Messages

1

For Your Information / NATO's Riga StratCom Dialogue 2026

« on: June 07, 2026, 12:49:39 PM »

Workers' Weekly    https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-26/ww26-17/ww26-17.htm

NATO's Riga StratCom Dialogue 2026
"Strategic Communications" to Justify NATO's Proxy War Against Russia

A NATO "strategic communications" conference called the Riga StratCom Dialogue, took place from June 3-4, 2026, in Riga, Latvia [1]. Like last year, the Riga StratCom (short for Strategic Communications) Dialogue was held in support of NATO's ongoing proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. But it also reflected NATO's complete support for and complicity with the US/Israel criminal war against Iran, Lebanon and the continuing of their genocide in Palestine. Likewise, NATO must be held complicit in the ongoing US threats to Venezuela, the DPRK and the threatened invasion of Cuba by the US.

The Riga StratCom Dialogue 2026 invited military and academic attendees as "policymakers, strategists, communicators, and thinkers" to "widen the frame of security thinking". This debate about strategy "helps reclaim authorship of the future," they say, "in a world where both conflict and communication are increasingly automated, ensuring that even in times of rupture, strategy remains an act of imagination, responsibility, and care for the world we share." As though their declaration would make it so! It is quite vacuous, as is the flowery language employed as a whole. It is like the "strategists" inhabited a different world.

The conference's published theme was "Life is a Miracle. Strategic Communications in an Age of Rupture". What could it mean by this! The StratCom website explains: "Life remains fragile, astonishing, and deeply beautiful, yet this truth is increasingly obscured by war, systemic violence, and the normalisation of human suffering." It is astonishing that a "rupture" of NATO's own making, its warmongering in Europe and on the world scene, is not identified as a source of such war, systemic violence and human suffering. This is certainly no "miracle". Equally astonishing is the lack of acknowledgement that the peoples of the world everywhere refuse to accept the warmongering actions and outlook of this Anglo/US NATO military alliance, and actively seek to oppose all it stands for.


Protests against NATO's "Parliamentary Assembly" at Dayton, Ohio, May 25 2025 - Photo: KaJeza Hawkins

While the main NATO summit is scheduled for July 7-8, 2026, in Ankara, Turkey, the organisers say that the Riga StratCom Dialogue served as a preparatory and thematic conference addressing "communication, information security, and strategic planning". Other NATO-related workshops and meetings took place in May.

The discussions at this conference indicated that NATO's "strategic communication" plans are to shift the emphasis to the "Indo-Pacific", "Taiwan", "Japan" and the "Pacific Islands" - all in the programme of the conference. However, the fraudulent presentations on communicating NATO as a "defence" organisation were most notably aimed at topics including "Rearming the West: How to Communicate Military Modernisation?", "The Cognitive Frontline: Offensive Influence Operations and Targeting", "AI-Driven War on Cognition: Closing the Governance Gap","Winning the Cognitive Battlefield" and "Shaping Reality: Whole Society Mobilisation During Crises".

These topics reveal that whilst NATO wants to shift the attention of its "strategic communications" to cover its interference, provocations and military confrontations in East Asia, it is in fact completely mired in trying to control its narrative with European member states and with its NATO-allied Ukrainian regime. It is faced with the problem of how to attempt to make acceptable to the people of these countries the militarisation of all their economies for this proxy war of the US, Britain, and the European powers in Ukraine against Russia, presenting this as "defence" and "security". It is further complicated by the fact that NATO in this conference also threatened Belarus by name, along with other countries in Europe, West and East Asia.

Even though the opening session of the conference discussed "Russia-Ukraine Peace Talks: Impact on Reassurance and Deterrence?", there have been no reports of proposals from this NATO conference of any communication in support of the Russia-Ukraine Peace Talks that was claimed to be being addressed. The main stage panel discussion in this connection featured Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže and Estonian Secretary General Jonatan Vseviov, alongside former NATO Assistant Secretary General David Cattler. The approach was summed up in the website blurb as: "How could the ongoing peace negotiations impact societal resilience, especially in terms of reassurance and the credibility of deterrence in the Euro-Atlantic region?" Revealing the tone, Roman Sheremeta, Fellow at Centre for Eastern European Democracy, who also spoke on the opening panel, said in a Facebook post that his "central argument" was against some of those who are "preaching a need for ceasefire".

In the main stage session "The Cognitive Frontline: Offensive Influence Operations and Targeting", it was claimed that "the main battlefield is increasingly in the mind. NATO and allies are moving from reactive messaging to offensive influence operations that shape adversary decisions, constrain choices, and force reactions". This was addressed by Colonel Brent Hamilton, Strategic Information Operations Planner, US European Command; Jay H Janzen, Allied Command Operations Communications Director, NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe; Kateryna Stepanenko, Deputy Director of the Cognitive Warfare Project; and Lieutenant Colonel Oliver Donaghy who commands the UK's 5th Information Operations Task Force within the British Army's Land Special Operations Force (formerly 77th Brigade). Quite a line-up. Whilst the speeches and discussion have not been reported, and may not be, the programme states that the session addressed that "precision targeting of political, military, and societal audiences is synchronised with broader actions, turning perception into a tool of strategic effect. Success depends on controlling the narrative while managing credibility, escalation, and the risks of misperception."

Misperception indeed. In other words, whilst NATO continues to escalate its proxy war against Russia it has "societal audiences" to be "synchronised" with this war "escalation". That is the point. For NATO's "strategic communications", Britain's imperialist interests need to be justified alongside those of the US, Germany and France. Especially, these NATO stalwarts and apologists aim to justify using Ukrainian forces as the cannon fodder in their war against Russia and occupying other East European countries with their armies and intelligence forces. There is not a shred of an attempt to resolve the conflict between Ukraine and Russia or to give support for peaceful resolution to the conflict that goes against their interests.

This is a conflict that over four years has led to hundreds of thousands being killed, a conflict which NATO played the major role in provoking from before the 2014 Maidan coup in Ukraine. This is the reality of Britain's involvement with its armed forces involved in Ukraine and Eastern Europe and supplying and guiding the use of missiles and weapons in their proxy war with the killing of tens of thousands of people both in Ukraine and Russia.

At the end of the NATO Riga StratCom Dialogue on June 4, Janis Sarts, the Director of the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, made the closing remarks solidifying this aim. In a short post on Facebook he said: "It is going to get worse, there will be more adversarial campaigns and we will have to face them in the best possible way... Russia stops when it gets hit in the face." [2].

So much for the fragility of life. The NATO Riga StratCom Dialogue justified NATO's ongoing proxy war against Russia and its dangerous escalation. If this desperate stuff continues to be adopted in these military and academic circles this will continue their future rooted in hankering after the colonial past of the US, Britain and the other old powers of Europe. NATO and these old powers will continue their attempt to wreck the modern world with their proxy and genocidal wars. But it is going to get worse for them with the heroic resistance of the people, as has been shown in Palestine, Iran and Lebanon. In fact, the leading NATO countries will continue to come up against the fierce resistance of the vast majority of peoples and countries of the world, including resistance in their own countries from the masses of the people who desire genuine peace and not war.

The anti-war movement must continue to oppose and expose NATO's lies about being an alliance for peace and democracy. The necessity is for peaceful solutions to the conflicts in the world, as well as resolving the many problems faced by society and humanity on all fronts.

Britain Must Withdraw from the Aggressive NATO Alliance!
No to NATO! Yes to Peace!

Notes
1. Riga StratCom Dialogue 2026
https://rigastratcomdialogue.org/
2. NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence
https://www.facebook.com/StratComCOE/

2

For Your Information / Munich Security Conference 2026

« on: February 22, 2026, 10:38:45 AM »

Munich Security Conference 2026

Reflection of the US-Led Imperialist System in Steep Decline that Threatens Only War

Workers' Weekly https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-26/ww26-05/ww26-05.htm

The 62nd Munich Security Conference (MSC) that took place from February 13 to 15, 2026, produced no communiqué or statement, yet once again was revealed as the reflection of the deepening crisis of the US-led imperialist system in steep decline that threatens only war. The organisers themselves could not conceal this reality. Their flagship publication, the Munich Security Report 2026, was ironically revealing, titled - Under Destruction [1]. It highlighted that "[t]he world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics. Sweeping destruction - rather than careful reforms and policy corrections - is the order of the day" and that "the US-led post-1945 international order is now under destruction". Yet, there was no drawing of the obvious conclusions about the reality that neither their claims to previous "careful reforms and policy corrections", nor now their "wrecking-ball politics" have brought about security and peace to Europe and the world in the "US-led post-1945 order". In fact, the very opposite.

Britain, Germany, France and the EU leaders have continued to embrace the US "wrecking-ball politics" themselves amidst the wreckage of their own decline. Thus at the conference, in the name of the security of Europe these old powers, now calling themselves the "coalition of the willing", pledged to escalate their proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. They gave their support to the US in its war threats to Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and the DPRK and continued support for Israel in its war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank.

German Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz was the first to address the conference on February 13 [2]. He received much exaggerated praise in the press for adding his own pessimistic twist to the "under destruction" theme. He said: "This conference has a sombre title: Under Destruction. This title appears to suggest that the international order, which was based on rights and rules, is in the process of being destroyed. - I fear we must put this even more bluntly: this order, as imperfect as it was even at the best of times, no longer exists." However, the hypocrisy of this "rules-based international order" which had led to NATO's move eastwards to threaten Russia in Ukraine and on all sides was ignored as he blamed Russia as a justification for Europe to now become militaristic. He saw a fierce Germany in the lead announcing measures to restore Germany's military industry and forces. As many people have commented this is an approach that has not worked so well before for Germany!

In this way Merz warned Europe to prepare for "a decade of danger" and demanded higher defence spending, faster rearmament, and "unwavering support for Ukraine". However, Merz, like Starmer and Macron, embodies a vision for Europe that wants to act like a great power but cannot escape its dependence on the United States and in this way Merz's bravado barely concealed Germany's strategic paralysis alongside Britain and France. His call, like Starmer regarding Britain, for a more assertive Germany rang hollow - an echo of a past that cannot be revived.

French President Emmanuel Macron also addressed the Conference on February 13 [3] casting himself as Europe's visionary-in-chief making a call for Europe to assert itself as a sovereign geopolitical power. He said that "a stronger Europe will be a better friend for its allies, especially for the United States". He repeated his call for "European strategic autonomy", insisting that Europe must not be "vassals" of any great power, while simultaneously urging deeper alignment with NATO and continued escalation of NATO's proxy war in Ukraine. The contradiction was as glaring as with Starmer and Merz. Macron wants Europe to stand on its own feet, but only so long as it marches in step with Washington. The performance of Macron, alongside Merz and Starmer, in Munich captured the essence of the EU's crisis - a leadership class that talks of independence while remaining structurally dependent, that speaks of peace while fuelling war, and that cannot decide whether it fears American decline more than it fears a world no longer organised around "Western" dominance.

Speaking on February 14, Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered what was hailed by the organisers as a "landmark address" [4]. This was interesting because clearly the US was seen as the architect of the "wrecking-ball politics" spoken about in the conference. But this was an attempt by Rubio to paper over the ongoing and increasing contradictions and tensions between the US under President Donald Trump and the old European powers at the head of NATO. It was a chilling call by Rubio for Europe to re-embrace its colonial legacy and Eurocentric values. He hailed "thousands of years of Western civilisation". He declared that the US "may be in the Western Hemisphere, but we will always be a child of Europe", jointly insulting the people of the Americas and Europe. This became even more ironic with the words of Rubio railing against the "a pursuit of a world without borders, we opened our doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people".

Rubio then claimed that the US was for peace and security, saying that it was not the UN but "American leadership that freed captives from barbarians and brought about a fragile truce" for Israel. In other words, condemning the Palestinians for resisting, and justifying Israeli ongoing genocidal crimes. He tried to justify the criminal bombing of Iran, lying that it was to "constrain the nuclear program of radical Shia clerics in Tehran. That required 14 bombs dropped with precision from American B-2 bombers." He also tried to justify the US act of state terrorism against Venezuela and its people and the kidnapping of the President of the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores abusing the President of Venezuela as a "narcoterrorist dictator in Venezuela". On Ukraine, not only did the US alongside Britain and the EU provoke and support the Ukraine war with Russia in 2022, but Rubio tried to say that this is a war that the US claims to be negotiating an end, whilst in reality increasing the oil sanctions on Russia and that "American weaponry is being sold for the Ukrainian war effort".

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer also spoke at the conference on February 14 [5]. Reeling from the political crisis at home, Starmer was determined to show that Britain remains a loyal foot soldier of US strategy and that it follows the US "wrecking-ball" wherever it goes, even though more and more countries at the conference in Europe were reluctant to follow. Starmer said that the "US remains an indispensable power" and that "we recognise that things are changing. The US National Security Strategy spells out that Europe must take primary responsibility for its own defence," declaring "that is the new law". In other words, he attempted to align Britain even more tightly with Washington. He dismissed the irony of Brexit by attempting to present Britain as the leader in Europe, trying to align Europe with Britain, when he said that "as Europe, we must stand on our own two feet and that means being bold". On this Starmer said: "We must build our hard power, because that is the currency of the age. We must be able to deter aggression. And yes, if necessary, we must be ready to fight." In other words, Starmer offered no political vision beyond Britain's own "wrecking-ball politics" to ensure there is no peace between Ukraine and Russia. So, no peace in Europe and doubling down on militarisation and arming the "coalition of the willing" for its ongoing proxy war in Ukraine against Russia whether the war continues, or whether there is a peace agreement.

