Ed. Note: This is a must-read article and especially the conclusion, regarding our future. With the fall of Syria, I came to the same conclusion myself. Russia is now targeted, and it is being surrounded. From the South, with the penetration of the Jihadists and the soon-to-be-implemented blocking of the straits to the Mediterranean Sea; from the West, by the blocking of Ukraine and then of the Baltic Sea; and even in the North through the brewing takeover of Greenland and the submarine routes to the Atlantic. The aim here is to suffocate Russia. Will this situation ultimately trigger the much-feared nuclear war, or Russia’s capitulation? Only time will tell.

This is the testimony of a Syrian who fought for his country and his people and who now suffers the most terrible defeat in life.

by

Lorenzo Maria Pacini via Strategic-Culture

This article stems from a conversation I had with an old friend who was a commander of the Syrian Armed Forces, whose courage was appreciated and recognised throughout the Middle East. A true socialist from another era, who was never afraid to speak his mind and who, despite contradictions and different political views, never betrayed his country and support for his government.

As he has no pleasure in revealing his name, as he is still engaged in institutional activities abroad, we will call him by his fictional name Ram. Whether one agrees with his words or not, this is the testimony of a Syrian who fought for his country and his people and who now suffers the most terrible defeat in life.

The reunion with Ram

In Ram’s private study there is an air of life lived to the full. Hanging on the walls are various paintings of Syrian landscapes, along with some Koranic invocations and terracottas commemorating the battles he took part in. A few old books in Arabic can be glimpsed on the bookshelf, along with many posters of documents in various languages. Here and there are now faded photographs of men in camouflage uniforms in the desert. Looking towards the entrance, a Syrian flag with Bashar al-Assad’s face still full of dust, dirt and a few rips, as if it had been taken from the battlefield and immediately put on the flagpole. In the centre, a photo of his father, a wise and good-looking Arab man, with a black mourning keffiyeh on top.

We had known each other for years: I was a kid who read the classics of geopolitics and looked at the world with the desire to understand it, he was a fighter who had lived through incredible situations and retired to private life, continuing to work for his country in other ways, out of the spotlight. I loved listening to the anecdotes he would pull out of his memory each time, it was like plunging into a different world, almost improbable for how ‘other’ it was from the West. Above all, a world in which the war, the struggle for freedom and a different political situation were not something decades away, but fresh events whose scars were still open and bleeding.

He has always had great respect for me and my support for the Syrian cause, which is why he allowed me to meet him. He welcomes me with the warmth, respect and depth that belongs to the Syrian people, famous for thousands of years for their ability to welcome and integrate. He offers me a long coffee and we start talking.

‘Ram, what do you think?’ I ask him.

The happiness of our meeting suddenly disappears. His face becomes serious and his head tilts forward as if in deep thought. After a few seconds, he looks up: ‘I have never told anyone. Perhaps the time has come to tell what I knew, what I saw’.

What follows is his testimony, delivered to me with great emotion and palpable pain from the first to the last word.

We already knew everything

‘What happened was not expected by anyone, except those who, like me, had already glimpsed the plot of events as far back as 2011 and perhaps had had anticipations from trusted contacts. We already knew everything. We knew that Bashar al-Assad was preparing something with the rulers of other countries, arranging his good exit the moment support in the Middle East collapsed or things went bad’. The seriousness of the conversation does not admit of irony or sarcasm. Ram is serious and tries to make me understand the gravity of his words, trusting in my professionalism and the trust that binds us.

The thesis he supports and which he explains to me in many details, some of which I cannot report due to the delicacy of the information cited, is that Bashar al-Assad was too friendly with Westerners: his banker wife, the dinners in the United Kingdom, the smell of Freemasonry, a certain passivity in the face of the corruption of politicians and the high ranks of the armed forces. Too many elements that many Syrians did not like and that already in 2000, when he came to power, had aroused suspicion and disappointment among those who, like Ram, had risked their lives for the revolution.

The events of 2011-2013, the internal uprising, the jihadist terrorism, had all been consequences of previous mistakes. Assad had winked too much at the West…but also at the East. To Russia, for example. ‘I confess I had believed it, I had hoped for it. Putin could really make a difference. I never trusted any other ruler, but I did, because he had really provided essential help in defeating terrorism and had guaranteed Syria at least a minimum of international security,’ he tells me, exploring his many memories. ‘But it didn’t help, because Russia was also involved in the agreement. We have been betrayed twice: as a country, by Russia who let the enemy assault us; as Syrian people, by our president who sold out all of us to save his own skin’. There is anger in Ram’s eyes. A solemn anger that admits of no lies.

‘And I will tell you more: for me, the agreement was signed in concert with Israel and the US. American Jews are interested in the Middle East to realize the Greater Israel project and the construction of the Third Temple, Russian Jews are interested in Ukraine, the old Khazaria. They win either way. Israel won even before sending troops to invade’. Strong and precise words, as befits a commander who has been at war for real.

He then explained to me that information had already been circulating for a couple of months about Assad’s escape and the handover of Syria without effort, but these were not rumors that were given much credence and the versions of events were sometimes contradictory and inaccurate. But it was clear that something was moving.

