zelensky and his predecessor in the presidency. Under the circumstances of Poroshenko, Ukraine could exist for a long time. First of all, Poroshenko ran to Russia in any critical situation to negotiate. Then he deceived, but agreed. The war in the Donbass was going on, but he did not seek to force it. And they shot, except for a few episodes, much less than now.

And then came Zelensky. Everyone expected that he, all so compromised and good, would bring peace. A comedian. Even pro-Russian in places, from a good intelligent family. Not like his predecessor, from a family of hucksters. So what? As a result, this under-Bonaparte is fighting with might and main. Poroshenko would not allow this…

To be honest, when the special operation began by entering Ukraine from three sides, I had an idea – with such a demonstration, Russia gave Ukraine a chance to inoffensively capitulate for the clear advantage of the enemy. And under Poroshenko, this would most likely work …

– Now we see – Ukraine is being squeezed, and, in theory, they should be squeezed. But the problem must be considered in a global context. We are not at war with Ukraine but with the United States. And there is a powerful coalition against us. Although we say that most of the world is with us, we understand that the part of the world that is not with us is a very solid force. 

Yes, all these countries have big problems. They are not at all as weak as they seem from afar. And they will not just fight with us but achieve victory. Because at what point we will have to stop, we do not know. And our resources are not endless. We do not know our real losses – which is understandable since this is a military secret. But, without knowing the specifics, drawing any conclusions and forecasts is impossible.

How much longer can we maintain offensive potential? A limited number of servicemen participate in the special operation, and mobilization is not only pointless but also criminal because, as a result, we will get the same as in Ukraine. There will be a contingent that does not know how to fight but is simple and easy to kill. You can’t train a soldier in a week, month, or two. So far, contract soldiers are participating in the battles, but their number is still limited …

And since it is not yet possible to take and brush off all the opponent’s pieces from the board, Ukraine as a state will likely be preserved in one form or another

“I can’t come to that conclusion. Ukraine as a state must be liquidated, and not only we are interested in this, but also the Poles, Hungarians, and Romanians … Theoretically, if you work on this issue well, you can find a certain consensus. If we cannot do it alone, then we can do it collectively. Understand – we can annex the Crimea, Donbass, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, Odessa, and anything. But if we leave at least the smallest piece of Ukraine, even somewhere in the Zhytomyr swamps, then this piece will legitimately claim all the territories that were torn away.

You can see for yourself how dramatically the situation in the world is changing rapidly – in the 70s the USSR was on horseback; in the 80s, it was already under horseback, and in the 90s the Soviet Union did not exist at all, and the United States was on horseback. Now the States are breathing their last breath, together with Europe.

State of Russia in ten years

And we do not know what state Russia will be in 10 years from now: who will come to power, what alignments will emerge among the elites. States, as we see, are rapidly collapsing; for some 3-4 years, there may be no trace of their former power. Therefore, leaving such a contender for vast territories is at least unreasonable – there will definitely be someone who decides to take advantage of this.

But if I say “necessary”, then this does not mean that we will succeed. We are fighting, they are fighting with us, and it is impossible to say unequivocally who will win. If we were now sitting at the table in Potsdam and dictating our inexorable will to all mankind, as we did in 1945, we could say that these will live, but these will not exist. But for now, we are still in the process. 

And who could say, for example, in 1943 on the eve of the Battle of Kursk, who would win the war. Yes, we just won Stalingrad – but after that, we lost Kharkov. A huge strong army stood against us, and it was pointless then to argue where and how the war would end. Yes, we were not going to lose, and there was already an understanding that the Germans could not defeat us. But there were no guarantees that we would definitely win at that moment.

US provoking China

And now we are still in the process, fighting is going on – and all over the world. We do not know how the situation will develop in Southeast Asia, where the US is strongly provoking China to war. And most likely within a year, this war should begin – if Taiwan does not surrender just like that. And that war in general can result in a nuclear one, however, like ours.

How so?

— And so. There is a lot of nonsense going on at first glance: Estonia has closed the borders, a British plane violated the Russian border twice, Ukrainian DRGs in Crimea are blowing up our ammunition depots… But these seemingly unrelated events add up to a single picture of escalating tension between the West and us. There is a danger of expanding the war zone and involving new countries.

