MIKE WHITNEY • MAY 24, 2024
• The UNZ Review
Congressman calls for direct strikes on Russia —House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Michael McCaul shows a map of potential targets in Russia
In a desperate attempt to stave off a humiliating defeat in Ukraine, “Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reportedly asked President Biden to greenlight Ukrainian missile strikes on targets deep inside Russia.” The change in policy will have no material impact on the ongoing ground war in Ukraine, although it could trigger a response that would put NATO in direct conflict with Moscow. In short, Washington’s looming defeat in Ukraine has compelled administration decisionmakers to implement a strategy that could precipitate a Third World War. This is from the New York Times:
Since the first American shipments of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine, President Biden has never wavered on one prohibition: President Volodymyr Zelensky had to agree to never fire them into Russian territory, insisting that would violate Mr. Biden’s mandate to “avoid World War III.”
But the consensus around that policy is fraying. Propelled by the State Department, there is now a vigorous debate inside the administration over relaxing the ban to allow the Ukrainians to hit missile and artillery launch sites just over the border in Russia — targets that Mr. Zelensky says have enabled Moscow’s recent territorial gains….
For months, Mr. Zelensky has been mounting attacks on Russian ships, oil facilities and electricity plants, but he has been doing so largely with Ukrainian-made drones, which don’t pack the power and speed of the American weapons… Now, the pressure is mounting on the United States to help Ukraine target Russian military sites,… with American-provided arms….
The United States is now considering training Ukrainian troops inside the country, rather than sending them to a training ground in Germany. That would require putting American military personnel in Ukraine, something else that Mr. Biden has prohibited until now. It raises the question of how the United States would respond if the trainers, who would likely be based near the western city of Lviv, came under attack. The Russians have periodically targeted Lviv, though it is distant from the main areas of combat….
The Russians… have been unsubtle in playing to American concerns about an escalation of the war. This week they began very public exercises with the units that would be involved in the use of tactical nuclear weapons, the kind that would be used on Ukrainian troops. Russian news reports said it was “a response to provocative statements and threats from Western officials against Russia.”…
The current exercises… are being dismissed as bluster and muscle-flexing….
In his interview with the Times, Mr. Zelensky dismissed fears of escalation, saying President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had already escalated the war. And he thought it unlikely that Mr. Putin would ever make good on his threat to unleash a nuclear weapon…. Inside the White House, a Debate Over Letting Ukraine Shoot U.S. Weapons Into Russia, New York Times
Let’s not mince words: Missile attacks on Russian territory is a flagrant act of aggression against the Russian Federation. It is an open declaration of war. The Biden administration is committing to a policy that will pit the United States against Russia in a war between two nuclear superpowers.
Why? Why is Biden doing this?
He’s doing this because the US is heavily invested in the outcome of the war in Ukraine, and Ukraine is losing the war quite badly. Here’s a short recap from combat veteran and military analyst Colonel Daniel Davis:
Trust me when I tell you that there is no chance that Ukraine will ever succeed in a war against Russia. There is no path to military victory for Ukraine. Period. It doesn’t matter whether we give them $60 billion or $120 billion or $200 billion. It won’t change anything, because the foundations on which the fighting power at the national level is built are irrevocably on the side of Russia. You can’t reverse the tide because you can’t change the basics.
Air power is on Russia’s side, air defense is on Russia’s side, military-industrial potential is on Russia’s side, enabling the production of a large amount of artillery, ammunition, the weapons themselves, drones, electronic warfare equipment and, above all, people are all on Russia’s side. Russia has more people and will always have more people… In my opinion, it is unreasonable to continue to hope that the Ukrainian side will be able to win if we give just a little more money, because it will not work….UKRAINE WILL NEVER WIN….Period. Retired US Army Lt. Col. Daniel Davis: I have over 20 years of military combat experience. Daniel Davis@peacemaket71
Not surprisingly, Davis’s views are shared by the vast majority of military experts who have been closely following events on the ground. The overall assessment of these experts is invariably the same: Ukraine is losing, and losing badly. There won’t be any reversal of momentum because—in every area of combat capability—Russia has a clear advantage. Ukraine doesn’t have the firepower, the aircraft, the tanks, the armored vehicles, the missiles, the heavy artillery, the air-defense systems, the munitions, the industrial capacity or the manpower to roll back the Russian army or to even stop the persistent Russian offensive. Simply put, Ukraine cannot and will not win. And, this is not just the view of men like Davis who think the fighting should stop immediately. It is also the view of globalist elites, like Richard Haass, who think the war should be prolonged. Haass is the president emeritus of the prestigious Council On Foreign Relations, and his views on Ukraine are likely shared by a large cross-section of wealthy elites who think there is something to gain by dragging the conflict out for another year or so. Take a look at this excerpt from a recent article by Haass and see if you can spot the similarities between his analysis and Davis’:
...what should Ukraine and its backers in the West seek to achieve? What should constitute success?
