Iran’s retaliatory attack on Israel was framed in the West as a reckless attempt to spark a major regional war, but in reality, Israel has been attacking Iran for decades.
As is routinely the case with Western-backed wars, the corporate media’s timeline begins at the moment that suits their narrative. We have seen this play out recently, with the attempt to rob the Gaza war of all contexts before October 7, 2023. Similarly, when it comes to Israel’s conflict with Iran, the two have been embroiled in what is referred to as a “shadow war,” the details of which are pretty shocking.
While the international media’s attention was riveted on Iran’s retaliatory strikes against Israel, drawing great focus to some 300 drones and missiles used in the attack, no major deal was made of Israel’s strike on April 1 against the consular segment of Iran’s embassy in Damascus, Syria, that killed a dozen people, including seven Iranian officials of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In this unprecedented act of aggression against Iranian soil, breaking international diplomatic norms, the Israelis were shielded by the U.S. government at the United Nations Security Council, blocking any condemnation of this act.
Despite an admission from British Foreign Secretary David Cameron that had the UK embassy been attacked similarly, they too would retaliate, the double-standard argument that Iran shouldn’t respond continues to dominate the airways.
This is as Iran’s IRGC has received condemnation for seizing a container ship in the Persian Gulf associated with the Zodiac Maritime shipping company of Israel billionaire Eyal Ofer and his family. In 2021, the Mercer Street oil tanker, which Zodiac Maritime also operated, was struck by Iranian drones, prompting similar condemnation. Yet, little was to be said regarding the Israeli-owned company’s role in collaborating with the Israeli military and intelligence establishment to ferry arms and operatives around the region and carry out assassinations or reconnaissance missions.
However, the Israel-Iran “Shadow War” did not begin with recent events. Israel has been carrying out brutal assassinations of civilian scientists on Iranian soil since 2010 while also carrying out acts of espionage that have endangered innocent civilians in the country.
As early as in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, Israeli Mossad agents have been planting viruses designed to cause malfunctions in Iranian oil and nuclear power facilities. Another kind of provocative action occurred in 2018, when it was reported that an Israeli Mossad team had raided an archive facility in Tehran, stealing documents that pertained to its nuclear power program.
In 2020, the New York Times and Washington Post reported that Israel planted bombs inside Iran’s Natanz Nuclear facility, which almost caused an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe. Later that year, the Israeli Mossad assassinated Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, in Tehran. Then, in April of 2021, another explosion occurred at the Natanz facility, which the New York Times reported was Israel’s doing.
The Israelis have also trained members of the MEK terrorist group to carry out attacks on civilian targets inside Iran. The list of Mossad-linked cells that have been arrested by the Iranian authorities or carried out acts of espionage and sabotage is simply too numerous to cover at length. Early last year, U.S. officials even told Reuters that a suicide drone attack targeting a factory in the city of Isfahan was an Israeli attack.
More recently, in late December, Israel launched airstrikes on Damascus and assassinated IRGC official Seyed Razi Mousavi. And in January, Israel launched airstrikes in Damascus, murdering five Iranian military personnel members and Syrian citizens. Then, in early February, Israel was accused of blowing up gas pipelines in Iran. None of these actions, which would likely illicit a response by most nations, provoked Iran to launch a direct strike on Israel.
In addition to all of this, Israel has been the world’s top cheerleader for the West’s crushing sanctions that have significantly impacted Iran’s civilian population, specifically access to lifesaving medical supplies. AIPAC, the powerful Israeli Lobby group in the United States, worked hard to prevent the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal from passing, then pushed for the Trump administration to unilaterally withdraw before pressuring the Biden administration to refrain from reviving the deal despite this being a campaign promise. Israel even played a role in the Trump administration’s assassination of Iran’s top general tasked with battling ISIS, Qassem Soleimani.
Yet, despite Israel’s long history of documented attacks against Iran and around 30 years of false predictions as to when Iran is supposedly going to develop a nuclear weapon, which is the premise for Western sanctions, the corporate media is still trying to sell the public on the lie that Israel is an innocent victim and that there was no justifiable reason for Iran to retaliate.
After NATO was formed and after deploying part of its nuclear arsenal in Europe, the US became the guarantor of the security of its NATO allies, and the “US nuclear umbrella” was born.
In 1945, Pax Americana emerged as the dominant global power, with Washington aiming to assert its authority on the world stage.
To showcase its strength and deter potential challengers, the United States made a bold statement by choosing Hiroshima, Japan, as a symbolic demonstration of its military might.
The devastating atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6 marked the beginning of an era where defying American would come with severe consequences. It was a defining moment that illustrated the immense power and resolve of the United States in shaping the post-war world order.
It was the day when the first and, thus far, the only nuclear bomb was deployed, causing unimaginable devastation and resulting in the loss of nearly 70,000 innocent Japanese lives.
On August 9, 1945, Nagasaki, Japan, became the second target of a devastating nuclear attack. The United States, seeking to assert its power and send a clear message to the world, unleashed another destructive force, resulting in widespread destruction and the loss of approximately 40,000 lives.
The massive mushroom cloud that enveloped Nagasaki served as a chilling symbol of the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons and the immense human suffering they cause.
On May 19, 2023, 78 years later, Japan hosted a meeting for the G7 leaders and chose Hiroshima as the summit location. US President Joe Biden arrived at the meeting destination, becoming the first American to land his feet on the radiated city.
During the G7 summit in Hiroshima, the Japanese Prime Minister aimed to initiate discussions on nuclear arms and encourage leaders to commit to a framework regarding the use of nuclear weapons. However, the final statement issued by the group primarily focused on condemning China’s nuclear weapons, which was no surprise to observers.
The Western world applauded the resolute declaration, perceiving it as a deterrence against Beijing’s nuclear “threat to humanity,” despite the fact that China has not been involved in any military conflicts beyond its own borders, while the countries endorsing the statement have themselves waged numerous wars in the past decades.
From left, President of the European Council Charles Michel, Italy’s Premier Giorgia Meloni, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, U.S. President Joe Biden, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visit the Itsukushima Shrine on Miyajima Island in Hatsukaichi, Hiroshima prefecture, western Japan, Friday, May 19, 2023 (Kenny Holston/Pool Photo via AP)
It indeed appears as a tragicomedy or a surreal theatrical production. The image of the American nuclear bomber alongside the Japanese victims, accompanied by former colonizers and the colonized, serves as a warning to the world about the perceived “global threats” posed by China and Russia’s military capabilities. The irony and contradictions within this scenario are hard to overlook.
The observation of this theatrical display paves the way to the realization that the statements made by the leaders hold some truth, despite the ironic and contradictory nature of the situation. While it may be unsettling, there are elements of reality within their assertions.
In the intricate web of global affairs, a world dominated by Washington and its proxy nations finds itself facing a profound threat.
The very foundations of this order, woven through institutions tainted by notions of genocide, such as the IMF and the World Bank, and bolstered by the military might of NATO and its war coalition, stand on shaky ground.
Emerging on the horizon are the pillars of multipolarity, heralding an alternative world order.
The collective uprising of the Global South and the rise of BRICS, the SCO, and the Eurasian Economic Forum (among others), as well as Beijing’s dissemination of a new economic and political paradigm, present a formidable challenge to the established norms.
The tides of change are shifting, and the winds of multipolarity are blowing, ushering in a new era where power is shared and a different vision of global governance takes shape.
Pax Americana: Sole owner of war and peace
Since the advent of the nuclear era in 1945, the nature of the conflict between the United States and its perceived adversaries has undergone significant transformations.
In the realm of Pax Americana, a grand tapestry of power, profits, and resources was woven through a blood-soaked ideology and unabashed hubris.
This hegemonic force, fueled by military might, gave birth to a multidimensional industry that reaped fortunes for the colossal corporations of the era. Within the fabric of this empire, social structures were shaped and molded, with the United States and its satellites standing as both beneficiaries and captives of this all-encompassing enterprise.
The prosperous post-World War II economy in the United States, fueled in part by the government’s sales of arms to the fighting parties, spurred the emergence of a new way of life in the country. This economic success became a driving force behind the nation’s quest for hegemonic expansion, aiming to secure vital resources and trade routes essential for any superpower seeking unipolar dominance.
Indeed, the belief during that time was that a wealthier society could attain military superiority over adversaries with lesser industrial wealth. This assumption, however, underwent a significant shift with the introduction of atomic weapons into the equation of warfare.
The destructive power and indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons rendered the traditional metrics of military superiority based on economic wealth and industrial capabilities less relevant. The presence of atomic weapons introduced a new level of danger and mutually assured destruction, altering the dynamics of military strategy and emphasizing the importance of nuclear deterrence.
Globalization within this context was promoted by the United States – just like the notion of democracy – for decades as the highest form of the growing interconnections of world nations.
Of course, globalization is indeed a natural outcome of the progress and scientific breakthroughs that took place, with regard to communications, transportation means, and the advancement of industrialization systems.
However, while the United States pushed for adopting the concept on a global scale under the pretext of connecting countries economically and culturally, it aimed to establish market and trade integration only as a means to further extend its hegemony and economic control. (Take as an example Washington’sn real intentions from inviting China to join the WTO for long years.)
Indeed, following World War II, there were policymakers in Washington who advocated for the growth of the US nuclear arsenal. Figures like Henry Kissinger and Walt Rostow believed that a robust nuclear arsenal would be essential in maintaining American dominance and furthering its expansion in a world still reeling from the war’s aftermath.
The proponents of this approach argued that possessing large and advanced nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent factor against potential adversaries and solidify American superiority. They believed that the possession of such weapons would not only ensure national security but also provide leverage in shaping global affairs according to US interests.
This perspective was rooted in the belief that nuclear weapons represented a significant shift in the balance of power, offering a unique form of military might that could secure dominance in international relations. As a result, the United States pursued the development and deployment of nuclear weapons as a key component of its defense strategy during this period.
A Polaris missile was fired from the nuclear submarine, USS George Washington, at Cape Canaveral, Fla. on July 20, 1960, in the first test firing of a missile from underwater (AP)
As such, the United States’ nuclear doctrine was born: it is not only about deterring potential rivals but also a means to establish and enforce total hegemony over global countries, economies, and markets. This transformation positioned the US as the sole decider of war and peace.
The nuclear race that ensued can be attributed mostly to the example set by the United States. As the first country to develop and use atomic weapons, the US demonstrated the immense destructive power and geopolitical leverage that these weapons could provide. Pax Americana here prompted other nations to acquire their own nuclear arsenals as a means of deterrence and self-defense.
The pursuit of nuclear weapons or hosting them from allied countries has then become a means for certain anti-hegemonic states to protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity against perceived threats from US-led Western campaigns.
The history of military interventions and regime changes carried out by Western powers, often in pursuit of strategic interests or access to resources, has created a sense of vulnerability and the need for self-defense among these states.
The development and proliferation of nuclear weapons created a new paradigm in warfare, where the destructive power of these weapons exceeded the capacity of any state to withstand their impact. This realization led to a mutually assured destruction (MAD) scenario, in which engaging in a full-scale nuclear war would result in catastrophic consequences for all parties involved, including Americans themselves.
Nuclear ‘madman’
The post-World War II era witnessed the emergence of a new paradigm in which the manufacturing of public anxiety and the creation of existential enemies played a significant role in shaping nuclear power dynamics. This approach was fueled by the desire to justify and perpetuate a massive war machine, primarily controlled by a few powerful military-industrial complexes.
By crafting and amplifying fear, political leaders and those with vested interests in the military-industrial complex sought to maintain public support for substantial defense expenditures and the expansion of military capabilities. Portraying external threats as existential enemies helped in justifying the continued development and deployment of advanced weaponry, including nuclear weapons.
During the Cold War, the United States government engaged in extensive psychological operations (psyops) aimed at influencing public opinion and shaping perceptions, both domestically and internationally. These psyops were part of a broader strategy to counter the influence of the Soviet Union and its allies.
A famous example of such psyops was the Committee on Present Danger. The committee, formed in the 1950s and comprising prominent figures from the government, military, and academia, was tasked with spreading terror among the masses of communism and Soviet expansionism.
The propaganda group employed various strategies, including media campaigns and public speeches, to generate fear and rally support for US policies and military spending.
By creating a horrified public, in which the government appears as the sole protector, the state was in full control.
But add nuclear weapons to the equation, the matters become more serious.
Throughout history, there have been instances where American decision-makers and policy planners employed psychological tactics to enhance nuclear intimidation.
One notable example is the concept of “nuclear brinkmanship”, which involves deliberately escalating tensions and pushing the limits of nuclear confrontation to gain leverage in negotiations or intimidate opponents. This approach was famously employed during the Cold War, particularly by presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon.
In October 1969, during the Vietnam War, Washington devised a secret plan, dubbed Operation Duck Hook, during which the US would appear to threaten Hanoi with an imminent nuclear attack.
The cover page to the Navy’s Duck Hook plan for mining Haiphong Harbor, developed in July 1969 at the request of President Nixon and national security adviser Kissinger (US National Security Archive, The George Washington University)
According to Harry Robbins “Bob” Haldeman, White House Chief of Staff in Nixon’s administration, the basis of the tactic was to make the US leader appear “psychologically unstable,” unpredictable, and with no limits to the measures he would take.
Haldeman revealed, quoting Nixon as telling him, “They’ll believe any threat of force that Nixon makes because it’s Nixon. I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war.”
And while this was not the first time, nor the last time, that a country resorted to the “madman” approach to deter its opponents, the line separating genuine threats from bluffs remained very thin.
In 1959, the Strategic Air Command (SAC) introduced a war plan titled Atomic Weapons Requirements Study. The document was later updated in 1961 following the Berlin Crisis.
However, one significant aspect was that one of the potential targets was China, although it would not test its first nuclear weapon until 1964 nor it was in direct conflict with the US. According to the plan, 49 to 78 Chinese cities would be hit with US atomic bombs, with prospected fatalities of around 67 million and 107 million.
But plans and proposals to launch a “preventive” or “preemptive” nuclear strike against the USSR were rapidly toned down when the Soviets developed a serious retaliatory capability, including the most powerful atomic bomb produced and tested: “Tsar Bomba”.
Russia’s nuclear parity with the US made Nixon believe that the nuclear umbrella was no longer sustainable.
The concept of “massive retaliation” adopted by the United States to justify its nuclear buildup became afterward an outdated strategy and was replaced by the concept of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD); a necessary doctrine to protect countries from America’s war machines.
The intensification of hostilities between Russia and the United States set the stage for a high-stakes, zero-sum game in any potential armed conflict, compelling the United States to reevaluate its approach and adopt a more cautious stance. This pivotal shift in strategy ultimately laid the foundation for the Cold War.
Two-way annihilation
Following the fall of the Soviet Union, its nuclear infrastructure was dissolved, while its nuclear warheads were removed from the country and deployed in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine.
One of the American nuclear scientists that participated in joint Soviet-US efforts to end Moscow’s nuclear power was Professor Siegfried Hecker, who then served as a director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
According to Hecker, when the USSR collapsed, the nature of the nuclear threat to the US changed: it was not one of mutual annihilation anymore.
The United States later made Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine sign the Lisbon Protocol to the START agreement, committing the newly independent states to transfer the former Soviet nuclear arsenals to Russia and to join the NPT as nonnuclear-weapons states.
Meanwhile, the US funded the denuclearization process in the three countries bordering Russia with billions of dollars and ended the nuclear programs, destroying over 6,800 nuclear warheads along the way.
But the American PR campaign to turn the world into a “safer place” was later exposed.
In the subsequent years, disregarding numerous warnings from influential global figures and Moscow, the US-led NATO persisted in its expansion toward the Russian borders, violating a previous agreement between the former Soviet Union and Washington that stipulated no further countries would join the military coalition.
Last March, just over a year following the start of the war in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Moscow will be deploying some of its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.
Putin then explained that the measure will be similar to the United States’ deployment of some of its nuclear arsenal in Europe (and Asia), further noting that Russia’s action does not violate the nuclear nonproliferation agreements NPT.
The Russian leader thus revived the “mutually assured destruction” policy and placed it back on the table for the world to see.
His announcement triggered a fervent response in Western countries, issuing warnings about the potential escalation. Nonetheless, the strategic move has thus far achieved its intended objectives.
Since then, the inclusion of the possibility of a Russian tactical nuclear attack in the plans of European leaders and American officials when engaging with Moscow has become a prevalent factor.
Putin stressed that the deployment of atomic in Belarus is of a deterrent nature for those oblivious in the West who assume they can inflict on Russia a strategic defeat.