He tells me some anecdotes of when he was fighting, of the cities he defended and when he also took part in conflicts in other countries: ‘I have seen in my life the enemy arrive in Beirut, in Damascus, in Aleppo, in Hama, in Homs. I have seen the enemy succeed in making us believe they have won, but then be swept away by the courage of our men. There were times when I thought it was the end, that we were losing the war, but then something happened that gave new impetus to the Resistance. This time – the first time in my whole life – I saw defeat’.

This is the most painful point. ‘We did not lose, we were defeated. This is much worse. ‘Woe to the vanquished!’ said the Latins.’ Defeat is the most terrible thing for a long-standing commander. The Syrian people have always shown heroic resistance, but something went wrong somewhere.

‘Do you know what I saw over there the last time I went? Poverty, hunger. There is no electricity, no water, no food supplies, not even fuel. The army is left to fend for itself in absolutely precarious conditions’. He tells me that some 700,000,000 [sic] young Syrians have given their lives to fight against the enemy.

Blood, blood, blood. Is it possible that the Middle East has to be constantly bathed in blood?

Then he explains to me the corruption he has seen, from checkpoints where the military took bribes without checking up on them to high officials bought with the luxury of private cars, villas, Western souvenirs.

‘Once when I was driving out of Damascus towards Homs, I met two very young boys in uniform along the road. They were thin and were smoking. I stopped them and asked them what they were doing there in that condition. They replied that they had no money to go to Homs, to spend the 24 hours of leave they had, nor did they have money to eat. I loaded them into the car with me and we left. During the journey we talked, they told me about the misery they lived in at the base. Their daily ration of food was a tomato and a potato. Once a week they were given a chicken to share among eight people. In my time there was food and the troops had to be well fed to be ready to fight. How can this happen? In the last 13 years, the government has completely destroyed the army: corruption of officers, lack of supplies, disengagement in the fight for the national cause’.

Soleimani, Raisi, Nasrallah. Someone betrayed

‘When General Soleimani – whom I knew as a young soldier – was killed by the American demon in 2020, I immediately sensed that something was starting to go wrong. He was much more than a General, he was a real Man, a leader, a living example. After him, unfortunately, the Resistance did not have another soldier capable in the same way of coordinating thousands of men from different countries, religions and ethnicities. This was an enormous strategic disadvantage’. We briefly reviewed the history of the Axis of Resistance and reasoned together about the geopolitical implications for the entire Middle East.

‘When I heard about Raisi’s death, I didn’t want to believe it. It seemed impossible. From that moment on, everything went downhill. Every day I watched the news with the fear that something even more terrible might happen. And so it was: one after the other, they took out all the leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas’. A tragic truth, which I could only confirm.

The speed with which the enemy exterminated the military leaders of the Lebanese resistance one after the other was unbelievable, proving that agencies like the CIA, MI6 and Mossad did a great job. This is an incontrovertible fact. In the space of a few months, the entire political geography of the Middle East underwent a mutation that had not succeeded in years of trying.

‘Who knew the coordinates of Nasrallah’s bunker? Maybe three people in the world: Khamenei, Soleimani, Assad. Khamenei rather than betray would be ready to die with rifle in hand. Soleimani has already been taken out. There is only one left…’. At these words I stand open-mouthed: the commander had never spoken ill of his president, although I knew that politically he was not a supporter of him in everything, but had always supported his leader’s battle, for the good of the whole country. Anger, disappointment and pain brought out the truest words. A gamble, but still true.

Because one of the big questions that remain open is ‘who’ revealed Nasrallah’s exact location: an intelligence tracker? A spy? A paid-for piece of information? Or a traitor? The fact is that Nasrallah is no more and this, in Ram’s words, means that Lebanon will be the next to fall and Palestine, consequently, will no longer exist except in the memories of the last Arabs scattered around the world.

‘Syria fell in a matter of days because it had already fallen to the will of its rulers who had sold it out. 70,000 soldiers migrated within hours, taken in taxis (which cost a lot of money), not military vehicles, to the border with Iraq. It was all planned. Not a single bullet was fired in this invasion. This is not the Syrian army I know. This ‘thing’ is a perversion without dignity’.

He points to a photo behind him; I catch a glimpse of a soldier in uniform, one of those postcard photos you send to your parents when you do your military service: ‘Look at that boy there, 22 years old. Slit his throat’. He froze for a few moments, his eyes swollen with tears. It was the son of a close friend of his.

What will happen now?

Ram does not feel like talking about the coming days or weeks or months. Arab and secular Syria no longer exists. The word of the defeated has little value.

‘Something unthinkable is happening these days. There is no information in the media about it because it would be something terribly raw. Imagine 70 years of ethnic, cultural and religious hatred: they are getting even.’ There is almost fear in uttering these words. I remember that he has a brother in the Islamic clergy and several nieces and nephews, and with some concern I ask him what about them, so he replies: ‘I am trying to get my relatives out of Syria, but since 8 December I cannot even get in touch with them.’ A tragedy that is the common sentence of too many thousands of people in those lands.

In concluding our conversation, which lasted about an hour, Ram ventures an almost ‘prophetic’ projection: ‘I say it: yesterday Palestine, today Syria. Tomorrow Lebanon for good. Then Yemen. Once Yemen and Lebanon have fallen, Iran will be next. In between there is nothing left; Iraq is a gas pump surrounded by American gunmen, it will fall soon. President Trump is ready to destroy Iran, the intelligence community already knows this. If Khamenei dies, Iran collapses’. A few seconds of silence. Khamenei is the last remaining ‘global’ Islamic authority and the last patron of the Resistance.

