https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDmDTNwfoFI

----------------------

Zelensky and the West have found a new scam – and taxpayers will foot the bill
Ukraine now self-identifies as a weapons maker and wants help transitioning

BY RACHEL MARSDEN

What do you do to boost GDP when your country is neck-deep in military conflict and your allies’ main interest is using you to wash taxpayer cash into their own military industrial complexes? Make that your whole national identity! And demand that the West help you transition.  

“Our country will become one of the world’s key producers of weapons and defense systems. And this is no longer just an ambition or a prospect, it is a potential that is already being realized,”Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky said in September 2023. That plea has echoed all over the Western press. You’d think that it may have thought to “realize” that “potential” before it went live with the big “Ukrainian counteroffensive” show. But hey, making lemonade from lemons, there’s definitely a business opportunity in losing on the battlefield that wouldn’t exist if Ukraine had proven to be adequately stocked up and victorious. Any ambulance-chasing weapons salesman would be attracted by that. And on top of that, Russia’s whole stated objective from the very outset has been “de-militarization.” Right now, Ukraine is to Western weapons producers what the Cheesecake Factory is to a fat kid. 

Those slightly less cynical might be tempted to view all this as the path to victory for Ukraine, but a recent incident strongly suggests otherwise. In a leaked audio recording obtained by Russian intelligence and authenticated by the German government, senior Luftwaffe officers, including the Air Force’s chief, are overheard talking about how even the delivery of the German Taurus missiles to Kiev wouldn’t change the course of the conflict in Ukraine’s favor. If even the gold standard German cruise missile that doubles the strike distance of its Western rivals isn’t considered a game changer in the overall conflict with Russia at this point, then odds don’t sound too good for much else. 

And who’s going to pay for Ukraine’s identity change, anyway? Western Europe and the US will pay for the transition, of course. Just as they’re also paying to keep all of Ukrainian society afloat, funding salaries and pensions. It’s not like investors are flocking to Ukraine right now. Much of the weapons-making infrastructure from the Cold War has been decimated, and in a country that ranks near the top of the global corruption index, it probably won’t come as a surprise that the industry itself is rife with “mismanagement.”  

While it’s clear who’s going to pay, what’s less obvious is who will actually benefit from turning Ukraine into a giant factory showroom for Western weapons. 

Some Western arms manufacturers have rushed into Ukraine to set up shop, such as Germany’s Rheinmetall, which started operating an armored vehicle plant in the country last year. Guess it’s just good business to be cranking out tanks right on the battlefield where they can be blown up coming off the assembly line. May as well just set fire to that Western taxpayer cash funding this charade the moment that it pops out of the ATM. 

Rheinmetall also announced last month it’ll be setting up a joint ammunition factory in Ukraine, as well. Does this attempt to outgun Russia in conventional warfare at this late stage in the game come from a place of genuine belief? Or is it just Germany’s way to keep up the racket for as long as it can? After all, Rheinmetall never had it so good. No doubt it’s just a coincidence that its stock started soaring a few days after the conflict popped off in Ukraine and has only gone up astronomically since, from €133.6 beforehand to €214.80 on March 1, 2022, and €429.10 on March 1, 2024. 

In August 2023, Britain’s BAE Systems announced its plans to “facilitate the production of 105mm Light Guns in the country.” The Guardian reported shortly thereafter that the opportunity would provide a much-needed job boost for the war-torn economy. Not just for Ukraine, but for the EU, too. Pretty tough to produce weapons when it requires energy that’s now almost prohibitively expensive. No doubt it’s much cheaper to produce European weapons in Ukraine, which still gets its gas from Russia – unlike those in charge in the EU who have deliberately shunned their own supply of Russian energy to impress Kiev. Sticking it to Putin by leeching off Russian energy supplied to Kiev to make weapons to then use against Russia sounds about right. 

All these projects are joint ventures with a local Ukrainian partner. Let’s just say that the one who ends up wearing the pants in that partnership won’t be the country whose president, a former comedian, once went viral for his hands-free, pantless piano playing routine. Do they really think that German industry is going to be trusting these Ukrainian partners with sensitive defense manufacturing information and trade secrets? It’s a wonder that the Germans even trust the French with anything more than handling the interior decor in Europe’s Airbus venture. But we’re talking here about a war zone with eyes and ears everywhere. The point was proven when Russians recently disabled an American Abrams M1 A1 tank on the battlefield and found it stripped of sensitive technologies, likening the supposedly game changingweaponry to an “empty tin can.” 