According to reports, the US threat to re-attack Iran was not discussed openly in the main forums and Iranian officials are barred from attending the conference. However, Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi criticised the Munich Security Conference and said that the annual security gathering had "turned into the 'Munich Circus'" when it comes to Iran, blaming the European Union and Germany and accusing European powers of losing influence in negotiations over Tehran's nuclear programme. He added that "our friends in the region are far more effective and helpful than an empty-handed and peripheral E3" and claimed that Germany "is leading the way in wholly surrendering its regional policy to Israel". However, it was reported on the sidelines of the conference, Reza Pahlavi - the son of Iran's former monarch - said that US military intervention could help accelerate political change inside Iran and claimed Washington should avoid prolonged negotiations with Tehran over a nuclear deal. Indeed, his remarks even on the sidelines of the conference highlighted the circus that the MSC has become and the false claims that it represents an event for security and not war for the people of Europe and the world.

However, there was some sense of accounting at the MSC when justice was reflected, not from Europe but from the East in the keynote speech by China's foreign minister Wang Yi [6] in a Conversation with China. He rightly said among other important points: "There needs to be greater democracy in international relations, global affairs should be discussed by all and the future of the world should be decided by all."

For many years we have seen that the MSC's description of itself is no longer true. Set up in 1963 in the Cold War period it aimed to by-pass the United Nations as the international security body. The MSC claimed to be the "world's leading forum for debating international security policy". However, the MSC is more and more becoming incapable to come to any decisions. Instead it has become a rally for the warmongers and not even a forum. Russia Today (RT) reported that the MSC "resembled a rally of a self-styled 'coalition of the willing' for war. That, unfortunately, is consistent with Germany's long tradition of failing to draw the right lessons from history. Western European leaders spoke almost exclusively about rearmament and the creation of an independent military capability aimed, openly or implicitly, at confrontation with Russia. The tone was unmistakable: preparation for war, not peace. At the same time, participants repeated the familiar mantra that 'more must be done' to ensure Ukraine's victory. The contradiction went largely unnoticed. What emerged instead was a disturbing impression that Western Europe's war party has overwhelmed everything else, including common sense and the instinct for self-preservation." [7]

Conclusion

No path to peace was discussed at the MSC. No political settlement was considered to resolve the issues with the Russian Federation that the leaders of Britain and the EU blamed. Only more weapons, more destruction, more denial of peace and no real security for the peoples of Europe and the world. The contradiction was glaring: A conference supposedly devoted to "security" endorsing policies of warring factions that make the world profoundly insecure. The MSC was revealed as the reflection of the deepening crisis of the US-led imperialist system in steep decline that threatens only war.

Fight For the Alternative

Security is defined by defending the well-being of the people and the rights of all. The peoples have the right to live in a peaceful world, where conflicts are resolved through international co-operation and negotiation among peoples and countries. Security does not lie with these warmongers and their war preparations. Nor does it lie with the prerogatives of the rich, their arms manufactures and their spheres of contention that fuel division and wars among countries, nationalities and peoples. For the working class and people, the emphasis must be that it is they that have to work to consolidate themselves as the power to combat this warmongering, violence, dictate and militarism. This with their sights set on constituting themselves as an Anti-War Government, and all that entails about authority and power resting with the people who desire peace. The initiative lies with the people and their anti-war movement in Britain and throughout the world.

Notes
1. Under Destruction - Munich Security Report 2026
https://securityconference.org/en/publications/munich-security-report/2026/
2. Speech by the Federal Chancellor at the Munich Security Conference on 13. February 2026 in Munich
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/federal-government/speech-munich-security-conference-2407298
3. Emmanuel Macron Remarks @ MSC 2026 (Transcript)
https://singjupost.com/emmanuel-macron-remarks-msc-2026-transcript/
4. Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the Munich Security Conference
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/02/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-at-the-munich-security-conference
5. Speech - PM speech during the Munich Security Conference: 14 February
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-during-the-munich-security-conference-14-february
6. Keynote Speech by H.E. Wang Yi at the 62nd Munich Security Conference Conversation with China
https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/wjbzhd/202602/t20260215_11860435.html
7. The war party takes Munich - The Munich Security Conference again became a rally, not a forum
https://www.facebook.com/fforbiddennews/posts/the-war-party-takes-munichthe-munich-security-conference-again-became-a-rally-no/916361661320058/

3

For Your Information / Britain needs war: Why London can’t afford peace in Ukraine

« on: November 12, 2025, 05:42:40 PM »

Britain needs war: Why London can’t afford peace in Ukraine
RT - Daily news by RT / Nov 12, 2025 at 12:29 PM
2 Companies
The UK’s power machine runs on war, and conflict in Eastern Europe
is its new fuel
When The Guardian reported last week that the British Army is preparing for operations in Ukraine, it was easy to treat it as another piece of saber-rattling. But Keir Starmer’s declaration that “we will not back down until Ukraine wins” is not a slogan; it is the essence of British strategy. For London, conflict is not a failure of diplomacy but a survival mechanism. War conceals economic stagnation, fills political vacuums, and restores an international relevance the country has been losing for years.
Britain
emerged from Brexit in a weakened state. The EU market was largely gone, economic growth barely existed, inflation ran above 8%, the National Health Service buckled under pressure, and more than 900,000 people left the country annually. A political system built on confidence and inherited prestige was now running on fumes. Yet while domestic life sagged, the British state was hardening.
Unlike continental powers, Britain is not structured around a single center but as a horizontal web of institutions: intelligence agencies, bureaucracies, military commands, banks, universities, the monarchy. Together they form a machine designed for strategic survival. When crises come, this network does not collapse. It feeds on instability, turns adversity into leverage, and converts decline into opportunity. After empire came the City of London. After colonies came offshore accounts and loyal networks. After Brexit came a new military cordon around Russia in northern and eastern Europe. Britain has always known how to turn disaster into capital.
The Ukraine
conflict, which London helped provoke, has become its biggest opportunity in decades. Since 2022 the country has lived, politically and institutionally, in wartime conditions. The 2025 Strategic Defense Review openly calls for readiness for “high-intensity warfare” and proposes lifting defense spending to 2.5% of GDP, around £66 billion ($87 billion) a year. Military spending has already risen by £11 billion. Orders to defense firms have jumped by a quarter. For the first time since 1945, a British industrial strategy describes the military-industrial complex as an “engine of growth.”
Thirty years of deindustrialization left Britain dependent on redistribution. Where manufacturing once stood, only finance remained. Now the financial sector can no longer sustain the government’s ambitions. Into that vacuum steps the arms industry. BAE Systems and Thales UK have secured contracts worth tens of billions, insured by London banks through UK Export Finance. The fusion of “guns and pounds” has produced an economy where conflict, not commerce, becomes the measure of national success.
Read more  The battle the world is watching, but few understand: What’s really going on in Pokrovsk?
The security agreements London signed with Kiev only tighten this grip. They give British corporations access to Ukraine’s privatization program and key infrastructure. Ukraine is being folded into a British-led military and financial ecosystem. Not as a partner, but as a dependency. Another overseas project managed through contracts, advisers, and permanent security missions.
Far from acting as a supportive ally, Britain now conducts the conflict. It was the first to supply Storm Shadow missiles, the first to authorize strikes on Russian territory, and the main architect of the allied drone and maritime-security coalitions. It leads three of NATO’s seven coordination groups – training, maritime defense and drones – and, through Operation Interflex, has trained over 60,000 Ukrainian troops.
British involvement is not symbolic. It is operational. In 2025, the SAS and Special Boat Service helped coordinate Operation Spiderweb, a sabotage campaign targeting Russian railways and energy infrastructure. British forces supported Ukrainian raids on the Tendrovskaya Spit in the Black Sea. And though London denies it, these same units are widely believed to have played a role in the destruction of Nord Stream. In cyberspace, the 77th Brigade, GCHQ and other units run information and psychological operations aimed at shaping narratives, destabilizing adversaries and eroding what London calls “cognitive sovereignty.”
Meanwhile Britain is drawing its own map of Europe. A new northern belt – from Norway to the Baltic states – is being built outside EU authority. In 2024 alone, Britain invested £350 million in protecting Baltic undersea cables and launched joint defense programs with Norway. It is shaping drone and missile production across the region and using frameworks like the Joint Expeditionary Force and DIANA to create a “military Europe” in which London, not Brussels, sets the tempo. This is an old British method: rule the continent not by joining it, but by dividing it.
Read more  How the West dismantled the last pillars of nuclear stability
A stable peace in Ukraine would shatter this architecture. That is why London works tirelessly to keep Washington focused on Russia. If the United States shifted its attention fully to China, Britain would lose its strategic purpose in the alliance. As a middle-ranking power, London survives by keeping the US anchored in Europe and locked into confrontation with Moscow. Any thaw between Washington and Russia threatens Britain far more than it threatens continental Europe.
This explains why Donald Trump’s early peace rhetoric in 2025 – his hints at “territorial compromise” – was met in London with alarm. The British government responded instantly: a new £21.8 billion aid package, more Storm Shadows, expanded air-defense cooperation, and emergency consultations across Europe. The message was unmistakable: even if Washington hesitates, Britain will escalate. And within weeks Trump’s tone changed. Diplomacy faded. Talk of “Anchorage peace” disappeared. In its place came threats of Tomahawks and loose comments about resuming nuclear testing. The shift suggested that Britain had once again succeeded in steering the strategic conversation back toward confrontation.
For Britain’s elite, war is not a catastrophe. It is a method of maintaining order and preserving the system. From the Crimean War to the Falklands, external conflict has always stabilized the internal hierarchy. Today’s Britain behaves no differently. Though weaker than it has ever been, it appears strong because it knows how to turn vulnerability into the basis of its foreign policy.
This is why the war in Ukraine continues. Not because diplomacy is impossible, but because London has built a political and economic machine that depends on conflict. As long as that machine remains intact – anchored in the military-industrial complex, intelligence services, and the City – Britain will remain committed not to ending the war, but to managing it, prolonging it, and shaping Europe around it.
And the war will end only when that machine stops functioning.
This article was first published in Kommersant, and was translated and edited by the RT team.

4

South Tyneside Stop the War / Starmer's Desperate Attempts to Lead Europe in NATO's Unjust Proxy War with Rus

« on: October 29, 2025, 12:02:11 PM »

 Starmer's "coalition of the willing" in London   Starmer's Desperate and Dangerous Attempts to Lead Europe in NATO's Unjust Proxy War with Russia

Workers' Weekly

https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-25/ww25-25/ww25-25-01.htm

Demonstration opposing the London arms show, September 9, 2025 - photo:PBI

On October 24, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer convened in London yet another desperate meeting of the "coalition of the willing" [1] with European powers to discuss the failing state of NATO's unjust proxy war with Russia in Ukraine which has lasted for nearly four years. It was trailed right up to the last moment that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, the Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof, as well as the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, "are all expected to attend the meeting in person at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office today". The press release also claimed that "a further 20 leaders are expected to dial into the call". However, in the event the meeting was virtual, apart from the presence of President Zelenskyy, as stated in a later communique dated October 24, looking as if the intended participants were not so willing to be seen with Starmer. President Zelenskyy himself met King Charles at Windsor Castle, demonstrating the state's use of the King as part of its arsenal of "soft power".


Protests against the NATO Parliament, Dayton, Ohio - Photo:Hawkins

This vague government press release following the meeting [2] said: "Prime Minister and President Macron today co-chaired a virtual meeting of the Coalition of the Willing, attended by President Zelenskyy." The statement failed to mention Starmer's earlier claim that the "coalition of the willing" wanted to "step up the gifting of long-range capabilities" to Ukraine. However, the statement confirmed that the "coalition of the willing", particularly Britain, and France, want to occupy Ukraine themselves in any "ceasefire agreement" and state that "they confirmed that plans are in place to deploy a Multinational Force Ukraine once hostilities have ceased, with a view to help secure Ukraine's skies and seas and regenerate Ukraine's armed forces".

Whilst in a previous meeting of the "coalition of the willing" in London in March, Starmer had claimed that the summit was to "present a peace plan to US president Donald Trump", with this summit Starmer desperately tried to sell his plans for long-range weapons and dangerously escalating the conflict with Russia and his plans to occupy Ukraine with NATO forces. Reports earlier in the week said that the "coalition of the willing" talks "come after discussions between Volodymyr Zelensky and Mr Trump failed to result in the US supplying Tomahawk missiles and reports that the Ukrainian president faced pressure to accept Moscow's demands" to bring about a permanent peace deal proposed by Russia. A government press release from Downing Street claimed that the "coalition of the willing" are "global leaders" and represent the "international community". Starmer said that he "will urge leaders to act to take Russian oil and gas off the global market". He also went on to claim that it was in Britain's interest to steal Russian assets and supply long-range missiles to escalate the war. He said that Britain wants to "finish the job on Russian sovereign assets to unlock billions of pounds to fund Ukraine's defences, and step up the gifting of long-range capabilities". The statement also said that "the meeting comes as the Prime Minister announces acceleration of missile delivery programme to deliver 140 lightweight multirole missiles to Ukraine this winter, supporting UK jobs".