‘Then it will be Russia’s turn. Millions of Sunni Islamic immigrants in the odor of extremism are already on the streets of Russian cities. They let in indiscriminately, they will pay the consequences. Then it will be Rome’s turn. Then Beijing’s. I await the day when the ‘long beards’ will come marching into Red Square and St. Peter’s Square. I hope to die before that terrible day’.

Here ends our conversation. A deep silence that lasts a few minutes. We stand up to say goodbye. Sighing, I take my formal leave and look one last time at the relics of the patriotic war Ram fought. I try to ask myself if I too would be ready to give my life as so many heroes and martyrs did who are no longer here today, but whose example will remain forever.

Interview with Igor Strelkov in the Russian penal colony (machine translated)

December 25, 2024 by (interview with the media resource URA.ru, which was never published by them).

First of all, how is your health, how do you feel? Do you need anything, do you have enough of everything?

I.S.: My health leaves much to be desired, but I hope for the best. I need what most prisoners need, if not all.

How is your life arranged now? What do you do most of the time, what job did you choose? How are your relationships with other prisoners? Those who live with you – are they serving sentences for what articles? How are your relations with the colony administration?
I.S.: Those who have not been in prison will not understand. I am in the zone 24 hours a day, you can choose a job outside, and in prison I am employed as a handyman in a sewing shop (chalkboard worker) and in my free time from this noble occupation I am learning the profession of an electrician. Relations in the team are quite smooth, there are no conflicts, I maintain friendly relations with many, there are no people in the colony convicted of serious articles, but, unfortunately, many are serving time under Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. I try to follow the regime, not to violate the PVR, I do not feel any nitpicking.

Are there any of your supporters among other convicts in the colony?
I.S.: In the colony, so to speak, “on both sides of the barricade” there are people who read my blog, however, since I am not involved in political activities, I did not find out who of them is my supporter.

How do you maintain contact with the outside world? Where do you get news? Do they write you letters, who writes them?
I.S.: Many people write to me using the Zonatelecom service, I receive information for analysis from my correspondents and relatives.

What exactly is stopping you from going to the front now? Many people leave places of detention during the investigation stage, what is your reason?
Will you challenge your sentence further?
I.S.: I will challenge the court’s sentence for the rest of my life.
Do you think you will be able to be released early?

Do you think a Russian penal colony can reform a convicted person?
I.S.: It can form in many people an acute reluctance to end up there again, whether this is a reform is a controversial and rather philosophical question.

What do you dream about? How do you hold on, what really helps in the colony?
I.S.: Dreaminess and pathos are not my style, there have been worse periods in my life, and the work was harder, and the responsibility was higher, it was easier for me morally when I led large teams at war.

Since the beginning of August, part of the Kursk region has been occupied by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, thousands of residents of Sudzha are still searching for their missing relatives. How soon, in your opinion, will the Russian army be able to liberate the Kursk territories?
I.S.: I cannot speculate on the fate of the Kursk region, there is not enough information, the main question is different – how soon will our army completely defeat the Armed Forces of Ukraine, I emphasize, completely, a partial defeat is not enough.

In November, Donald Trump won the presidential election in the United States. How do you think his new term in office will change the situation in the world? Is it possible to improve relations with Russia? Trump promised that he would end the war on the first day of his presidency – do you think his return to power will change the course of the SVO?
I.S.: I have no illusions about Trump, I believe that he will put forward such conditions for a truce that they will be unacceptable even for the most ardent supporters of the “freeze”. And besides, we greatly underestimate the degree of stubbornness of Nezalezhnaya. I will refer to V.O. Klyuchevsky: “A Russian is a smart person who pretends to be a fool, and a Ukrainian is a fool who pretends to be smart.”

On November 21, Vladimir Putin addressed the Russians. He said that in response to the use of long-range missiles (ATACMS, Storm Shadow and HIMARS) in the Kursk and Bryansk regions, the Russian army launched a retaliatory strike with a new ballistic missile in a non-nuclear hypersonic warhead. The missile is called “Oreshnik”. The strike hit the Yuzhmash enterprise in Dnepropetrovsk. According to Putin, the new Russian medium-range missile attacks targets at a speed of 10 Mach (2.5-3 kilometers per second), and there is currently no countermeasure to such weapons. In addition, “Oreshnik” can hit targets in Europe. How do you see the course of development of the SVO after Russia’s use of “Oreshnik”?
I.S.: About “Oreshnik” – wars are not won by missile strikes, so I do not expect any consequences from its use, with the exception of those described in the old Soviet cartoon called “Plasticine Crow”.

Is it possible that Russia and Ukraine will start negotiations or will the escalation escalate?
I. S. The question is not addressed to the right person, not within the framework of the SVO, and I cannot know what the SVO will ultimately develop into and I will not “read the tea leaves”, it is possible and necessary to fear a nuclear war.

How long, in your opinion, will the SVO last?
I.S.: The SVO ended a long time ago in the spring of 2022 and has developed into a full-fledged war not for life but to the death, in which one of the parties will win. Victory must be ours, otherwise Russia will perish.