While NATO’s agenda remained centered around its eastern expansion, the changing circumstances led to a moderation of fervent rhetoric in the West after a year of advocating to “end Russia”.
From Europe’s perspective, the haunting memories of both world wars have made them acutely aware that the continent would inevitably become the epicenter of any conflict between Russia and the West. And even if it declared a neutral stance, Europe understands that it would likely become the battleground in any confrontation between Moscow and the United States.
Washington, in light of Russia’s advancements in nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles and long-range naval vessels capable of launching nuclear warheads, has become increasingly cautious when considering any direct escalation with Moscow. The realization that these technologies pose a significant challenge to interception systems has compelled Washington to exercise greater restraint in its approach toward Russia.
In this image taken from a video released by the Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on May 28, 2022, a new Zircon hypersonic cruise missile is launched by the frigate named “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov” of the Russian Navy from the Barents Sea (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)
“Nuclear weapons have been made to ensure our security in the broadest sense of the word and the existence of the Russian state, but we…have no such need [to use them],” Putin said.
“Just talking about this (the potential use of nuclear weapons) lowers the nuclear threshold. We have more than NATO countries and they want to reduce our numbers. Screw them,” he added said.
As did DPRK’s leader Kim Jong Un, the Russian President also was promising imperialist powers “mutual annihilation”.
The nuclear umbrella of illusion
The US, through its proxy war in Ukraine, sought to amplify the bloc mentality on a larger scale, utilizing its influence and resources to hinder a potential Eurasian uprising and redirect Europe’s foreign policy toward disengaging from China and Russia. This strategic maneuver aimed to consolidate American power and disrupt the growing connections between countries in Eurasia.
As part of Washington’s neo-bloc strategy, political integration is closely intertwined with hyper-militarization.
This approach not only entails the presence of direct, yet limited US forces but also compels allies to substantially increase their defense spending to unprecedented levels. The objective is to create a framework where political and military cooperation aligns, solidifying American influence and promoting a sense of collective security among allies.
Following the establishment of NATO and the deployment of a portion of its nuclear arsenal in Europe, the United States assumed the role of security guarantor for its transatlantic allies, giving rise to what is commonly referred to as the “US nuclear umbrella.”
The deployment of American nuclear weapons in Europe during the 1950s served multiple purposes, one of which was maintaining control over allied nations.
While the primary goal was to counter the perceived Soviet threat during the Cold War, the presence of nuclear arms also played a role in exerting influence and control over its transatlantic allies.
The concept of the US nuclear umbrella created a perception of safety and protection for its allies. By positioning itself as the guarantor of their security, Washington fostered a sense of dependence and reliance on its nuclear capabilities.
This allowed the United States to justify its own retention and modernization of nuclear weapons, citing the need to maintain a credible deterrent to protect its allies. In doing so, it effectively used the nuclear umbrella as a justification to evade or delay its disarmament commitments, arguing that the security of its allies depended on its nuclear arsenal.
This approach allowed Washington to maintain a significant nuclear presence and influence on the global stage, while also preserving its strategic interests and exerting control over the disarmament agenda.
The US-led NATO’s increasing control over Europe’s security, particularly in the aftermath of the Ukraine conflict, has resulted in an unprecedented level of influence and dominance. Through years of fearmongering and portraying Moscow as a threat, NATO has successfully consolidated its grip on the region.
The concept of “extended deterrence” has played a crucial role in this process, as the deployment of US nuclear weapons in allied countries acts as a symbolic and tangible demonstration of American power and commitment to their defense.
By positioning itself as the ultimate authority, Washington effectively solidifies its influence to the extent that its directives are regarded as virtually constitutional. This further reinforces the hegemonic control of the United States and its ability to shape the security policies and decision-making of its allies.
This blind faith in the postulations of Deterrence Theory has established what anti-nuclear advocate and international security expert, Professor Nick Ritchie, called the “regime of nuclear truth” and denominated “nuclear absolutism”.
In January 2023, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol raised the possibility of developing independent nuclear weapons as a response to the DPRK’s growing power. However, this proposal was met with disapproval from the White House, which expressed its opposition and implied potential consequences if South Korea were to pursue such a policy.
Despite publicly acknowledging the nuclear threat posed by DPRK to South Korea, the United States maintained its opposition to Seoul’s proposal of developing its own nuclear weapons.
Paradoxically, in April, the United States agreed to deploy nuclear-armed submarines to South Korea for the first time in decades and involve Seoul in its nuclear planning operations. This contradictory stance by Washington raised questions about its true intentions and strategic objectives in the region.
Mainly, this means that South Korea is officially under US “extended deterrence” program, and therefore, the Americans are forced as per the agreement to come to its aid in the event of an attack.
The deal between Washington and Seoul was met with skepticism by the South Korean public, as reflected in polls.
There were concerns about whether the United States would truly uphold its commitments, given its history of uncertainties and wavering policies in international relations.
This skepticism highlighted the importance of trust and transparency in such agreements, as the South Korean public sought reassurances regarding the reliability and consistency of the United States as a strategic partner.
Here, an age-long question reemerged: “Would Washington risk San Francisco for Seoul in the event of nuclear war?” Of course, the question here is completed by another one: “What are the odds of completely losing what’s left of the country’s sovereignty and marginal decision-making ability by hosting US nuclear arms, and eventually being sold out by Washington?”
But the fear of fully entrusting in the United States is not a new phenomenon and has been a recurring theme for decades.
In the 1960s, French General Charles de Gaulle was highly skeptical of America’s nuclear security guarantees, particularly after the Soviet Union developed ICBMs that can reach the US mainland.
De Gaulle’s skepticism led him to ask then-US President John F. Kennedy if he would be willing to risk New York for Paris.
Eventually, the lack of confidence in American assurances was the reason behind establishing the “French nuclear deterrent force,” which allowed Paris to ensure its own safety and avoid overdependence on NATO.
History says no
A South Korean demonstrator holds a placard at a rally against South Korea and US policy on DPRK in front of the Foreign Ministry in Seoul, South Korea, Tuesday, April 26, 2011 (AP/Ahn Young-joon)
The 2022 US Nuclear Posture Review notes that “extended nuclear deterrence contributes to U.S. nonproliferation goals by giving Allies and partners confidence that they can resist strategic threats and remain secure without acquiring nuclear weapons of their own.”
The debate among US allies about the level of trust they can place in their American partners reached a new level of intensity with the assumption of former US President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy.
This was further amplified when Trump openly questioned Washington’s commitments to its NATO obligations and even suggested the possibility of withdrawing US troops from Europe. The fears and concerns of European nations were heightened as they witnessed a more self-preserving and protectionist stance taken by Washington, raising doubts about the extent to which the United States would defend the continent despite its grand promises.
A recent CSIS study explored four potential future scenarios in which the United States would have to navigate a world where adversaries possess substantial nuclear arsenals. The study’s findings revealed a consistent credibility challenge for the US in assuring its allies about their protection and the safeguarding of their interests.
Commenting on the Nuclear Posture Review of 2022, the Washington-based think tank said fundamental trust in the United States’ ability to secure collective defense [bloc alliances] “is far from guaranteed.”
“A cohesive and confident alliance network backed by credible extended deterrence [nuclear umbrella] guarantees U.S. strategic interests,” the study added, stressing “that the United States will need to continue to rely on nuclear weapons for extended deterrence purposes.”
One of the core suggestions of the study is that the United States, while adopting a bloc-alliance policy, should seriously consider further nuclear deployment in allied countries, especially those in close proximity to states considered by Washington as “strategic national security threats”: China and Russia.
But American “extended deterrence” that extends over a set of allied countries also generates concerns regarding the rationality behind trusting a bloc’s security under Washington’s nuclear umbrella.
If US adversaries feel an existential threat, will decision-makers in said countries consider states hosting American nuclear weapons a factor of deterrence or military targets? Will the nuclear bloc mentality subject its members to collective punishment, regardless of the actual interests of each country separately?
This perspective sheds light on an important observation: while the United States presents itself as a guardian of allies and a promoter of global stability, its actions often involve consolidating the military capabilities of its partners and prioritizing American interests above all else.
This approach reflects one of the many forms of unipolarity, where Washington’s influence and dominance shape international dynamics to a large extent.
Within this framework, nuclear umbrellas can be perceived as sources of insecurity rather than genuine protection and deterrence for their host countries.
Within this framework, nuclear umbrellas can be realized as the foundations of insecurity for their hosts rather than protection and deterrence, and their costs outweigh their benefits under a unipolar world order governed by the White House and America’s industrial complex.
Historically, military alliances based on shared assistance and mutual defense have proven to be only circumstantial empty promises.
So, in short, history says that no, the United States will not risk San Francisco for Seoul, nor New York for Paris, and the US nuclear umbrella remains an illusion designed by unipolarity and employed for imperialistic drives that will be extremely marginalized in the rising multipolar world, but this is a discussion for another article.
Russia’s president says that the first batch of nuclear weapons to Belarus has already been sent and their full deployment will be completed this year.
“As you know we were negotiating with our ally, Belarusian President [Alexander] Lukashenko, that we would move a part of these tactical nuclear weapons to the territory of Belarus – this has happened,” he said.
Russian nuclear weapons deployed in Belarus are of deterrent nature for those oblivious in the West who assume they can inflict on Russia a strategic defeat, President Vladimir Putin said on Friday in an address at the economic forum in St. Petersburg.
“The first nuclear warheads were delivered to the territory of Belarus. But only the first ones, the first part. But we will do this job completely by the end of the summer or by the end of the year,” Putin revealed, adding that in the current circumstances, Moscow does not see the need to use these weapons.
“…It is precisely as an element of deterrence so that all those who are thinking about inflicting a strategic defeat on us are not oblivious to this circumstance.”
Earlier this week, Lukashenko said that Moscow already started transferring nuclear warheads to his country, including some that are three times more powerful than the nuclear weapons dropped by the US on Japan’s Hiroshima in 1945.
The delivery of tactical nuclear weapons to Russia’s neighboring ally was announced by Putin back in March, when he explained that this move will be similar to the United States’ deployment of some of its nuclear arsenal in Europe, further noting that Russia’s action does not violate the nuclear nonproliferation agreements NPT.
However, the atomic bombs will remain under Moscow’s control, Russia’s leader confirmed.
Nuclear weapons to ensure security
Russia’s nuclear posture has not changed, Putin continued, and nuclear weapons will only be used if the Russian Federation was under direct existential threat.
Kiev’s Western allies, who play a key role in arming Ukraine, criticized this step, but Washington said that there are no indications that Putin has plans to use them.
“Nuclear weapons have been made to ensure our security in the broadest sense of the word and the existence of the Russian state, but we…have no such need [to use them],” Putin said.
“Just talking about this (the potential use of nuclear weapons) lowers the nuclear threshold. We have more than NATO countries and they want to reduce our numbers. Sc*** them,” Putin said.
On the war in Ukraine, the president said that the Ukrainian counteroffensive has failed so far, pointing out that Kiev has suffered heavy losses and stands no chance against the Russian army.
Moreover, according to Putin, Ukraine’s local military arsenal would soon be depleted and will make the country rely completely on foreign hardware – a condition that would affect Kiev’s ability to fight for long.
“As for demilitarisation, soon Ukraine will stop using its own equipment altogether. There’s nothing left. Everything on which they fight and everything that they use is brought in from the outside. Well, you can’t fight like that for long.”
Up in flames
The Wall Street Journal had earlier reported on Friday that Ukraine’s ambitious counteroffensive against Russia – which it launched in a bid to take the lands captured by the country through the war effort – is proving to be quite a difficult task,
After Ukraine’s first attacks yielded mixed results, most of the war efforts on the counteroffensive fronts have been halted, as army commanders are revising previous plans that proved to fail in breaking Russia’s defensive lines without suffering heavy losses, the newspaper said.
But so far, the majority of the Ukrainian offensive brigades, equipped with powerful Western tanks, have not yet joined the fight, the report argued.
Putin said that if Kiev receives F-16 fighter jets from the West, they will end up being destroyed just like the German-made Leopard battle tanks.
“F-16s will also be burning, there is no doubt. But if they will be stationed outside Ukraine and used in combat operations we will have to look at how to engage and where to engage those assets being used in combat operations against us.”
This would “seriously” risk dragging NATO deeper into the conflict, he concluded.
As the Draconian Western-led sanctions on Russia exacerbate the economic crisis worldwide, and as Russian troops gain more ground despite the influx of military aid into Ukraine, exposing US direct involvement in bio-labs spread across Eastern Europe and the insurgence of neo-Nazi groups… How will things unfold?
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak admits that “Israel” possesses nuclear weapons despite “Tel Aviv” claiming otherwise.
This Sept. 29, 1971, spy satellite photograph later declassified by the US government shows what now is known as the Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona, occupied Palestine (AP)
Former Israeli occupation Prime Minister Ehud Barak admits that the occupation possesses nuclear weapons through a tweet he made on Tuesday.
“[…] political parties in the West are deeply concerned about the possibility that, if the coup in Israel succeeds, a messianic dictatorship will be established in the heart of the Middle East with nuclear weapons in its possession,” Barak said on Twitter.
Various statements have previously come from Israeli officials condemning the occupation as having or aiming to acquire an arsenal of nuclear weapons, such as former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who addressed Jewish scientists leaving Germany and called on them to put their minds to nuclear research and “do everything possible to provide the desired Jewish state with nuclear weapons.”
Furthermore, former Israeli Prime Minister and President Shimon Peres addressed the Knesset in 1966, saying: “I see no reason why Israel sought to reassure [Egyptian President Gamal] Abdel Nasser through this platform and allow him to know what we are and are not doing. I know that the Arabs have their doubts about our nuclear ambitions, and I know that this is a means of deterrence. Why would we mitigate these concerns? Why would we work on clarifying that?”
Over the years, the Israeli occupation has adhered to a policy of ambiguity when it comes to its nuclear sector, but the most prominent thing that was leaked was a team of reporters from The Sunday Times saying in the early 90s that Mordechai Vanunu, the technician who was sentenced to 18 years in prison in “Israel”, confirmed through photographs and government documents that the occupation had between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads with a variety of destructive capabilities.
Moreover, the Israeli Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper in 1977 quoted French General Georges Bouet as saying during an interview with the French Europe 1 radio that the occupation possessed at the time the means required to produce two atomic bombs a year, revealing that it also had 13 atomic bombs, as well as the means to get them to their targets.
Yedioth Ahronoth reported in 1978 that a New York radio station broadcast a classified documented report on September 4, 1974, prepared by the CIA, which stated: “We believe that Israel has indeed manufactured nuclear weapons.”
Maariv also confirmed the report on March 2, 1978, citing a high-ranking CIA official, that then-US President Lyndon Johnson was informed that the Israeli occupation had nuclear weapons, and the head of state ordered that the whole thing remains under covers.
The Israeli occupation challenged the UN Security Council Resolution 487 of June 1981, which required “Tel Aviv” to urgently submit all of its nuclear facilities to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA on September 18, 2009, issued a resolution calling on the occupation to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as well as open its facilities to international inspection, though the occupation did not express any interest in the matter.
Again the UN General Assembly invited the occupation to become a treaty member in December 2009 following UNGA Resolution “Establishment of a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East”. Though 167 countries voted in favor of the resolution, the Israeli occupation refused to acquiesce in it. Furthermore, “Tel Aviv” skipped the 2010 nuclear summit in Washington.
On an almost daily basis, Israeli occupation officials attack the Iranian nuclear program despite its pacifist nature. Meanwhile, reports indicate that the occupation has nuclear weapons, which was confirmed today by “Israel’s” former premier.
The First Committee of the UN General Assembly ruled in October 2022 in an initial 152-5 decision that “Israel” must destroy all its nuclear weapons and submit its nuclear facilities to the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Four countries – Canada, Micronesia, Palau, and the United States – as well as the Israeli entity, opposed Friday’s resolution on the “risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.” Another 24 countries abstained, including European Union members.
A proposal for a Middle East nuclear-free zone was also accepted by the First Committee with 170 votes, including Iran. “Israel” was the only entity to object to the text. The United States, Cameron, Comoros, and Tanzania were the only four nations to abstain.
According to the report, the NPT is only as meaningful as the level of compliance, according to Israeli Deputy Ambassador to the UN Michal Maayan, and it is not a solution to the “specific security challenges” of the Middle East region.