Starmer goes even further in saying that the whole of Britain's "plan for change" in the economy is about weapons. He declares: "UK's national security - the foundation of the Government's Plan for Change - starts in Ukraine." Thus the "UK missile building programme has been accelerated to deliver more than 100 extra air defence missiles ahead of schedule. The package forms part of the £1.6bn deal between UK industry and Ukraine in March to provide more than 5,000 lightweight multirole missiles (LMM) to support Ukraine's defence, creating 200 jobs and supporting 700 existing jobs at Thales in Belfast."

This further reveals that Britain and its EU allies are not serious about reaching a peace agreement with Russia but are insanely dedicated to escalating the war as before, even if the US will not. They continue to encourage the regime in Ukraine to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. This is so even now when the situation for Ukraine gets worse on the battlefield and many of their experts tell them that the war is unwinnable. In fact, one of the primary aims of Britain, France and Germany alongside the US is to maintain the interest of the huge war industries and to occupy Ukraine themselves with their troops, navy and air force under the guise of "peace keepers" if they are forced to accept a peace deal and this is why they favour a "ceasefire" rather than a peace agreement with Russia. This is in line with the Starmer's government's plan to boost its military spending. Starmer had told the Commons in February that Britain would spend £13.4bn more on defence every year from 2027 boosting the spend to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. He also told Trump at a NATO meeting that Britain would commit to reach 3.5%, or even 5%, of GDP by 2035.

This has nothing to do with stimulating economic development, or meeting the growing needs of the British people for jobs and their needs in the economy. Rather it is to do with war - encouragement and escalation to war - where it becomes in Britain's interest to make sure that wars keep going as often and as long as possible to serve Britain's militarised economy. This only leads to a situation where the government and the war industries behind it demand the escalation of wars like the war in Ukraine and give their full support to Israel and arming Israel in its genocide against the Palestinians and blocking their recovery in their own lands by refusing to hold Israel to account. For this purpose Britain hosted the largest global weapons expo Defence and Security Equipment International[3] in London on September 8-12 with some 1,600 military companies and 51 companies from Israel, and more than 180 British companies exhibited in the ADS Pavilion alone - hosted by the UK's aerospace, defence, security, and space industry trade association (over 200 British companies overall).


War criminals road sign, London arms show, September 9, 2025

Starmer also claims that one of the aims of Britain and the EU powers is the defence of Ukraine's sovereignty. However, this principle that Starmer pretends to uphold cannot be sorted out by the US, Britain, France and Germany and other EU powers that have themselves interfered in and violated the sovereignty of Ukraine. Britain, Germany and France have also interfered and waged war against Russia and are doing so now by using Ukraine as their proxy to "inflict a strategic defeat on Russia", arming and assisting the war with logistics and weapons. Since 2013, Britain and the US have been training the Ukrainian military and incorporating known historical neo-Nazi forces into the army of Ukraine in order to expand their control eastwards against Russia. In 2014, there was Anglo/US active backing for these neo-Nazi forces to carry out a coup against the elected President of Ukraine and install a Ukrainian regime for their exclusive use against Ukraine's neighbour Russia.

In other words, the NATO powers have expanded into Ukraine in recent years and carried out one provocation after another against Russia in Ukraine. Since the 2014 Maidan coup, Britain and the US have encouraged the Kyiv regime to reject the Minsk accords that were peace agreements signed in Belarus by Ukraine and Russia, facilitated by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and supported by Germany and France through the Normandy Format, and later endorsed by the United Nations [4]. Since the conflict began, Britain has consistently encouraged Ukraine to reject any peace deal with Russia. Boris Johnson notoriously flew to Kyiv in April 2022, six weeks after the conflict started, to tell Kyiv that signing a peace agreement in Istanbul would lose Anglo-US backing [5].

Starmer's "coalition of the willing" is yet another desperate and dangerous attempt to lead Europe in NATO's unjust and failing proxy war in Ukraine. Whilst they now call for a "ceasefire", the British and the old powers of Europe are desperate that no permanent peace comes about between Russia and Ukraine and are attempting to escalate the conflict and sabotage any peace deal that is made with Ukraine and Russia. All along Britain has continued its warmongering role in escalating the Ukraine war and being the first to supply modern battle tanks, Storm Shadow missiles and now Starmer declares that he will "step up the gifting of long-range capabilities".

Starmer claims that the British economy and his "plan for change" must be based in prosecuting the Ukraine war and in further militarisation of the economy. This is such a dangerous and insane direction for any economy. As the TUC recently demonstrated, the organised workers reject rearmament as not being a suitable foundation for the economy. Starmer's plan for the military and armament industries cannot be a part of the solution to the war in Ukraine which Britain helped provoke and continues to arm and escalate, endangering a wider war in Europe and the world. This must be opposed! Sending British or NATO troops to Ukraine must be resisted as a further escalation of the conflict. A lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia must be supported. Britain's dangerous warmongering must be blocked. The anti-war movement must prevail!


Notes
1. The "coalition of the willing" is reported to have 33 participants across Europe and beyond. The term "coalition of the willing" is an echo, presumably deliberate, of the Anglo-US-led powers that participated in the criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.

2. Press release - Chair's statement following 24 October Coalition of the Willing Leaders' meeting
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chairs-statement-following-24-october-coalition-of-the-willing-leaders-meeting

3. Key facts about DSEI 2025:
" Location: ExCeL Centre, East London
" Dates: September 8-12, 2025
" Exhibitors: Over 1,600 companies from 50 countries, including 25 from Poland and 51 from Israel
" Attendees: More than 50,000 visitors, including delegations from over 90 countries
" Theme: "Preparing the Future Force"
" Scope: Featured everything from small arms and armoured vehicles to combat aircraft and warships
It ranks alongside IDEX in Abu Dhabi and Eurosatory in Paris as one of the top three global defence expos.

4.The Minsk accords were peace agreements aimed at ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine (Donbas region). They were signed in Minsk, Belarus, and negotiated primarily by the Trilateral Contact Group-which included Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe). The process was supported by Germany and France through the Normandy Format, but they were not formal signatories.
There were two main agreements:
" Minsk I: Signed on September 5, 2014
" Minsk II: Signed on February 12, 2015
The United Nations Security Council did endorse the Minsk II agreement through Resolution 2202, adopted on February 17, 2015, giving it international backing.

5. Boris Johnson visited Kyiv during the early stages of the war in April 9, 2022. According to reporting from Ukrayinska Pravda, Johnson used that visit to discourage President Zelenskyy from pursuing peace negotiations with Russia. The paper claimed Johnson told Ukrainian officials that even if Ukraine was ready to sign a deal with Russia, the West - particularly the UK and US - was not. This reportedly influenced Kyiv to pull back from talks that had been progressing in Istanbul.

5

For Your Information / A Colour Revolution In Nepal?

« on: September 18, 2025, 09:57:14 AM »

   
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
A Colour Revolution In Nepal?
Kit Klarenberg
Sep 18

Support and Subscribe to Kit Kalenberg   
https://www.kitklarenberg.com/subscribe?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=email-subscribe&r=48lm80&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kitklarenberg.com%2Fp%2Fa-colour-revolution-in-nepal&utm_medium=email
      
      
      
   
READ IN APP
 

All my investigations are free to read, thanks to the enormous generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you value this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please click this link.

Over recent weeks, chaos has engulfed Nepal. Public and private buildings have been set ablaze, with dozens of civilians reportedly killed. On September 9th, Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli resigned. The Western media has universally framed the upheaval as spontaneous revolutionary fervour on the part of Kathmandu’s “Gen Z”, motivated by anger over official corruption, unemployment, state efforts to censor social media, and more. However, there are unambiguous indications the insurrectionary disarray has long-been in the making, and assisted by spectral, foreign forces.

The “Gen Z” protests comprise a cluster of local youth activist groups, and are widely dubbed “leaderless”, although Hami Nepal has clearly emerged at the movement’s forefront. English language Nepali Times has reported the hitherto unknown NGO “played a central role in guiding the demonstrations, using its Instagram and Discord platforms to circulate protest information and share guidelines.” The group was established to assist victims of earthquakes - a common occurrence in the country - and provide food, medical and other aid to disadvantaged Nepalese communities.

Subsequently, Hami Nepal oversaw the election of Kathmandu’s interim premier Sushila Karki on September 12th, via the highly unorthodox, and completely unprecedented, expedient of an online vote via Discord. The NGO’s chat group reportedly boasts 145,000 members, although it’s unclear how many people ultimately voted for Karki. The Western media, and local journalist Prayana Rana, a fervent supporter of the unrest who considers the palace coup to be wholly legitimate and organic, has acknowledged choosing a leader in this manner to be deeply problematic:

“It is much more egalitarian than a physical forum that many might not have access to. Since it is virtual and anonymous, people can also say what they want to without fear of retaliation. But there are also challenges, in that anyone could easily manipulate users by infiltration, and using multiple accounts to sway opinions and votes.”
   
   

Karki has firmly pledged to only serve six months in the post, until elections are held. She herself has an impressive revolutionary history, having participated in the 1990 People’s Movement that successfully overthrew Nepal’s absolute monarchy, for which she was jailed. In June 1973, her husband hijacked a plane, stealing vast sums of money to fund armed resistance against the country’s brutal regency, which similarly landed him in prison. Karki’s commitment to seriously tackling corruption as Nepal’s Chief Justice led to her politically-motivated impeachment in June 2017, after just one year.

It is entirely uncertain who and/or what will replace Karki, and by which mechanism they will attain office. Nonetheless, that Hami Nepal, a previously obscure NGO with no history of political activism has played such an outsized role in ousting the government of a country of 30 million people and installing its new ruler within mere days, should give us pause. While the organisation’s activities appear benevolent, its rollcall of “brands that support us” contains some entries that are puzzling, if not outright concerning.

‘Anonymous Profiles’

It is unclear what forms of “support” Hami Nepal has received from its sponsors, or when it was provided, but they run quite the gamut. For one, the list includes luxury Western hotels in Kathmandu, clothing and shoe brands, local conglomerate Shanker - the country’s biggest private investor - Israeli-owned messaging app Viber, and Coca Cola, notorious for its complicity in countless human rights abuses in the Global South. Elsewhere, the Gurkha Welfare Trust appears.
   
   

The Gurkhas have for centuries served as an elite, unique force within the British Army, often tasked with sensitive missions. The Trust, which provides financial aid to Gurkha veterans, their widows and families, is financed by the British Foreign Office, and Ministry of Defence. Meanwhile, Students For A Free Tibet is also listed. The NGO receives funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, an avowed CIA front. In a striking coincidence, NED is deeply concerned about the precise issue that triggered Nepal’s recent protests.

In August 2023, Nepal’s government signed off on a National Cyber Security Policy, imitating China’s “Great Firewall”, which limits foreign internet traffic into the country, while allowing for the proliferation of homegrown ecommerce platforms, social networks, and other online resources. The move was harshly condemned by Digital Rights Nepal, which is bankrolled by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations - a repeat sponsor of government overthrows. Digital Rights Nepal claimed the Policy would lead to mass censorship, and threaten citizens’ privacy.

Fast forward to February, and NED published a report warning “countries worldwide” including Cambodia, Nepal and Pakistan were looking to China’s internet sovereignty as a “potential model” to emulate. Rather than acknowledge the threat to Washington’s waning global web dominance posed by such ambitions, the Endowment asserted the real risk was Beijing’s “prestige” being enhanced internationally, thus helping “make the world safe” for the Chinese Communist Party. That month, Nepalese lawmakers began voting on a bill supporting the National Cyber Security Policy.

The legislation required foreign social media networks and messaging apps to formally register with Kathmandu’s Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. This was intended to not only make these platforms more legally accountable, but ensure the government could collect tax on revenues they generated locally. The Committee to Project Journalists issued a statement imploring parliamentarians to reject the bill, alleging it posed a grave threat to press freedom, due to potential content restriction and banning of “creation or use of anonymous profiles.”

The CPJ is bankrolled by Open Society Foundations, a welter of leading Western news outlets, US corporate and financial giants, and Google and Meta - both would be adversely affected by the legislation. The law nonetheless passed, imposing a deadline of September 3rd for registration. While TikTok and Viber complied, US platforms - including Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, and YouTube - refused, prompting Kathmandu to ban usage of 26 foreign-owned sites. This was the spark that ultimately toppled Nepal’s government.

‘Secure Environment’

On September 4th, The Federation of Nepali Journalists published a statement signed by 22 civil society organisations, expressing “strong objection” to the mass shut down. FNJ is funded by NED and Open Society Foundations. Most of its cosignatories receive money from the same sources, and other Western foundations, governments, and social media platforms. For Hami Nepal, the ban was a “tipping point”, the group scheduling a mass rally for four days later. Hami Nepal extensively prepared participants in advance, even establishing a “protest support helpline”.

The September 8th protests quickly turned extremely violent. “Gen Z” leaders distanced themselves from the destruction, claiming their peaceful action had been “hijacked” by “opportunists”. Yet, Hami Nepal’s Discord server had bristled with belligerent messages in the preceding days. Some users openly advocated killing politicians, and their children. Others posted requests for weapons including machine guns, and openly announced their intention to “burn everything”. Nepal’s parliament and the Prime Minister’s official residence were duly torched, prompting ministers to flee in helicopters.

The next night, in the wake of K. P. Sharma Oli’s resignation, Nepalese military chiefs met with protesters, to discuss the shape of the country’s future government. As The New York Times reported September 11th, chief “Gen Z” agitators told army officials they wanted Sushila Karki to serve as interim leader - days before this was apparently confirmed by competitive Discord vote. Kathmandu’s powerful, popular military has pledged to “create a secure environment until the election is held,” effectively signing off on the violent coup.