Many fighters and supporters of the Wagner PMC believe that Yevgeny Prigozhin is alive. What do you think about this?
I.S.: I believe that Prigozhin is dead.

In early December, the Bashar al-Assad regime fell in Syria, and power in the country passed into the hands of Islamist groups. The cities that were the subject of fierce battles with the support of Russian troops and the Wagner PMC are now lost, and Assad has received asylum in Moscow. What do you think about this? What does the loss of control in Syria mean for Russia?
I.S.: The Syrian story is a reincarnation of the fire in the stable from Utesov’s miniature entitled “Everything is fine, beautiful marquise…”. First of all, we should not have refused to liberate Novorossiya in 2014. Now we can only hope that we will be able to find a way to minimize the consequences of Assad’s flight, and I am afraid that we will not be able to save the base in Tartus.

Igor Ivanovich, how do you think the events that happened to you have influenced you? Have you developed any new thoughts, ideas? Or, on the contrary, have you become even more convinced of your commitment to your views?
I.S.: I have remained myself regardless of external conditions.

What would you like to convey to the Russians, to your supporters? Would you like to address something? What is your attitude to the possible truce that is now being talked about from every iron?
I.S.: Firstly, I persist in my forecast – most likely there will be no truce, and if there is, it will be very short-lived and soon a new “turmoil” will begin… Now our dear “Western partners” have not yet decided on the main thing – does “Ukraine” need a break or can they continue to cynically “grind down” the Slavs against each other without regard for their “shrinkage and shrinkage”. In any case, the authorities in Kyiv are not going to observe or implement anything that has been signed, we have already seen all this in the story with the Minsk agreements.
Secondly, there is no benefit for Russia in the “freeze”. From a military point of view, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are close to a crisis. Giving them a break now is a crime. They will recover with Western help, “preen their feathers” and go back to battle, and the “trigger” will be a new series of provocations.
For our country, a truce not only means a short-term reduction in combat potential, but, most importantly, celebrating the imaginary “victory” with propaganda will be extremely dangerous and corrupting. Moreover, an influential group of traitors remains in the highest echelons of power, who are deliberately leading the cause to the defeat of Russia. They continue to live by the motto “let’s drink Bavarian wine” and dream of the physical extermination of patriots. No matter how hard it is, we need to maintain a strategic course for the total defeat of Ukraine, the mirage of a “freeze” leads to a catastrophe. Believe me, I do not enjoy the fact that many of my predictions are coming true. I am not a “doomsayer” or a “whiner”, I just feel sick watching how some people’s “mustache has come unglued” time after time again.
By the way, during my last visit, the lawyer told me about a Karelian punk band with the strange name “Gromyka”. So, they have a hit that consists entirely of one phrase: “I told you, you didn’t listen, and that’s how it turned out” (https://youtu.be/3Szc_pOz9fw?si=QRD8oH3hoUjliCwF). It’s both funny and sad.

Last question. Do you think Strelkov is still remembered or is he a “shot down pilot”?
I.S.: In connection with your last question, I remembered an old joke – a clown is sitting in a park near the circus and drinking. A drinking buddy comes up to him and asks why he is not going to the party in honor of the circus’s 107th anniversary.
– They didn’t invite him…
– Forgot?
– They remember!

Sent from my iPad

Oreshnik – the super weapon from Russia? November 21, 2024, the day that made history, when Russian won the war?

As it turns out there is no such evidence. The famous military plant Yuzhmash, in Ukraine, was not pulverized as Doctorow and others have posted, nor was it deeply penetrated, or whatever – wiped out – no. None of that is borne out by the evidence. Apparently it wasn’t even targeted. There is no evidence of an impact at all, except in the virtual sphere of reality.

There is some evidence of peripheral damage to the roofs of some buildings, but even those have now been documented as having been caused by an earlier attack by the Russians, in July, with conventional weapons.

Quote:

As I said in the beginning of this article, there are three possible explanations:

– Oreshnik completely missed Yuzhmash

– Oreshnik hit the plant, but did no damage which is visible in the satellite imagery I ordered

– Just like Maxar, Airbus is participating in a coverup of damage to Ukrainian military objects

See the full article here : Mea Maxima Culpa and an earlier article: Yuzhmash and Oreshnik Demystified