Nasser Kan’ani, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman, last month justifiably declared that the Western hybrid war, which has been continuously waged against Iran in military, economic, political and psychological campaigns, has suffered a complete failure. Precisely because of this, the USA is now rapidly preparing the military aggression of the unnatural coalition of Israel and regional Arab countries against Iran, which, along with Russia and China, is undoubtedly the biggest American enemy. The task of this military conglomerate would be to deal deadly blows to Iran that would lead to its disintegration and the establishment of a puppet regime on the remains of the country. There is no doubt that the USA could participate in the planned aggression. The recently held, largest in history, joint US-Israeli military exercises “Juniper Oak 23.2” clearly hint at such a possibility, although it is not impossible that the US’s European allies could also participate in this massive operation. Military analysts from the West estimate that a military intervention against Iran, a kind of repetition of what we have already seen in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, could begin this summer, but this publicly stated assessment is probably just an attempt at deliberate deception. There is evidence that the attack on Iran could happen much earlier.
The drone attacks on the Iranian city of Isfahan for which Israel is certainly responsible, either directly or through the use of Kurdish terrorists as its proxy military forces, was undoubtedly a deliberate provocation meant to force Iran into hasty and disproportionate retaliation. Such a reaction, no matter how justified it may be in fact, would be used by the US and Israel to portray Iran as an aggressor in front of the “international community”. The reporting of some Israeli media such as “The Times of Israel” in which they announced, or rather, wished for “Iranian retaliatory” attacks on Israeli civilian targets, clearly testifies to sinister intentions of Israel. Тhere is clearly an Israeli plan to provoke Iran as soon as possible. What we might soon expect are Israeli false flag operations that would be blamed on Iran. It is more likely that the territories of the Arab vassals of the US and Israel would be attacked, rather than Israel itself. In this way, Israel would also ensure the igniting of anti-Iranian hysteria among its Arab allies and at the same time ensure the earliest possible start of aggression against Iran, which is obviously very important to Israel. Namely, Iran should officially join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in April, which will bring it great international support. Israel is therefore in a hurry to start aggression before this happens because it mistakenly believes that in that case, it could avoid the wrath of Moscow and Beijing. Another reason for Israel’s haste is that in a little more than a month, Iran should receive at least 24 Su-35 multi-role fighters from Russia, for which it already has well-trained Iranian pilots. Finally, the US and Israel know that time will work against them if they allow the intensive military cooperation between Iran and Russia to continue and deepen, and the big question is how much concrete intelligence they have about its details. Therefore, the aggression against Iran could begin immediately before or exactly on the Iranian New Year in Farsi known as Nowruz, which this year is celebrated on March 20. This is also the date that was mentioned in connection with the delivery of Russian jet fighters.
Israel has been talking for a long time about the necessity for the US to provide it with full support because of the alleged threat that Iran represents to the region, but it will rather be that the US stands behind this entire project, because none of America’s vassals has the ability to conduct foreign policy independently. Admittedly, Israel is probably the most independent of all American allies, but it is still obliged to coordinate all its major decisions with Washington. As for threats to the region, Israel is a state that was created and is maintained on the basis of a policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide and is the only regional power from the Middle East region that has undisguised imperialist ambitions and territorial claims towards its neighbors. The UN Human Rights Commission condemned Israel for violating almost all 149 articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention and this is the best illustration of Israel’s aggressive policy. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as an exponent of such a policy, rushed to visit Paris recently, where he asked France for support for the planned aggression against Iran. After Netanyahu’s visit, Radio France reported that Israel really wants to attack Iran as soon as possible and has already identified around 3,000 possible targets. Nevertheless, Israel is afraid of an independent showdown with Iran and is trying to provide itself with as much concrete military support as possible. As for the American Arab satellites, in the planned attack on Iran, Israel will probably be able to count on the support of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan and Morocco. Azerbaijan is certainly being pressured to join the coalition, but the leadership in Baku probably sees how dangerous it could be if Russia were to get directly involved in the conflict on Iran’s side, which is more than possible.
Prior to Netanyahu’s visit to the Champs Elysées, the UK Government at the beginning of this year аlready called for the immediate creation of a Grand Military Coalition against Iran. The official pretext under which this shameless campaign against Iran is conducted is, first of all, its nuclear program. However, in these accusations against Iran, it is deliberately forgotten that two Iranian Ayatollahs, Khomeini and Khamenei, have publicly spoken out against the development of a nuclear arsenal in Iran. In September 2014, Mohsen Rafighdoost, minister of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps during the eight-year defensive war against Iraq, in an interview he gave to Gareth Porter, a journalist specializing in US national security policy, testified that he personally asked Khomeini to start developing nuclear and chemical weapons on two occasions, but was refused both times. The reason for Khomeini’s refusal was his claim that Islam forbids weapons of mass destruction. Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, issued a fatwa in the mid-1990s against the acquisition and development of nuclear weapons, which was officially disclosed only in August 2005 in Vienna, at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Israel, on the other hand, possesses nuclear and certainly, chemical and biological weapons and unlike Iran, represents a real threat. As for nuclear weapons, Israel has Jericho II (YA-3) missiles with a range of 1,7700 km and Jericho III (YA-4) with a range of up to 11,500 km. Israel can also use its F-15 and F-16 fighters for tactical and strategic nuclear strikes. Even the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment estimated that Israel possessed undeclared offensive chemical and biological weapons. With such an arsenal, Israel could be considered a global threat, and Russia and China are certainly very aware of that.
Unlike Netanyahu and Israel’s political elite, Israeli military intelligence experts publicly state that they do not consider Iran a real threat to Israel. These weeks, mass protests against Netanyahu’s regime have been taking place across Israel, and the Israeli opposition has openly called his ultra-right government a far greater threat to Israel than Iran. Finally, we must also mention the assessment of Israel’s prestigious Institute for National Security Studies, according to which the greatest security threat to Israel is the deterioration of relations with the USA. Are internal political pressures, the struggle for power, and Netanyahu’s desire to please his American allies, in that case, the main reasons why the prime minister of Israel recklessly rushes into a very risky military conflict with Iran? Namely, the aggression against Iran could easily merge with the conflict in Ukraine and turn into a total world war. As the Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Vyacheslav Volodin, recently reminded, the entire foreign policy of the USA and its vassals is based solely on lies. Just as the pretext for the US-British invasion of Iraq was false accusations, the planned aggression against Iran has nothing to do with Iran’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
There are other accusations against Iran, but they are equally meaningless and just an excuse for planned aggression. Iran does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries in the region and is not a breeding ground and financier of terrorism. Admittedly, Iran as a country very often and with full rights condemns the persecution of Shias in the region, but no more than it condemns the persecution of Palestinians, for example, who are overwhelmingly Sunnis. Similarly, Iran condemned Azerbaijan’s aggressive policy towards Armenia, despite the fact that both Iran and Azerbaijan are predominantly Shia states while Armenia is an Oriental Orthodox Christian country. Iran simply leads a responsible and principled foreign policy. The frequent accusations of Iran’s alleged “sectarian” fanaticism are equally meaningless to genuine connoisseurs of the situation in the region. The USA, Israel, the UK, and other European former colonial powers, are the ones who are trying to spread hatred and fratricide among Muslims by financing and arming extremists in the region. Another strategy is to buy favors from existing regimes or, if that fails, to bring puppet regimes to power. It is a skill that Americans have brought to the level of art and perfection, and no other world power is more experienced and successful in this business than them. One of the strategies of the US and the collective West is to divide as much as possible the different schools and branches of Islam that they maliciously call “sects”, in order to then easily rule all the Muslim nations and their natural resources. Contrary to the attempts of the Western conglomerate to spread discord and hatred among Muslims, Ayatollah Khamenei in his speech on October 24, 2021 was very clear about Iran’s views on the necessity of unity, stating that “Islamic Unity is definitely a Koranic obligation”. Iran more than sincerely wants harmony among Muslims, which is not surprising at all, because it is one of its most vital security interests, as it is also the vital interest of all other Muslim nations in the region.
Iran has the second-largest natural gas reserves and the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world. Of course, as we all know very well, it is precisely in this fact that the real causes of the aggressive intentions of the USA, Israel, the UK, the EU and their Arab vassals, in relation to Iran, are hidden. However, on the other hand, for Iran, its natural wealth facilitates inclusion in the Eurasian economic space and leads to the intensification of all other Eurasian integrations. On the one hand, the export of Iranian energy products to Eurasian space really benefits China and not Russia, but on the other hand, Moscow and Tehran are rapidly developing an ever closer military and security cooperation. The frequent visits of Russian officials to Tehran, for example, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, are a good indicator of that process. There are many geopolitical moments that have brought Iran and Russia closer together. First of all, these are the two nations on which the West has imposed the most sanctions in the history of mankind. Second, and more importantly, both countries are in a deep and long-term political conflict with the US and its vassals. Finally, the Western conglomerate has been waging an intense hybrid and proxy war against both nations for a long time. The Russian-Iranian strategic alliance exists and has been developing for a long time, but it was only Russia’s military conflict with the de facto Nazi regime from Kiev that forced Moscow to recognize its reliable strategic ally in Iran. Admittedly, Iranian President Ebrahim Raeisi once said that the trade and economic relations between the two countries are not satisfactory, but obviously, there is a desire of both countries to improve them and that is starting to happen. As for China, Iran signed a somewhat secretive 25-year deal with its powerful Eurasian partner on March 27, 2021, but its concrete results are still not visible. It is true that China has a strong economic interest in cooperating with the Arab states of the Middle East region, some of which have very bad relations with Iran. However, Western analysts make a big mistake by focusing on the economic aspect of the cooperation of Eurasian nations. It is American hegemony and imperialism that forces Iran, Russia, China and other Eurasian powers to put economic interests on the back burner and give priority to issues related to the development of strategic security alliances.
Iran has formidable military potential that should not be underestimated. No matter how zealous the US and Israeli intelligence services are, Iran is a regional power that could give Israel and its allies extremely unexpected and very unpleasant and painful blows in places where they are least expected. Iran would not passively suffer the blows but would seek the opportunity to immediately transfer the conflict to the aggressor’s territory and this is something Iranian generals can surely achieve. Another very important moment is that Russia and China simply must not allow an Israeli-American coalition attack on Iran to happen in the first place because the risks are too great to ignore, and it is likely that after certain intelligence, the two superpowers will strongly, timely and jointly react to protect their vital interests in the region. Iran’s downfall is simply out of the question for Russia and China because it would imply a deep penetration of the US into the belly of Eurasia, which would result in a dramatic weakening and possible disintegration of the two superpowers. The question remains: what specific steps will the two Eurasian giants take to protect their common ally from aggression? The freedom-loving Iran, a multiple world champion in the fight against American hegemony, simply must not fall!
Palestinian Martyr Ammar Hamdi Mefleh, 22, from Huwara village southern Nablus was killed in cold blood from a zero distance by an ‘Israeli’ occupation soldier last week.
The vicious crime almost went unnoticed as the world media in general, and the western media in particular, ignored it.
At the same time, those media outlets focus heavily and exaggerate the news coming from Iran or from any corner of the countries that form the Axis of Resistance.
They would simply pick a single incident that could happen anywhere in the world and magnify it to make it look as a horrible crime.
They would order their media empire where thousands of media outlets and electronic armies and social media influencers broadcast their black content to poison the atmosphere and distort the image of a country or a person.
I can mention scores of examples in which this media spread lies and mere black propaganda to tarnish the truth and mislead the global public opinion about different major and minor issues.
In recent examples, we can never forget the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq later.
In 2001, the Yankees invaded, killed and destroyed the country for more than two decades under the pretext of avenging the 9/11 attacks.
They did the same with Iraq in 2003, the pretext they used this time was that Iraq is producing weapons of mass destruction though they did not provide any evidence to support their claims.
Although they did not do this with the Islamic Republic of Iran so far, nonetheless they put Iran under the same accusations and they spread lies about Iranian efforts to produce a nuclear weapon. They go as far as claiming that Iran almost achieved the goal of being able to build a nuclear weapon and it would be able to finish it within months.
They did everything they can do to sabotage Iran’s progress and development on so many different fields. They put the country under heavy siege, and never allowed it to export any kind of technology or medical supplies. The US has frozen Iranian assets in the western banks, never allowed Tehran to sell its oil, assassinated Iranian experts and scholars, among many other human rights violations…
The most vivid and permanent example remains to be Palestine. The biggest lie ever dramatized by the temporary existence of the ‘Israeli’ occupation entity. They circulated a lie which said: “A land without people to a people without land” to justify stealing Palestine from its people.
Back to martyr Mefleh, it is worthwhile to put all the western media, governments and their supporters under scrutiny and investigation. We should always question their integrity and fairness in covering the news.
Why the 22-year-old Palestinian young man did not appear in their news? Why did not he receive a fraction of attention from their media outlets. It is simply because he is Palestinian and the killer is an ‘Israeli,’ which renders him ineligible to appear in their news?
Herein, a very essential question posed itself about their belief in and commitment to humanity. I would definitely say, they are hypocrites because humanity can never be divided, and as such, the Palestinian blood should equally matter as any other.
This double-standard policy, the absence of fairness and equality, and spreading lies to serve an orchestrated pro-‘Israel’ and pro-West media, are very shameful and should be condemned.
Not only that, those media outlets should also be sued and held accountable for all this. They serve as a defense for the killing machine called ‘Israel.’
It is high time for people to be watchful in which they could hold their governors and governments accountable for their crimes against our region and our people. Otherwise the truth will remain uncovered, yet their complicity in our blood would not only stain their hands, but their foreheads as well!
Yesterday I received an email from a Ukrainian friend of mine. By “Ukrainian” I mean that his culture and self-identity is Ukrainian, he loves his heritage, speaks the language and loves his country. In fact, he is what I would call a “real Ukrainian” as opposed to the Ukronazis in power in Kiev. We correspond regularly and exchange opinions on what is taking place. Here is and excerpt of what I wrote to him yesterday:
“I am also heartbroken with the evolution of the war to liberate the Ukraine from NATO: while I have no doubts about the outcome, I am horrified at the thought of what this does to the civilian population. My sadness is even made deeper by the realization that to a large degree the people of the Ukraine did it to themselves. Russia tried REALLY HARD to not have a war, then she tried REALLY HARD to save the civilians and the civilian infrastructure. But the people under Nazi occupation believed all the propaganda coming out of the regime in Kiev and the West and now there will be hell to pay. For 6 months these naive people thought the Ukraine was winning because they could not even fathom that Russia was only using about 10% of her forces and trying really hard to save as many Ukrainians. But no, they were celebrating the murder of Dugina, the attack on the Crimean Bridge, the attacks on the ZNPP and now they are going to pay a horrible price for these delusions and, frankly, lack of decency/morality. As Douglas MacGregor said “the Russians are about to bring a sledge-hammer” to vaporize the NATO forces in the Ukraine. We did not want that. It was imposed on us. What else can I say? The Nazis will be crushed, but the costs of doing so will be needlessly high. Millions of refugees will be added to the millions who already fled. I feel utterly disgusted, sad and angry about this outcome As one Rock song I know (“Gates of Babylon” by Rainbow – see below) says: “sleep with the devil, and then you must pay, sleep with the devil and the devil will take you away“. I am sad to say that I believe that the people of the Ukraine did “sleep with the devil” (the West) and now comes the inevitable.
After sending my email, I kept thinking about utter insanity of the Ukrainian actions. An outside observer could be forgiven for thinking that the Ukrainian people have some kind of death wish, and if maybe not most people, then at least the leaders of the Ukraine. And then it hit me.
The Ukraine is doing what is known in the USA as “suicide by cop” which Wikipedia defines as “Suicide by cop or suicide by police is a suicide method in which a suicidal individual deliberately behaves in a threatening manner, with intent to provoke a lethal response from a public safety or law enforcement officer“.
This is what the FBI’s Law Enforcement Bulletin has to say about such a situation: (emphasis added)
Suicide by cop situations are more intense than other suicide calls. All parties are armed, or the victim appears to be armed. The individual is active, rather than passive, and aggressive toward police or others. Despite its unique features, SBC fits the template of suicidal behavior as a planned outcome to an unfolding psychological process. Prevention and intervention are possible at the same points as in suicide by other means. Theoretically, suicides are preventable; however, realistically they may not be avoidable because of the nature of the plan or the point where first responders encounter the suicidal individual. SBC often is unpreventable. This must be considered in the aftermath regarding the officers who were coerced to be the unwilling means.
And, just to clarify, I do NOT consider that Russia is some kind of “cop” who has to enforce the law on anybody else. Not at all. But I do see a moral parallel between the cop who does not want to kill the suicidal person with a gun, but might have no choice, and the fact that Russia simply had no other choice other than to take action when the Donbass was threatened with imminent invasion and Russia was threatened by Ukronazi plans to acquire a nuclear weapon.
Sometimes the only way to disarm a person is to use your own gun. That is exactly what happened here.