Some answer that success should be defined as Ukraine recovering all of its lost territory, to re-establish its 1991 borders…. This would be a serious mistake. Don’t get me wrong: re-establishing rightful, legal borders would be highly desirable, demonstrating that aggression is not acceptable. But foreign policy must be doable as well as desirable, and Ukraine is simply not in a position to liberate Crimea and its eastern regions through military force.
The maths is unavoidable. Russia has too many soldiers and a wartime economy capable of producing large amounts of arms and ammunition. Despite sanctions, Russia has been able to ramp up its military-industrial base and has access to weaponry and ammunition produced in Iran and North Korea and to Chinese manufactured goods and technologies that contribute to the Kremlin’s war effort.
Another factor militating against a Ukraine effort to recapture its lands by force is that offensive operations tend to require much more in the way of manpower, equipment, and ammunition than do defensive efforts. This is especially so when defences have had the chance to build fortifications, as Russia has in much of the Ukrainian territory it occupies. Why Mounting another Counteroffensive in 2025 would be a Mistake, Novaya Gazeta
So, Haass openly admits that the war is a mismatch and that Ukraine cannot reasonably expect to retake the territory it has lost. He admits that “Russia has too many soldiers” (unlimited manpower) “a wartime economy capable of producing large amounts of arms and ammunition”(Unlimited industrial capacity) and “Russia… has access to weaponry and ammunition… that contribute to the Kremlin’s war effort.” (Unlimited weapons production) In short, Haass’s analysis is identical to Davis’s. They both agree on the fundamentals, that is, that Ukraine cannot and will not win.
But then the article takes an unusual turn, in which, Haass inexplicably draws the exact opposite conclusions from his analysis than Davis. It is an astonishing rhetorical sleight-of-hand that would make Svengali envious. Here’s what says after listing the numerous reasons why Ukraine will not win the war:
“Some answer that success should be defined as Ukraine recovering all of its lost territory, to re-establish its 1991 borders…. This would be a serious mistake.”
Think about that for a minute. So, according to Haass—winning the war no longer means winning the war. It does not mean retaking captured territory, it does not mean expelling the Russians from eastern Ukraine, and it does not mean prevailing in the ground war. It means, ‘what’ exactly?
Haass explains:
“What strategy… should Ukraine and its supporters pursue? First, Ukraine should emphasise the defensive, an approach that would allow it to husband its limited resources and frustrate Russia.
Second, Ukraine should be given the means — long-range strike capabilities — and the freedom to attack Russian forces anywhere in Ukraine, as well as Russian warships in the Black Sea and economic targets within Russia itself. Russia must come to feel the cost of a war it initiated and prolongs.
Third, Ukraine’s backers must commit to providing long-term military aid. The goal of all of the above is to signal to Vladimir Putin that time is not on Russia’s side and that he cannot hope to outlast Ukraine.Why Mounting another Counteroffensive in 2025 would be a Mistake, Novaya Gazeta
So, this is the new strategy? This is Plan B?
Yes, apparently. And look at what Plan B involves:
- Hunkering down in a defensive posture
- Using “long-range strike capabilities” to attack targets in Russia (Is this where Blinken got the idea?)
- Pumping billions more into the Ukrainian ‘black hole’ to prolong a war that cannot be won.
In short, provoke, hector and inflict as much pain as possible on Russia for as long as it takes.
As long as what takes? What does that mean?
Haass explains that too:
An interim ceasefire almost certainly would not lead to anything resembling peace, which will likely have to wait for the arrival of a Russian leadership that chooses to end the country’s pariah status. That might not happen for years or decades.
Oh, so the real objective, is regime change. What a surprise!
