Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

zaterdag 17 april 2021

Putin & Xi Have Red Lines, Too

Putin & Xi Have Red Lines, Too

By Patrick J. Buchanan

April 13, 2021What are Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping up to?

In recent days, Russian tanks, artillery, armor, trucks and troops have been moving by road and rail ever closer to Ukraine, and Moscow is said to be repositioning its 56th Guards Air Assault Brigade in Crimea.

Military sources in Kyiv estimate there are now 85,000 Russian troops between six and 25 miles from Ukraine’s northern and eastern borders.

“I have real concerns about Russia’s actions on the borders of Ukraine. There are more Russian forces massed on those borders than at any time since 2014 when Russia first invaded,” said Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” Blinken added this warning:

“President Biden’s been very clear about this. If Russia acts recklessly, or aggressively, there will be costs, there will be consequences.”

What “costs” and what “consequences” were left unstated.

Earlier, Biden personally assured President Volodymyr Zelensky of America’s “unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbass and Crimea.”

What does that mean?

When Putin was a young KGB officer, the Black Sea was a virtual Soviet lake, dominated in the west by Warsaw Pact members Bulgaria and Romania, and on the north and east by the USSR. Turkey occupied the south bank.

Today, three of the six countries that front on the Black Sea — Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey — are NATO members. Two of the others, Ukraine and Georgia, openly aspire to become members of NATO.

If Russia feels a sense of loss and forced isolation, who can blame them?

The transparency of the Russian military buildup suggests that it is more of a message to the U.S. and NATO than any preparation for an invasion.

Putin seems to be saying: Ukraine’s admission to NATO or a stationing of U.S. or NATO forces in that country would cross a red line for Russia. And we will not rule out military action to prevent or counter it.

The record suggests that Putin is not bluffing.

We have been here twice before.

In 2008, when Georgia invaded South Ossetia, a province that had broken free of Georgia in the 1990s, Putin sent troops into South Ossetia, drove the Georgians out, and then invaded Georgia and occupied part of that country as an object lesson.

And though the U.S. had regarded Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili as a friend and Georgia as a potential NATO ally, George W. Bush did nothing.

Again, in 2014, when a U.S.-backed coup overthrew the elected and pro-Russian regime in Kyiv, Putin occupied and annexed Crimea and assisted pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass in breaking free of Kyiv’s control.

In short, when it comes to Ukraine, Russia has demonstrated that it has its own red lines, which it will back up with military action.

The U.S. and NATO, however, have shown repeatedly that while they will give moral support and provide military aid to Ukraine, they are not going to fight Russia over Ukraine, or to wrest Crimea or the Donbass from Putin’s control.

A similar test is taking place in the South and East China seas.


Under Armour Men&rsquo...Buy New $34.95(as of 04:47 EDT - Details)
Also on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Blinken was asked if the United States would fight to defend Taiwan, which is being harassed and threatened by Xi Jinping’s China, which claims the island as its sovereign national territory.

“Are we prepared to defend Taiwan militarily?” NBC’s Chuck Todd asked.

Blinken’s response:

“What we’ve seen, and what is of real concern to us, is increasingly aggressive actions by the government in Beijing directed at Taiwan, raising tensions in the Straits. And we have a commitment to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act … All I can tell you is it would be a serious mistake for anyone to try to change the existing status quo by force.”

Since Biden’s presidency began, China has been sending military aircraft, fighters and bombers, into Taiwanese air space, circumnavigating the island with warships, and openly warning that any declaration of independence by Taipei would mean war with Beijing.

Thus, Russia has made clear what it would fight to prevent — Ukraine’s accession to NATO and NATO troops on its soil. And China has made clear what its red line is, what it would fight to prevent — the declared independence of Taiwan.

But U.S. policy in both cases seems to be one of “strategic ambiguity,” leaving the issue open as to what we would do.

A question arises: Are Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China, with their advantages of geographic proximity, threatening military action to jointly test the resolve of the Biden administration, and colluding to do so — one in Ukraine, the other in the South and East China Seas?

And, should we fight for Ukraine, how many NATO allies would be there beside us? And should we fight to keep Taiwan free, how many Asian allies would fight China alongside us?

Recent actions by Putin and Xi make the questions no longer academic.

Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America ForeverSee his website.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/04/patrick-j-buchanan/putin-xi-have-red-lines-too/?utm_source=FFF+Daily&utm_campaign=2804dfc984-FFF+Daily+04-17-2021&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1139d80dff-2804dfc984-318076493



 

Putin’s Ukraine Red Line

 

4/12/21 Ted Carpenter on Putin’s Ukraine Red Line

by  | Apr 12, 2021 | Interviews

Scott interviews Ted Carpenter about America’s dangerous Ukraine policy. Carpenter explains how ever since the Obama administration helped right-wing extremists in Western Ukraine overthrow the elected Russian-aligned government in 2014, the U.S. has been behaving as though it had the right to dictate policy all over Eastern Europe. Thus when Russia moves troops around at its bases on the Western border, the story becomes about Russia threatening our allies in Ukraine, and how the U.S. must be ready to intervene. This is not only a ridiculous policy, Carpenter says, but also a dangerous one. At some point Russia will draw a line in the sand, and if America crosses it, the result could be nuclear war.

Discussed on the show:

  • “Joe Biden’s Ukraine Policy: A Repeat of George W. Bush in Georgia?” (The National Interest)
  • “Ukraine’s Top Commander Invokes NATO’s Article 5 Military Assistance Clause as West Continues to Oversee Ukraine’s War in the Donbass” (Antiwar.com)
  • “Nyet Means Nyet” (WikiLeaks)

Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. Carpenter has written 10 books including America’s Coming War with China: A Collision Course over Taiwan and most recently NATO: Dangerous Dinosaur. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative Magazine and the National Interest.

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; Photo IQ; Green Mill Supercritical; Zippix Toothpicks; and Listen and Think Audio.

Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG.

Play

More places to listen to The Scott Horton Show.




The Aliens Are Not Coming

 

UFO video confirmed by Pentagon - CNN Video

UFOs have been in the news again. Routinely seeing headlines about this phenomenon in mainstream news outlets would have been unthinkable a few short years ago, but now it just shows up as one more feature on our continually expanding haunted hayride into infinite weirdness.

So what's the deal here? Are they military aircraft? Are they a cold war psyop? Are they natural phenomena?

Or are they extraterrestrials?

The preceding questions are intriguing, but we all know that last one is what's generating the most thought and discussion.

For me, though, it's actually kind of the least interesting possibility, and I'll tell you why.

If there are indeed extraterrestrials, and if they have indeed solved the puzzle of interstellar space travel and noticed us and decided to pay us regular visits for their own secret alien reasons, I don't think it would have any actual effect on life on this planet. We're simply not mature enough as a species to ever interact with them.

I mean, look at us. We're gazing up at the stars, wondering if there's intelligent life up there, while rapidly killing off mysterious giant-brained leviathans who live in our own oceans, whose experience of consciousness we know essentially nothing about. 

We're gazing up at the stars, wondering if we'll get colonize our desert rock planetary neighbor one day, while destroying our own planet upon which we are perfectly adapted to live. We don't even know if humans are truly separable from their ecosystem any more than a ripple is separable from the pond, and we're already thinking of space colonization as a sensible Plan B for when we destroy our home.

I mean, would you interact with us?

Seriously, would you? Why would you see that as being in your interest? Why would you even see it as being in our interest?

Because here's the thing: a lot of UFO enthusiasts harbor a hope that at some point the aliens are going to intervene and help us. And they just won't. That will not happen. This movie has no ET ex machina ending.

Extraterrestrials would not intervene to help us solve the existential crises which we have created for ourselves for the same reason we created those crises in the first place: we are not mature enough. Do you really believe an alien civilization would gift us with free energy so we stop filling our atmosphere with carbon or whatever? It would be like ten days before we figured out how to turn it into a weapon.

I mean look what happened when we discovered nuclear energy. We came within a hair's breadth from ending the world, not just once, but multiple times. And we've still got those horrible armageddon weapons pointed at each other. What could extraterrestrials possibly give us that we wouldn't use to make things far worse than they already are?

The only way an alien civilization could possibly save us from ourselves would be to forcibly stop us from doing what we've been doing, and does that make sense either? Could an advanced civilization become advanced without developing a deep respect for sovereignty? After all it's a lack of respect for sovereignty that is causing most of our problems on this planet. If we respected national sovereignty military interventionism wouldn't be a thing. If we respected personal sovereignty everything from corporate exploitation to government oppression to rape and murder would stop happening. Respect for sovereignty would be paramount in an advanced civilization.

I think if there are indeed ETs and deep space travel is indeed scientifically possible, they'd see fit to leave us alone and not interfere for the same reason you don't open a bird's egg to try and help it grow. We need to be left on our own to mature. 