It may be significant one of Hami Nepal’s donors isn’t publicised on its website - arms dealer Deepak Bhatta. He has an extensive history of procuring weapons for Nepal’s military and security forces, and allegations of corruption have swirled around many of these deals. For example, in July 2022 he was accused of sourcing guns for local police from an Italian company at four times the actual unit price. Bhatta’s long-running relationship with the army could well have facilitated its friendly contact with protest leaders.

Yugoslavia’s CIA, NED and USAID-orchestrated “Bulldozer Revolution” in 2000 was the world’s first “color revolution”. Over subsequent decades, the US has ousted governments the world over using strategies and tactics identical to those that successfully dislodged Slobodan Milosevic from office. In almost all cases, youth groups have been key regime change footsoldiers. In Belgrade, after almost a decade of lethally destructive sanctions, capped off with a criminal 78-day-long NATO bombing campaign, many residents of the country had legitimate grievances, and wished to see Milosevic fall.
   
   

Nonetheless, the aftermath was a blunt-force lesson in the importance of being careful about what one wishes for. Milosevic’s downfall is dubbed the Bulldozer Revolution due to iconic scenes during the much-publicised unrest of a wheel loader helping anti-government agitators occupy state buildings, and shield activists from police gunfire. Its driver quickly turned against the “Revolution”. Subsequent Western-imposed privatisation decimated Yugoslavia’s economy, causing his successful independent business to fail, and him to go bankrupt. He subsisted until his dying day on meagre state welfare payments.

Herein lies the rub. There’s little doubt many Nepalese citizens were justifiably disillusioned with their government, and sought change. Yet, colour revolutions invariably exploit grassroots public discontent, to install governments considerably worse than those that preceded them. In this context, the military inviting disgraced local businessman Durga Prasai, who supports the restoration of Kathmandu’s monarchy, to transition talks with “Gen Z” activists is rendered deeply suspect. That he has been falsely promoted by the BBC as the protests’ leader is all the more ominous.

Even enthusiastic local supporters of Nepal’s “revolution” acknowledge it is uncertain whether Sushila Karki will actually be able to convene elections in six months. In any event, all established parties were in the firing line of demonstrators, leaving the question of who will contest any future vote likewise an open one. There is quite some political vacuum in Kathmandu presently - and history shows us NED, Open Society Foundations, and intelligence-connected Western foundations are ever-poised to seize such “windows of opportunity”. Watch this space.

You’re currently a free subscriber to Kit’s Newsletter. To support his independent journalism, please consider going paid.
Upgrade to paid

6

South Tyneside Stop the War / Westminster group shut down over Israel funding

« on: September 17, 2025, 10:36:43 AM »

Westminster group shut down over Israel funding
Closure comes after Declassified revealed the cross-party group of MPs took cash from an Israeli state-owned arms firm.
Martin Williams
8 September 2025

A cross-party group of MPs and Lords has been shut down, after Declassified revealed it had taken money from a state-owned Israeli arms company.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Defence Technology received at least £1,499 from RUK Advanced Systems Ltd, which sells missiles and torpedoes.

The company is part of the defence giant Rafael, which is owned by the Israeli government.

The APPG took its website offline after Declassified exposed the donation in July.

Rules say that APPGs should not “accept the services of a secretariat funded directly or indirectly by a foreign government”.

Our findings triggered an inquiry by the parliamentary standards commissioner into the group’s co-chair, Conservative MP Neil Shastri-Hurst, over “due diligence of funding”.

The inquiry is ongoing, having expanded to cover other potential breaches of the rules.

According to its now-defunct website, the APPG offered companies “opportunities to network with MPs” and a chance to “gain visibility”.

The group’s closure was first reported last week by Democracy for Sale and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as concerns were also raised over a “glaring inconsistency” in the lobbying rules.

A loophole meant that former Conservative adviser, James Clark, was allowed to set up the APPG’s secretariat just six months after leaving a job at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) – despite rules that normally ban ex-advisers from lobbying for at least a year.

Responding to a freedom of information request, the MoD reportedly said that restrictions did not apply because Clark’s role was “within central government” and “directly in support of a parliamentary body”.

However, parliament’s website makes clear that APPG are “informal” groups and “have no official status within parliament”.

RELATED

Probe launched into Westminster group’s Israel funding
READ MORE
‘Lobbying’
The APPG on Defence Technology gained 31 corporate partners to fund its “independent” secretariat, since it was set up last year.

They included American defence firm Lockheed Martin, which is the primary producer of F-35 fighter jets used by Israel.

Between them, the partners pumped more than £60,000 into the APPG to cover a 12 month period.

Steve Goodrich of Transparency International told newsletter Democracy For Sale: “When an APPG is funded by major defence contractors and explicitly aims to ‘promote engagement’ with the industry, it’s functionally operating as a lobbying vehicle – regardless of its classification.

“Labour promised to strengthen lobbying oversight, but cases like this show we need immediate action to close regulatory loopholes before they become established practice.”

The inquiry over Israeli funding has not stopped the APPG’s members from continuing to operate among defence companies, however.

Among them are Labour MP Fred Thomas, who served as the group’s co-chair. He is due to speak at DSEI, the defence and security trade exhibition, in London tomorrow in an event about “autonomous ships”.

TAGGED:
Israel

7

For Your Information / he assassination of neo-Nazi, 2014 coup leader Andriy Parubiy shocks Ukraine eli

« on: September 16, 2025, 12:00:07 PM »

The assassination of neo-Nazi, 2014 coup leader Andriy Parubiy shocks Ukraine elite

Al Mayadeen English by Dmitri Kovalevich Dmitri Kovalevich

Sept 15, 2025

Ukraine's conflict can only be resolved when its anti-war, anti-Nazi people take control of their own destiny beyond the US-NATO proxy war.

Ukrainian media and representatives of the country's political elite have been deeply shaken by the assassination of leading neo-Nazi figure Andriy Parubiy in the streets of the city of Lvov in western Ukraine on August 30.

Parubiy and the neo-Nazi formations he led were key fomenters of the violent, paramilitary coup in Kiev in February 2014. They headed the extremist wing of the ‘Euromaidan' movement, which came to prominence in 2013, seeking a rupture of close economic relations with Russia, to be replaced by a subordinate status within the European Union.

Considering his neo-Nazi ideology, Parubiy held an astonishing number of leading government positions in post-coup Ukraine, and for long durations. He was first elected to the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine legislature) in 2007 and served there until his untimely demise nearly two decades later. He held top roles in the Rada from 2014 to 2019. He became no less than secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine for a brief time in 2014, shortly after the coup. That ended when Western governments and media realized this particular posting might get in the way of selling to their uninformed and gullible populations the story of the coup as being a ‘democratic revolt'.

Andriy Parubiy was shot dead in a street close to his home in Lvov. He was shot eight times. His killer was arrested two days later and then quickly claimed responsibility for the killing at his court arraignment on September 2.

Mikhail Stselnikov (Scelnikov) is a resident of western Ukraine. He was able to tell his story and briefly speak to reporters for all of Ukraine to hear and read at his arraignment on September 2. He explained that his act was one of personal revenge against the Ukrainian government for the death of his son in combat in 2023 in the US/NATO proxy war being waged in Ukraine since the 2014 coup. The ‘low intensity' war in the Donbass region, begun by the coup regime in 2014, was escalated in 2021, provoking Russia into an all-out invasion of the majority-Russian-speaking regions of eastern Ukraine, including Donbass, in February 2022.

Stselnikov's son died in 2023 in the grim, nearly one-year-long battle for control of the city of Artyomovsk (called ‘Bakhmut' in Ukraine, pre-war population of 80,000). The city lies in the Donetsk Republic in the historically Russian region of Donbass and was all but destroyed in the fighting. The coup regime used its betrayal of the February 2015 ‘Minsk 2' peace agreement to fortify and heavily entrench its paramilitaries and regular armed forces in the cities of Donbass, such as Artyomovsk. This explains why the proxy war that escalated in 2022 is lasting so long and proving so difficult for Russia to conclude.

Ukrainian authorities initially tried to blame the Russian government for the killing, but that story didn't survive for 48 hours. Stselnikov's court appearance and admissions on September 2 have shocked the country with his honesty and boldness. Of particular note is that the father does not blame the Russian government or armed forces for his son's death. He blames the leaders of the 'Euromaidan' coup.

Stselnikov told reporters that he did not hold a specific grudge against Paruiby. "Yes, I killed Paruiby. He lived close by. If I lived in Vinnytsia, it would have been Petya," he said, 'Petya' being the nickname of Petro Poroshenko, one of the wealthiest men in Ukraine. He was elected ‘president' in May 2014 for a five-year term in an election where opponents of the coup were effectively banned. Poroshenko's home city Vinnytsia is located some 350 km east of Lvov, about halfway to Kiev.

Ukrainian politicians view the killing of Parubiy as a direct threat to themselves. It is particularly unsettling because they are so used to writing off any bad news coming their way as ‘pro-Russia propaganda'. This was a Ukrainian father with a son who served in the military and whose fate ended in tragedy. The news has overshadowed even the torrent of bad war news washing over Ukraine, which sees steady advances by the Russian military across the entire frontline, while news of possible negotiations to end the fighting hardly serves the narrative of the Kiev regime that is only Ukraine can hold out a little longer, fresh waves of money and weapons will soon pour in from the West.

Stselnikov's son was an IT specialist from Lvov, a hotbed of neo-Nazism in Ukraine. The son was born in 1994 and was inevitably exposed and heavily influenced there by ultra-nationalist propaganda. He quarreled with his father and, in 2022, volunteered to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine at the start of the special Military Operation by Russia. He took the call sign ‘Lemberg', the name of Lvov during its occupation by Nazi Germany from 1941-1944.

The father's personal drama has sparked a wave of sympathy for him among ordinary Ukrainians, many of whom have also lost their sons to the war project of Euromaidan leaders and those Western governments and NGO representatives supporting the ‘fight for freedom' in Ukraine.

The entire Ukrainian political establishment gathered for the funeral of the slain ‘Maidan' organizer in Lvov on September 2. They arrived under heavy security because they are well aware of the angry mood in society. "The entire elite is at Paruiby's funeral. Many of them haven't been seen in a long time. They wouldn't want to part with their friend, would they?" wrote Ukrainian blogger Anatoly Shariy in a one-line comment on Telegram on September 2, accompanied by several photos.

The online news publication Strana believes that one of the motives for Parubiy's murder was to demoralize the Ukrainian elite by showing that none of them should feel safe and none of them will escape public rage and retribution.

Many Ukrainian nationalists still shudder as they recall the extrajudicial executions of Nazi collaborators that swept across Ukraine in 1944, following its liberation by the Soviet Red Army and as the Red Army was defeating the Nazis across Germany and Poland. Thousands of Ukrainian nationalist collaborators, many of whom served as police, prison guards, and executioners, were unable to flee with the retreating Hitlerite troops and suffered a fate they had well earned.

The Ukrainian Telegram channel Resident writes that there is now a certain amount of panic among the political elite, as everyone understands that only the Ukrainian special services could have eliminated such a prominent politician, and they have found a suspect to take the blame and who may soon die in his cell.

Ukrainian political scientist Ruslan Bortnik believes that Parubiy's killing could complicate negotiations for a settlement of the war. "We are talking about Paruiby's killing at a time when negotiations on a settlement of the war are underway. This killing will complicate the negotiations because it will intensify negative reactions by the patriotic [ultra-nationalist] part of society. The killing has divided society and has caused a situation in which no public figure feels safe," he writes.

Authorities have taken to glorifying Parubiy, calling him a paragon of democracy and a "symbol of European aspirations." Parubiy himself once called Adolf Hitler's rule a "model of democracy". He acknowledged that he had admired Hitler since his youth. "I myself am a huge supporter of direct democracy. By the way, I will tell you that the greatest person who practiced direct democracy was Adolf Hitler in the 1930s," he once told live television. This, of course, underlines that the need for a ‘denazification' in Ukraine is not some fabrication dreamed up by the leaders of the Russian Federation.

The Ukrainian analytical Telegram channel Rubicon has explained that when a person speaks enthusiastically about, say, Vladimir Lenin and shares his political positions taken in his lifetime, then, in principle, he can be called a ‘Leninist'. Parubiy, Rubicon writes, can thus be regarded as a 100% Hitlerite, a fact which Parubiy himself never hid. Nevertheless, as commander of Euromaidan, head of the National Security and Defense Council, and speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Parubiy was quite acceptable to Western leaders, despite protests from anti-fascists.

In the early 1990s, Andriy Parubiy was the organizer of the Social-Nationalist Party of Ukraine, which was modeled after the name of Adolf Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). He was the "commandant of the Maidan" in 2013-2014, leading a wing of nationalist militants who carried out the coup, aided in part by students affiliated with Western NGOs. At the time, Western media would only film young men and women carrying posters about "democracy" and "freedom", leaving the core, armed neo-Nazi militants out of the frame.

Artem Dmitruk, a former legislator from Zelensky's party who has fled to London, comments on the killing of Parubiy and recalls the ‘forgotten footage' from the Maidan riots of 2014. His message posted on Telegram on September 1 shows the paramilitaries carrying weapons in bags to Maidan Square in central Kiev, preparing to shoot at police seeking to stem violence and killings. "Here, Parubiy is seen together with the militants carrying the bags of weapons as they prepare for more terrorist acts. There are many such photos and videos. Naturally, these are shown less and less often these days, with attempts made to hide them by any means possible because they destroy the beautiful legend of an ‘honest struggle against dictatorship and Russian influence'," recalls the former ally of Zelensky.