We are in a situation where we do not know who we will fight tomorrow. Therefore, to argue where we will reach in Ukraine, what we will annex … Only the Lord God can know this, for he is omnipotent and therefore knows how this clash will end. But today he knows, but tomorrow he can change his mind.

But some part of the Ukrainian territories will most likely be annexed to Russia, if we proceed not from a hypothetical future, but from today’s realities. And here is the burning question of what awaits Ukrainian culture in the new Russian territories. Won’t the pendulum swing in the opposite direction, won’t everything Ukrainian be spread rot in response to long years of oppression of everything Russian?

– I’m just afraid there will be no persecution but demonstrative support of Ukrainian culture that no one needs. This is generally in the Russian tradition – to demonstrate that “we are not like that.” One side. On the other hand, we have an exaggerated idea of ​​how many bearers of Ukrainian culture there really are and how deeply it has ingrained them in Temechko. 

For some reason, many believe that if we (we, not them!) do not develop Ukrainian culture, then they will be very offended by us. Although, in fact, the process there will be exactly the same as with Ukrainization. Since the country is Ukraine, the language should be only Ukrainian, and my son will attend a Ukrainian school. What for? And then, what is the future of this? They will also say why a son or daughter will attend a Russian school. We are Russia now, which means the Russians have the future.

The experience of the Soviet Union

But I fear that they will repeat the experience of the Soviet Union, when, albeit non-violently, but the Ukrainization of these territories took place constantly. The Russians were told that they were Ukrainians, there were signs in Ukrainian everywhere, and they urgently invented Ukrainian literature and history. However, all this was part of Russian literature and Russian history. We start talking about the Ukrainian playwright, but it turns out he is Russian. About Ukrainian writers – even Gogol , even Bulgakov  – and they are also Russian. Akhmatova was born in Kiev, but she is a Russian poetess. And so on.

From my point of view, in the liberated territories it is necessary to promote the theme that we are all Russians, that we have a common culture. But let all these flecks, embroidered shirts, borscht with donuts, dumplings and other bells and whistles remain an ethnographic trifle. Similar local specifics can be found in every corner of Russia. But if someone likes it, no one forbids it, they can organize hobby groups within the framework of the current legislation, and there you can make dumplings or play the bandura. But finance at your own expense, not from the state budget.

Ukraine Crisis – The start of the Multipolar World!

Le Monde: special operation in Ukraine could forever change the global economy

The French publication Le Monde suggested that Russia’s special operation in Ukraine could lead to irreversible changes in the global economy, which has not yet recovered from the effects of the coronavirus. The start of the multipolar world is clear.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), this should cut global GDP growth by about one percentage point and raise inflation by 2.5 points. The OECD warns that the risk of “food insecurity” hangs over Africa and the Middle East in particular due to the sharp rise in commodity prices, and in particular wheat.

“The crisis is already manifesting itself in rising prices for energy, food and some metals,” said Lawrence Boone, chief economist at the OECD.

Le Monde, in his article, also cites an assessment of the International Monetary Fund, which believes that the Russian special operation could have long-term consequences for the global economy, which will ultimately change the “world economic and geopolitical order.”

On February 24, Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to conduct a military special operation to protect the Donbass in response to a request for help from the heads of the LPR and DPR.

Ukraine severed diplomatic relations with Russia. Martial law in Ukraine was introduced until March 26.

Amr Abdallah Dalsh/Reuters

Reuters: US in consultations with Turkey concerned the possibility of Ankara transferring S-400 to Kiev

American officials, during consultations with Turkish colleagues, touched upon the possibility of Ankara transferring S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) to Kiev, but they did not make such an offer officially. This was reported on Saturday by Reuters .

U.S. officials have floated the suggestion over the past month with their Turkish counterparts but no specific or formal request was made, the sources told Reuters. They said it also came up briefly during Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman’s visit to Turkey earlier this month.