A very possible answer to the Fermi paradox is that we haven't met the aliens because a civilization far more advanced than our own would have matured emotionally and spiritually beyond the need to sail around the galaxy molesting the natives like a bunch of fifteenth century Europeans. They, unlike us, would not be craning their necks scanning around the universe for more stuff to take.

No, we are on our own for this test. We have the total sovereign freedom to pass the test or fail it. Whether they exist or not, the aliens are not coming to help us.

Our species is like a guy whose personal life is complete chaos, but he keeps trying to find peace by chasing after a bunch of external attainments and accomplishments. Thinking we can flee to space if we trash this world is far, far dumber than planning on buying a new house because you can't be bothered tidying up the one you have, and that's really dumb. We need to stop looking to the stars as a path out of this mess, either by leaving our home or by being rescued by ET, and we must begin taking care of each other and our ecosystem. We need to stop trying to run away from ourselves, turn around, and face our dilemma head-on.

Forget close encounters of the third kind. We need a close encounter with us.

https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-aliens-are-not-coming?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxODEwNDEwOCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzUyNDk2NTAsIl8iOiJ0Vm1IOSIsImlhdCI6MTYxODY3NTc4MSwiZXhwIjoxNjE4Njc5MzgxLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItODIxMjQiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0._h0OGMuWfNODp4r6AGd3cTU3EySWjS_noEE0gIJqr3c

Biden isn’t ending the Afghanistan War, he’s privatizing it

 

US troops Afghanistan
US troops in Afghanistan (Credit: Department of Defense photo)

Biden isn’t ending the Afghanistan War, he’s privatizing it: Special Forces, Pentagon contractors, intelligence operatives will remain


Over 18,000 Pentagon contractors remain in Afghanistan, while official troops number 2,500. Joe Biden will withdraw this smaller group of soldiers while leaving behind US Special Forces, mercenaries, and intelligence operatives — privatizing and downscaling the war, but not ending it.

(This article was originally published at CovertAction Magazine.)


On April 14, President Joe Biden announced that he would end the U.S.’s longest war and withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan on the 20th anniversary of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Over 6,000 NATO troops will also be withdrawn by that time.

“War in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multigenerational undertaking,” Biden said during his remarks from the White House Treaty Room, the same location from which President George W. Bush had announced the war was beginning in October 2001. “We were attacked. We went to war with clear goals. We achieved those objectives. Bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is degraded in Afghanistan and it’s time to end the forever war.”

Biden’s claim that he is ending the forever war is misleading. As The New York Times reported, the United States would remain after the formal departure of U.S. troops with a “shadowy combination of clandestine Special Operations Forces, Pentagon contractors and covert intelligence operatives.” Their mission will be to “find and attack the most dangerous Qaeda or Islamic state threats, current and former American officials said.”

The Times further reported that the United States maintains a constellation of air bases in the Persian Gulf region as well as in Jordan, and a major air headquarters in Qatar, which could provide a launching pad for long-range bomber or armed drone missions into Afghanistan.

Matthew Hoh, a disabled combat veteran who resigned from the State Department in 2009 in protest of the war, stated that a genuine peace process in Afghanistan is “dependent upon foreign forces leaving Afghanistan.”

Further, Hoh said that, “Regardless of whether the 3500 acknowledged U.S. troops leave Afghanistan, the U.S. military will still be present in the form of thousands of special operations and CIA personnel in and around Afghanistan, through dozens of squadrons of manned attack aircraft and drones stationed on land bases and on aircraft carriers in the region, and by hundreds of cruise missiles on ships and submarines.”

Mercenaries R Us

The meaninglessness of President Biden’s announcement becomes apparent when we consider that the Pentagon employs more than seven contractors for every serviceman or woman in Afghanistan, an increase from one contractor for every serviceman or woman a decade ago.

As of January, more than 18,000 contractors remained in Afghanistan, according to a Defense Department report, when official troop totals had been reduced to 2,500.

These totals reflect the U.S. government’s strategy of outsourcing war to the benefit of private mercenary corporations, and as a means of distancing the war from the public and averting dissent, since relatively few Americans are directly impacted by it.

Most of the mercenaries are ex-military veterans, though a percentage are third-country nationals who are paid meager wages to perform menial duties for the military.

One of the biggest mercenary companies is DynCorp International of Falls Church Virginia, which as of 2019 had received over $7 billion in government contracts to train the Afghan army and manage military bases in Afghanistan.

From 2002 to 2013, DynCorp received 69 percent of all State Department funding. Forbes Magazine called it “one of the big winners of the Iraq and Afghan Wars” — the losers being almost everyone else.