by John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with

The illustration of power coming out of the barrel of a gun is from a comic book. Contemplating the reality of Russia’s position in Syria, no one in a position to know believes in cartoon captions, the credibility of the gun, or the direction in which the horse is now running.
Military sources in Moscow have told a tale of President Vladimir Putin’s decision not to defend the Syrian Arab Army and the Damascus government of Bashar al-Assad. That decision, the sources claim, was taken at least two weeks before the Turkish break-out from Idlib began on November 27, and was conveyed to Assad personally by December 6.
It had been hinted at four days earlier, on December 2, when Iran’s President, Masoud Pezeshkian, made an urgent telephone call to Putin. In principle, the Kremlin announced, Putin and Pezeshkian agreed on “unconditional support for the efforts of Syria’s legitimate authorities to restore constitutional order and maintain the country’s territorial integrity.”
In practice, there was a Russian condition. Putin told Pezeshkian that Russian anti-aircraft units in Syria would not operate against Israeli attack and defend the Iranian air bridge to Khmeimim for the troops and arms which Assad had been requesting urgently, and which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was ready to send. Putin also told the Iranian President that Russian ground forces and artillery would not engage Turkish forces moving southward, and would not bomb them from the air.
By the time Putin and Pezeshkian were speaking, after days of the closed-door debate with the General Staff, Putin believed he had the word of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Russia’s principal military bases at Tartus and Khmeimim would not be attacked and Russian forces not threatened. Their pre-condition was that Putin would not encourage or defend Iranian reinforcements.
The General Staff and GRU warned Putin that Erdogan and Netanyahu could not be trusted, and that without Russian military force to deter them, plus Iranian troops, they would take over Syrian territory – the Turks down the coast to the Lebanese border and to Damascus; the Israelis across the Golan and the Quneitra buffer zone into the southern outskirts of Damascus.
The Security Council met openly only once with Putin during this debate – on December 5. The official communiqué does not report that Syria was discussed.
“Russia does not betray friends in difficult situations,” was the line the Kremlin told the Foreign Ministry to instruct its diplomats to announce after Assad had landed in Moscow on December 8, adding the footnote that “a deal has been done to ensure the safety of Russian military bases.” The Ministry spokesman, Maria Zakharova, did not go so far. “Our number-one priority is ensuring the safety of the Russian citizens currently residing in Syria, and protecting Russia’s property and its diplomatic, military and other missions,” she said.
Zakharova was signalling there was no deal for the bases short of evacuation from Syria, with terms of safe passage still to be negotiated with the Turks. The camouflage for this is a multinational negotiation the Foreign Ministry is proposing for Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Gulf Arab states, and the United Nations special envoy for Syria.
Asked what reaction Russia has to the Israeli occupation of southern Syria, Zakharova said: “it is incumbent upon all members of the international community, especially neighbouring nations, to exhibit restraint and an elevated level of responsibility by refraining from actions that could provoke further deterioration of the situation in Syria.” Asked what role Israel and the US had played in the invasion and military coup in Syria, she replied: “The situation is being analyzed. There will be even more facts qualifying what happened in Syria.”
Zakharova was not asked for the ministry’s assessment of the part Erdogan had played. Instead, she said: “Our country respects the leaders of friendly countries, maintains dialogue with them and develops relations with them.”
The Kremlin record of Putin’s direct telephone conversation with Erdogan on December 3 claims Putin told Erdogan he should agree “to stop radical groups’ terrorist aggression against the Syrian state.” Erdogan, who initiated the call, didn’t agree.
The General Staff understood Putin to believe that he had the agreement of Turkey, Israel and indirectly of the United States for a de facto partition of Syria into four military control zones, like Germany following Adolf Hitler’s suicide in Berlin on April 30, 1945. The General Staff warned Putin that Russian military capacities in the bases would be too weak to enforce his verbal exchanges with Erdogan and Netanyahu; that a Russian control zone around the bases could not be protected from a forced evacuation; and that if Putin agreed to this, he was risking the destruction of Russian credibility with strategic allies, Iran first of all, then China.
Ex-President Dmitry Medvedev was then sent to Beijing on December 12 to explain and assure President Xi Jinping. Xi has not been reassured. The General Staff messaged Putin, “We told you so”. Now read on.

In the Chinese communiqué of the Xi-Medvedev meeting, Xi’s line was reported as “the need to uphold the three principles of no expansion of the battlefield, no escalation of fighting and no provocation by any party, to promote the easing of the situation as soon as possible.” The communiqué also reports the Chinese as accepting Medvedev’s assurance that there will be no fresh surprises to undermine Russia’s promises of strategic alliance with China. “The Russian side will unswervingly implement the consensus reached by the two heads of state and promote strategic coordination.”
A hint is surfacing in the Russian military blogs – endorsed by the GRU-linked reporter Yevgeny Krutikov — that if and when the Tartus naval base is evacuated by the Russians, an alternative naval base arrangement may be made at Tobruk in Libya.

Source: https://t.me/corpsafrica/579
BBC, the British state propaganda organ, is also reporting the possibility of a Russian fleet redeployment to Tobruk. It is unlikely that Erdogan, Netanyahu, or the incoming Trump Administration will agree to the reinforcement of the Russian military position in Libya.