What makes this all even worse is that the dark forces in the West which created the Ukraine in the first place joined with the Nazis and Neocons (the two ugly twins who fight each other but look so much alike!) to push the Ukrainian people into a war which they never had any chance to win. The Ukrainian military was defeated by mid-March but that was not enough for the Hegemony, so they ordered waves of mobilizations and sent in THOUSANDS of “advisors” and “volunteers”. By mid-summer what had been a Ukronazi military was basically replaced by a de facto NATO force which is now also being “demilitarized”.
The AngloZionist Empire promised the Ukrainian people peace, prosperity and all the riches of the western propaganda (which is quite different from the West’s reality) and the ignorant people of the Ukraine (brainwashed first by Soviet, then Western propaganda) bought it all, “hook, line and sinker”. This is similar to two vicious adults promising a 5 year old some super tasty candy and telling that 5 year old that “all he has to do” in exchange for the candy was to throw a few stones at a sleeping bear and “don’t worry, if the bear wakes up we will protect you!“.
Now that bear is awake, and mighty angry at that: the 5 year old is getting eviscerated while the vicious adults who promised him “a land flowing with milk and honey” are watching (from what they – mistakenly – believe is safe distance) and laughing at it all.
This is truly demonic evil.
There are still those out there who cannot, or don’t want, to understand what is taking place.
So here I will share a video with you which has been circulating on the Internet which shows you exactly what this all looks like in reality.
See for yourself: (no need for translation other than “ВСУ” meaning “armed forces of the Ukraine”).
What this video shows are two attempts by the Ukrainian forces to attack: first LDNR forces and then the Wagner PMCs. What happens next is predictable: first, you see a small-arms exchange of fire, then the Russians use mortars. Russian very precise artillery strikes come next. Then full-scale MLRS attacks followed by even more strikes by a pair of Su-25 and one single Su-34. According to Russian sources, in this (very small) attack, all (most?) Ukrainians were killed while the Russians did not suffer any casualties. Notice that the Ukrainian soldiers, while definitely brave, have absolutely no support. Notice also the tiny size of the attacking force: the Ukrainians used to attack with several “brigades” (well, kind of), now they are down to squad/platoon level engagements!
And that kind of needless butchery happens every day, day after day after day after day.
My Ukrainian friend also asked me why Russia does not take out “Ze” and his gang.
I think that this is the crux of the problem: I believe that it should be the Ukrainian people themselves who should overthrow “Ze”, not the Russians. Just as it was infantile to believe that the EU would turn the Ukraine into a new Germany overnight, it is equally infantile to believe that “Putin will come and restore order”. Putin is the President of Russia, not the Ukraine, and it is not his job to rescue the Ukraine from the pit it fell into.
There are also three practical for not decapitating the Kiev regime (yet):
The regime has no agency anyway, do all which such a decapitating strike would achieve is cutting off an already quite dead head.
The Hegemony could quickly replace the old gang with a new one.
“Ze” & Co. are so fantastically incompetent that Russia could not hope to have a weaker, dumber and more incompetent adversary anyway.
It is, however, Putin’s job to protect Russia and the people of Russia. By pushing the Ukrainians towards more and more dangerous provocations the Neocons were fully aware that they were pushing the Ukrainians into a type of “suicide by bear” folly.
The sad truth is that Russia was given no other option than to do that which the Ukrainian people could not (or would not) do: denazify the Ukraine. And since the Ukraine could not be denazified, it had to be disarmed.
[Sidebar: oh and please don’t give me “but the Ukrainians could not do anything to resist” argument. Resistance is always possible, even under the harshest and most evil regimes. And when that resistance appears to be futile, then it remains a question of honor, of personal choice, of a moral obligation to resist as best one can. Resistance to evil is what defines our humanity. And if one really cannot, then, at the very least, every person has the option to “live not by lies“! Again, resistance, however humble and small, is always possible, and the people of the Donbass have proven it!]
This latest Neocon-originated bloodbath is already well into the hundred of thousands of people needlessly killed, maimed or displaced. This winter it will only get worse.
And what do you think the Ukronazis do to somehow mitigate this catastrophe?
This would all be quite hilarious if this was not also so horrible and if millions did not have to suffer from the actions of the shaitans ruling the West!
The FBI is quite correct. Suicide by cop is mostly unpreventable.
Was it right for Russia to try so hard to avoid a fullscale war? Yes.
Was it right for Russian to try to minimize the damage to the civilians and the Ukraine’s infrastructure? Yes again, absolutely!
Think about it: if Russia had attacked the Ukraine à la “shock and awe” from Day 1 and turned Kiev, Kharkov or Lvov into “Ukrainian Fallujahs” then it would have been much more credible to blame Russia for the massive “collateral damage” such an attack would inevitably entail.
Does anybody blame the cop for a “suicide by cop” death?
Of course not!
Yes, that policy of trying to spare the Ukraine did cost Russia a lot, not only in political terms but also in lost Russia lives.
But, at least, we tried.
Maybe that is the biggest difference between Russians and Ukrainians?
Andrei
***
The week-end is coming up and I normally share a few musical videos with you. Today I am going to post only one: the video of Rainbow I mentioned above. I would just note that according to the guitarist, Richie Blackmore, his solo on “Gates of Babylon” is his best solo ever. I very much agree. In terms of structure, the beginning of the song is based on a double harmonic major scale/mode, but then the solo switches to a sequence of chords/harmonies which are much more reminiscent of baroque music, specifically J.S. Bach (something which Richie Blackmore had already explored with Deep Purple, but which he truly mastered with this superb song). The singer is the late Ronnie James Dio, the best voice in all of Rock music in my humble opinion. Enjoy!
Back in August 2022 I wrote that NATO was ‘demilitarising’ itself, sending such huge amounts of arms to the Ukraine before and during the Russian special military operation (SMO) that its armies had nothing left to fight with.
That process has continued, with Slovenia, the northernmost of the former federal republics of Yugoslavia, sending its entire armoured vehicle fleet to Kiev. The last scrapings of the barrel, just announced, are 28 M-55S tanks. These are modernised Soviet-designed T-55s with some Israeli explosive-reactive armour (ERA) blocks added. But underneath that they’re still a 1950s design, four generations behind the latest Russian tanks.
The question now is: can those arms sustain the Ukrainian military effort? And if the Ukraine, the buffed-up proxy for all NATO and the Five Eyes countries too, is losing the war, when will Russia and its Donbass republican allies achieve victory?
I was born in the mid-1970s, during the Cold War, and I grew up under he shadow of the mushroom cloud. So I must confess to being one of those who were anxious for this conflict to be over quickly, before the nuclear powers came to blows. But one can’t hurry history.
War of Attrition
In his bombshell speech on the morning of 21st September 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin explained that the apparent slow progress of the SMO by the need to unpick the Gordian Knot of hardened defences the Ukrainian Nazi battalions built up on the front line over eight years.
“A head-on attack against them would have led to heavy losses,” Putin said, “which is why our units, as well as the forces of the Donbass republics, are acting competently and systematically, using military equipment and saving lives, moving step by step to liberate Donbass.”
Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu gave a televised interview the same morning. He gave extremely specific figures for both Russian and Ukrainian military casualties. “Our losses to date are 5,937 dead,” he said, but added that 90 per cent of the wounded had recovered and returned to duty.
According to Shoigu, Ukraine has lost 61,207 killed and 49,368 wounded (a total of 110,575 casualties) from an initial military strength of 201-202 thousand. The caveat to that that the Ukraine has conscripted hundreds of thousands of men into territorial defence units since the start of the conflict. That’s greater than a ten-to-one ratio of Ukrainian to Russian casualties
Shoigu also said that over the previous three weeks — since the launch of Kiev’s counter-offensives in Kherson and Kharkov — the Ukrainians had lost more than 7,000 men and 970 pieces of heavy equipment, including 208 tanks, 245 infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), 186 other armoured vehicles, 15 aircraft and four helicopters.
That amounts to about 60 per cent of the roughly 350 tanks, and three-quarters of the 328 IFVs, supplied by Western countries since February 24. If one lumps armoured personnel carriers (APCs) in with IFVs, Shoigu is still talking about 30 per cent losses of NATO-supplied heavy armour.
Kiev is preparing for or has already begun more counter-offensives towards Lisichansk in the LPR, Donetsk city, from Ugledar to the south to Mariupol and towards Berdyansk or Melitopol in Zaporozhye oblast. Russian aircraft, missiles and artillery are already hitting the groups of forces concentrated for that. If those offensives go the same way as the others, surely the Ukrainians will soon run out of both men and machines, right?
Blogger and YouTuber Andrei Martyanov, a Russian who served in the Soviet armed forces, is not worried about about how long it takes to get the SMO over and done with. He has argued that his countrymen can win simply by waiting for the Ukrainians to throw themselves onto their bayonets, until they run out of bodies.
With all due respect, allow me to sound a note of scepticism: that assumes that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his Western backers care how many die, or that the Ukrainian people (more than 8 million of whom are now scattered across Europe and even further afield) have the inclination and the opportunity to rise up against the fascist death-squad state.
The daily Russian Ministry of Defence body-count of hundreds of the miserable ‘territorial defence’ conscripts along the Donbass line — untrained and barely-armed middle-aged men press-ganged in the street — is not much of an indicator of progress.
It’s the territorial gains, no matter how slow, that matter. Russia cannot just count on the Ukrainians to suicidally ‘demilitarise’ themselves.
Putin’s announcement of a “partial mobilisation” of 300,000 army reservists was warmly welcomed by pro-Russian social media commentators. It is hard to exaggerate the importance of this, coupled with the referenda in Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson on reunification with Russia.
But there are caveats. State Duma Defence Committee chairman Andrey Kartapolov clarified that those troops would be deployed to defend the country’s borders and to create “operational depth” — in other words as a second defensive echelon. Martyanov argues that will free up regular front-line troops to conquer more territory. But it remains unclear how many of them were deployed to begin with.
Eyes on the Prize
So what is Russia trying to achieve in the Ukraine? Putin said in his Wednesday morning speech that the main task was to defend the Russian-speaking people of the Donbass. That implies capturing the whole of the oblasts of Donetsk and Lugansk.
But some ‘stretch goals’ may be added, including forging a land corridor to the Crimea and maybe even Transnistria, the Russian protectorate in Moldova.
Russia’s other main aim was to stop the Ukraine from joining NATO. That would allow the US to base nuclear weapons just 300 miles from Moscow in a position to launch a first strike attack.
US President Joe Biden’s response to Putin at the UN General Assembly later that day included the comment that “a nuclear war cannot be won — and must never be fought.” While true, that observation was shamelessly hypocritical. It was likely only made out of fear after Putin’s warning that Russia takes national defence and nuclear deterrence seriously.
Securing the Ukraine’s neutrality is not just part of “demilitarisation”: it could also be called “de-Nazification”, since NATO and its shadow the European Union (EU) were behind the 2014 coup by the Azov battalion and their ilk.
But Russia needs a legitimately-elected head of state to sign up to that, and right now that man is Zelensky. A peace deal struck with any military junta which might depose the comedian-turned-president would only be denounced by the next elected leader.
Even if a new civilian government was elected on a pro-peace, non-alignment platform (as Zelensky was), it would only last as long as it took the US, UK and EU to organise a repeat of the 2004-05 ‘Orange Revolution’ and the 2014 ‘Euromaidan’ coups d’etat.
The crazy Ukro-Nazis and their enablers have to ‘own’ the peace and the agreement to cede the Donbass and Crimea — and thereby lose all credibility.
But the Ukraine had already lost the Crimea and effective control over the Donbass before the SMO even kicked off. Kiev won’t sign any peace deal unless it has something else to lose. If Moscow is also serious about readmitting Zaporozhye and Kherson to the Russian motherland following a ‘Yes’ vote in the coming referenda, then there’s nothing to bargain with there either. Russia may need to capture other territories to use as bargaining chips.
To do so, it would have to inflict a defeat on the Ukrainian armed forces that would force them to retreat — not only from Donetsk and Lugansk but from other areas, maybe all the way back to the Dnieper river that divides the country in two.
Such a victory can’t be won unless Russia regains the initiative and actively starts pushing the Ukrainian armed forces back.
The Great M.I.C. Cash-In
The Kiev regime’s aims are clearly to keep grifting off its Western sponsors as long as possible, before fleeing to the sunny tax havens where they have billions stashed. But what does the West really want out of this war?
The stated aims of Washington and friends are to defend Ukraine’s territory and sovereignty (code for invading the Donbass and Crimea and ethnically cleansing them), along with its non-existent “right” to become a NATO launchpad, to “weaken” Russia militarily (by causing as many casualties as possible) and to put “international pressure” on Putin (economic warfare with the goal of regime change).
One should avoid making predictions, but let’s say the US and its satellites fail in all of that (since they have done so far). What will they try to win as a consolation prize?
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, an unelected bureaucrat who made a huge mess of her previous job as German defence minister, has vowed that sanctions on Russia will continue for years to come. That the sanctions are crippling the economies of EU member states, especially her home country, doesn’t seem to bother UVDL. And seeing the EU and its appointed commissioners are increasingly imposing their foreign policy diktats on the 27 governments, she might get her way.
More importantly, NATO desperately needs to save face — now that it has exposed by Russia as a paper tiger. Hence the triumphant crowing over moves, far from complete, to grant existing de-facto allies Sweden and Finland formal membership.
The West may try to claim a kind of moral victory on the basis that it may take Russia more than a year to defeat ‘brave little Ukraine’, or be forced to wipe out most of its military-age male population to win. But whose idea was that? Zelensky, Biden and all other Western leaders have made that bed.
But NATO is really just a pyramid scheme to sell overpriced Western, especially US, arms to its vassals. And therein lies a contradiction, because the US military-industrial complex (MIC) has competition from those of the UK, Germany, France and even Sweden — a country with a smaller population than the city of Moscow.
The Ukraine has used the referenda on unification with Russia as the latest pretext to demand Germany donate its newest models of Leopard 2 tanks and Marder infantry fighting vehicles. But why doesn’t Kiev ask the US for some of its M1 Abrams and M2 Bradleys instead? The Pentagon has many more to spare.
The truth is that neither Germany nor the US can afford to have its supposedly-invincible wunderwaffen shown up, and blown up, in battle with Russian forces. Despite weighing only two-thirds as much as the US and German behemoths, the Russian tanks have about the same effective armour protection — thanks to state-of-the-art ERA technology — and guns of equal destructive power. And there are a lot more Russian tanks, anti-tank missiles, attack jets and helicopters on the battlefield in the Ukraine.
The US has only managed to sell the M1 to eight other countries, compared to 18 for the Leopard 2. The export model of the Abrams is ‘Nerfed’ by removing the depleted uranium rods from its composite armour, so countries like Australia and Saudi Arabia get sub-par tanks. The only overseas customer for the British Challenger 2 is Oman, while the French Leclerc tank has been exported to the United Arab Emirates and Jordan.
By contrast, the Russian T-72 is currently in service in 40 countries, including both Russia and the Ukraine. Like the Russian intervention in Syria, the war in the Ukraine could prove to be a serious marketing tool for the Russian arms industry — eating the US MIC’s lunch.
A senior Russian diplomat has warned the US against supplying long-range weapons to Ukraine, saying that Moscow is determined to use nuclear arms if its existence is threatened.
“We have repeatedly warned the US about the consequences that may follow if the US continues to flood Ukraine with weapons,” said Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov on Friday. “It effectively puts itself in a state close to what can be described as a party to the conflict.”
He further reminded Washington of Russia’s military doctrine that envisions the use of nuclear weapons in case the existence of the Russian state comes under threat.
“Russia is capable of fully defending its interests, and the goals of the special military operation will be fully achieved,” Ryabkov said on state television.
“We are warning the US against making provocative steps, such as deliveries of longer-range and more devastating weapons,” he noted. “It’s a road to nowhere fraught with grave consequences, the responsibility for which will lie entirely with Washington.”
He also warned that “a very narrow margin that separates the US from becoming a party to the conflict mustn’t create an illusion for rabid anti-Russian forces that everything will remain as it is if they cross it.”
The official further reiterated that Russia will press on with its military operation in Ukraine until it reaches its objectives.
Ryabkov’s remarks came as the massive flow of US-led arms to Kiev continues, including the American supplies of HIMARS multiple rocket launchers, which the Ukrainian army uses to strike key infrastructure facilities and other Russian targets.
The truck-mounted systems fire GPS-guided missiles that are reportedly capable of reaching targets up to 80 kilometers away.
US officials have so far refused to supply Kiev with longer range missiles for HIMARS launchers that can strike targets up to 300 kilometers away and could potentially allow the Ukrainian military to hit areas deep inside the Russian territory.