Parubiy is considered one of the organizers of the arson attack and massacre in the city of Odessa on May 2, 2014, against anti-coup protesters. Ultranationalists set fire to the large and historic Trade Union House in the center of the city, constructed of stone, where protesters had taken refuge from violent attacks against them. The ultra-nationalists, aided by like-minded paramilitaries, killed 48 of those inside, some of whom were beaten to death after jumping from windows.

Nationalist Vitaly Portnikov (from Petro Poroshenko's political circle) indignantly told the Espresso TV channel on August 31 that people are rejoicing at Parubiy's killing in Odessa, as well as in the cities of Kiev, Kharkov, and Dnipropetrovsk. Based on surveying responses on social media, he concludes that many residents of Odessa remain carriers of the ‘Russian mentality'.

"They risk death every day from Russian bombs, but they continue to be representatives of Russian political philosophy. For them, Parubiy is still a greater enemy than Putin. They still think that if there were no people like Parubiy, they would live in cordial understanding with Russia," Portnikov says indignantly.

Ukrainian politician Sergei Dorotich, another one who has been forced to flee the country for his safety, says that Parubiy's murder closes a chapter of the story of the arson massacre in Odessa. "Now there is no one to ask, because corpses don't answer questions. We will never get answers to our questions at this rate," Dorotich concludes.

Oleg Tsarev, a former member of the Rada who moved to Russia after the Euromaidan coup, wrote in his blog on September 3, "Apparently, Parubiy's killer took revenge for his son. Sooner or later, the people of Ukraine will start killing representatives of the authorities for all the evil they have done to Ukraine and the grief they have brought. Paruiby is just the beginning."

Legislator Alexander Dubinsky writes that Parubiy's killer, who says he acted out of revenge against the Ukrainian authorities who started the war with Russia in which his son died, is sending a signal to all legislators of Zelensky's ‘Servant of the People' party, to Poroshenko, to government cabinet officials, and to Zelensky himself. In his opinion, all of them may not live long enough to appear before investigative tribunals or hang from lampposts.

"I certainly condemn murder and any other forms of violence. But try to ask yourself one terrible question: did the father who lost his son have a legitimate motive and moral justification? The answer will be frightening," writes the legislator and former ally of Zelensky, who has been accused of treason and has been held in prison since 2023.

Ukrainian army volunteer Andriy Chudovsky, a blogger now living in Germany and fundraising for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, says that the killing has opened a very dangerous Pandora's box, pointing back to the Maidan coup. "And now they are reaping the fruits of this opening the box, first and foremost, it considers those who opened this box and thought that it would not affect them in any way. In other words, the revolution is devouring its children in the literal sense," Chudovsky believes.

Ukrainian dissident and former political prisoner Ruslan Kotsaba believes that Parubiy's killing will inspire new and similar acts. He writes, "There were more bodyguards than mourners at the funeral [of Paruiby] funeral at St. George's Cathedral. Do you understand where this is all leading? The authorities know this, and they are afraid."

Another former Ukrainian political prisoner, Dmitry Vasilets, predicts that similar acts of revenge will spread and will not be limited to Ukrainian politicians. "When the man said that his action was taken in revenge against Ukrainian authorities, he was referring primarily to revenge for the fact that his son had been effectively taken from him by NATO war propaganda. This shows us how deep the roots of the current civil war in Ukraine are. There will be more and more such vigilante acts because the truth is coming out, and as a result, more and more men and women are seeing that British, American, German and Polish political and military leaders behind all the bloodshed," He writes that Western politicians, such as former British prime minister Boris Johnson, who directly sabotaged prospects for an early peace in March/April 2022, also live somewhere and go to restaurants.

Vasilets himself was imprisoned in Ukraine after the Euromaidan coup. He now lives in Russia, thanks to one of the exchange of prisoners of war between the Kiev regime and the Russian Federation.

Undoubtedly, such acts of individual terrorism as occurred in Lvov on August 31 cannot eliminate or settle the causes of the conflict in Ukraine. In his time, Vladimir Lenin called such actions ineffective. He spoke from personal experience and tragedy: his older brother Aleksandr was executed in 1887 precisely on charges of taking part in an assassination attempt against the Russian emperor, Tsar Alexander III. Such acts, Lenin wrote, are ultimately acts of despair. Neo-Nazis like Parubiy are interchangeable, and there are plenty of young, neo- Nazis in Ukraine, willing to gladly take his place. Western politicians will welcome them in exactly the same way, painting over in their reports and removing from their media the Nazi emblems they wear Hitler salutes they deliver.

The root cause of the conflict in Ukraine can only be resolved by the anti-war and anti-Nazi people of Ukraine taking into our hands our own destiny and that of the country, which will emerge from the approaching defeat of neo-Nazism and the US-NATO proxy war. We have many difficult obstacles to overcome to make that happen. In this, we are greatly aided by the Russian citizens in uniform who are destroying the army of coup Ukraine, led by neo-Nazi ideologues such as Andriy Parubiy. Residents of Western countries have a vital support role to play in this. They should be calling out and condemning their governments' direct participation in this disastrous war. They should condemn the offensive use of the taxes being imposed upon them to pay for it.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Al Mayadeen's editorial stance.

8

For Your Information / UN chief's remarks on Sumy events expose selective approach to UN Charter

« on: April 16, 2025, 10:36:17 AM »

UN chief's remarks on Sumy events expose selective approach to UN Charter — Russian MFA

TASS

April 15, 2025

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres's remarks on what happened in the city of Sumy expose his selective approach to the provisions of the United Nations Charter, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.

"On April 13, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres made another statement on Ukraine through his Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, which was dedicated to developments in the city of Sumy. Russia was accused of carrying out a missile strike on April 13, with claims that this was the latest in a series of such attacks on Ukrainian cities," she pointed out. "Such assessments by the UN secretary general are nothing if not confusing. We would like to point out that since the very beginning of the special military operation, Russian forces have never carried out deliberate strikes on the civilian population, and they will never do that. The Russian Defense Ministry points out on a regular basis that targets only include military facilities," Zakharova added.

"The UN secretary general's statement also expressed support for efforts to achieve peace for the sake of preserving Ukraine's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity in line with the UN Charter, international law and the relevant UN resolutions," the Russian diplomat noted. "It's easy to see that it does not mention the right of peoples to self-determination. This is further proof of Antonio Guterres's selective interpretation of the provisions of the UN Charter," she stressed.

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman pointed out that the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law, approved by consensus, enshrined the interdependent nature of the principles of the United Nations' founding document, which must be applied in full and in conjunction. In addition, according to Zakharova, the declaration says that the principle of territorial integrity applies only to the countries whose governments respect the principle of self-determination and represent the entire population on a certain territory.

"It's clear to everyone that the current regime in Kiev in no way meets this criterion. Zelensky's clique has repeatedly and blatantly violated the basic rules of ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking citizens," the diplomat noted. "Regrettably, the UN secretary general continues to cover up the Kiev regime's clear disregard for the statutory principles of the self-determination of peoples and respect for human rights, violating Article 1 of the UN Charter, which calls for respect for linguistic, religious and other human rights," she emphasized. Ignored appeals

Zakharova elaborated that the UN chief's attitude "can be seen from his failure to take note of Russia's requests with regard to the investigation into the false-flag operation that Kiev carried out in Bucha three years ago."

"We have repeatedly and publicly asked the UN secretary general to help us make Kiev and its sponsors at least publish the names of the people whose bodies were shown all across the world by Western media outlets, accompanied by frenzied and baseless accusations against Russia," Zakharova said. "In September 2024, the Russian permanent mission in New York submitted an official request to the UN Secretariat, which had been prepared by the Russian Investigation Committee in coordination with the Prosecutor General's Office. In January and April this year, we demanded the UN Secretariat speed up its response to the request. Despite all efforts, there has still been no substantial reaction to our request," she added. Call to UN chief

Moscow "once again" urges Antonio Guterres and the UN Secretariat that he leads "to adopt an honest stance, refrain from making biased comments regarding the Ukraine crisis, and stop defaming" Russia "and covering up the Kiev regime's crimes."

Back to Index of April 15     |     Back to Latest Index

9

South Tyneside Stop the War / U.S./Israeli Provocations and Crimes in Palestine and Lebanon

« on: February 13, 2025, 09:43:01 AM »

U.S./Israeli Provocations and Crimes in Palestine and Lebanon

Hamas Responds to U.S./Israeli Zionist Plotting to Derail Gaza Ceasefire Agreement
On February 10, an announcement by Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, informed that the next release of Israeli captives scheduled to take place in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, February 15, will be postponed.

In a post on his Telegram account, spokesman for the Brigades Abu Obeida said that "the handover of the Zionist prisoners who were slated for release next Saturday, February 15, 2025, will be postponed until further notice, and until the occupation abides [by the terms of the ceasefire agreement] and compensates for the past weeks retroactively."

"During the past three weeks, the resistance commandership has monitored the enemy's violations and its failure to abide by the terms of the agreement, including delaying the return of the displaced to the northern Gaza Strip, and targeting them with shelling and gunfire," Abu Obeida added.

"We affirm our commitment to the terms of the agreement as long as the occupation honours them," the spokesman affirmed.

Hamas accused Israel of actively working to derail the Gaza Ceasefire Agreement, a senior Palestinian official told Al Mayadeen.

The official stated that Israeli statements regarding the second phase of the deal signal an unwillingness to commit to a lasting ceasefire.

Moreover, Hamas, as per the official, sees Israel as relying heavily on U.S. President Donald Trump's reckless decisions to justify its policies and actions in the next phase.

Hamas says that if Israel does not adhere to the second phase of the agreement, it will pay a heavy price, the Palestinian official underscored.

Al Mayadeen reports that Israeli media on Sunday, February 9 suggested that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is deliberately obstructing the ongoing ceasefire negotiations with Hamas, aiming to derail the agreement before its next phase.

Reports suggest that the Israeli delegation sent to Qatar lacks real authority, signaling Netanyahu's unwillingness to move forward with a deal that would secure the release of more Palestinian detainees and a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

Ha'aretz cited sources stating that the delegation's presence in Doha is merely for show. According to Ha'aretz, Netanyahu's obstructionist tactics could lead to the ceasefire breaking down entirely. Analysts warn that Hamas, recognizing Israel's refusal to honour its commitments, may halt further captive releases.

"Hamas is not stupid," a source said. "They see the politicization of the negotiations, the placement of Netanyahu confidants Ron Dermer and Gal Hirsch [at the helm of negotiations], the threats by [Finance Minister Bezalel] Smotrich and the right-wing ministers that they will dissolve the government. They understand where this is going."

Channel 12 confirmed that Netanyahu sent the delegation only to discuss technicalities and not to negotiate the second phase of the ceasefire. Officials stated, "This delegation has no real mandate. It will not deal with anything related to the second phase."

Hamas officials have warned that Israel's bad-faith approach could reignite hostilities. In an interview with AFP, Hamas politburo member Basem Naim criticized "Israel's" failure to fulfill its obligations. "The delay and lack of commitment in implementing the first phase," as well as the attempts to "pressure the Palestinian negotiators upon entering the second phase, certainly exposes this agreement to danger and thus it might stop and collapse," he said.

Israel Jeopardizes Ceasefire Agreement

Freed Palestinian prisoners arrive in Khan Yunis, February 1, 2025, as part of
prisoner exchange.
The first phase of the ceasefire which came into effect on January 19, set to last 42 days, stipulates that Hamas will release 33 women, children, and elderly captives in exchange for the freedom of hundreds of Palestinians, many of whom have been detained without charge.

The next phase, if honoured, would require Israel to release additional Palestinian detainees, halt military aggression, and withdraw from Gaza in exchange for the release of remaining captives.

Following the latest release, 73 captives out of the 251 taken on October 7 remain in Gaza, while at least 34 have been confirmed dead.

Hamas has so far handed over 21 captives under the current ceasefire, while 105 were released during a brief truce in November 2023.

Under the deal, 17 more captives should be released before the end of the first phase of the agreement.

10

South Tyneside Stop the War / What is the Joint Expeditionary Force and what will the 2024 leaders' summit foc

« on: December 19, 2024, 07:54:04 PM »

What is the Joint Expeditionary Force and what will the 2024 leaders' summit focus on?

ERR News

Dec. 16

The annual Joint Expeditionary Force's leaders' summit takes place in Tallinn on Monday and Tuesday (December 16-17). But what is JEF and what is the meeting seeking to achieve? ERR News explains.

The Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is a United Kingdom-led defense cooperation format that includes, in addition to Estonia, the Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland.

In crises and war situations, JEF's primary mission is to provide a rapid response at sea, on land, and in the air, in the Baltic Sea, Northern Europe, and the High North.

All 10 members are also members of NATO but JEF is billed as "a first responder before NATO Article 5 is declared" and is supposed to "complement" the alliance.

"It is comprised of like-minded nations ready to contribute quickly and flexibly to various operations, from humanitarian crises to conventional warfare," the Estonian government says.

JEF leaders said these include: "Scenarios ranging from below the threshold of NATO's Article 5 through to full-spectrum interventions during times of crisis or conflict, operating seamlessly with NATO."