The Biden administration has been asking allies who have been using Russian made equipment and systems including S-300s and S-400s to consider transferring them to Ukraine as it tries to fend off a Russian invasion that began on Feb. 24. read more

The idea, which analysts said was sure to be shot down by Turkey, was part of a wider discussion between Sherman and Turkish officials about how the United States and its allies can do more to support Ukraine and on how to improve bilateral ties.

The Turkish authorities have not commented on any U.S. suggestion or proposal relating to the transfer to Ukraine of Ankara’s S-400 systems, which have been a point of long-standing contention between the two NATO allies.

Turkish foreign ministry officials were not immediately available for comment.

Turkish sources and analysts said any such suggestion would be a non-starter for Turkey, citing issues ranging from technical hurdles related to installing and operating the S-400s in Ukraine, to political concerns such as the blowback Ankara would likely face from Moscow.

Attempt to improve strained relationship

Washington has repeatedly asked Ankara to get rid of the Russian-built surface-to-air missile batteries since the first delivery arrived in July 2019. The United States has imposed sanctions on a Turkey’s defence industry and removed NATO member Turkey from the F-35 fighter jet programme as a result.

Ankara has said it was forced to opt for the S-400s because allies did not provide weapons on satisfactory terms.

U.S. officials are keen to seize this moment to draw Turkey back into Washington’s orbit. Efforts to find “creative” ways to improve the strained relationship have accelerated in recent weeks, even though no specific proposal has so far gained traction, U.S. and Turkish sources have said.

“I think everyone knows that the S-400 has been a long standing issue and perhaps this is a moment when we can figure out a new way to solve this problem,” Sherman told Turkish broadcaster Haberturk in an interview on March 5.

It was not clear what exactly she meant and the State Department has not answered questions about her comments. The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the suggestion made during her visit to Turkey.

The effort is also part of a wider bid by the Biden administration to respond to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s plea to help protect Ukraine’s skies. Russian or Soviet-made air defense systems such as S-300s that other NATO allies have and S-400s are sought after.

“Ankara spooked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”

One source familiar with U.S. thinking said Washington’s floating of the possibility came as a result of the renewed effort to improve ties at a time when Ankara has been spooked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Turkish President Erdogan had not received a specific heads up from Russian President Vladimir Putin on his plans of a full-scale attack on Ukraine, another source familiar with the discussions said.

Turkey shares a maritime border with Ukraine and Russia in the Black Sea and has good ties with both. It has said the invasion is unacceptable and voiced support for Ukraine, but has also opposed sanctions on Moscow while offering to mediate.

Ankara has carefully formulated its rhetoric not to offend Moscow, analysts say, with which it has close energy, defence and tourism ties. But Ankara has also sold military drones to Kyiv and signed a deal to co-produce more, angering the Kremlin. Turkey also opposes Russian policies in Syria and Libya, as well as its 2014 annexation of Crimea.

“Turkey has managed to walk on the razor’s edge and a transfer of a Russian S-400 would certainly lead to severe Russian ire,” said Aaron Stein, director of research at the Philadelphia-based Foreign Policy Research Institute. “And for Erdogan, the S-400 has become a symbol of Turkish sovereignty, so trading it away wouldn’t be all roses and flowers.”


It seems that relevant departments of the US government have completely lost touch with the reality. That means a serious problem for the whole world. People without toucfh with reality tend to make wrong decisions. As simple as that. Pressing Turkey to send S400 system to Ukraine is certainly a sign of desperation. If not a sign of complete madness.

AUKUS – the beginning of the end of NATO?

Is creation of a new alliance between the US, UK and Australia – the beginning of the end of NATO pact?

So it started!

The announcement that the United States, Great Britain and Australia have entered into a joint pact in the field of defense and security, dubbed AUKUS, has become an event that has already caused quite a lot of noise in the world from the very beginning.

In particular, in China – this event was received with hostility. In Beijing, in general, they called this pact directed against China. And Chinese interests not only in the Asia-Pacific region, but also in the world. China announced that this agreement between the three countries intensifies the arms race and seriously undermines the “regional peace”.