This is more than just “moving the goalposts” (by changing the definition of “winning” a war). This is a revelation of the elite agenda, which looks beyond the fatuous propaganda about “unprovoked aggression” and focuses entirely on geopolitics, the driving force in international relations. In Haass’s mind, Ukraine is not a battlefield on which Ukrainian and Russian patriots sacrifice their lives for their countries. No. In Haass’s mind, Ukraine is the critical gateway to Central Asia which is expected to be the most prosperous region of the next century. Western plutocrats intend to be the main players in Central Asia’s development,(pivot to Asia) which is why they are trying to remove the biggest obstacle to western penetration, which is Russia. Once Russia has been weakened and rolled-back, Washington will be free to spread its military bases across Eurasia laying the groundwork for containing rival China through provocations, encirclement and economic strangulation.
That is why Haass’s definition of “success” is more flexible than ordinary people who evaluate these matters in terms of the enormous human suffering they cause. In the globalist view, these things are only of secondary importance. What really matters is power; raw, geopolitical power in the form of global hegemony. That is the ultimate strategic objective. Nothing else matters.
And that is why the Biden administration is about to approve the use of American-made long-range strike weapons to destroy targets on Russian territory. Because—even though it does not increase Ukraine’s chances of winning the war—it does help to advance the globalist geopolitical agenda which regards Ukraine as a mere springboard for launching attacks on Russia.
The elites are so drunk with hubris, they have convinced themselves that Putin will not see these missile-strikes on Russian territory as a declaration of war. Which they are.
—————————–
By Professor Hossein Askari
America’s lawmakers—misguided or treasonous supporters of Israel?
April 7, 2024 – 0:14 – Tehran Times
Hurting Americans and America around the world
First, details of America’s support for Israel:
– The United States has provided financial and military aid to Israel totaling about $300 billion (adjusted for inflation) since 1948. Also, the United States has agreed to give Israel another $4 billion a year through 2028. The U.S. Congress is considering an additional $14-15 billion in the midst of the Gaza War. The U.S. has prepositioned millions of dollars more in lethal weapons in Israel, which can be released at a moment’s notice. Such unprecedented support for a country that is richer (per capita) than France and Germany must be assessed. The Israeli armed forces are among the ten best-equipped forces in the world, all from the generosity of the United States.
– The U.S. also provides Israel with something that money cannot buy—unique and unprecedented political support around the world to limit global criticism of Israel. Most visible have been instances at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) where the U.S. has cast its veto 83 times, of which 42 have been to protect Israel—vetoes that most of the world has opposed and reduces global respect and confidence in the institution. Less visible, the United States supports Israel in other fora, such as at the IMF and the World Bank. On a bilateral basis, the United States has pressured or ‘bribed’ Arab countries to establish diplomatic relations with the Jewish state and persuaded its close allies, such as the UK and Australia, to support Israel.
The U.S. has cast its veto 83 times, of which 42 have been to protect Israel—vetoes that most of the world has opposed and reduce global respect and confidence in the institution.
– The U.S. media has been seriously biased in its reporting of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Several well-known and indisputable facts are rarely broadcasted to limit the exposure of Americans to the realities, such as the illegal annexation without compensation of Arab lands since 1948, the permanent banishment of Palestinians who were forced to flee their homes, the illegal occupation of territories such as Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank, illegal settlements on the West Bank where about 750,000 Jews occupy Palestinian land and mistreat and denigrate Palestinians. Much of the world sees Israel as an apartheid state with Gaza as the largest outdoor prison that has ever existed.
– The United States boasts about the right of free speech under the Second Amendment, but that right is explicitly limited when it comes to discussing Israel and Judaism. Most criticism of Israel and Judaism are invariably labeled anti-Semitic or racist with corporate sponsorship and job offers rescinded, professors denied tenure and others not hired in the first place—practices that are most apparent in the entertainment industry, the media and in academia. Criticism is silenced resulting in Americans being less informed.
Why do we protect Israel and Judaism above all other countries and other religions?
Does Israel afford the United States added security around the world?