This is while Russia’s Defense Ministry reported earlier this week that its forces have destroyed a US-made M777 howitzer gun which Ukrainian forces had used to shell the Russian-controlled Zaporozhye nuclear plant located in southeastern Ukraine.
A senior Iranian diplomat has denounced the “Israeli” entity’s continued refusal to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT], stressing that establishing a Middle East region free of nuclear weapons is of utmost importance.
Iran’s ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, made the remarks while speaking to reporters on Friday on the sidelines of the Tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons held at the UN headquarters in New York.
“The issue of the Middle East as a region free of nuclear weapons is one of the important discussions… because the ‘Israeli’ regime, as the only possessor of hundreds of nuclear warheads, is not ready to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and place its nuclear facilities under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” he said.
He added that the “Israeli” entity’s refusal to join the NPT comes as some countries are cooperating with the regime and have always supported it.
The Iranian delegation attending the tenth NPT review conference played a constructive role in highlighting the significance of a Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction, he said
As documents relating to the NPT review conferences in 1995, 2000, and 2010 have explicitly announced that the apartheid “Israeli” regime must join the treaty, the Iranian team emphasized that the issue should also be included in the final statement of the 10th NPT review meeting, Takht-Ravanchi added.
He emphasized that during the current conference, the Islamic Republic clearly announced that it would not back down from its stance on the importance of a Middle East without any weapons of mass destruction.
“We said that this issue is one of the red lines of the Islamic Republic of Iran and if they want to act honestly and constructively, the literature used in the statements of previous conferences should also be used in this conference in order to move towards a Middle East without nuclear weapons,” the senior Iranian diplomat pointed out.
He noted that Iran seeks to reach a consensus with the participants at the current NPT review conference but it has principles and certain measures must be carried out.
In a Monday address to the Tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Takht-Ravanchi expressed concern over the lack of progress in the implementation of the 1995 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT] resolution and the 2010 action plan on the Middle East, saying the “Israeli” regime must eliminate its stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Takht-Ravanchi also slammed the US double standards, saying the entity’s accession to the NPT “without precondition and further delay” and the placement of all of its nuclear activities and facilities under the comprehensive IAEA safeguards are “essential in realizing the goal of universal adherence to the Treaty in the Middle East and the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.”
The “Israeli” entity, which pursues a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its nuclear weapons, is estimated to possess 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, making it the sole possessor of non-conventional arms in West Asia.
The illegitimate entity has, however, refused to either allow inspections of its military nuclear facilities or sign the NPT.
What has emboldened Tel Aviv to accelerate its nuclear activities, according to observers, is the support from the US and Europe, the two countries most critical of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.
The regime has assassinated at least seven Iranian nuclear scientists and conducted a series of sabotage operations against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities.
The world’s nine nuclear-armed countries spent $82.4bn upgrading their atomic weaponry in 2021, eight percent more than the year before, a campaign group has said.
The biggest spender was the United States, which accounted for more than half the total spending, followed by China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons [ICAN] said in its annual report on nuclear spending.
“Nuclear-armed states spent an obscene amount of money on illegal weapons of mass destruction in 2021, while the majority of the world’s countries support a global nuclear weapons ban,” the group said in its report. “This spending failed to deter a war in Europe and squandered valuable resources that could be better used to address current security challenges, or cope with the outcome of a still raging global pandemic. This corrupt cycle of wasteful spending must be put to an end.”
ICAN noted that nuclear weapons producers also spent millions lobbying on defense, with every $1 spent lobbying leading to an average of $256 in new contracts involving nuclear weapons.
“The exchange of money and influence, from countries to companies to lobbyists and think tanks, sustains and maintains a global arsenal of catastrophically destructive weapons,” the report said.
On Monday, the Stockholm International Peace Research [SIPRI] warned that all nine nuclear-armed countries were increasing or upgrading their arsenals, and that the risk of such weapons being deployed appeared higher now than at any time since the height of the Cold War.
ICAN estimates North Korea spent $642m on nuclear weaponry in 2021 even as its economy struggled under United Nations sanctions and the pandemic-linked closure of borders.
Pyongyang walked away from denuclearisation talks after the collapse of a summit with then-US President Donald Trump in 2019, and has carried out a record number of missile launches this year. There are concerns it is preparing for its first nuclear weapons tests since 2017.
There is no official confirmation on the amount North Korea spends on nuclear weapons or its arsenal. SIPRI estimates it has as many as 20 warheads.
President of Russia – Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Federation Armed Forces Vladimir Putin attended a military parade marking the 77th anniversary of Victory in the 1941–1945 Great Patriotic War.
Overall, 11,000 personnel and 131 units of military equipment were engaged in the parade.
* * *
Address by the President of Russia at the military parade
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Fellow Russian citizens,
Dear veterans,
Comrade soldiers and seamen, sergeants and sergeant majors, midshipmen and warrant officers,
Comrade officers, generals and admirals,
I congratulate you on the Day of Great Victory!
The defence of our Motherland when its destiny was at stake has always been sacred. It was the feeling of true patriotism that Minin and Pozharsky’s militia stood up for the Fatherland, soldiers went on the offensive at the Borodino Field and fought the enemy outside Moscow and Leningrad, Kiev and Minsk, Stalingrad and Kursk, Sevastopol and Kharkov.
Today, as in the past, you are fighting for our people in Donbass, for the security of our Motherland, for Russia.
May 9, 1945 has been enshrined in world history forever as a triumph of the united Soviet people, its cohesion and spiritual power, an unparalleled feat on the front lines and on the home front.
Victory Day is intimately dear to all of us. There is no family in Russia that was not burnt by the Great Patriotic War. Its memory never fades. On this day, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the heroes march in an endless flow of the Immortal Regiment. They carry photos of their family members, the fallen soldiers who remained young forever, and the veterans who are already gone.
We take pride in the unconquered courageous generation of the victors, we are proud of being their successors, and it is our duty to preserve the memory of those who defeated Nazism and entrusted us with being vigilant and doing everything to thwart the horror of another global war.
Therefore, despite all controversies in international relations, Russia has always advocated the establishment of an equal and indivisible security system which is critically needed for the entire international community.
Last December we proposed signing a treaty on security guarantees. Russia urged the West to hold an honest dialogue in search for meaningful and compromising solutions, and to take account of each other’s interests. All in vain. NATO countries did not want to heed us, which means they had totally different plans. And we saw it.
Another punitive operation in Donbass, an invasion of our historic lands, including Crimea, was openly in the making. Kiev declared that it could attain nuclear weapons. The NATO bloc launched an active military build-up on the territories adjacent to us.
Thus, an absolutely unacceptable threat to us was steadily being created right on our borders. There was every indication that a clash with neo-Nazis and Banderites backed by the United States and their minions was unavoidable.
Let me repeat, we saw the military infrastructure being built up, hundreds of foreign advisors starting work, and regular supplies of cutting-edge weaponry being delivered from NATO countries. The threat grew every day.
Russia launched a pre-emptive strike at the aggression. It was a forced, timely and the only correct decision. A decision by a sovereign, strong and independent country.
The United States began claiming their exceptionalism, particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, thus denigrating not just the entire world but also their satellites, who have to pretend not to see anything, and to obediently put up with it.
But we are a different country. Russia has a different character. We will never give up our love for our Motherland, our faith and traditional values, our ancestors’ customs and respect for all peoples and cultures.
Meanwhile, the West seems to be set to cancel these millennia-old values. Such moral degradation underlies the cynical falsifications of World War II history, escalating Russophobia, praising traitors, mocking their victims’ memory and crossing out the courage of those who won the Victory through suffering.
We are aware that US veterans who wanted to come to the parade in Moscow were actually forbidden to do so. But I want them to know: We are proud of your deeds and your contribution to our common Victory.
We honour all soldiers of the allied armies – the Americans, the English, the French, Resistance fighters, brave soldiers and partisans in China – all those who defeated Nazism and militarism.
Comrades,
Donbass militia alongside with the Russian Army are fighting on their land today, where princes Svyatoslav and Vladimir Monomakh’s retainers, solders under the command of Rumyantsev and Potemkin, Suvorov and Brusilov crushed their enemies, where Great Patriotic War heroes Nikolai Vatutin, Sidor Kovpak and Lyudmila Pavlichenko stood to the end.
I am addressing our Armed Forces and Donbass militia. You are fighting for our Motherland, its future, so that nobody forgets the lessons of World War II, so that there is no place in the world for torturers, death squads and Nazis.
Today, we bow our heads to the sacred memory of all those who lost their lives in the Great Patriotic War, the memories of the sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandfathers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, relatives and friends.
We bow our heads to the memory of the Odessa martyrs who were burned alive in the House of Trade Unions in May 2014, to the memory of the old people, women and children of Donbass who were killed in atrocious and barbaric shelling by neo-Nazis. We bow our heads to our fighting comrades who died a brave death in the righteous battle – for Russia.
I declare a minute of silence.
(A minute of silence.)
The loss of each officer and soldier is painful for all of us and an irretrievable loss for the families and friends. The government, regional authorities, enterprises and public organisations will do everything to wrap such families in care and help them. Special support will be given to the children of the killed and wounded comrades-in-arms. The Presidential Executive Order to this effect was signed today.
I wish a speedy recovery to the wounded soldiers and officers, and I thank doctors, paramedics, nurses and staff of military hospitals for their selfless work. Our deepest gratitude goes to you for saving each life, oftentimes sparing no thought for yourselves under shelling on the frontlines.
Comrades,
Soldiers and officers from many regions of our enormous Motherland, including those who arrived straight from Donbass, from the combat area, are standing now shoulder-to-shoulder here, on Red Square.
We remember how Russia’s enemies tried to use international terrorist gangs against us, how they tried to seed inter-ethnic and religious strife so as to weaken us from within and divide us. They failed completely.
Today, our warriors of different ethnicities are fighting together, shielding each other from bullets and shrapnel like brothers.
This is where the power of Russia lies, a great invincible power of our united multi-ethnic nation.
You are defending today what your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought for. The wellbeing and security of their Motherland was their top priority in life. Loyalty to our Fatherland is the main value and a reliable foundation of Russia’s independence for us, their successors, too.
Those who crushed Nazism during the Great Patriotic War showed us an example of heroism for all ages. This is the generation of victors, and we will always look up to them.
Glory to our heroic Armed Forces!
For Russia! For Victory!
Hooray!
—
Laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier
ملامح مرحلة جديدة في تكوين العالم وتوزيع القوى والقوّة فيه ترتسم بسرعة. الحكومة الأميركيّة في طور تأنيب الضمير (الإمبريالي) ومراجعة الذات (الحربيّة). هي غير راضية عن شكل الكوكب. كانت تظنّ أن انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي سيضمن لها السيطرة على الكون لأجيال وأجيال. ما مِن إمبراطوريّة تظنّ أن سيطرتها يمكن أن تزول أو أن تضمحلّ. ضمان الاستمراريّة الأبديّة للسطوة الأميركية هي الشغل الشاغل لمخطّطي البنتاغون. كان واحد من أولى أعمال وزير الدفاع الأميركي الأسبق، دونالد رامسفيلد، تشكيل لجنة من الخبراء والمؤرّخين لاستخلاص دروس عن انهيار الإمبراطوريّات في التاريخ (أتى ببرنارد لويس، المستشرق الصهيوني، من أجل أن يشاركهم انطباعاته عن الخطر الإسلامي وعن دروس انهيار الإمبراطوريّات الإسلاميّة.). كل تقارير «استراتيجيّة الأمن القومي» التي تصدر عن كل إدارة جديدة تكون مهووسة بالأخطار المحتملة من جهات محدّدة، خصوصاً الصين. لم تكن أميركا تحسب حساباً للخطر الروسي. هي اليوم في مرحلة إعادة النظر. من المرجّح أن هناك إعادة تنظيم للميزانيّة العسكريّة والاستخباراتيّة لرصد ميزانيّة أكبر لمواجهة الخطر الروسي (الكونغرس زاد على رقم الميزانية التي طلبها منه بايدن). لا تزال أميركا تستخف بالقوّة الروسيّة مقارنة بخوفها من الخطر الصيني الداهم. القوة الاقتصاديّة هي أهم عناصر القوّة في الحسبان الأميركي لأنها هي التي تؤهل لميزانيّات عسكريّة ضخمة. ميزانيّة روسيا العسكريّة لا تصل إلا إلى 8 في المئة من الميزانيّة العسكريّة الأميركيّة العملاقة. اللحاق مسألة صعبة، والحصار الاقتصادي الخانق الذي باتت أميركا تتقنه لخنق الشعوب فعّال للغاية في إضعاف القوة العسكريّة. وحدهما إيران وكوبا، أوجدتا طرقاً ووسائل للخروج من الحصار الجائر بخسائر أقلّ (نسبيّاً، لكن الـ«إيكونومست» اعترفت قبل أسابيع أن اقتصاد إيران أفضل ممّا كان وممّا تريده له أميركا).
ميشال مورو غوميز ــ كوبا
أميركا غير راضية عمّا يجري في أوروبا اليوم. هي كانت واثقة أنها حاصرت روسيا وستمنعها من ممارسة أي نفوذ خارج حدودها. حتى في داخل حدودها، هي كانت ناشطة في التجسّس وفي الاختراق عبر منظمات المجتمع المدني ومن قبل الإعلام المُسمّى «جديد» و«مستقل» (ماذا لو أطلقنا على الإعلام المُموَّل من إيران وصف «المستقل» كما تطلق وسائل إعلام «جديدة» على نفسها وصف المستقلّة فقط لأنها تتلقّى التمويل من حكومات ومؤسّسات أوروبيّة رجعيّة، لكنها تجزم أن لا أجندة عند حكومات أوروبا لأنها منزّهة). وكان أي معارض روسي، ولو لم يحظَ بشعبيّة في بلاده، يتلقّى تغطية واسعة وبطوليّة في إعلام الغرب. وكل معارض روسي يمرض، يكون هدفاً لمؤامرة من بوتين. وقبل أسابيع نشرت صحف غربيّة خبراً عن مقتل صحافيّة روسيّة كانت قد انتقدت بوتين. هكذا كانت العناوين. لكن عندما تقرأ الخبر تدرك أن الموضوع هو عنف شخصي، وأن صديقها قتلها وأنه ليس من أسباب سياسيّة لما جرى. ولنتذكّر أن يحيى شمص (المتهم بصلات مخدراتيّة) تلقّى تغطية واسعة في إعلام الغرب فقط لأنه معارض لحزب الله. فلنتوقّف لبرهة عند هذه المفارقة: تلقّى يحيى شمص تغطية في إعلام الغرب أكبر بكثير من تغطية النائب محمد رعد، الذي نال أكبر عدد أصوات في آخر انتخابات. هذا يعطينا فكرة عن معايير وحسابات الغرب (أشكّ أن واحداً من المراسلين الغربيين، أو واحدة، التقت بمحمد رعد). أميركا قلقة من التحدّي الذي لاقته من بوتين في هذه الأزمة. لم تكن تتوقّع ذلك مع أنه كانت هناك مؤشرات على نقمة روسيّة-صينيّة من سلوك الغطرسة الأميركي والذي تجلّى في الغزو الغربي لليبيا.
الحكومة الأميركية غاضبة جداً وهذا يظهر في سلوكها. حظر الإعلام الروسي وإصدار تنبيهات تويتريّة عن روابط لإعلام معاد ــــــ مع دولة ليست أميركا في حالة عداء رسمي معها ــــــ يشي بحلول مرحلة جديدة في العلاقة الدوليّة وفي إدارة الوضع الداخلي. ما إن تحرّك الجيش الروسي حتى اضمحلّ الخلاف في الداخل الأميركي وأصبح اليسار الصغير في الكونغرس الأميركي متحمّساً للحرب، ويشارك القوى المتنفّذة في الحزبيْن في عنفوان الوطنيّة والإصرار على السيطرة الأميركية الكليّة. لم تعد مساحة النقاش في الغرب كما كانت حتى في سنوات الحرب الباردة. كانت هناك إمكانيّة مناقشة فرضيّات الإدارات الأميركيّة عن الاتحاد السوفياتي، لكن هذا غائب اليوم. تجول بين الصحافة الأوروبيّة والأميركيّة ولا تجد أي مساحة نقديّة. ليس هناك من رأي معارض أو مختلف. حتى الكتّاب الذين يعارضون ــــــ أو كانوا يعارضون ــــــ توجّهات إمبراطورية الحرب سكتوا، لا بل أسهموا من خلال كتاباتهم في المجهود الحربي (هالني مثلاً كتابات ميشيل غولدبيرغ، الكاتبة في «نيويورك تايمز»، والتي عرفتها بعد 11 أيلول وكانت في موقع «صالون» من القلّة المعترضين على التعامل الأميركي مع المسلمين).