The grouping was launched in 2014 at the NATO Summit in Wales by the UK and six other countries, including Estonia.

Summits take place annually with the last two held in Riga (2022) and on the Swedish island of Gotland (2023.) This year's event wants to "set new plans for adapting JEF activities to the evolving security landscape."

In November 2023, JEF defense ministers activated the Joint Response Option for the first time after undersea pipelines and cables were damaged in the Baltic Sea.

This saw Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom deploy patrol vessels, frigates, maritime patrol aircraft, helicopters, and minesweepers to increase protection.

In June, JEF held a series of defensive military exercises to strengthen the security of critical underwater infrastructure from the North Atlantic Ocean to the Baltic Sea.

Who is attending?

Participating leaders:

Denmark: Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen

Estonia: Prime Minister Kristen Michal

Finland: President Alexander Stubb

Iceland: Foreign Minister Pórdís Kolbrún Reykfjörd

Latvia: Prime Minister Evika SiliÅ a

Lithuania: President Gitanas NausÄ—da

Netherlands: Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans

Norway: Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre

Sweden: Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson

United Kingdom: Prime Minister Keir Starmer

JEF Leaders' Summit in Tallinn 2024 - Key Focus Areas:

According to the Estonian Government Office, the main areas of focus at the meeting will be:

Deterrence and Defense: The summit will seek solutions to strengthen the JEF's deterrence and defense posture, including through increased defense spending and enhanced defense industry production capacity.

Strengthening Cooperation: Leaders will discuss how to deepen cooperation within the JEF framework to respond more effectively to security challenges and deter potential aggressors.

Regional Security: The summit will focus on the JEF's role in ensuring the security of the Baltic Sea region and Northern Europe, taking into account Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the associated threats.

Supporting Ukraine: The summit will reaffirm support for Ukraine and discuss how the JEF can contribute to Ukraine's victory in the war against Russia.

Long-term Strategy: Discussion on the JEF's long-term strategy, taking into account the changing security environment and geopolitical challenges.

JEF's 10th Anniversary: The summit coincides with the 10th anniversary of the JEF, providing an opportunity to assess achievements and set goals for the future.

Estonia's goal: Defense spending, industry development, and support for Ukraine

Prime Minister Kristen Michal (Reform) made his goal for JEF and the summit clear last month -- members should agree to raise defense spending to "at least" 2.5 percent of GDP.

"If not earlier, then at next year's summit in the Hague, the minimum defense spending of NATO member states must be raised to at least 2.5 percent of the GDP," he said in a statement.

However, while Estonia's defense spending is 3.4 percent of GDP in 2024, several members are only just reaching the 2 percent goal. So this may be a big ask.

But, for Estonia's ministers, this is a long-term push.

"The Joint Expeditionary Force member states know the price of peace and can lead the conclusion of a new defense investment pledge. At the JEF summit, I hope we can take an important step before the Hague and agree on raising the minimum level of defense spending of the 10 NATO countries to at least 2.5 percent of the GDP. It is only in this way that we can ensure European security, boost the defense capacity of our region, and create necessary forces for collective defense," said the prime minister.

Support for Ukraine is also key as is pledging financial support. Michal wants countries to agree to allocate 0.25 percent of the GDP to Ukraine -- a figure suggested by the Estonian Ministry of Defense last year.

Estonia and Lithuania have already committed to doing this.

JEF member states already contribute the most support to Ukraine, "double compared to the rest of Europe," the government says.

"Ukraine needs assurance that we will stand by them until victory," Michal said.

During his visit to Ukraine last week, the prime minister also discussed the future possibility of Ukraine joining the framework with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Kristen Michal in Kyiv on December 9, 2024. Source: Office of the President of Ukraine

Ukraine was invited to observe JEF exercises in 2024 and 2025 by leaders to "increase interoperability and enhance the capabilities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine."

However, a spokesperson for the Estonian Government told ERR News: "The possibility of expanding the JEF framework to include new member states has not yet been discussed between the JEF leaders."

Michal is also pushing for the development of the defense industry.

"The production capacity of the European and NATO defense industry is crucial. Being able to produce armament strengthens our deterrence and defense capabilities," said the prime minister.

You can read more information about the Tallinn summit here.

11

South Tyneside Stop the War / Death Hovering over Gaza -- Latest from the Genocide

« on: December 19, 2024, 07:52:47 PM »

Death Hovering over Gaza -- Latest from the Genocide

Palestine Chronicle

Dec. 18

The Gaza Strip faced relentless Israeli airstrikes on Wednesday, resulting in widespread destruction, dozens of casualties, and the targeting of civilian homes, medical facilities, and agricultural areas.

Three Palestinians, including two women, were killed and others were injured Wednesday after Israeli airstrikes targeted a house belonging to the Abu Yousef family in the town of Khuza'a, in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza, the official Palestinian news agency WAFA reported.

Earlier, Israeli warplanes raided agricultural land in the Abu Rida neighborhood, also in eastern Khuza'a.

In Beit Hanoun, in northern Gaza, four civilians were killed and several others wounded when Israeli strikes targeted a house in the Beit Hanoun estate.

Israeli fighter jets also bombed eastern areas of the Zaytoun neighborhood in southeast Gaza City. Simultaneously, artillery shelling hit eastern Khuza'a and Al-Jeneina, east of Rafah.

In the central Gaza Strip, two Palestinians were killed, and others injured after a bombing struck Mufti Land Park near the Nuseirat refugee camp. A drone attack on a tent sheltering displaced families in Deir al-Balah caused two more casualties and additional injuries.

Northern Gaza also witnessed heavy bombardment. Israeli warplanes reportedly targeted a house in Jabaliya al-Balad, as vehicles fired in the Sudanese area northwest of Gaza City. Artillery shelling struck areas south of the Sabra and Zaytoun neighborhoods.

In Gaza City's Al-Daraj neighborhood, Israeli warplanes hit a house belonging to the Qwaider family on Al-Sahaba Street, resulting in three injuries, according to WAFA.

Near the Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, three homes were bombed, killing and wounding multiple civilians, including a paramedic. Al-Awda Hospital also reported injuries among medical crews and patients following a nearby explosion.

Further south, a drone strike in Rafah claimed the life of a citizen whose body was later transported to Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Yunis, WAFA reported.

Additionally, Israeli forces also detained two fishermen off the coast of Deir al-Balah in central Gaza.

Ongoing Genocide

Meanwhile, the Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip continued with the death toll among starved and besieged Palestinian civilians rising daily.

Currently on trial before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for genocide against Palestinians, Israel has been waging a devastating war on Gaza since October 7, 2023.

According to Gaza's Ministry of Health, 45,059 Palestinians have been killed, and 107,041 wounded in Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza starting on October 7, 2023.

Moreover, at least 11,000 people are unaccounted for, presumed dead under the rubble of their homes throughout the Strip.

Israel says that 1,200 soldiers and civilians were killed during the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation on October 7. However, Israeli media published reports suggesting that many Israelis were killed on that day by 'friendly fire'.

Palestinian and international organizations say that the majority of those killed and wounded are women and children.

The Israeli war has resulted in an acute famine resulting in the death of many Palestinians, mostly children.

The Israeli aggression has also resulted in the forceful displacement of nearly two million people from all over the Gaza Strip, with the vast majority of the displaced forced into the densely crowded southern region.

(PC, WAFA)

12

For Your Information / Reminder to China and Russia: No New World Order Can Emerge Without Resolving th

« on: June 11, 2024, 09:43:17 AM »

Reminder to China and Russia: No New World Order Can Emerge Without Resolving the Palestinian Issue

Internationalist 360, Lama El Horr

June 5, 2024

Leaders in the march towards a new world order based on multipolarity and respect for international law, China and Russia have not failed to condemn Israeli-American crimes in Gaza.

However, these condemnations seem insufficient in a context where the peoples of the world are dismayed to witness unbridled Israeli-American sadism, aimed at obliterating the struggle of the Palestinian people – and, through them, of all peoples aspiring to liberate themselves from the American imperialist yoke.

In these conditions, the timid Chinese and Russian reactions do not seem to match the global repulsion aroused by the abominations that reach us from Gaza.

The stakes for Beijing and Moscow are high

Since the start of the Israeli invasion of Gaza on October 8, 2023, China and Russia have deferred to international law. With the exception of a few diplomatic initiatives aimed at fostering unity of purpose between the various Palestinian components or the countries of the region, Beijing and Moscow have limited their actions to the framework of the United Nations, thus demonstrating their attachment to international legality. Beijing and Moscow are thus indirectly supporting South Africa's prosecution of Israel – in other words, of the Western sponsors of Israel's crimes – before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which falls under the jurisdiction of the UN.

The fact that China and Russia have not officially associated themselves with South Africa's prosecution of Israel, however, allows us to draw several conclusions about the ulterior motives of these two great powers.

Logically, China and Russia have lost faith in international jurisdictions, which have never compromised the interests of the West, despite the latter's thousand and one transgressions of international and humanitarian law. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya The examples are legion. By remaining aloof from, yet approving of, the legal proceedings brought against Israel, Beijing and Moscow are consecrating the cracks in the current world order, in which all decisions, including those emanating from the ICJ, depend on the UN Security Council, and thus on the American veto.

The two powers thus set themselves up as arbiters, not of the proceedings against Israel – a task that falls to the ICJ – but of the unipolar system that has prevailed since the Second World War, and particularly since the end of the Cold War. This retreat allows China and Russia not only to point out the dysfunctions of international jurisdictions, but also to insist on the need to build a fairer world order that puts an end to the impunity enjoyed by the Western minority to the detriment of the overwhelming global majority.

Beijing's and Moscow's decision not to officially join Pretoria's moves also reflects a concern to spare Washington's susceptibilities. By not cutting off commercial, economic and diplomatic exchanges with Israel, both Beijing and Moscow are taking care to avoid too abrupt a disintegration of the American empire, and thus prevent a head-on war with Washington. At a time when U.S. influence in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America is waning, and the Eurasian axis is consolidating, China and Russia want to avoid too abruptly wresting from Washington the entity that was, along with the U.S. dollar, its main tool of domination over the world: Israel.

The unspoken agenda of the collective West

For its part, the collective West is seeking to impose a different reading of events. Faced with the global panic caused by the unbearable suffering of the Palestinians, it has become customary to hear the Western media denounce the Israeli Prime Minister's refusal to abide by the rules of international law. As if the individual Netanyahu were more powerful than all the world's states combined, and the whole world were at the mercy of this man – a man portrayed as crazy and armed to the teeth.

These Western media machinations are a convenient way of clearing Israel's sponsors in the eyes of world public opinion, and of keeping the door open to future negotiations between Washington, Beijing and Moscow.

Firstly, these anti-Netanyahu statements, which abound in the Western media, reflect a distortion of facts and history. You only have to look at the UN archives to realize that Israel's trampling of international law is far from new. Thanks to Israel's Western protectors, dozens of UN resolutions condemning the state of Israel, which has been above the law since its creation, have gone unheeded. It's also worth remembering that the State of Israel and the UN – the body that created Israel in the first place – are almost the same age. This speaks volumes about the credibility of this organization, whose members have allowed the inextricable situation they created to degenerate into colonialism and replacement politics – at the very moment, it should be remembered, when decolonization movements were being born around the world.

Today, seventy-six years later, in view of U.S.-Israeli ambitions in the Middle East region, it's legitimate to wonder whether the Israeli invasion of Gaza was more than just a consequence of October 7.

On September 29, 2023, a week before Operation Flood of al-Aqsa, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan welcomed the fact that the Middle East region had never seen such a lull in violence for two decades. Three days earlier, however, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that "So far in 2023, Israeli forces have killed 181 Palestinians in the West Bank or Israel, exceeding the yearly death toll by Israeli forces in the West Bank since 2005." So were Jake Sullivan's Kafkaesque words a smokescreen, a bluff? Was the ethnic cleansing underway in Gaza totally improvised, or were the United States and its Israeli ally trying to conceal the horrors to come, in order to surprise their adversaries?

A month later, during his trip to Israel to support Netanyahu, the French president had suggested mobilizing the international coalition already in place against the Islamic State to fight Hamas as well. Although this suggestion was immediately dismissed by Macron's entourage, it was nonetheless expressed publicly. What was the objective? To threaten the members of the Axis of Resistance with a proliferation of terrorism in the Middle East if they didn't stay out of the way of Israeli-Western operations against Gaza? If this was the objective, then Macron's threats have not borne fruit, as evidenced by the involvement of Ansar Allah, Hezbollah and other regional factions of the Axis of Resistance in defending the Palestinians.

Have Beijing and Moscow taken the measure of the Palestinian drama?

By making constantly contradictory declarations, and setting unattainable war aims, the United States and Israel have so far revealed their intention to continue the ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

The contradictory statements made by the U.S. administration reveal, not only the White House's embarrassment in the face of world opinion, but above all Washington's strategic ambiguity vis-à-vis its geopolitical rivals. The United States claims to care about the lives of Palestinians, but continues to provide Israel with weapons and diplomatic and media protection. They refuse to authorize an Israeli incursion into Rafah, but allow carnage when the incursion takes place. They portray Netanyahu as an uncontrollable madman, but threaten any international court that deigns to indict him. Their war aim is to destroy Hamas, but they negotiate with Hamas. They propose a post-war plan with the Palestinians, but want to choose their own interlocutors.