In the EU, this event, judging by the first reactions of politicians and various institutions of power on this fact, was a complete surprise. And even more, it was the reason why one of the EU countries, namely France as a whole, announced that this agreement on the creation of a kind of alliance – “was a stab in the back” which undermined trust between the allies!

Moreover, I want to note that the reaction of France in this case is quite understandable. This event became the reason for Australia’s refusal to purchase submarines from Paris.

First reactions

In the countries of Oceania, this event, in general, was the reason for the condemnation of the creation of a new military-political alliance and the signing of this agreement. In New Zealand, this event became the reason for the statement that they would ban Australian submarines from leaving their waters!

Only in Russia so far, at the time of this writing, this event has not been commented on at the official level. It has not generally expressed any reaction, but I think that if not today, then tomorrow this event will still receive assessment.

I consider this event from the point of view as the beginning of the end of NATO.

Yes! This is exactly what it is in my opinion. European members of NATO were already shaken in their trust in the aliance leaders – USA. It seems that Afghanistan debacle was just a beginning of something much bigger. Has American establishment made assessment that NATO is not necessary and is too expensive? Are we starting to witness transition of an intelligence alliance known as the “five eyes” into new military alliance spreading over Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Will Europe be left to deal with “Russian threat” on its own?

Why do I think so?

Let’s consider this situation, or rather this event, from a purely political point of view. EU “neither sleep nor spirit” knew about the ongoing negotiations on the creation of this alliance. This came as a complete surprise to the EU! It should be noted that it can and even should be regarded as an open expression of mistrust and even disregard on the part of the United States, Great Britain and Australia for the interests of their allies from the EU. 

In fact Washington, London and Canberra are simply, and not so simply, created a new military-political alliance without notifying their closest allies in the military-political NATO bloc about it. Thus, openly demonstrating their true attitude towards their own allies!

The creation of US, UK and Australia alliance in the field of defense and security without notifying its NATO allies is essentially nothing more than an open demonstration of complete disregard for the opinions of its so-called “allies.” In my opinion, it is a very rash step on the part of the participants in the new pact. It suggests that there is a rather serious split in views in the ranks of NATO. This gives a clear understanding of the fact that the very essence of the meaning of NATO’s existence for some of its member countries, such as the United States and Great Britain, has simply lost its relevance.

There is no alliance without trust

Well, the right thing is how you can be an ally with those who talk about the need to confront threats to Europe, but at the same time, behind Europe itself, it creates new alliances, which not only leave Europe alone with China, but also take away from the countries of Europe large enough orders for their military products?

It is impossible to talk about some kind of alliance if one of the parties makes and creates new pacts, about which the other ally finds out only after the fact. What do we understand and say that there is no longer any sense in the existence of NATO!

Secondly, if this event is viewed from a purely economic and technological point of view, then it should also be noted that the creation of this new alliance is nothing more than the beginning of the end of NATO! Especially if we take into account the fact that Australia has abandoned its plans to purchase submarines from France. 

The United States essentially destroyed the multi-billion dollar deal between France and Australia. And even more than that, the United States has pledged to transfer its technologies for the production of nuclear submarines! Yes, not transfer them to NATO member countries, but Australia – not even a member of NATO. In my opinion it also suggests that there is no longer any sense in the existence of NATO!

Technology transfer

During the entire existence of NATO, the United States has shared its technologies only with Great Britain!

There is a possibility that Europe may be outraged for the sake of appearance and then calmly forget all this. It would not be the first time. 

Something inside tells me that it is quite real. The events of recent year demonstrate to the whole world the fact that NATO is no longer relevant! And this event underlines this very clearly!

Please share your opinion in the comments!

Watch out! Biden wants to save the planet

Technology choices will decisively impact whether climate-pivoted economic policy brings benefit or disaster

By JONATHAN TENNENBAUM

President Joe Biden’s climate plan is a grandiose vision. Combining deliberate echoes of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal with the crash-program approach to development of technology. Exemplified by the Apollo program of the 1960s. If it works, planet Earth and the US economy will be saved at the same time.

Biden has vowed to establish US leadership in saving the planet from an impending climate apocalypse. His appointments of establishment climate activists to high positions in his administration, along with his opening salvos of executive orders, confirm his intention to make climate the central topic in all spheres of US government activity.