ماذا ستفعل أميركا في خلال الأزمة وبعدها. على الأرجح أن الإدارات المتعاقبة ستلجأ إلى جملة من السياسات والأعمال بما فيها:
أولا- تدعيم حلف شمال الأطلسي وزيادة الإنفاق العسكري فيه. ألمانيا باشرت بزيادة الإنفاق العسكري وسيكون مطلوباً منها الأكثر. ألمانيا أعلنت على الفور زيادة إنفاقها العسكري بنسبة 112 مليار دولار، ممّا يزيد نسبة الإنفاق من مجمل الناتج القومي إلى 2 في المئة من 1.53 في المئة والتزمت ستّ دول في حلف شمال الأطلسي بزيادة الإنفاق العسكري بنسبة 133 مليار دولار. حتى السويد الحيادية المسالمة التزمت بالزيادة. وسويسرا ضربت بحياديّتها التاريخيّة عرض الحائط كي تمتثل للمطالب الأميركيّة بالإذعان والطاعة من قبل كل دول أوروبا، في «الناتو» وفي خارجه. ونسبة الـ 2 في المئة من الناتج القومي على الإنفاق العسكري كانت قد وصلته دول اليونان وكرواتيا وبريطانيا وإستونيا ولاتفيا وبولندا ولتوانيا ورومانيا وفرنسا ــــــ وهذه النسبة كانت قيادة «الناتو» قد طلبتها. أميركا كانت في مرحلة إعداد للمعركة المقبلة. وبدلاً من تخفيض عدد أعضاء الحلف، ستصرّ أميركا على زيادة الأعضاء وقد تصرّ في مرحلة لاحقة على ضمّ أوكرانيا إلى الحلف لاستفزاز روسيا واستدراجها إلى مواجهة عسكريّة. وليس مستغرباً لو أن أميركا أصرّت على حيازة ألمانيا على السلاح النووي (تحتفظ أميركا بسلاح نووي على الأرض الألمانيّة بالرغم من معارضة الشعب هناك لذلك في السبعينيّات والثمانينيّات). وعدد الأسلحة النوويّة الأميركيّة في أوروبا غير معروف (سرّي) وهو يُقدَّر بـ 100 منتشرة في ست دول على الأقلّ. وهذا السلاح نُشر منذ الخمسينيّات ولم يؤثّر انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي على وضعه. أي أن أميركا تستعمله ليس فقط لتخويف الاتحاد السوفياتي بل لبسط سيطرة أميركيّة تامّة على القارّة.
ما إن تحرّك الجيش الروسي حتى اضمحلّ الخلاف في الداخل الأميركي وأصبح اليسار الصغير في الكونغرس الأميركي متحمّساً للحرب
ثانيا- التفكير الجدّي في إنزال السلاح النووي التكتيكي إلى الميدان. والسلاح النووي التكتيكي هو سلاح يقضي على أحياء في مدن بدلاً من تدمير مدينة بكاملها. و«نيويورك تايمز» نشرت قبل أيّام مقالة تحاول فيها جعل فكرة استعمال النووي التكتيكي مقبولة من العامة. وقد أدلى مسؤول استخبارات سابق في أميركا برأيه، وقال: «لا يمكنك إدارة الخدّ الأيسر كل الوقت». والحديث عن السلاح النووي التكتيكي سبق هذه الأزمة. ومن المعروف أن أميركا هدّدت نظام صدّام به. ففي اللقاء الشهير قبل الحرب في 1991 بين جيمس بابكر وطارق عزيز، هدّد جيمس بابكر، في تلميح كان أقرب إلى التصريح، بأن أميركا ستردّ بصورة فظيعة إذا أصاب جنودها سلاح كيماوي عراقي (لم يكن النظام العراقي يملك سلاحاً كيماوياً كما هو معروف). وأميركا كانت على وشك استعمال النووي التكتيكي في معارك تورا بورا في أفغانستان كي تهدم الجبال فوق رؤوس المختبئين فيها عندما أصيبت بالحنق من الفشل في العثور على حليفها السابق، أسامة بن لادن. طوّرت أميركا بعدها قنبلة الـ«مواب» وهي قنبلة ذات قدرات تدميريّة هائلة لا يفوق قدرتها إلا السلاح النووي. ولم تتوقّف أميركا عن رمي الـ«مواب» على أفغانستان ــــــ التي لم تعانِ، بنظر إعلام الغرب، وإعلام التمويل الغربي إلا بعد مغادرة جيش الاحتلال الأميركي لها.
اليوم، أميركا في موقع صعب. كيف تقترب من الصين أكثر وهي تكنّ عداءً نحو الصين يفوق عداءها نحو روسيا؟ والعلاقة بين الصين وروسيا ممتازة
ثالثا- جعل حلف شمال الأطلسي حلفاً عالمياً. لقد رُفعت مرتبة قطر في التحالف مع أميركا. في الوقت الذي كان فيه حكام العرب ينتظرون الفرصة للقاء بايدن (الذي لا يزال يرفض مهاتفة محمد بن سلمان)، دعا بايدن الأمير القطري إلى لقاء خاص وحميم في البيت الأبيض، وتمّ الإعلان عن رفع مرتبة قطر إلى «حليف أساسي من خارج الناتو». واللقاء بين بايدن والحاكم القطري سبق الحرب على أوكرانيا وهو تضمّن حديثاً عن مدّ ألمانيا وأوروبا بالغاز القطري (يبدو أن أميركا كانت مستعدّة جيداً لهذه الأزمة، قبل أشهر من التدخّل العسكري الروسي). ولقد أخذت قطر مرتبتها الجديدة على محمل الجدّ وهي تحاول جاهدة الظهور بمظهر الدولة الغربيّة في عواطفها الجيّاشة نحو الشعب الأوكراني. لم يلقَ شعب فلسطين هذه العاطفة الجيّاشة من قطر من قبل. إعلام النظام القطري لم يكن في هذه الأزمة إلا اجتراراً لإعلام حلف شمال الأطلسي، وتتعامل «الجزيرة» وغيرها مع أوكرانيا أنها هي قلب العروبة النابض.
رابعا- إيلاء الحلفاء بين الأنظمة الاستبداديّة أهميّة أكبر وتولية مصالحهم في العلاقات. أسابيع فقط من الحرب الروسية على أوكرانيا وأميركا تصلح علاقاتها مع النظام السعودي والإماراتي. النظام القطري لا يحتاج إلى عناية خاصّة لأنه مطلق الطاعة والولاء ومرتبته التحالفيّة ارتفعت في نظر واشنطن. والنظام السعودي عبّر عن امتعاضه في حديث مع «وول ستريت جورنال» عن كثرة الإشادة الأميركيّة بالحليف القطري. لكن تحفّظ الحكومة السعودية والإماراتيّة، وحتى حكومة العدوّ، عن اعتناق موقف «الناتو» بالكامل (بالنسبة إلى روسيا) أزعج الحكومة الأميركيّة. لكن بدلاً من رفع العصا بوجه الحلفاء، عمدت واشنطن إلى إرضائهم وتكرار مواقف الدعم والتعهد بالدفاع عن أمن النظام. لم تعد أميركا تتحمّل رقصات توازن بينها وبين العدوّ الروسي. وأميركا هي اليوم في حالة عداء مطلقة ضد روسيا. والحلفاء من أمثال السعودية والإمارات سيحظون بالمزيد من الدعم الأميركي، السياسي والعسكري. سنسمع عن شحنات سلاح جديدة وعن قواعد أميركية جديدة وعن وفود وزيارات كثيرة. والحاكم السعودي الشاب بات في موقع تفاوضي حول صعوده إلى العرش، وحظوظ نيله الرعاية الأميركيّة لصعوده باتت شبه محسومة. الاهتمام بطغاة الخليج كان بادياً هذا الأسبوع، حيث حرص وزير الخارجية الأميركي، أنتوني بلينكن، على ترضية محمد بن زايد ومبعوثين سعوديّين. والأكاديمي الشاب، غريغوري برو، على حق عندما علّق قائلاً إن هذا الاهتمام من قبل إدارة بايدن بالأنظمة الاستبداديّة بالخليج ينسف نظريّة هنتنغتون من أساسها.
خامسا- حظر التسليح الروسي. هناك قانون أميركي من عام 2017 يُعرف بأحرفه الأولى، قانون «كاتسا» وهو يفرض عقوبات على الدول التي تدخل في عقود مع روسيا في مجال الدفاع والاستخبارات «بصورة كبيرة». أي إن القانون ضبابي وهو كان يفترض أن يعاقب تركيا والهند لاستيرادهم شبكة «أس 400». لكن مرتبة الحلفاء أدّت إلى التساهل كما أن علاقة تركيا بروسيا وبأوكرانيا أفادت أميركا لتمرير رسائل. لكن مساعي التفاوض التركيّة قد لا تكون مُحبّذة في واشنطن لأن أميركا تريد من هذه الحرب أن تستمرّ إلى ما لا نهاية لو أمكن من أجل استنفاد طاقات وموارد روسيا. وقد كتب ديفيد شينكر (عرّاب نخبة «ثوّار» لبنان) مع زميل له من «مؤسّسة واشنطن» مقالة في «وول ستريت جورنال» يدعوان فيها إلى التشدّد في العقوبات على الحلفاء الذين يستوردون السلاح من روسيا. لن تتساهل أميركا في هذا الخصوص بعد اليوم. أي إنه من المتوقّع أن تزيد المبيعات الأميركية من الأسلحة.
اليوم، أميركا في موقع صعب. كيف تقترب من الصين أكثر وهي تكنّ عداءً نحو الصين يفوق عداءها نحو روسيا؟ والعلاقة بين الصين وروسيا ممتازة
سادسا- التعامل مع مثلّث القوة في العالم. ريتشارد نيكسون نظر إلى توزيع القوى في العالم ورأى أن العالم المثلث الأقطاب يحتّم محاولة طرف فيه جذب طرف آخر له. هذا ما حفّزه على تجاوز موانعه العقائديّة من أجل أن يبيع تايوان ويغضّ النظر عن عدائه المرضي ضدّ الشيوعية لكسب الصين إلى صف أميركا. لم تصبح الصين حليفة لكن كل ما يحتاجه المُخطّط في العلاقات الدوليّة أن يكون طرفه أقرب إلى طرفٍ ثانٍ من الطرف الثالث في المثلّث. وهذا ما حصل وأضعف الموقع السوفياتي. كان وضع الاتحاد السوفياتي سيكون أفضل بكثير لو أنه اعتنى أكثر بإصلاح العلاقة مع الصين لتفويت الفرصة على التآمر الأميركي ضدّه. اليوم، أميركا في موقع صعب. كيف تقترب من الصين أكثر وهي تكنّ عداءً نحو الصين يفوق عداءها نحو روسيا؟ والعلاقة بين الصين وروسيا ممتازة وهي أوثق بعد أزمة أوكرانيا لأن الصين تحتاج إلى تعاون روسي من أجل اجتراح سبل تجاوز العقوبات الأميركية القاسية والوحشيّة (هي وحشيّة على الشعوب قبل أن تكون ضد الأنظمة). ومهما حاولت أميركا أن تُبعد الصين عن روسيا، فليس لديها ما تعطيه للصين غير تخفيف حدّة العداء الشديد. وتخفيف حدة العداء لا يغيّر من التخطيط الاستراتيجي الأميركي الذي يتعامل مع الصين على أنه الخطر الأكبر. أميركا كان لديها الكثير لتقدّمه للصين في عام 1970: عضويّة مجلس الأمن وطرد تايوان من الأمم المتحدة بالإضافة إلى إنشاء علاقة ديبلوماسيّة، بالإضافة إلى التعامل مع الصين على أنها دولة أكبر مما كانت في حينه. ماذا تستطيع أن تقدّم أميركا للصين اليوم؟ اعتبارها دولة عظمى وهي كذلك من دون مبالغة أميركية ديبلوماسيّة.
سابعا- جرّ روسيا إلى حروب إنهاك. هناك نظريّة أن الحرب الروسية في أوكرانيا لم تكن إلا فخّاً نصبته أميركا لها. وأميركا تحمّست كثيراً لهذه الحرب وكان واضحاً أنها كانت تعدّ لها. كانت القوّات الأميركيّة قد انتشرت في أنحاء مختلفة من أوروبا خصوصاً في بولندا، بالإضافة إلى تولّي أجهزة الاستخبارات الأميركيّة مهمّة تقرير أجندة الصحف الأميركيّة. فتحتُ ثلاث صحف من باب التجربة: «نيويورك تايمز» و«واشنطن بوست» و«غارديان» البريطانيّة. نفس الأخبار والعناوين موجودة في الصحف الثلاث، ومنسوبة كلّها لمصادر عسكريّة واستخباراتيّة أميركيّة. كانت الصحف البريطانيّة تتميّز عن الصحف الأميركيّة لكن ذلك تغيّر منذ الحرب في سوريا حين تطابقت التغطية بالكامل وأصبحت الـ«غارديان» أكثر تصلّباً في الصهيونيّة وفي تأييد آلة الحرب الأميركيّة من صحف أميركا. قد تصل أوكرانيا وروسيا إلى تسوية لكن أميركا ستعطّلها. طلع المبعوث الأوكراني إلى مفاوضات تركيا بين الطرفيْن بتصريحات متفائلة لكن وزير الخارجيّة الأميركي سرعان ما أبطل مفعول التفاؤل وخفّض منسوب الترحيب بشأن التقدّم في المفاوضات. أميركا تبحث عن حرب أفغانستان جديدة كي تغرق روسيا في حرب لا تنتهي إلا بانهيار الدولة. ليس هناك من تعداد للسلاح الذي هطل على أوكرانيا، لكن تذكّر أو تذكّري أن حتى السويد والنروج شاركت في الحرب الأوكرانيّة.
ثامنا- التركيز على دول العالم النامي في الاستراتيجيّة الأميركيّة لصنع تحالف عالمي ضد أعدائها. الصحف الغربيّة ضجّت بقوّة التحالف العالمي الذي تقوده أميركا (طبعاً تحت مسميّات الحريّة ــــــ وتحالف الحريّة هذا يضمّ مستبدّين من كل حدب وصوب)، لكن الوقائع في تصويت الجمعيّة العاميّة للأمم المتحدة أثبتت عكس ذلك. كانت أميركا تريد أن تحصل على إجماع كل دول العالم لكن تحالفها كان غربيّاً صرفاً. دول كبرى في العالم النامي حاولت الحفاظ على مسافة من موقف أميركا. الهند وجنوب أفريقيا والصين وباكستان كلّها تحافظ على علاقة وديّة مع روسيا. ستضطرّ أميركا إلى إنفاق المزيد من المال وشحن المزيد من السلاح وشنّ المزيد من الحروب لجلب المزيد من دول العالم النامي إليها. لقد فضحت هذه الحرب الطابع العنصري الصارخ للتحالف الغربي ومعاييره. لم يعد ممكناً ستر طبيعة سيادة العنصريّة البيضاء في صلب التحالف الغربي. لا يمحي ذلك الترحيب بمسؤول من هذه الدولة الآسيويّة أو نشر خطاب وزير الخارجية الكيني الذي هو في الأساس أداة بيد الإدارة الأميركيّة. (واختفى وزير الخارجية الكيني عن الساحة بعد خطابه في الأمم المتحدة، والذي أرادته البروباغندا الأميركيّة أن يصبح شهيراً لأنها استعملته بصورة عنصريّة كي تُكسي عدوانيّتها بلسان فرد أفريقي).
تاسعا- الحرب الدعائيّة ستستعر أكثر من أي وقت. رأينا ذلك على مرّ الأسابيع الماضية. «واشنطن بوست» (وهي أكثر مطبوعة ملتصقة بأجهزة الاستخبارات الأميركيّة) دعت جهاراً إلى تكرار تجربة الحرب الباردة في شنّ «حرب ثقافيّة» ضد روسيا وغيرها من أعداء أميركا. لكن الصحيفة نسيت أن الحرب الثقافية الماضية تضمّنت نشر عقيدة بن لادن وصحبه حول العالم لأن تلك العقدية كانت مؤاتية ضد الشيوعيّة.