At the same time, Israel and its American ally have set themselves unattainable war aims: without the release of the Israeli hostages, there will be no ceasefire in Gaza. Does this mean that if the Israeli hostages are not released, Israel will be able to exterminate the entire Palestinian population? Haven't there ever been hostage-takings in the world, and for much lesser reasons than national resistance to military occupation? Has France, for example, whose citizens have been kidnapped in Lebanon, Colombia and elsewhere, destroyed 80% of the countries concerned, displaced 90% of their populations, massacred their civilians by the tens of thousands, starved their inhabitants and destroyed their hospitals, schools and places of worship, in order to recover its hostages? Of course, French Algeria is excluded from this example.

There's also another antiphon, according to which the Israelis don't have a Palestinian interlocutor to make peace with. Let's stop for a moment at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo or Sde Teiman: if the captives in these torture centers had to choose a representative, would they elect the fellow inmate who would amplify their enslavement, or the one likely to break their dungeon? Clearly, the Israelis have never pondered the words of Mahmoud Darwich, who observed with irony that the occupier is surprised at not being loved by those who live under his yoke.

As for the prospect of finally applying international law and recognizing the Palestinian state, this was once again rejected by Israel, the U.S. and part of the EU, who prefer "direct negotiations between the parties". The Palestinians are therefore invited to negotiate the remaining 20% of their ancestral land directly with the occupier – who is meanwhile continuing to colonize the West Bank. Did Algeria negotiate the contours of its sovereignty with the French colonial power? Haiti did: but are its territory and its people freer as a result? To advocate a return to the "peace process" for the Palestinians under the aegis of the United States, sponsor of the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, is ultimately to advocate the maintenance of American hegemony, and to endorse the death of international law.

In the face of these iniquitous developments, Sino-Russian actions at the UN are akin to administrative tasks, and appear derisory. Sporadic declarations by Chinese and Russian representatives in favor of the creation of a Palestinian state, respect for UN resolutions and the right of Palestinians to armed struggle, have no bearing on the Palestinian drama.

Yet the multipolar world that China and Russia are shaping with their partners in the Global South will not stand if it is built on the shaky foundations of the past.

We must bear in mind that, whatever the new world order to come, Gaza and the Palestinian drama will be its nerve center. What's more, if China and Russia – and other emerging powers such as India – don't prove more inventive in resolving the Palestinian question, future eras are likely to reproach them for their passivity in the face of this appalling ethnic cleansing that is unfolding before our very eyes – and which is, let's not forget, a replica of the replacement policy that gave birth to the United States of America.

This Article was First Published on China Beyond the Wall.

13

For Your Information / This is the way the West ends

« on: April 01, 2024, 09:58:58 AM »

This is the way the West ends

Ukraine’s humiliation and Gaza’s shame accelerating estrangement of West and the rest at a crucial turning point in global power relations
by Adriel Kasonta March 29, 2024   

 With the United States entangled in conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza and the threat of a war with China looming large, Professor Michael Brenner’s insights and views on the state of the US-led liberal order are arguably as timely and important as ever.

Brenner, a respected luminary on transatlantic relations and international security, is Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).
AsiaTimes
Quantum computing’s real-world app false dawn
Read more

He has also served at the Foreign Service Institute, the US Department of Defense and Westinghouse. In a wide-ranging and no-holds-barred interview with Asia Times’ contributor Adriel Kasonta, Brenner lays out how the US and collective West lost their moral authority and way.

Adriel Kasonta: Despite what we hear from the Western political class and the compliant stenographers from the mainstream media, the world doesn’t seem to look as they want us to believe. The hard reality on the ground, known to anyone who lives anywhere but Europe or the US, is that the collective West is experiencing an accelerated decline in political and economic domains, with significant moral ramifications. Could you please tell our readers what is the root cause of this state of affairs and what is the rationale behind continuing this collective suicide?

Michael Brenner: I suggest that we formulate the issue by asking what is the causal direction between the moral decline and the collective West’s political and economic decline? On Ukraine, it has been a fundamental geostrategic error that has had negative moral consequences: the cynical sacrifice of half a million Ukrainians used as cannon fodder and physical destruction of the country, in the cause of weakening and marginalizing Russia.

The stunning feature of the Palestine affair is the readiness of immoral government elites – indeed the near entirety of the political class – to give their implicit blessing to the atrocities and war crimes Israel has committed over the past five months, which is having profound repercussions on the West’s standing and influence globally.

At one moment, they speak proudly about the superiority of Western values while condemning the practices of other countries; at another, they lean over backwards to justify far greater humanitarian abuses, to provide the perpetrator with the arms to destroy to kill and to maim innocent civilians, and in the case of the United States, to extend diplomatic cover in the United Nations Security Council.

In the process, they are dissipating their standing in the eyes of the world outside the West, representing two-thirds of humanity. The latter’s historical dealings with the countries of the West, including the relatively recent past, left a residue of skepticism about American-led claims to being the world’s ethical standard setters. That sentiment has given way to outright disgust in the face of this blatant display of hypocrisy. Moreover, it exposes the harsh truth that racist attitudes never had been fully extinguished – after a period of dormancy, its recrudescence is manifest.

As far as the United States is concerned, the reference points for this judgment are not the mythic image of “the city on the Hill”; the last, best hope of mankind; the indispensable nation for achieving global peace and stability: the Providential people born in a state of Original Virtue destined to lead the world down the path of Enlightenment. None of those idealistic standards. No, it has debased itself when measured against the prosaic standards of human decency, of responsible statecraft, of a decent respect for the opinions of humankind.

Moreover, the ensuing estrangement between the West and the rest is occurring at a turning point in international power relationships. It is a time when the tectonic plates of the political world are shifting, when the old constellations of power and of influence are being successfully challenged, when America has responded to feelings of self-doubt as the ordained global guide and overseer by compulsive, futile displays of muscle flexing.

Anxiety and self-doubt masked by false bravado is the hallmark sentiment among America’s political elites. That is a poor starting point for a re-engagement with reality. Americans are too attached to their exalted self-image, too narcissistic – collectively and individually, too lacking in self-awareness, too leaderless to make that wrenching adaptation. Those appraisals apply to Western Europe as to the United States. Leaving a diminished, aggrieved but unrepentant trans-Atlantic community.

AK: In your recent essay “The West’s Reckoning?”, you mentioned that the situation in Ukraine humiliates the West and the tragedy in Gaza shames it. Can you expand on this a bit more?
Photo: Courtesy of Michale Brenner

MB: Defeat in Ukraine entails much more than the military collapse of the Ukrainian forces that is in the cards. For the United States has led its allies into what amounts to a campaign to permanently diminish Russia, to neutralize it as a political or economic presence in Europe, to eliminate a major obstacle to consolidating American global hegemony.

The West has thrown everything they have into that campaign: their stock of modern weapons, a corps of advisers, tens of billions of dollars, a draconian set of economic sanctions designed to bring the Russian economy to its knees and a relentless project aimed at isolating Russia and undermining Putin’s position.

It has failed ignominiously on every count. Russia is considerably stronger on every dimension than it was before the war; its economy is more robust than any Western economy; it has proven to be militarily superior; and it has won the sympathies of nearly the entire world outside the collective West.

The assumption that the West remains custodial of global affairs has proven a fantasy. Such comprehensive failure has meant a decline in the United States’ ability to shape world affairs on matters economic and security. The Sino-Russian partnership is now ensconced as a rival equal to the West in every respect.

That outcome derives from hubris, dogmatism and a flight from reality. Now, the West’s self-respect and image is being scarred by its role in the Palestine catastrophe. So, now it faces the double challenge of restoring its sense of prowess while at the same time regaining its moral bearings.

AK: Is it accurate to say that Ukraine and Gaza are connected in the sense that both indicate a failing liberal international order that is attempting to prevent itself from collapsing and causing turmoil as it descends into oblivion? If so, what are some potential outcomes for the future?

MB: Let’s bear in mind that the liberal international order serves Western interests above all. Its workings were biased in our favor. That’s one. The regularity and stability that it produced, for which the IMF, World Bank, etc were the institutional cynosure, ensured for decades that it would go unchallenged. That is two.

The rise of new power centers – China, above all, and the wider centripetal forces redistributing assets more generally – has left the United States and its European dependents with two choices. Accommodate themselves to this new situation by: a) hammering out terms of engagement that accorded a larger place for the newcomers; b) resetting the rules of the game so as to remove the current bias; c) adjusting the structure and procedures of international institutions in a manner reflecting the end of Western dominance; and d) rediscovering genuine diplomacy.

Nowhere in the West has that option been seriously considered. So, after a period of ambivalence and muddling, all signed onto an American project to prevent the emergence of challengers, to undermine them and to double down on assertive policies to yield nothing, to compromise nothing. We remain locked on that course despite serial failures, humiliations and the impetus given the BRICS project.

AK: According to some Western politicians and policymakers, other global powers are often treated as passive actors without agency or power to shape the world according to their national interests. This Manichean worldview is marked by a distinction between the “rules-based order” and international law or “democracy vs authoritarianism.” Is there an alternative to this thinking and what are the chances of change occurring before it’s too late?

MB: See above response. There are no signs that Western leaders are prepared intellectually, emotionally or politically to make the necessary adjustments. Necessity is not always the mother of invention. Instead, we see stubborn dogmatism, avoidance behavior and a deeper plunge into a world of fantasies.

The American reaction to manifestations of declining prowess is denial along with compulsion to reassure itself that it still has the “right stuff” through increasingly audacious acts. We are seeing where that has led in Ukraine. Far more dangerous is the reckless dispatch of troops to Taiwan.

As for Europe, it is evident that its political elites have been denatured by 75 years of near-total dependence on America. A complete absence of independent thinking and willpower is the outcome. In more concrete ways, Europe’s vassalage to the United States obliges it to follow Washington down whatever policy road the seigneur takes – however reckless, dangerous, unethical and counterproductive.

In predictable fashion, they have walked (or run) like lemmings over whatever cliff the United States chooses next under its own suicidal impulses. So it’s been in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan, in regard to Iran, in Ukraine, on Taiwan and on all matters involving Israel. The string of painful failures and heavy costs produces no change in loyalty or mindset.
A printed photograph of a US Army soldier in a chair among the trailer trucks, and electronics which sold for the price of iron at a bazaar outside airfield in the Bagram district north of Kabul, Afghanistan, on May 19, 2021. Photo: Asia Times Files / AFP via Anadolu Agency / Haroon Sabawoon

It cannot – for the Europeans have absorbed totally the habit of deference, the Americans’ worldview, their skewed interpretation of outcomes and their shamefully fictitious narratives. The Europeans no more can throw this addiction than a life-long alcoholic can go cold turkey.   

AK: There has been a lot of discussion about the negative impact of neoconservatism on US foreign policy and the world. In essence, neoconservatism seeks the role of the US to dominate not only the Western Hemisphere (as per the Monroe Doctrine) but the entire world, as per the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

Although some US think tanks are now advocating for an end to the “never-ending wars” in the Middle East and for Europe to continue the US-provoked proxy war with Russia, it seems that the neoconservative ideology has taken on a new guise of “progressivism” and “realism”, and now aims to focus solely on China, even to the point of replicating the Ukraine scenario in Taiwan. How accurate is this assessment?

MB: The entire foreign policy community in the United States now shares the basic tenets of neoconservatives. Actually, the scripture is Paul Wolfowitz’s notorious memorandum of March 1991 wherein he laid out a comprehensive, detailed strategy for systematizing American global dominance. Everything that Washington is doing, and thinking, now is derivative of that plan.

Its core principles: the United States should use all the means at its disposal to establish American global dominance; to that end, it must be ready to act preventively to stymie the emergence of any power that could challenge our hegemony; and to maintain full spectrum dominance in every region of the globe. Ideals and values are relegated to an auxiliary role as a veneer on the application of power and as a stick with which to beat others. Classic diplomacy is disparaged as inappropriate to this scheme of things.

For Biden himself, a confident, assertive, hard-edged approach to dealing with others derives naturally from belief in Americanism as a Unified Field Theory that explains, interprets and justifies whatever the US thinks and does. Were Biden reelected, this outlook will remain unchanged. And were he to be replaced by Kamala Harris mid-term, which is likely, inertia will keep everything on the fixed course.

AK: Do you think the United States is destined to remain a global empire, constantly in conflict with anyone it perceives as a potential threat to its world dominance? Or is it possible for the country to become a republic that collaborates constructively with other global players to achieve greater benefits for its citizens and the broader international community? As the saying goes, “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword,” right?

MB: I’m a pessimist. For there are no signs that either our rulers, elites or public are susceptible to coming to terms with the state of affairs depicted above. The open question is whether this pretense will simply persist as a gradual weakening of global influence and domestic well-being unfolds, or, rather, will end in disaster.

Europeans and allies elsewhere should not accept to be sideline observers nor, even worse, become co-inhabitants of this world of fantasy as they have in Ukraine, on Palestine and in demonizing China.

Michael Brenner is the author of numerous books and over 80 articles and published papers. His most recent works include “Democracy Promotion and Islam”; “Fear and Dread In The Middle East”; “Toward A More Independent Europe”; “Narcissistic Public Personalities & Our Times.”

His writings include books with Cambridge University Press (“Nuclear Power and Non Proliferation”), the Center For International Affairs at Harvard University (“The Politics of International Monetary Reform”), and the Brookings Institution (“Reconcilable Differences, US-French Relations In The New Era”). He is reachable at mbren@pitt.edu

14

Newcastle Stop the War / Palestinians Discuss National Government and Address Ceasefire Negotiations

« on: March 06, 2024, 08:14:04 AM »

Palestinians Discuss National Government and Address Ceasefire Negotiations
From February 29 to March 1, Palestinian political forces held meetings in Moscow aimed at reaching a "comprehensive national unity."