He calls it the “Whole of Government Approach to the Climate Crisis.”

Among other things Biden ordered a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of the threat that climate change poses for US national security. He made climate officially the priority focus of US foreign policy. 

One has the distinct impression that the Biden Administration intends to use the climate crisis as an occasion for reasserting the primacy of US power in international affairs. Far beyond rejoining the Paris Agreement on his first day in office, Biden has made clear that the United States will act as global enforcer of CO2 reduction measures. And, needless to say, he intends to focus especially on China. 

Biden has committed himself to making climate the center of US domestic economic policy. The recent executive orders already contain elements of his campaign promise to channel $2 trillion into building a “clean” national infrastructure. And thereby creating millions of new jobs and driving innovation and economic growth.

If all goes according to plan, by 2035 the US should have 100% CO2-free electricity generation. By 2050 total net emissions should reach zero.

“Social Cost System”

Among the first concrete steps is to initiate planning for replacing the entire fleet of over 600,000 vehicles used by federal government and the US Postal Service to zero-emission vehicles.

A key move, which has so far attracted little attention in the news media, is to implement the so-called “social cost system” as a guiding criterion for daily government decision-making. The social cost system is based on attaching a numerical value to the “global damage” attributed to emission of a given amount of carbon dioxide – in the production of a given commodity, for example.

This will have a big economic impact through the choice of products and vendors for government purchases, on which Washington spends about $600 billion a year.

The $2 trillion climate plan – whose funding must, of course, be approved by Congress – would follow on the heels of a $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan to help the US economy and population recover from the effects of Covid-19.  

All in all, the degree of concentration of a US government on a single theme is practically unprecedented in peacetime. Were it not for the Covid-19 pandemic there would doubtless be much more discussion about this radical course.  People who believe that global warming is the greatest crisis of our time might easily overlook problematic, even ominous implications of declared policies.   

I wish to emphasize that I am not motivated by political opposition to the Biden Administration. Nor, of course, do I oppose rational measures to reduce and eventually eliminate the world’s one-sided dependence on fossil fuels.

One should also keep an open mind in respect to any new administration, which carries contradictory interests and impulses with it into office. It may adjust its course as it confronts reality.

Taking Biden’s declarations very seriously

But there are reasons to take Biden’s declarations very seriously.

Firstly, to all appearances Biden and his close advisors truly believe that the world is headed toward an unprecedented catastrophe through global warming. And that the clock is ticking and that urgent action is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions world wide. Not only the US but other nations as well must do so. Especially the largest COemitters, with China in first place.

Countries that refuse to reduce their emissions by the necessary amounts voluntarily must be forced to do so. The logic is inescapable. 

Secondly, as Biden has emphasized for the United States, replacing the world’s entire fossil fuel infrastructure with “clean technology” over the next 30-40 years creates a new market of colossal dimensions. Assuming that the nations and populations are able to pay for it. 

Thirdly, immense amounts of financial capital have already been committed to the expectation of radical climate policies. CO2 emissions are being monetized and a vast financial machinery created, tying asset valuations to parameters such as “carbon intensity” and “sustainability indices.”

Climate projections are being built into long-term risk strategies and the premium structures of insurance companies. The volume of carbon trade is growing exponentially. With it, the market for climate-linked financial instruments such as green bonds (already at $500 billion) and other so-called green assets.

Shaping global investment patterns and financial flows

Thereby, climate policy becomes a powerful instrument for shaping global investment patterns and financial flows. In his 2020 “Open Letter to CEOs” Larry Fink, the Chairman of the world’s largest asset management company, BlackRock, declared: “I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.”

In the meantime BlackRock, several of whose executives have been named to high positions in the Biden Administration. And announced that it is making climate change central to its investment strategy for 2021.

Thus, in all probability the Biden Administration will indeed pursue the radical course announced during his campaign and signaled by initial executive orders.

What will that mean?