A well-informed Moscow source comments there is no surprise in Moscow at Putin’s decision-making to favour Israel and Turkey at the expense of the Arabs and Iran. The source also warns that the surprise expressed by Anglo-American podcasters who support Putin in the Ukraine war “reflects their readiness to say what they believe the Kremlin wants to hear – with or without reward.”
An accurate guide to the Kremlin propaganda line right now, the source indicates, is a Moscow-based American academic named Andrew Korybko. He has turned the General Staff’s warning upside down, defending Putin’s decision to accommodate Israel and Turkey in Syria as reflecting the realistic military balance in the Middle East right now. “Putin is a proud lifelong philo-Semite,” Korybko says, “who never shared the Resistance’s unifying anti-Zionist ideology, instead always expressing very deep respect for Jews and the State of Israel…Russia dodged a bullet by wisely choosing not to ally with the now-defeated [Arab-Iranian] Resistance Axis since it would have needlessly ruined its relations with Israel, the undisputable victor of the West Asian Wars. Putin made the right choice, which was always driven by his rational calculation of what was in Russia’s objective interests as a state, not due to ‘Zionist influence’.”
“This is toadying,” the Moscow source comments, but indicative. “The toad is giving voice to those who think, plan, decide. He is giving the clearest official line on it all.”
A Moscow military source suspects that Putin has “traded” with the General Staff, exchanging the evacuation of the Russian bases in Syria with permission to accelerate missile operations against the regime in Kiev, against US and NATO planning and operations units in the Ukraine, and intensification of the electric war in Kiev, Lvov and western Ukraine. The source adds that the test of this “trade” will be whether the General Staff launches strikes over Friday and Saturday in retaliation for the resumption of US-Ukrainian ATACMS launches on Wednesday night against Taganrog.
ATACMS missile part photographed at Taganrog on Wednesday evening, December 11. The Russian Defense Ministry reported that six American-made ATACMS missiles were used in the strike. “This attack by Western long-range weapons will not remain unanswered, appropriate measures will be taken,” the Ministry declared.

by Claudiu Secara

In a few words, the people behind Trump understand that the West cannot win a military confrontation against Russia over Ukraine. Pretty obvious at this stage.

The Russian army started the invasion with the false assumption that Ukraine would collapse just by the show of the Russian military columns. That was hubris and it cost the Russian army huge losses in men and materiel. Ukraine had its defenses up and they were well informed by the US intelligence as to where the invasion was heading; they just ambushed the unsuspecting troops in a very painful way.

That first moment gave the Ukrainians and the West confidence that the Russian army was just a shade of its former glory. But that euphoria didn’t last too long. After three years of facing each other, it is the Ukrainian army which is suffering ambush after ambush.

Faced with humiliating defeat on the battlefield, the West had to change tack. Stop the bloodshed, call for a ceasefire, freeze the frontline and take a different offensive against Russia.

And that’s how we came to have Trump, fully endorsed by the oligarchy. Even the lifelong billionaire democrats demonstrated in the last round of the electoral charade that they’d got the memo and endorsed Trump.

So what’s different now? The quintessential snake oil salesman, Trump promised everything and one more to the delusional masses. End of the war in the first day and full economic recovery in the next day.

So let’s follow the Trumpian peace plan. First, snatch Syria from the arms of Russia with a snap of the fingers. Inflict the most humiliating defeat on Russia in recent memory. Induce the loss of credibility in Russia’s omnipotence among its cheerleaders and take away its vital stronghold in tbe Middle East. Show the world that the emperor has no cloths. The loss of Syria is incalculable in terms of future projection of strength by Russia. On top of that Russia is now virtually surrounded. It is in a deadly chokehold. Turkey, Syria, Iraq and soon to be Iran are blocking Russia’s vital access to the world. Every move outside its borders can now be monitored and placated.

But even more disturbing is the success crowning the Islamist fervor right at Russia’s southern borders. The Islamists from the outside can now infiltrate Russia’s souther border almost with impunity. That is the next front the West is preparing for Russia while Russia celebrates its takeover of Donbas.

This second front is what Trump is all about. His friendly gestures regarding Ukraine are only the pantomime of the prestidigitator while stealing your watch.

Gilbert Doctorow:

“And this, lady and gentlemen, brings us to the question of the value of the Opposition movement in the USA against the country’s aggressive foreign and military policy wherein senior officials are saying publicly that the country is ready to enter a nuclear war with Russia and to prevail. Answer: close to nil. 

I say this not in a spirit of despair, because I believe there will be no such war, but to point to where our salvation, such as it will be, comes from: namely from Moscow and not from Washington or from any of the valiant anti-war gatherings such as took place at The National Press Club yesterday. Further remarks from the dais made it perfectly clear that there are no grounds to expect more reasonable and predictable decision making in Washington from the incoming Trump administration.”

Read more

via Gilbert Doctorow

Russian state television yesterday was explaining to its domestic audience how awed Western leaders were by the first use of Russia’s still ‘experimental’ hypersonic intermediate range missile, the Oreshnik (hazelnut tree). They showed on screen the utter confusion of Zelensky over how to respond other than to publicly beg Washington for further shipments of anti-aircraft systems to better protect his homeland. Of course, all of US and Western defenses are useless against the invincible Russian missile.

On The Great Game, the presenter and panelists were uncertain whether the significance of the Russian attack on a military installation in the Dnepropetrovsk region last week using Oreshnik was fully understood by Collective Biden, even if the Pentagon was sure to have been awed.

For their part, my peers in the alternative Western media have had their say about Oreshnik and seem to concur that it represents a new entry into the Russian missile arsenal that has no equivalent in the West. But I have not heard exactly why it is such a novel development and, as some have said, ‘a game changer.’ Let us address these issues here and now.

President Putin devoted a large part of his State of the Nation address on 1 March 2018 to rolling out before the Russian public and the world the various state of the art weapons systems that Russia had been developing ever since President Bush Jr withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002 and the USA appeared to have made a first strike capability on Russia its national security objective.