Following the meeting, deputy head of Hamas' political bureau Mousa Abu Marzouk told a Russian news agency that "there are no differences between it and other Palestinian factions that could not be bridged to form a unity government." Any differences, he said, "are surmountable and we hope that we can overcome all the difficulties. The main problem is the external interference of the United States and Israel in Palestinian affairs and all the unattainable goals in our negotiations are precisely because of this interference."

Palestinian political forces agreed to continue negotiations, adding that the next gathering would also likely take place in Moscow and focus on "the mechanism for establishing the government and its responsibilities." "We will have a continuation of these negotiations in order to establish a national government and already deal with the rest of the problems that need attention and discussion. So the creation of a government will be discussed at the next meeting," Marzouk said.

Present at the meeting were the Hamas movement, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) Fatah movement, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), PFLP General Command, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and the Al-Saiqa organization, as well as several others.

The Palestinian resistance organizations released a joint statement on March 1. "The Palestinian factions gathered in the city of Moscow express their thanks and appreciation to the Russian leadership for hosting their meetings and for its position in support of the Palestinian cause," the statement says.

"They affirm, in light of the criminal Zionist aggression against our people, the positive and constructive spirit that prevailed at the meeting, and agreed that their meetings will continue in rounds," the joint statement went on to say, adding that upcoming meetings are to be held soon.

The statement called for thwarting Israeli attempts to displace Palestinians, whether in the Gaza Strip, the occupied West Bank or the holy city of Jerusalem. It also called for an emphasis on the illegality of settlement expansion. The factions called for efforts to lift the siege on Gaza and end the occupation of the West Bank.

They also stood by the goal of forcing Israel "to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and preventing attempts to establish its occupation or control over any part of the Gaza Strip under the pretext of buffer zones," as called for in the Israeli prime minister's recently unveiled plan for a post-war Gaza.

The statement completely rejects "any attempts to separate the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, including Jerusalem, as part of efforts to rob the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination."

15

For Your Information / The most successful military raid of this century: the October 7 Hamas assault

« on: November 22, 2023, 08:44:26 PM »

The most successful military raid of this century: the October 7 Hamas assault on Israel

By Scott Ritter Pearls and Irritations (an Australian platform for the exchange of ideas from a progressive, liberal perspective, with an emphasis on peace and justice)

Nov 20, 2023

Gaza envelope after coordinated surprise offensive on Israel.

There is a truism that I often cite when discussing the various analytical approaches to assessing the wide variety of geopolitical problems facing the world today—you can't solve a problem unless you first properly define it. The gist of the argument is quite simple—any solution which has nothing to do with the problem involved is, literally, no solution at all.

Israel has characterised the attack carried out by Hamas on the various Israeli military bases and militarised settlements, or Kibbutz, which in their totality comprised an important part of the Gaza barrier system, as a massive act of terrorism, likening it to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks against the United States. Israel supports this characterisation by citing the number of persons killed (some 1,200, a downward revision issued by Israel after realizing that 200 of the dead were Palestinian fighters) and detailing a wide variety of atrocities it claims were perpetrated by Hamas, including mass rape, the beheading of children, and the wonton murder of unarmed Israeli civilians.

The problem with the Israeli claims is that they are demonstrably false or misleading. Nearly a third of the Israeli casualties consisted of military, security, and police officers. Moreover, it turns out that the number one killer of Israelis on October 7 wasn't Hamas or other Palestinian factions, but the Israeli military itself. Recently released video shows Israeli Apache helicopters indiscriminately firing on Israeli civilians trying to flee the Supernova Sukkot Gathering held in the open desert near Kibbutz Re'im, the pilots unable to distinguish between the civilians and the Hamas fighters. Many of the vehicles that the Israeli government has shown as an example of Hamas perfidy were destroyed by the Israeli Apache helicopters.

Likewise, the Israeli government has widely publicised what it is calling the "Re'im massacre," citing a death toll of some 112 civilians it claims were murdered by Hamas. However, eyewitness accounts from both surviving Israeli civilians and military personnel involved in the fighting show that the vast majority of those killed died from fire from Israeli soldiers and tanks directed at buildings where the civilians were either hiding or being held hostage by Hamas fighters. It took two days for the Israeli military to recapture Re'im. It only did so after tanks fired into the civilian residences, collapsing them onto their occupants, and often setting them ablaze, causing the bodies of those inside to be consumed by fire. The Israeli government has publicised how it has had to make use of the services of forensic archeologists to identify human remains at the Kibbutz, implying that Hamas had burned the occupants' home. But the fact is it was Israeli tanks that did the destruction and killing.

This scene was repeated in other Kibbutzes along the Gaza barrier system.

The Israeli government treats the Kibbutz as being purely civilian, and yet has published how armed security teams of several Kibbutzim —drawn from the so-called "civilian" residents—were able to mobilise in time to successfully repel the Hamas attackers. The reality is that every Kibbutz had to be treated by Hamas as an armed encampment, and as such assaulted as if it were a military objective, for the simple fact that they were—all of them.

Moreover, until Israel relocated several battalions of IDF forces to the West Bank, each Kibbutz had been reinforced by a squad of around 20 IDF soldiers who were billeted in the Kibbutz. Given that Hamas had planned this attack for well over a year, Hamas had to assume that these 20 IDF soldiers were still located in each Kibbutz, and act accordingly.

The Israeli government has had to walk back its claims that Hamas beheaded 40 children and has provided no credible evidence that Hamas was involved in the rape or sexual assault of a single Israeli female. Eyewitness accounts describe the Hamas fighters as disciplined, determined, and deadly in the attack, and yet courteous and gentle when dealing with civilian captives.

The question arises as to why the Israeli government would go out of its way to manufacture a narrative designed to support the false and misleading characterisation of the October 7 attack by Hamas on the Gaza barrier system as an act of terrorism.

The answer is as disturbing as it is clear—because what happened on October 7 was not a terrorist attack, but a military raid. The difference between the two terms is night and day—by labeling the events of October 7 as acts of terrorism, Israel transfers blame for the huge losses away from its military, security, and intelligence services, and onto Hamas. If Israel were, however, to acknowledge that what Hamas did was in fact a raid—a military operation—then the competency of the Israeli military, security, and intelligence services would be called into question, as would the political leadership responsible for overseeing and directing their operations.

And if you're Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this is the last thing you want.

Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting for his political life. He was already facing a crisis of his own making, having pushed for legislation which re-wrote Israeli Basic Law in a way which placed the Israeli judiciary under the control of the Knesset, effectively terminating its status as a separate but equal branch of government (so much for Israel being the "greatest democracy in the Middle East"). This act brought Israel on the verge of a civil war, with hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets to denounce Netanyahu. What makes Netanyahu's actions even more despicable is that it represented little more than a naked power play designed to prevent the Israeli court system from trying him on several credible allegations of corruption which, if Netanyahu were found guilty (a distinct probability), would have put him in jail for many years.

Netanyahu had billed himself as Israel's top defender, a specialist on the threats facing Israel abroad, and how to best respond to them. He has openly advocated a military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Netanyahu is also a proponent of political Zionism in its most extreme application and has promoted the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which use tactics that forcibly displace Palestinians from their homes and villages, as part of an overall plan to create a "greater Israel" that mirrors that of Biblical times.

Part of Netanyahu's strategy to accomplish this dream of a "greater Israel" is to weaken the Palestinian people and their government to the point of irrelevancy, thereby preventing them from achieving their dream of obtaining an independent Palestinian state. To facilitate this strategy, Netanyahu has, over the course of the past two decades, promoted the growth of Hamas as a political organisation. The purpose of this support is simple—by promoting Hamas, Netanyahu weakens the Palestinian Authority, the governing body of Palestinian people, headed by its President, Mahmoud Abbas.

Netanyahu's plan was working—in September 2020 Netanyahu signed the Abraham Accords, a series of bilateral agreements brokered by the administration of then-President Donald Trump that sought the normalisation of relations between Israel and several Gulf Arab States, all at the expense of an independent Palestinian nation. Prior to the Hamas attack on October 7, Israel was on the cusp of normalising relations with Saudi Arabia, an act which would have proven to be the final nail in the coffin of Palestinian statehood.

One of the main reasons for Israel's progress in this regard was its success in creating a political divide between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

On October 7, however, this success was washed away by the victory that Hamas achieved over the IDF. The precise means by which this victory took place is the subject for another time. But the basic elements of this victory are well-established.

Hamas effectively neutralised Israel's vaunted intelligence services, blinding them to the possibility of an attack of this scope and scale.

When the attack occurred, Hamas was able to strike with precision the very surveillance and communication nodes the IDF relied upon to mobilise a response in case of an attack.

Hamas defeated those Israeli soldiers stationed along the barrier wall in a stand-up fight. Two battalions of the Golani Brigade were routed, as were elements of other vaunted IDF units.

Hamas struck the Headquarters of the Gaza Division, the local intelligence hub, and other major command and control facilities with brutal precision, turning what should have been a five-minute response time into many hours—more than enough time for Hamas to carry out one of its primary objectives—the taking of hostages. This they did with extreme proficiency, returning to Gaza with more than 230 Israeli soldiers and civilians.

The Marine Corps defines a raid as "an operation, usually small scale, involving a swift penetration of hostile territory to secure information, confuse the enemy, or to destroy his installations. It ends with a planned withdrawal upon completion of the assigned mission."

This is precisely what Hamas did on October 7.

What were the objectives of this raid? According to Hamas, the purpose behind the October 7 raid were threefold.

First, to reassert the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland not defined by the Abraham Accords.

Second, to release the more than 10,000 Palestinians held prisoner by Israel, most without having been charged with a crime, and none with any notion of due process.

Third, to return the sanctity of the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, Islam's third holiest place, which had been desecrated repeatedly by Israeli security forces over the past years.

To accomplish these goals, the October 7 raid needed to create the necessary conditions for victory. This was achieved by humiliating Israel sufficiently to provoke a predictable outcome—the implementation of the Dahiya Doctrine of collective punishment against the civilian population of Gaza, combined with a ground attack on Gaza that would lure the IDF into what was in effect a Hamas ambush.

The taking of hostages was meant to provide Hamas with negotiating leverage for the release of the 10,000 prisoners held by Israel.

The Israeli bombardment and invasion of Gaza has resulted in international revulsion against Israel as the world recoils from the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding before their very eyes. The streets of major cities around the world are full of angry protestors demonstrating on behalf of the Palestinian people—and Palestinian statehood. The United States is now stating that a two-state solution—something the Abrahams Accord was designed to prevent—is now the only way forward for peace in the Middle East.

The United States would never have said this on October 6.

The fact that the United States has taken this stance is because of the Hamas raid of October 7.

Israel is in negotiations with the United States and others about a possible prisoner exchange involving the Hamas hostages and certain categories of political prisoners—women and children—held by Israel (yes, you read that right—children. And now you know the wisdom of Hamas' decision to take Israeli children hostage.)

Such a possibility would never have occurred if it weren't for the Hamas raid of October 7.

And in Saudi Arabia, the largest gathering of Islamic nations in modern history has convened to discuss the Gaza crisis. One of the top agenda items is the issue of the Al Aqsa Mosque and ending Israeli desecration.

This was a discussion that would never have taken place if it were not for the Hamas raid of October 7.

It goes without saying that the Hamas raid of October 7 unleashed a firestorm of brutal recrimination in the form of bombs, shells, and bullets on the civilian population of Gaza. These are people who, for nearly eight decades, have been denied a homeland of their own by the Israelis, who violently evicted the Palestinians from the land currently called Israel in one of the greatest acts of ethnic cleansing in modern history—the Nakba, or catastrophe, of 1948.

These are people who have suffered untold deprivation at the hand of their Israeli occupiers while awaiting the moment they will see their dream of a Palestinian homeland come true. They know that a Palestinian homeland cannot be realised so long as Israel is governed by those who embrace the notion of a Greater (Eretz) Israel, and that the only way to remove such people is by defeating them politically, and the only way to trigger their political defeat is to defeat them militarily.

Hamas is accomplishing this.

But there is a price to pay—a heavy price. The French lost 20,000 civilians killed to achieve the liberation of Normandy in the Summer of 1944.

So far, the Palestinian civilians of Gaza have lost 12,000 civilians killed in the effort led by Hamas to militarily defeat their Israeli occupiers.

That price will go higher in the days and weeks to come.

But it is a price that must be paid if there is to be any chance of a Palestinian homeland.

The sacrifice of the Palestinian people has compelled an Arab and Islamic world which, with few exceptions, has been mute over the depravations carried out by Israel against the Palestinian people. Who did nothing as the cause of Palestinian statehood was mooted by the Abraham Accords.

Only because of the suffering of the Palestinian people is anyone paying attention to the cause of Palestinian statehood today.

Or the welfare of the Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

Or the sanctity of the Al Aqsa Mosque.

These were all stated objectives of Hamas in launching their attack of October 7.

And all objectives are being accomplished as we speak.

Only because of the actions of Hamas and the sacrifices of the Palestinian people.

Which makes the October 7 assault on Israel by Hamas the most successful military raid of this century.

Back to Index of November 21     |     Back to Latest Inde