Bilking Western taxpayers for cash under the guise of active warfare won’t last forever. So it seems like it’s a race against the clock to pivot to a new way to keep the flow open before peace breaks out and ruins everything.

https://www.rt.com/news/593736-ukraine-west-weapons-transition/

SEE ALSO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szhpUgfDXiI

SEE ALSO: https://starrs.us/nato-goes-woke/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpi5sJHpOkY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-jWZQ72qFo

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDPTOLXhkBQ

READ FROM TOP

SEE ALSO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5KLzPbUheE

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Amid the ongoing battles on the Ukrainian frontlines, Russian precision strikes are destroying Ukrainian military infrastructure in the rear areas.

The recent waves of Russian strikes have targeted the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine, where large stocks of military equipment and personnel have been accumulated.

Last night, Russian strikes were reported in the Kharkiv region. In the DPR, a Ukrainian ammunition depot was destroyed in Dobropolie. Massive airstrikes hit the Ukrainian garrison in the village of Novomikhailovka, where battles are already ongoing in the center.

On the night of March 3, Russian strikes destroyed two temporary deployment points of Ukrainian military personnel hidden in the schools in Mirnograd; the targets also included a training ground of the National Guard of Ukraine in the area of Chuguev.

In their turn, the Armed Forces of Ukraine continue attempts to attack Russian rear facilities. Besides the constant shelling and strikes on civilians in the DPR and small Russian border villages, Ukrainian drones are destroyed deeper in the Russian rear areas daily.

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/03/04/unable-to-win-in-ukraine-nato-escalates-new-frontlines/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Fyodor Lukyanov: Leaked German call exposes a very worrying fact about the West
The US-led bloc believes it’s infallible and that increases the chances of a calamitous mistake

In peacetime, when Russian experts regularly took part in pan-European events, this author’s favorite place was the Vienna Military Academy. Discussions there were a real pleasure.

Most of the audience were officers of the Austrian army, heirs to an impressive imperial school, capable of discussing with skill and intelligence subjects ranging from the intricacies of geopolitics and military strategy to the epistemological aspects of ideological confrontation. Adding to the charm of the conversation was the fact that for its participants, adorned with medals, axelbands, impressive chevrons and beautiful buttonholes, all this was akin to pure art. This kind of knowledge had no practical application in prosperous and neutral Austria, where the relevant department is called the Ministry of Defense and Sport.

The nostalgic memories were awakened in yours truly amid the excitement caused by an audio recording of a conversation between German officers about the prospects of using Taurus missiles to destroy the Crimean Bridge. Germany, the economic and political pillar of the European Union, is certainly not Austria, and the Bundeswehr, the modern incarnation of a long and rich military tradition, is not the Bundesheer. Nevertheless, the published transcript of the military dialogue makes one think about the correlation between military capabilities, the skill of their application, and the adequacy of political perception in contemporary Europe.

The emotions surrounding the leak are understandable: tensions are rising. But we have not learned anything fundamentally new from this episode. The participation of representatives of NATO countries in Ukrainian military planning and operational preparations has long been known. The only difference is that the Germans have been singled out – a new but expected twist. It is already clear that behind closed doors officers and generals are discussing the war and not humanitarian aid. Chancellor Olaf Scholz publicly and very firmly stated that he would not send missiles to Ukraine, while another part of the German political top brass made it equally clear that they disagreed with him on this issue. What was somewhat unexpected, however, was that the German military turned out to be in solidarity with those in favor of transferring the weapons in this debate, i.e. they are not worried about the risks of excessive involvement in the conflict.

That is the most interesting thing. The professionals who bear the brunt of a war do not usually become its instigators – that role is played by the politicians. External aggression is a special case, of course, but in other cases the military executes political decisions, and when such decisions are taken, it is not the business of people in uniform to discuss them. Even if they are not sure of the wisdom of the orders.

When it comes to hybrid warfare (for lack of another term, we will use this imperfect one), the structure of the system is broken. The involvement of NATO countries in the confrontation between Ukraine and Russia has been steadily increasing for two years, while the official disavowals have been just as consistent. We would venture to suggest that this is not some insidious plan or “strategic ambiguity” (as French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne suddenly stated the other day), but a lack of understanding of what is going on and, more importantly, what follows from it and where it is likely to lead.

At the turn of the 1990s, the leading Western countries came to the conclusion that the direction of development was so preordained that the costs associated with it could simply be neglected. It was part of the “end of history” mentality. And this was indeed the case until they came up against the main sources of these costs, i.e. states that could oppose anything serious to the point of blocking the whole movement. For twenty years, the Russian leadership has been trying (verbally, and then, one might say, manually) to make the Americans and Europeans vis-à-vis aware of the fact that certain steps they take will lead to corresponding responses, and that this is the logic of international politics. These warnings were ignored and the atmosphere continued to escalate. The result was February 24, 2022.