Putin’s talk about hypersonic missiles, about missiles circling the globe and striking North America from the South Pole, thereby rendering useless the US radar arrays looking north, – these and other Wunderwaffen were dismissed by many Western observers at the time as just a bluff. How could technically backward Russia steal the march on the United States in strategic weapons operating as it did on a military budget 10 times less than America’s? Moreover, since Putin’s speech was made in the final weeks before a presidential election, his words were taken by many Western experts to be no more than pre-electoral hyperbole by an incumbent seeking reelection.

What happened a week ago was the first demonstration before the global audience that the Russian hypersonic missiles are a reality and that their destructive force based solely on the physics of mass times velocity is comparable to that of some tactical nuclear warheads.

We were told by many talking heads in the West that the Oreshnik is the first of its kind.

Wrong! The Oreshnik is an intermediate range variant based on operational principles that were already incorporated into ICBMs that Russia produced and put on active duty back in 2018. I have in mind the Sarmat, which has in its nosecone perhaps a dozen Avangard hypersonic missiles each of which is individually targetable. Those Avangard on board follow a glide path and reach a velocity of 20 times the speed of sound (Mach) before hitting their targets with either conventional or more typically nuclear warheads.

Note: everyone speaks of the Oreshnik as ‘intermediate range’ which it just barely is. Its range is said to be 5500 km, which is the outer limit of Intermediate and the lower limit of ICBMs.

But range is not the distinguishing feature of the Oreshnik just as hypersonic speed ( in this case 10 Mach) is not its distinguishing feature. Its fuel and launchers are the distinguishing feature.

The Sarmat is a liquid fuel missile that is launched from silos on land. These silos are hardened so as to protect against even a direct hit by a nuclear weapon, but their location is surely known to the adversary. The Oreshnik, by contrast, is a solid fuel rocket that is launched from mobile launchers that can be moved around and hidden under camouflage as required. Therefore, its possible destruction in a preemptive first strike by some adversary is far more problematic.

In the present-day context of the war in Ukraine, even without explosives on board, the Oreshnik has the force at impact to destroy everything below it to a depth of 200 meters. This means that the bunkers used in Kiev and elsewhere in Ukraine by US and NATO officers coordinating the military operations, and also the bunkers now protecting Mr. Zelensky and his war criminal confederates are entirely vulnerable to Russian attack at the time of Moscow’s choosing.

As regards Western Europe, the generally quoted warning time from launch of the Oreshnik in mainland Russia to impact in Berlin is 11 minutes. However, if launched from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, the flight time is reduced to about 4 minutes. This has surely unnerved Mr. Scholz and his little band of would-be warriors in Germany. Sooner or later the same arithmetic will be understood by Cold Warriors in Paris and Brussels. None of them will know what hit them if the Russians go on the offensive and attack Europe with the Oreshnik in response to the various provocations surely being hatched in NATO meetings this week.

Finally, let us look at the calendar.

The Biden Administration used arm-twisting to get Scholz & Company to agree to the positioning of nuclear armed American Tomahawk intermediate range cruise missiles on German soil for possible use against Russia in what could be a decapitating attack. Delivery is scheduled for 2026, two years from now.

But we are living in 2024 and the Russian answer to the future Tomahawks is here and now, ready to be fired against NATO countries if they proceed with their insane plans to attack Russia or to ship nuclear arms to Kiev, which is also said to be under discussion.

And that, ‘in a nutshell’ is what the advent of the Oreshkov (hazelnut tree) is all about.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Postscript: The aforementioned issues and much else were discussed a few minutes ago on my latest interview with Nima Alkhorshid on ‘Dialogue Works’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozlu7UFtR4o

WORLD

Lucas Leiroz

© Photo: SCF

Despite Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election, there are no signs that US foreign policy will undergo significant changes, particularly with regard to the conflict in Ukraine. Despite Trump’s campaign rhetoric, which highlighted a desire to reassess international alliances and reduce US involvement in foreign conflicts, current geopolitical conditions and domestic pressures within the United States make it difficult to predict the success of any disruptive action by Washington in the current conflict.

It is important to remember that, although Trump has presented himself as a leader opposed to “endless wars” and has advocated, on several occasions, a more isolationist stance, his previous presidency has already shown that, when confronted with the realities of global power and the strategic commitments of the United States, he has maintained policies largely aligned with the interests of the so-called “political class” and the military-industrial complex. During his first term, Trump adopted an assertive approach towards Russia, even while at the same time making ambiguous statements and demonstrating a certain sympathy for Vladimir Putin. The continuation of military support for Ukraine and the tightening of sanctions against Russia are examples of how his foreign policy, despite his promises of disengagement, has been sensitive to domestic pressures and the need to maintain the position of the United States as the leader of the West – even if to some extent acknowledging the beginning of a more polycentric order.

With his re-election, the continuation of the policy of support for Ukraine could be a direct reflection of this reality. The current geopolitical context – with the ongoing war in Ukraine, Moscow’s resistance to any attempt at external interference in its strategic environment, and the intensification of global tensions – ensures that the United States, regardless of its leadership, will maintain an aggressive stance towards Russia. Military and financial support for Kiev could continue under Trump, albeit with adjustments in terms of volume and type of assistance. Trump may try to reduce the level of direct US commitment, but pressure from the political establishment, the defense industry, and European allies, particularly Poland and the Baltic states, is likely to prevent any drastic change.