نحن في مرحلة قلقة ومضطربة من العلاقات الدوليّة. صحف الغرب (وتوابعه في بلادنا) مشغولة بالتدخّل العسكري الروسي في أوكرانيا. لكن التدخّل الأميركي في أوكرانيا لا يقلّ عن تدخّل روسيا. هل من شكّ أن ضبّاطاً أميركيّين يقودون كل العمليات العسكريّة الأوكرانيّة؟ هل من شك أن هناك شركات علاقات عامّة تكتب خطب القادة الأوكرانيّين (لقد علمنا رسميّاً أن شركة علاقات عامّة استأجرتها حكومة بايدن كي تكتب خطب سفيرة أوكرانيا في أميركا). أميركا لن تتوقّف، هي ستستمرّ لأنها في طور الانتقام من تحدّي روسيا لها. والانتقام الأميركي، كما رأينا بعد 11 أيلول، أبشع بكثير من عوائد القبائل العربيّة القديمة.
خطّطت أميركا وخلفها الغرب الأوروبي لاستدراج روسيا الى أوكرانيا وإغراقها في مستنقع لا تستطيع الخروج منه أو لا تخرج منه إلا بعد إنهاكها والقضاء على اقتصادها لا بل والنيل من وحدتها وتفكيكها الى دول متناحرة تضيع بين حدودها المكانة النووية استراتيجياً وتفقد حق الفيتو في مجلس الأمن دولياً وهما الميزتان اللتان كانتا للاتحاد السوفياتي وورثتهما روسيا بعد تفككه، واليوم تريد أميركا شطبهما من الكينونة الروسية بشكل نهائي. كلّ ذلك تقدم عليه أميركا من أجل إسقاط المثلث الاستراتيجي المشرقيّ الذي يرفض ويعمل من أجل الإجهاز النهائي على فكرة الأحادية القطبية التي حلمت بها أميركا وخاضت من أجل إرسائها الحروب المتتالية والمتنوّعة، فكرة لا تزال تدغدغ أحلامها رغم ما واجهته من عوائق وما مُنيت صاحبتها من هزائم.
وحتى تنفذ خطتها لجأت أميركا الى تدابير استفزازية دفعت اليها أوكرانيا الدولة الجار لروسيا ذات الـ ٤٥ مليون نسمة (ما يعادل ربع سكان روسيا) وذات المساحة التي تتجاوز الـ 600 الف كلم2، ومنذ العام 2014 بدأت أميركا بخطتها الجهنمية ضدّ روسيا بالانقلاب الذي أطاح بحكومة أوكرانية وطنية تقيم علاقات حسن جوار طبيعية مع روسيا، انقلاب جاء الى الحكم بدمية بيد الغرب وفئة من القوميين والنازيين الجدد المعبّأين بعميق الكراهية ضدّ روسيا، ما فرض على روسيا اتخاذ الوضع الدفاعي عن مصالحها ومستقبلها والأهم حاضراً عن أمنها القومي وأمن الأشخاص الروس او الذين هم من أصل روسي ويقيمون في أوكرانيا بصفتهم مواطنين بعد ان ضمتّ القيادة السوفياتية السابقة ارضاً روسية الى أوكرانيا لتشكل منها دولة في الاتحاد السوفياتي احتفظت بالأرض الروسية بعد تفكك الاتحاد السوفياتي.
حاولت روسيا جاهدة التفلت مما ينصب لها في أوكرانيا من كمائن او فخاخ، وعرضت بأكثر من طريقة ووسيلة وأسلوب حلولاً لما تخشاه خاصة على صعيد الأمن القومي وامن الأشخاص الروس، وكان الرفض الأميركي بصلافة وتعنّت هو الردّ دائماً وكان هذا طبيعياً من أميركا التي تخطط بالشكل الجهنّمي ضدّ روسيا، ووصلت الأمور في نهاية المطاف الى وضع روسيا أمام خيارين: اما السكوت على الاستفزاز وتآكل الموقع والقدرات والوصول الى يوم لن يكون بعيداً تضطر فيه للدفاع عن الدولة على أبواب موسكو وتتذكر يومها الغزو الغربي لها أكثر من مرة وما خلفه من قتل ودمار، او المبادرة بعمل عسكري استباقي ووقائي يقيها من هذه الأخطار دون أن تدخل النار أرض الدولة الروسية. بين الأمرين اختارت الحلّ الثاني رغم ما فيه، من مخاطر وما ينطوي عليه من الوقوع في الفخ الأميركي، ويحقق رغبة أميركا في اقتياد روسيا الى حرب استنزاف قاتلة،
بيد انّ روسيا ومع اختيارها للعمل العسكري النوعي الاستباقي، الذي اضطرت عليه كخيار بين السيّئ والأسوأ. واختارت السيّئ، بادرت الى وضع خطط تنفيذية تجنبها قدر الإمكان او الى الحدّ الأقصى الانزلاق الى حرب استنزاف أو عمليات قتل المدنيين كما تشتهي أميركا ومن أجل ذلك اختارت للتنفيذ استراتيجية الضغط المتدرّج الذي أملت منها حمل القيادة الأوكرانية على التفاوض تحت وطأة الميدان والضغط العسكري فيه من أجل الاستجابة للمطالب الروسية ذات الصلة بالأمن القومي الروسي وأمن الأشخاص الروس.
وفي التنفيذ ترجمت هذه الاستراتيجية عسكرياً بما يؤدي الى تدمير القدرات العسكرية الأوكرانية وتجفيف مصادر القوة، ونزع الانياب والأظافر وحرمان أوكرانيا من الإمكانات العسكرية الذاتية او التي تمنح لها من الخارج لتتمكن من إدارة حرب استنزاف ناجحة وطويلة الأمد تحقق لأميركا اهدافها. ومن أجل ذلك التزمت ونفذت روسيا ميدانياً بما يلي:
ـ الاقتصاد بالقوى مع تخصيص جزء بسيط من قواتها المسلحة وقواتها العسكرية وإناطة مهمة العملية العسكرية النوعية به، ولذلك لم تزجّ في الميدان وتدفع عبر الحدود أكثر من ١/١٣ من قواتها المقاتلة وهي نسبة متدنية جداً كما يعلم العسكريون لا يكون من شأنها ان ترهق الجيش مهما طال أمد العمليات.
ـ التخطيط للحرب الطويلة غير المرهقة حتى لا يكون طول المدة أداة ضغط عكسية على روسيا.
ـ التوجه لتدمير القدرات العسكرية الأوكرانية شاملاً الأسلحة والذخائر في الميدان وفي المستودعات وفي مصانع الإنتاج بما يحرم الجيش الأوكراني من الوسائل العسكرية المحلية التي تلزمه للقتال والمواجهة والصمود.
ـ اعتماد استراتيجية الحصار للإنهاك النفسي والميداني الذي يفرغ المدن من سكانها ما يقود الى إسقاطها في نهاية المطاف مع تجنب حرب الشوارع ومعارك الالتحام وخسائرها او قتل المدنيين في بيوتهم، وفي هذه النقطة قلبت روسيا الاتجاه حيث تجنّبت حرب الاستنزاف ودفعت الخصم اليها وهو برأينا إبداع روسي.
ـ الاندفاع البدئيّ السريع للعملية عبر الحدود مع تعدّد محاور العمل (٣ محاور رئيسية ومحورين ثانويين) بما يحقق الصدمة والرعب ويقود الى الانهيار الإدراكي والإخراج من الميدان دون قتال لأنّ هدف روسيا لم يكن القتل بل التحييد عن القتال،
ـ رسم الخطوط الحمراء الصارمة بوجه التدخل الغربي الأطلسي وتجلى ذلك بـ ٣ مواقف الأول التلويح بالسلاح النووي الرادع، والثاني اعتبار قوافل الإمداد العسكري أهدافاً مشروعة أينما كانت، والثالث اعتبار فتح مراكز التدريب والتحشيد وتجنيد الأجانب عملاً يستوجب التدخل لتدميرها.
ـ الارتقاء التصاعدي في استعمال الاسلحة بشكل يحقق مصالح روسية مركبة من عملانية ولوجستية واستراتيجية مع التقيّد بقاعدة “التناسب والضرورة” حسب المستطاع والحاجة والإمكان، ومن هنا نفهم كيف لجأت روسيا الى استعمال صاروخ “كنجال” ذي الرأس عالي الدقة والخارق للتحصينات من أجل تدمير مستودعات الأسلحة والذخائر، او إطلاق صاروخ باستون من قطعة بحرية في البحر الأسود ليدمّر أهدافاً في البر الأوكراني رغم أنه في الاصل معدّ للاستعمال ضدّ السفن، ففي هذه النقطة يبدو انّ روسيا تتجه الى عرض واستعراض القوة والقدرات العسكرية العالية المستوى وتأكيد قرارها الاستراتيجي بالمضيّ حتى النهاية لتحقيق أهدافها مهما استلزم ذلك من بذل.
ـ الإمساك بورقة المصانع البيولوجية والجرثومية التي أقامتها أميركا في أوكرانيا والتلويح بفضح الخطط الأميركية بصددها.
وبالنتيجة وفي اقلّ من شهر تمكنت روسيا من تحييد اكثر من ٧٥٪ من الجيش الأوكراني وفرض الحصار على ٣ مدن رئيسية منها العاصمة كييف كما وإحكام حصار بحري كامل على أوكرانيا فحرمتها من التجارة عبر البحرين الأسود وآزوف، كما أنها دمّرت المصانع العسكرية في معظم أوكرانيا ووضعت اليد على قاعدتين نوويتين أساسيتين في تشيرنوبيل وزاباروجيا متجنبة الى الحدّ الأقصى المواجهات الميدانية المباشرة ومعتمدة بشكل رئيسي على القدرات النارية براً وجواً وبحراً وعلى قدرات الصدم المناسبة.
وعلى هذا الأساس نستطيع القول من الوجهة العسكرية إنّ روسيا التي تعمل مع هوامش أمان كثيرة بعيداً عن ضغط الوقت، تجنّبت حرب الاستنزاف لا بل دفعت الخصم اليها وصاغت أسس معركتها بشكل يمكنها من تحقيق أهدافها بشكل مؤكد ما يعني أنّ أوكرانيا ستكون ميدان فشل إضافي للسياسة الأميركية التي حصدت فشلاً مركباً والأخطر فيه هو الفشل الاستراتيجي المتمثل بسقوط نهائي للأحادية القطبية.
Very apt & timely article by international criminal lawyer, Christopher Black.
Excerpts:
“In my opinion Russia acted in accordance with international law under Article 51 of the UN Charter for the following reasons;
First, the Kiev regime was mounting a major offensive with NATO’s help against the Donbass Republics with the intent of destroying them. Intensive shelling had already begun days before Russia acted, the shelling of civilian buildings and infrastructure, which resulted in scores of thousands of civilians fleeing into Russia. During that period the Kiev regime also attempted to assassinate a leader of the Republics with a car bomb. Russia had no choice but to protect the Donbass peoples and since the Security Council could do nothing, and the EU and NATO were supporting the Kiev offensive against the Donbass, Russia was the only nation that could act.
The request for military assistance from the Donbass Republics also compelled Russia to send in its forces to help push back the Kiev forces from the territories of the Republics.
Second, Russia itself had been attacked multiple times by Kiev regime forces. Saboteurs were sent into Crimea time and again to carry out raids, assassinate officials, to destroy infrastructure. They even cut Crimea’s water supply, a crime against humanity. Just a few days before Russia acted a Kiev reconnaissance unit invaded Russia but was detected and destroyed. Russia had every right under The Caroline Doctrine to go after the attackers and to prevent further attacks.
…In this case the threat was more than imminent. It was on-going and increasing. The only effective and proportional defensive response was to destroy the offensive forces being deployed. These forces include not only Kiev regime government forces but also the nationalist, Nazi brigades supporting and spearheading the Kiev offensive and all the NATO equipment being supplied to them to conduct the Kiev offensive.
Thirdly, the deeper issue was the imminent threat to Russia from NATO posed by its continuous expansion to the east, its continuous build up of forces and offensive structure pointed at Russia and the completion this September of the American missile systems in Poland, Romania and Ukraine which could then be used to launch a nuclear attack against Russia.
We remember that in the past few months the NATO nations have conducted military exercises that included practicing launching nuclear attacks on Russia. We also remember that the USA has a first strike nuclear war policy, claiming the right to use nuclear weapons wherever and whenever they deem fit. It was evident that they were practising attacks because that was and is their intention.
Russia demanded the Americans withdraw those systems, and to withdraw NATO from Eastern Europe. They flatly refused. Ukraine talked of acquiring nuclear weapons and threatening Russia with them. It would take time for them to manufacture but there was nothing to stop the Americans from giving them nuclear weapons, under their control, as the Americans have done with Germany, for instance.
Russia could do nothing, keep the peace, and watch, as the weapons for its destruction were installed and made ready to fire; to commit suicide in other words, or it could defend itself. It warned the US that it would do so, and had the right to do so, the same right the Americans always claim to have, but again Russia was ignored. It had to act or face destruction and subjugation.
We remember that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, in 1962, the Americans threatened to invade Cuba and to attack the USSR because nuclear missiles had been placed in Cuba to protect it against American aggression. President Kennedy established the precedent principle that when a nation feels its existence is at stake from nuclear weapons it has the right to use force to protect itself pre-emptively. Russia is acting on the same principle.
Lastly, the NATO powers have lately relied on their bogus legal doctrine of “responsibility to protect” that they invented after the fact to try to justify their aggression against Yugoslavia. No such doctrine exists in international law but they claim the right to use it nevertheless. It applies, according to them, when a military action is justified, though illegal, “for legitimate humanitarian reasons.’ They were warned that this false doctrine could be turned against them. Russia has not referred to it at all, but if NATO can rely on it for their wars of aggression, then surely Russia can rely on it to justify their military action to defend the Donbass, and themselves.
When one takes account of all the factors that governed the Russian decision to send its forces into Ukraine it is clear that in law they had the legal right to do so whereas the United States continues its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Syria to this day and the NATO media powers and governments say nothing, because they are all complicit in those invasions. If the United States and the NATO alliance had complied with international law in the first place as set out in the UN Charter, the world would not be in this mess. They caused this, not Russia. The responsibility is entirely theirs and they will be judged for it.” https://christopher-black.com/the-legality-of-war/
وزارة الدفاع الروسية تعلن ضبطَ عددٍ كبيرٍ من الأسلحة الأجنبية في ضواحي كييف، وسكرتير مجلس الأمن الروسي يؤكّد أن أوكرانيا كانت تمتلك كل ما يلزم لصناعة سلاحٍ نوويٍّ.
الخريطة الميدانية لليوم الـ20 من العملية العسكرية الروسية الخاصة في أوكرانيا
أعلنت وزارة الدفاع الروسية، اليوم الثلاثاء، أنَّ “القوات الخاصّة الروسية المحمولة جوّاً، قامت بضبطِ عددٍ كبيرٍ من الأسلحة الأجنبية في ضواحي كييف، وذلك بعد معارك مع القوميين الأوكرانيين المتطرفين”.
وأظهر مقطعٌ مصوَّرٌ نشرته وزارة الدفاع الروسية المنظومة الأميركية المضادة للدبابات “جافلين”، ومنظومة “بانتسيرفاوست” الألمانية، وعدداً من منظومات الصواريخ المحمولة. كما أظهر المقطع تحميل الجنود الروس لهذه الغنائم في مركباتهم العسكرية.
وأشار أحد جنود القوات الجوية إلى أنّه “سيتمّ تسليم جميع الأسلحة إلى ممثلي جمهوريتي لوغانسك ودونيتسك الشعبيتين”.
وفي وقتٍ سابقٍ، سيطرت وحداتٌ من القوات الخاصة الروسية المحمولة جوّاً على مركز إسناد للقوميين المتطرفين الأوكرانيين والمرتزقة الأجانب، في بلدة “غوتا ميجوغورسكايا” في مقاطعة كييف.
باتروشيف: كييف كانت تمتلك كل ما يلزم لصنع سلاح نووي
أعلن سكرتير مجلس الأمن الروسي، نيكولاي باتروشيف، اليوم الثلاثاء، أنَّ “قيام أوكرانيا بصنعِ سلاحٍ نوويٍّ كان من شأنه تهديد الأمن العالمي”، مشيراً إلى أنَّ “روسيا لم تكن لتسمح بظهور هذا السلاح لدى القوميين المتطرفيين، الذين لا يمكن السيطرة عليهم”.
وقال باتروشيف، خلال جلسةٍ حول الأمن في شمال القوقاز، إنّه “أصبح من الواضح أن المستشارين الأميركيين هم الذين يشجّعون ويساعدون نظام كييف في صنع أسلحة بيولوجية ونووية”. وأضاف أنَّ “لدى أوكرانيا كل ما يلزم لهذا الغرض، الكفاءات والتقنيات والمواد الخام ووسائل التسليم”.