From the positive side, I have reason to expect that areas of science and technology that are critically important for the future – nuclear fission and fusion, new materials, hydrogen technologies, high-density energy storage, applications of high temperature superconductivity and much more – will receive greater support under the new administration, than has been the case under preceding ones.

This is a crucial point. Leaving many other factors aside, the choice of technologies employed in the promised rebuilding of US infrastructure. Assuming it actually occurs. It will have a decisive impact on whether Biden’s climate-pivoted economic policy will benefit the nation or lead to disaster.

Following this introductory article no. 1, further installments in the series will take up the following concerns:

  • Green imperialism: Is the Biden Administration turning the climate issue into a vehicle for great-power geopolitics? 
  • Will Biden’s climate policy serve, defacto, as a vehicle for financial interests that are positioning themselves to profit from the tectonic shifts in global financial flows, arising from a forced move away from fossil fuels? Is this a “BlackRock Administration”?
  • Will overheated climate measures set the stage for a financial crisis? Major bets are being placed on the future of the world energy system, and market stability faces the dual menaces of a “green bubble” of climate-linked financial assets and a “carbon bubble” of potentially worthless fossil fuel assets.
  • Consider the risk of a California-like horror scenario: economically ruinous over-expansion of so-called renewable energy sources and ideologically-driven environmentalist measures, leading to exploding energy prices, blackouts, economic austerity, productivity losses and growing poverty. Will ill-conceived climate measures generate a political backlash and a resurgence of the Republicans, at latest by the 2024 Presidential elections?
  • Will the United States descend into economic and social crisis when the temporary, government money injections-induced “high” begins to wear off?
  • What’s the danger that ill-conceived measures by the Biden Administration, in the name of saving the planet, will undermine the capability of the United States and other nations to cope with climate changes in the future?
  • At the end I shall make some remarks concerning what a rational approach to the climate issue would look like.

Jonathan Tennenbaum received his PhD in mathematics from the University of California in 1973 at age 22. Also a physicist, linguist and pianist, he is a former editor of FUSION magazine. He lives in Berlin and travels frequently to Asia and elsewhere, consulting on economics, science and technology.

John Pilger on The New Cold War With China..

John Pilger on The New Cold War With China, American Exceptionalism, Biden’s Victory, Coronavirus


Going Underground on RT
111K subscribers

In this episode of Going Underground, we speak to legendary journalist and filmmaker John Pilger. He discusses the devastating impact of Coronavirus in the U.K., rising poverty and militarism, the Western logic for the new Cold War with China, the victory of Joe Biden over Donald Trump and why not much will change with Trump leaving the Presidency, the Yemen War, the survival of Venezuela despite crippling international sanctions, mainstream journalism vs real journalism and much more!

FOLLOW Going Underground https://www.youtube.com/user/GoingUnd…

Going Underground on Twitter http://twitter.com/Underground_RT

Afshin Rattansi on Twitter http://twitter.com/AfshinRattansi


PODCAST https://soundcloud.com/rttv/sets/goin…

We contacted HM Treasury and they directed us to Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s words following the Spending Review.

Well, you know, yesterday was a spending review we were setting the budgets. And I was very clear when I set out the fiscal situation that what is happening this year is obviously not sustainable. You know that, your viewers know that. It is right to act in the way that we have this year to protect the economy in the medium term. I’m glad that the Office for Budget Responsibility who or independent fiscal watchdog acknowledged that what we’ve done has made a difference and it made a difference to keeping people in work primarily, which is what we’re trying to do.

But yes, you’re right, that can’t go on. Now is not the time to make those decisions because we’re dealing with so much uncertainty with the economy. The OBR yesterday presented three different scenarios. But once we get through this and we have greater certainty about the outlook, we can’t obviously have a situation where we’re borrowing this much and that is going up forever and a day.  When we get to an appropriate point, where we have certainty over the economy, we’ll look at how best to make sure that we have strong public finances. And the reason for that is simple.

I have been able to respond in a comprehensive and generous way during this crisis. It is in part because of the decisions of my predecessors. Which meant that we came into this with a strong set of public finances. I want to make sure whenever the next difficult thing comes along, the Chancellor can do the same response that I’ve done. That will require us to make sure we get back to that strong position.