Furthermore, electoral considerations and the need to maintain a Republican base that still sees Russia as a significant threat make it difficult for Trump to adopt a more conciliatory stance toward Moscow. Although the former president has spoken out against the continued escalation of the conflict, advocating negotiations and suggesting that European allies should take a more active role, the chances of a real de-escalation remain low. Trump cannot simply ignore the commitments made by the United States to NATO and its allies in Europe, which, in turn, have shown no willingness to accept any form of substantial concessions to Russia, especially regarding Russian territorial claims in the already reintegrated regions.

Furthermore, the domestic situation in the United States could make any attempt at change even more difficult. The opposition of key figures in Congress, both Republican and Democratic, to the idea of a deal with Russia is likely to keep support for Ukraine, if not intact, at least secure to some degree. American foreign policy is largely determined by the military-industrial complex, which sees prolonging the war as a way to fuel demand for weapons and strengthen the US position as the dominant provider of security in the global market. There is no indication that Trump has the ability, or even the interest, to challenge this system in favor of a deal with Moscow.

Finally, while Trump’s campaign rhetoric suggested a shift in US priorities, in practice his victory will not significantly alter the dynamics of the conflict in Ukraine. Pressure from European allies and the US’ own domestic political apparatus will ensure that support for Kiev continues, albeit in less visible forms or with a greater focus on indirect assistance such as mercenaries and intelligence. Russia should therefore prepare for a continuation of the Western policy of containment of its leadership in Eurasia, with the Trump administration likely to focus on trying to negotiate an end to hostilities in a way that favors US interests rather than a genuine peaceful resolution that involves significant concessions to Moscow.

Ultimately, the Trump administration, with all its rhetoric of “America First,” will be hostage to the complex and deep structures of US domestic power and NATO demands. What seemed like a possible reorientation in relations with Russia will probably become just another chapter in the continuity of Western policy of confrontation, with some tactical modifications but with little chance of substantial transitions.

In fact, without Kamala Harris, the chance of nuclear escalation in the conflict is reduced, but the end of hostilities will not be achieved by American will, but by the Russian assessment that the objectives of the special military operation have been achieved – which will certainly still take some time to happen.

by Germán Gorraiz Lopez-Political analyst

The Pentagon’s professed objective would be to provoke an Indo-Pakistani armed conflict, a new local episode between a Pakistan allied with China and an India supported by the US, with the aggravating factor of both countries having nuclear ballistic missiles.

The explosive cocktail of Kashmir

Kashmir would be the perfect paradigm for implementing the Brzezinskinian idea of “constructive chaos” in the region, a concept based on the maxim attributed to the Roman emperor Julius Caesar, “divide et impera”, to establish a field of instability and violence (Balkanization) and cause chaos that would spread from Lebanon, Palestine and Syria to Iraq and from Iran and Afghanistan to Pakistan, Kashmir and Anatolia (Asia Minor).

Kashmir seems to have become an explosive cocktail combining such unstable ingredients as the Hindu-Muslim religious dispute, the territorial dispute, and the cherry on top – the Kashmiri independentists supported by former jihadist fighters from Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Traditionally oppressed by the Indian army that has deployed nearly 500,000 soldiers in Kashmir (1 soldier for every 9 v). The nationalist government of Modi has also reportedly revoked Kashmir’s special status, which in practice means the detention sine die of local politicians from Kashmir and strict control of the Internet service.

India-China Approach?

In 1962, a confrontation between India and China broke out over the Chinese disagreement with the 1914 boundary line (McMahon Line). China gained control of the Aksai Chin Plateau and the Siachen Glacier (territories that India continues to claim as its own). China aims to store water from the headwaters of rivers such as the Brahmaputra to supply Chinese cities in the east of the country, and that would have alarmed the Modi government which fears a significant reduction in the flow of drinking water available; they do not rule out bombing Chinese hydraulic installations.

However, following the BRICS summit in Kazan (Russia), China and India have reportedly reached a historic agreement on the distribution of patrols along the disputed border that could ease tensions between the two nuclear powers. The agreement must have set off alarms in the Pentagon, so a plan to destabilize the border shared by both countries known as the Current Control Line (LAC) is being designed, along with the subsequent extension of the conflict to Kashmir to provoke an Indo-Pakistani armed confrontation that could see the first military strike in the form of a nuclear collision restricted to the Indo-Pakistani geographical area.

A New Indo-Pakistani conflict?

Kashmir has been an endemic confrontation between Pakistan and India, both of which have claimed it as their own since the independence of the two States in 194. (The British preferred to integrate Kashmir into India because it offered them more guarantees than Pakistan to safeguard the northern border from possible Soviet or Chinese attacks). The region is a strategic point for the control of rivers and border crossings as well as having symbolic value for the construction of each State’s national identities.

Consequently, the Pentagon will attempt to provoke an Indo-Pakistani armed conflict that would be a new local episode. Pakistan is allied with China and India is supported by the USA, with the aggravating factor of both countries having nuclear ballistic missiles. The subsequent extension of “constructive chaos” to Chinese territory is not to be ruled out. Thus, the US’s stated objective would be a confrontation with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Founded in 2001 by the Shanghai Five (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) plus Uzbekistan) the SCO has become, together with the ALBA countries and Iran, the hard core of resistance to the global hegemony of the United States and Great Britain.