A blueprint for U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is the 1959-1975 secret war in Laos, where the CIA worked with hundreds of civilian contractors who flew spotter aircraft, ran ground bases, and operated radar stations in civilian clothes while raising its own private army among the Hmong to fight the pro-communist Pathet Lao.

The CIA and Special Forces have again attempted to recruit tribal elements in Afghanistan and, like in Laos, have become enmeshed in inter-tribal and sectarian feuds.

For years, U.S. Special Forces operatives have also been training Afghan security forces as a proxy army and running Phoenix-style snatch and grab and assassination missions, which are poised to continue — despite the formal troop withdrawal.

US Special Forces Afghanistan disguise
US Special Forces in Afghanistan dress in traditional clothing and try to recruit locals for anti-Taliban operations (Source: ABC News)

What Uncle Sam really wants in Afghanistan

Republican hawk Jim Inhofe lambasted Biden’s withdrawal plan, stating that this was a “reckless and dangerous decision. Arbitrary deadlines would likely put our troops in danger, jeopardize all the progress we’ve made, and lead to civil war in Afghanistan — and create a breeding ground for international terrorists.”

Inhofe it should be noted is a war profiteer. He invested in the stocks of leading arms manufacturer Raytheon at the same time he was calling for an increase in the defense budget as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Inhofe’s assessment is flawed because, among other reasons, the U.S. has not made much progress in 19 years of war (the Taliban, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, is stronger than at any point since 2001 and controls about one-fifth of Afghanistan), and Afghanistan was never really a breeding ground for international terrorists.

The 9/11 hijackers mostly came from Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban agreed to turn over Osama Bin Laden to an international court after the 9/11 attacks, which they never supported.

The Afghan War will go on indefinitely not because of the threat of terrorism — which is accentuated by the U.S. military presence — but because the United States will not concede ground in the region.

The U.S. has announced intentions to retain at least two military bases in Afghanistan after the official troop drawdown, and set up over 1000 bases during the war.

Uncle Sam also covets Afghans mineral wealth. A 2007 United States Geological Service survey discovered nearly $1 trillion in mineral deposits, including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold, and critical industrial metals like lithium, which is used in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and blackberries.

An internal Pentagon memo stated that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium.”

In 2001, when the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan, it was in the process of expanding its military infrastructure in Central Asia. Afghanistan provided a key way-station to this new “oil dorado,” which holds as much as 200 billion barrels of oil — about 10 times the amount found in the North Sea, and a third of the Persian Gulf’s total reserves.

Afghanistan was further valued at the time as a key location for an oil pipeline that would transport Central Asian oil to the Indian Ocean while bypassing Russia.

Afghanistan pipeline oil gas
Oil/gas pipeline plans through Afghanistan

In the 1990s, the Southern California oil company Unocal began taking steps to build the pipeline, even courting the Taliban. In 2018, ground was broken on a new pipeline project backed by the United States that will carry oil from Turkmenistan to northern India.

The U.S. ruling establishment’s greatest fear is that a complete U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan might result in the U.S. losing a strategic foothold to its main geopolitical rivals, China and Russia, in Afghanistan

China has recently increased its trade and investment in Afghanistan — with which it shares a border — and has sought to cultivate better relations with the Afghan government and Taliban.

Russia, meanwhile, reopened a cultural center in Kabul in 2014, rebuilt an abandoned Soviet friendship center, expanded its embassy staff, boosted economic investment, and provided 10,000 Kalashnikov rifles to the Afghan government.

Moscow also supported Afghan housing projects and took advantage of contacts in Kabul to renew ties with ethnic power brokers in the North while quietly courting the Taliban.

As a previous CovertAction Magazine article documented, the current Afghan government led by Ashraf Ghani is largely a creation of the United States. Its military is funded by the United States at a cost of around $4 billion per year. This support is going to continue — unless Congress cuts it off — alongside large-scale U.S. foreign aid programsthat amount to nearly $1 billion per year.

The U.S. wants to keep Ghani in power, or replace him with another proxy that can help it win the geopolitical competition with Russia and China, which is little different from the 19th century “great game” between Great Britain and Russia.

As long as the U.S. empire remains intact, the war as such will go on, and on — and on.

https://thegrayzone.com/2021/04/16/biden-afghanistan-war-privatizing-contractors/



Is It Propaganda?

Four and a Half Years Off the Air Vladimir Pozner has stayed off the air for four and a half years. Here is what he said when he finally sat...