As we can see two years later, the transition of events to an armed phase has not brought about a qualitative change. Russia is now trying to use military force to force the West to rethink its 1990s approach. Moscow wants to show that the costs are so high that it is reasonable to think about a change of plan – in other words, to start a conversation with it about a different arrangement of the European security theater. But there is no counter-movement on the other side – no one is going to recognize the irreversibility of the transformation brought about by Russia’s military acquisitions. On the contrary, as the Russian side corrects the mistakes of the initial phase of the campaign and takes the initiative, the rhetoric in Western Europe and the US about the inadmissibility of Moscow’s victory in general is becoming more and more heartfelt and alarming.

Accordingly, the less hope there is of achieving what is desired by using Ukrainians as proxies, the larger the set of tools considered acceptable for use.

The revelations in Paris by Macron and his comrades that nothing can be ruled out, including the deployment of NATO contingents, should also be seen in this context. This is not yet a political decision, of course, but it is a clear extension of the limits of what can be on the table in principle.

In this context, the well-publicized conversation between German officers takes on added significance. As the leaks have made clear, the military is not assuming the role of a restraining and rationalizing force in the midst of the politicians’ euphoria, but is surprised by the indecisiveness of the head of government. Meanwhile, this is not an attack on their homeland, but a conflict involving a state that has no formal obligations to Germany (and other NATO countries). But involvement in this conflict brings us closer to a confrontation with a country that poses a serious threat.

What emerges from the conversation is that the German military is not thinking about the variants of developments that will follow the realization of the discussed scenario and does not take seriously the probability of a direct clash with Russia. That is, they assume that the hostilities will be limited to the territory of the conflict itself (Ukrainian-Russian). If French, Danish or American elites are frightened by the Russian threat, it is not because of the threat of an attack on their countries, but primarily because of the political consequences for the global position of the West. Indeed, a serious defeat of a country whose support has become a leading imperative for the entire Western community would be a severe blow not only to its prestige but also to its ability to pursue its interests in cooperation with the majority of the world. 

The result is an explosive mix.

One component is the political elite, which considers the conflict to be existentially important, but does not have a thought-out strategy and tends to act impulsively according to constantly changing circumstances. And these circumstances can be of various kinds, including election campaigns in one country or another. High-profile statements and promises are often preceded by reflection on how they can actually be implemented and what the consequences will be. In this sense, there are reasons to believe that, for example, Macron’s statement about sending NATO fighters to Ukraine was made for the sake of a headline.

Another component is the military leaders, who agree with the existential nature of what is happening, but have no clearly defined framework for their actions. After all, they have not been given a formal mandate because of the nature of the campaign. Moreover, over the past decades, these military men had become accustomed (not as much as the regulars at the Austrian Military Academy, of course, but still) to acting more as competent commentators than as tacticians and strategists of real operations. And their experience is hardly applicable to today’s military-political actions. This is especially true of continental Europe; the situation in Britain and the US is more complex, but perhaps not qualitatively different.

The conclusion is that the risks of escalation are growing.

The categorical unwillingness to retreat is inherent in all participants in the confrontation.

But the ball is in the court of the Western camp, in which Western Europe, and France and Germany in particular, has surprisingly come to the fore.

It is important to take account of two circumstances. 

The first is that it seems disagreements within the Western European community, aggravated by the general increase in uncertainty, are being resolved by increasing tensions, not reducing them. Simply lowering the intensity of the “Russian threat” hysteria will immediately expose many contradictions that are currently muted. Thus, the establishment prefers an escalation toward Russia to détente.

Secondly, the idea, which is gaining popularity in our country, that in order to break out of the vicious circle, the Western elite should be properly frightened by nuclear armageddon and then they will regain their will to negotiate, may have the exact opposite result. Today’s ruling elite is indeed qualitatively different from previous generations. First of all, it believes in a kind of dogma about the infallibility of the West, i.e. the certainty that any deviation from the ideological and political canon established after the Cold War will be a real catastrophe for the world. And since any compromise with Russia will be such a retreat, it is necessary to prevent it at all costs.

We are entering a dangerous period.

This article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team

https://www.rt.com/news/593796-taurus-germany-crimea-bridge/

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

EASY.

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

SEE ALSO: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSS-dzucs

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

EASY.

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....