NO. Israel is ostracised around the world, in large part because of its criminal treatment of Palestinians since 1948. America’s over-the-top support for Israel not only does not buy America friends but instead makes more enemies for the U.S. On November 15, 2023, the Guardian newspaper removed a 22 year-old open letter by Osama bin Laden from its website. It is a letter written in 2002 after 9/11 wherein bin Laden gives his reasons for planning the terrorist massacre, namely, America’s support for Israel and the presence of American troops on Arab land. It was bad then, it is bad today but could get much worse with nearly 500 million Arabs and 1.9 billion Muslims (24% of the global population) in the world. The United States is not popular in most of the world (see the Pew Research Results) and our strong embrace of Israel will continue to make matters worse. How many would-be bin Ladens will emerge from the increasing reporting of the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, the unfathomable number of casualties in Gaza and America’s continued supplying of Israel with 2,000 pound bombs and other lethal weapons, be it among Palestinians or in the broader Arab and Muslim community? Will the new generation of Arabs turn the table on the ‘cozy’ relationship of Arab rulers with the United States? Will this war and the massacre of thousands of women and children horrify younger generations of Americans to reject America’s blind support for Israeli crimes? Are we already seeing a rumbling of this on U.S. college campuses? Will a generation of younger lawmakers in Europe and elsewhere attack our blind support for Israel? Are we seeing the beginnings of this trend in Europe (https://youtu.be/3_dHtETQ8U0)?
Does Israel reciprocate America’s support?
NO. In June 1967, an unarmed American-flagged ship, the USS Liberty, was attacked by Israeli forces in the Mediterranean Sea. This was a blatant unprovoked attack by Israeli sailors and aircraft where 34 Americans were killed and 171 were wounded and there is no doubt that this was a deliberate attack by the Israeli military on a defenseless U.S. ship (https://medium.com/@wfspi/the-day-israel-attacked-the-usa-f2165b231102). After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the United States asked its allies to join the U.S. resolution condemning Russia’s aggression. The U.S. tried to get Israel to be a co-sponsor of said resolution. Israel refused, but 81 other countries signed on as co-sponsors. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush wanting to give a little more balance to U.S. support for Israel, withheld U.S. loan guarantees for money borrowed by Israel to make sure that the borrowed money would not go to Israeli settlements in the illegally occupied West Bank. Given the power of the Israeli-Jewish lobby in the United States, this was a risky move by a U.S. politician and, as expected, the lobby went after him. In the end, Bush got the needed assurances from Israel, but his standing up to Israel might have cost him his re-election. President Obama also faced an onslaught from the Israeli-Jewish lobby when he abstained and did not veto UNSC Resolution 2334 demanding that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory.”
What are the factors underlying America’s inexplicable support for Israel?
Is it because of the large number of Jews in Congress?
YES, in part. The percentage of the U.S. population espousing the Jewish faith is about 2.4%, while there are 37 Jewish members in Congress, 10 in the Senate (10% of the Senate) and 27 in the House (6.2% of the House). There are just 3 Muslim members serving in the House and none in the Senate. Jews are overrepresented by a large margin in the U.S. Senate and House. They might favor legislation that favors Israel.
Do political donations play a big role in the election of Jews to the U.S. Congress?
YES, in part. Jews have donated money to political campaigns, to favorite charities of important politicians and have possibly even extended employment opportunities to their family members. How much money has been donated over the years? Maybe a few billion. What have they received in return? Over $300 billion! Ponder the returns. Hundreds of billions in financial and military aid over the years for Israel, access to America’s intelligence services and unmatched political cover at the United Nations, in other fora and in bilateral support from other countries.
Does divided loyalty of dual Israel-American citizens (legal in the U.S. since 1967) play a role in the inexplicable support for Israel?
I believe so.
In sum, we support Israel with money, military equipment and political backing as we do no other country. We do this not to our benefit, but to our detriment. America’s disadvantaged go without, we afford less help to those who are much needier than Israelis around the world and we add to our growing national debt. We get little in return back from Israel, but instead generate more and more America haters around the world. In the future, Israel and the United States (by association and in complicity with Israel) could receive the biggest black eye from an indictment at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) considering South Africa’s case of genocide against Israel, which is supported by dozens of other countries.
The only explanation for America’s inexplicable support of Israel is the pro-Israeli stand of U.S. lawmakers who are supported by the Jewish-Israeli lobby.
*Hossein Askari is emeritus professor of business and international affairs, George Washington University
BIG BROTHER in the 21. Century 