وأكّد باتروشيف أنَّ “تصريحات القيادة الأوكرانية حول إمكانية تغيير الوضع النووي للبلاد لم تكن كلمات جوفاء”.
وتابع باتروشيف أنّه “يمكن تحويل هذه النوايا إلى واقع، وهذا مثّل بالفعل تهديداً واضحاً ليس لأمن روسيا فقط، ولكن للعالم بأسره، ما قد يؤدي إلى اندلاع حربٍ نوويةٍ”.
وشدَّد باتروشيف على أنّه “لا يمكننا أن نسمح للقوميين المتعصبين، وغير القابلين للسيطرة، بامتلاك أسلحة نووية”. وأشار سكرتير مجلس الأمن الروسي إلى أنَّ “الأسلحة النووية التكتيكية الأميركية قد تم نشرها بالفعل في أوروبا”.
وسأل باتروشيف “من أجل إمكانية استخدام البنية التحتية للدفاع الصاروخي التي تم إنشاؤها في المنطقة المجاورة مباشرة لحدودنا، أين ضمان أن السلاح المُجهّز لن يتمَّ إطلاقه مرةً أخرى؟”.
وأوضح باتروشيف أنَّ “الولايات المتحدة استخدمت بالفعل أسلحةً نوويةً ضد المدنيين، فقد ألقيت قنابل ذرية على مدن في اليابان، واستخدمت ذخيرة اليورانيوم المنضب في العراق ويوغوسلافيا”.
وفي هذا الصدد، قال إنَّ “عواقب استخدام هذه الذخيرة لا تزال تؤثر على البيئة وصحة الإنسان، ما يزيد بشكلٍ كبيرٍ من الوفيات الناجمة عن مرض السرطان”.
مجلس الأمن القومي الروسي: حصلنا على أدلة موثقة عن خطة كييف لغزو دونباس والقرم الشهر الجاري
وأعلن باتروشيف، اليوم الثلاثاء، أنّه “تم الحصول على أدلةٍ موثّقةٍ تُثبت أن سلطات كييف كانت تستعد لغزو أراضي جمهوريتي دونيتسك ولوغانسك الشعبيتين، وكذلك شبه جزيرة القرم، في آذار/مارس الجاري”، وأوضح باتروشيف أن الحصول على هذه الأدلة خلال العملية الروسية الخاصة الجارية في أوكرانيا.
وقالت القناة في برنامج “بيسوغون” إن خطة كييف كانت تنص على دعوة قوات من حلف شمال الأطلسي إلى أوكرانيا لمنع التدخل الروسي.
ووفق معد ومقدم البرنامج، عضو المجلس الاستشاري لدى الرئيس الروسي، نيكيتا ميخالكوف، فإن إرسال السلاح إلى أوكرانيا على مدى أشهر كان يهدف إلى تكديسه ليتم فيما بعد تسليح قوات الناتو به.
روسيا تُجلي حوالى 260 ألف شخص من دونيتسك ولوغانسك وأوكرانيا
وصرّح أيضاً رئيس المركز الوطني الروسي لإدارة الدفاع، ميخائيل ميزينتسيف، اليوم الثلاثاء، بأنَّ “روسيا قامت، دون مشاركة السلطات الأوكرانية، بإجلاء حوالي 260 ألف شخصٍ من المناطق الخطرة في أوكرانيا، من بينهم 56 ألفَ طفلٍ، وكذلك من جمهوريتي دونيتسك ولوغانسك الشعبيتين”.
وقال ميزينتسيف في إفادةٍ صحفيةٍ إنّه “على الرغم من كل العراقيل التي وضعتها الكتائب القومية وسلطات كييف أمام خروج المواطنين، فقد تمَّ خلال الساعات الـ24 الماضية إجلاء 11372 شخصاً من المناطق الخطرة في مختلف مناطق أوكرانيا، كما تمَّ إجلاء 11372 شخصاً، من بينهم 1873 طفلاً، من جمهوريتي لوغانسك ودونيتسك”.
وأوضح رئيس المركز الوطني الروسي لإدارة الدفاع أنّه “منذ بداية العملية العسكرية الخاصة تم إجلاء 258791 شخصاً، من بينهم 56180 طفلاً”. وأضاف بأنَّ “1368 سيارةً خاصَّةً عبرت الحدود الروسية في يومٍ واحدٍ، وأكثر من 29 ألفاً خلال كامل فترة العملية الخاصة”.
وأشار إلى أنّه “خلال الساعات الـ 24 الماضية، وبفضل الإجراءات الأمنية غير المسبوقة التي اتخذتها القوات المسلحة الروسية، تمَّ توفير ممرات إنسانية، وإجلاء 36721 مواطناً في اتجاهات جيتومير ولوغانسك ودونيتسك وماريوبول، تتبعهم حافلاتٌ وسياراتٌ خاصَّةٌ من مختلف المناطق السكنية إلى المناطق الغربية من أوكرانيا”.
“الدفاع الروسية”: المتطرفون الأوكرانيون يحتجزون 7070 مواطناً من 22 دولة
وقال رئيس المركز الوطني لقيادة الدفاع في روسيا، ميخائيل ميزينتسيف، اليوم الثلاثاء، إنَّ “القوميين المتطرفيين الأوكرانيين يواصلون احتجاز 7070 مواطناً من 22 دولةً أجنبيةً، فضلاً عن أطقم 70 سفينةً أجنبيةً”.
وأضاف ميزينتسيف أن هؤلاء الأشخاص “محتجزون كرهائن من قبل مسلحي كتائب الدفاع الإقليمية”.
وتابع أنّه “تمَّ تنظيم العمل على مدار الساعة مع ممثلي الدوائر الدبلوماسية ذات الصلة، بشأن مصير جميع المواطنين الأجانب المحتجزين بشكلٍ غيرِ قانونيٍّ”، مشيراً إلى أنّه “في الوقت نفسه، ما زالت السلطات الأوكرانية لا تستجيب لنداءات الدول الأجنبية التي تحاول إنقاذ أرواح مواطنيها وتخليصهم من هذا المأزق”.
وقبل نحو 10 أيام، قالت وزارة الدفاع الروسية إنَّ “أكثر من 7,5 ألف أجنبي محتجزون كرهائن في مدن أوكرانية، مشيرةً إلى أن نظام كييف فقد بالكامل تقريباً القدرة على إدارة المناطق والمقاطعات في البلاد”.
وقالت الدفاع الروسية في بيان لها أنه “في مدينة سومي قام النازيون الجدد بقصف مسكن يعيش فيه طلاب هنود، وأصيب 5 أشخاص، فيما لا يزال مصير 11 غير معروف”.
وأمس، أعلن المتحدث باسم وزارة الدفاع الروسية، إيغور كوناشينكوف، مقتل 20 مدنياً وإصابة 28 آخرين، جراء قصف القوات الأوكرانية مركز مدينة دونيتسك بصاروخٍ من طراز “توتشكا أو”، الذي “يحتوي على ذخيرة عنقودية”، واصفاً هذا القصف بأنّه “جريمة حرب”.
وقال كوناشينكوف إنَّ “هناك أطفالاً بين المصابين إصاباتٍ بالغة”، وأكّد أنّه “تم نقل المصابين إلى المراكز الطبية”.
باتت محاولة قراءة مسار الأحداث وأهداف الأحلاف المتقابلة في أوكرانيا أكثر واقعيةً، وذلك بعد مرور عدة أيامٍ على بدء العملية العسكرية الخاصة الروسية في أوكرانيا، وعلى ضوء الأفعال وردود الفعل المضادة، وتصريحات الفرقاء وباقي الأطراف الدولية، فصار جلياً أن الحرب رغم كونها محصورةً في الجغرافيا الأوكرانية، إلا أنها في حقيقة الأمر تدور بين حلفين متقابلين؛ حلف روسي وآخر أمريكيّ، في مشهدٍ اكتملت فيه معظم عناصر الحرب العالمية، وما عاد ينقصه سوى امتداد شرارة الحرب المشتعلة حالياً إلى خارج الجغرافيا الأوكرانية لا قدر الله، لتتحول إلى حربٍ عالميةٍ ثالثةٍ ساخنةٍ مكتملة الأركان.
فبناءً على تصريحات الكرملين المتعاقبة، وبناءً على ما جاء في تصريحات وزارة الخارجية الروسية خلال هذه الأيام، نفهم أن روسيا قد اتخذت القرار للتدخل العسكري المباشر في أوكرانيا، عقب معطياتٍ توفرت لديها عن نشاطٍ أمريكيٍّ عسكريٍّ متزايدٍ في الساحة الأوكرانية، نشاطاتٍ تتعلق بتفعيل المنشآت النووية الأوكرانية، التي ما زالت أوكرانيا تملكها منذ حقبة الاتحاد السوفييتي، ونشاطاتٍ أخرى تتعلق بإنشاء معامل سلاحٍ بيولوجيٍّ وكيماويٍّ، ذلك بالإضافة إلى قناعةٍ تشكلت لدى روسيا، مفادها أن الغرب لم يتخلّ يوماً عن “سياسة احتواء روسيا”، التي اتبعها ضد الاتحاد السوفييتي، وذلك عبر استمرار زحف حلف شمال الأطلسي شرقاً، على عكس ما كان قد وعد به الغرب الاتحاد السوفييتي قبل نحو ثلاثة عقود. لذلك جاء في طليعة أهداف العملية العسكرية الروسية، انتزاع التزامٍ من أوكرانيا بعدم الانضمام إلى حلف شمال الأطلسي، ونزع السلاح الأوكراني، الذي هو في الحقيقة سلاحٌ أطلسيٌّ، ويُشكِّل خطراً على الأمن القومي الروسي.
قناعةٍ تشكلت لدى روسيا، مفادها أن الغرب لم يتخلّ يوماً عن “سياسة احتواء روسيا”، التي اتبعها ضد الاتحاد السوفييتي، وذلك عبر استمرار زحف حلف شمال الأطلسي شرقاً، على عكس ما كان قد وعد به الغرب الاتحاد السوفييتي قبل نحو ثلاثة عقود
لكن كان من بين ما قالته وزارة الخارجية الروسية أيضاً، أنه قد آن الأوان لإزالة الأسلحة النووية الأمريكية، التي ما انفكت هذه الأخيرة عن نشرها في القارة الأوروبية، وعلى مقربةٍ من الحدود الروسية. وفي هذا إشارةٌ واضحةٌ إلى أن الأهداف الروسية تتخطى الهدف المباشر لعمليتها العسكرية، الذي يتمثل في إزالة تهديد نشوء “روسيا مضادةٍ” على الحدود الروسية في أوكرانيا، ليظهر أن الأهداف الروسية بعيدة الأمد تشمل محاولة معالجة الواقع الأمني الذي استحدثه حلف شمال الأطلسي في أوروبا خلال العقود الثلاث الماضية، والذي يمثل تهديداً جدياً لأمن روسيا الاتحادية القومي واستقرارها.
ولا يمكن قراءة الخطوة العسكرية الروسية في أوكرانيا بمعزلٍ عن نتائج القمة الصينية الروسية الأخيرة وبيانها الختامي، الذي جاء فيه تصورٌ صينيٌّ روسيٌّ مشتركٌ لشكل النظام العالميّ الجديد، والذي رافقه توقيع صفقاتٍ صينيةٍ روسيةٍ استراتيجيةٍ في مجالات الطاقة والفضاء وغيرهما، مما انعكس على روسيا مزيداً من القوة في مواجهة الغرب، وزاد من اختلال موازين القوى لصالح روسيا وتبعاً الصين، كونهما قد دخلتا في ما يشبه الشراكة في مواجهة الهيمنة الأمريكية الغربية على العالم، وبالتالي يجعل هذا المعطى من الصين شريكاً غير مباشرٍ في الاشتباك الحاصل بين روسيا وأمريكا في أوكرانيا، ويجعل منها ظهيراً رئيساً لروسيا في معركتها ضد حلف شمال الأطلسي.
أما على المقلب الآخر، فكان لافتاً حجم وسرعة الإجراءات غير المسبوقة، التي اتخذتها الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية مع حليفها الاتحاد الأوروبي وحلفاء آخرين ضد روسيا. ففي غضون أيامٍ معدوداتٍ فقط، بلغت العقوبات الاقتصادية من طرفٍ واحدٍ، التي فرضها الغرب وحلفاؤه ضد روسيا، مدى يحاكي العقوبات الأمريكية على إيران، وبين ليلةٍ وضحاها قاموا برصد مبالغ طائلةٍ من أجل إمداد أوكرانيا بالسلاح.
يمكن الاستخلاص من مجموع هذه التصريحات، التي صدرت عن كلا الطرفين، أنهما يريان في الحرب الأوكرانية معركةً أولى ضمن اشتباكٍ أوسع مدى، وأطول زمناً، حول مستقبل ونفوذ حلف شمال الأطلسي في أوروبا، وبالتالي حول النفوذ الأمريكي وهيمنته العالمية، وتباعاً حول شكل وطبيعة النظام العالمي ما بعد الأحادية القطبية
وكان من جملة ما قاله الرئيس الأمريكي بخصوص الحرب الأوكرانية أنهم كانوا قد حضّروا لهذه العقوبات الاقتصادية على روسيا منذ أشهرٍ، وبأن بوتين ربما يكون قادراً على تحقيق إنجازٍ عسكريٍ في أوكرانيا، لكن العقوبات الاقتصادية التي فرضوها على روسيا ستؤدي إلى شلّ الاقتصاد الروسي على المدى المتوسط. وفي هذا الكلام إشارةٌ إلى أن الأمريكي كان يعد العدة لشن حربٍ اقتصاديةٍ ممتدةٍ على روسيا، على غرار الحرب التي يخوضها ضد إيران وكوريا الشمالية، وفيه أيضاً إشارةٌ إلى كون أمريكا تتعامل مع سقوط أوكرانيا على أنه احتمالٌ مرجحٌ، فما معنى قول بايدن بأن بوتين ربما يكون قادراً على تحقيق إنجازٍ عسكريٍ في أوكرانيا؟
ويمكن الاستخلاص من مجموع هذه التصريحات، التي صدرت عن كلا الطرفين، أنهما يريان في الحرب الأوكرانية معركةً أولى ضمن اشتباكٍ أوسع مدى، وأطول زمناً، حول مستقبل ونفوذ حلف شمال الأطلسي في أوروبا، وبالتالي حول النفوذ الأمريكي وهيمنته العالمية، وتباعاً حول شكل وطبيعة النظام العالمي ما بعد الأحادية القطبية.
يبدو أن الغرب يدرك في العمق معنى الاشتباك الذي بدأ من أوكرانيا، ومدى عمق التحولات التي يمكن أن يشهدها العالم بناءً على نتائج هذه المواجهة التي ستكون طويلة نسبياً. فلعلّ هذا ما يفسر تكتل كل المنظومة الغربية في الحرب الدائرة اليوم
لكنه من الممكن أيضاً النظر إلى الاشتباك الذي بدأ من أوكرانيا، على أنه اشتباكٌ بين الشرق الصاعد، وبين المنظومة الغربية التي بدأت بالأفول في كُلِّيَتها. فعلى عكس الحرب الباردة إبان حقبة الاتحاد السوفييتي، نجد اليوم الصين وروسيا تتوضعان في جبهةٍ واحدةٍ، بالإضافة إلى وجود لاعبٍ إقليميٍ رئيس في المعادلة، يتمثل في إيران وحركات المقاومة العربية والإسلامية، هذا المحور الذي أنهك بحقٍ الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية في منطقتيّ المشرق العربي ووسط آسيا، وأفشل مشاريعها على طوال العقود الثلاثة الماضية منذ احتلال العراق.
ويبدو أن الغرب يدرك في العمق معنى الاشتباك الذي بدأ من أوكرانيا، ومدى عمق التحولات التي يمكن أن يشهدها العالم بناءً على نتائج هذه المواجهة التي ستكون طويلة نسبياً. فلعلّ هذا ما يفسر تكتل كل المنظومة الغربية في الحرب الدائرة اليوم، حتى أننا وجدنا دولاً كفنلندا والسويد وحتى سويسرا، تنضم للمعركة الدائرة، على عكس ما كانت عليه في حقبة الحرب الباردة، هذا ناهيك عن ردة الفعل الغربية الهستيرية في مواجهة روسيا، التي لم توفر حتى القطط والشجر وكُتُب الأدب الروسي!
فهل دار الزمان دورته؟ وهل بدأ بالفعل انتقال مركز القوة من الغرب إلى الشرق كما كان عليه الحال حتى القرن السادس عشر؟
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 