The US-made fighter jets that are expected in Ukraine soon will be equipped with modern American missiles, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing high-ranking officials.

Kiev has clamored for the delivery of the F-16s for months, as its air force has run out of legacy planes, despite replenishments from NATO countries such as Poland and Slovakia. One major unresolved question was what to arm the American planes with, as their missile mounts were incompatible with Soviet-era designs.

According to the Journal, Washington will provide Kiev with HARM, AMRAAM and Sidewinder missiles, along with guidance kits. All of these are currently in service with the US military.

“We are confident that we will be able to supply all of those [weapons], at least the critical volumes that they need,” the unnamed senior official told the Journal on Tuesday.

The AGM-88E HARM is an air-to-ground missile which homes in on electronic transmissions, and is commonly used to strike enemy radar installations. The standoff version of the missile has a listed range of up to 148 km. It was unclear whether the US would provide Ukraine with specialized HTS pods designed for the F-16s to improve HARM targeting. 

The latest version of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) has a range of up to 180 km. The radar-guided missile is intended for engagements beyond visual range. The AIM-9 Sidewinder is a shorter-range air-to-air missile, designed for dogfights at up to 35 kilometers.

Another piece of ordnance mentioned by the Journal was the GBU-39B Small Diameter Bomb. 

Ukraine has received these munitions before, making special pylons to adapt them for use by MiG-29 fighters.

Denmark and the Netherlands are reportedly preparing to deliver the first F-16s in the coming weeks. Belgium and Norway have pledged more by the end of the year. Only a handful of Ukrainian pilots have reportedly been trained on the jets and fewer than 50 planes are expected to arrive this year.

Vladimir Zelensky has lamented that Kiev would need at least 128 to make a difference in the sky, as the Russian Air Force vastly outnumbered his own. Norwegian officials have told the Journal that the planes won’t be “a silver bullet” but having long-range weapons could help Ukraine keep Russian planes at a distance.

Moscow has said that F-16 deliveries will not change the outcome of the conflict and only move NATO towards becoming an overt participant in what has so far been a proxy war against Russia. 

A private Russian company has even offered a bounty of 15 million rubles ($170,000) for the destruction of the first US-made aircraft in the conflict. Similar prizes have been paid out for successful kills of US-made Abrams tanks.

 https://www.rt.com/news/601848-us-missiles-ukraine-f16/ 

 

 

 

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

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

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

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP

Ukraine Loses Over 2,000 Soldiers in Clashes With Russian Army Over Past 24 Hours

 

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Ukraine has lost up to 710 personnel in the area of operations of Russia's Yug Battlegroup in the past 24 hours, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Wednesday. 

 

"The enemy has lost up to 710 Ukrainian troops, a German-made Leopard tank, a US-made armored personnel carrier M113 [among other military losses in battles with the southern group]," the ministry said in a statement, adding that the group has also repelled a counterattack by Ukrainian troops.

 

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240731/ukraine-loses-up-over-2000-soldiers-in-clashes-with-russian-army-1119580504.html

 

MEANWHILE: YUCKRAINE (THE NAZI KIEV REGIME) SAYS IT HAS INCREASED ITS NUMBER OF RECRUITS TO NEARLY 30,000 A MONTH, WHILE LOSING MORE THAN 60,000 PER MONTH...

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

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

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

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT IS — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Two-thirds of Ukraine’s territory has not been damaged in to the ongoing conflict with Russia, US Special Representative for Ukraine's Economic Recovery Penny Pritzker said on Wednesday.

“Two-thirds of the country's [Ukraine’s] territory has not been damaged by conflict,” Pritzker said in her remarks during an event hosted by the Brookings Institution.

Pritzker urged commercial and investment banks to look for opportunities in Ukraine while carefully assessing the risks associated with doing business in the country engulfed in a military conflict with Russia.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240731/two-thirds-of-ukraine-not-damaged-by-ongoing-conflict-with-russia---state-dept-1119584536.html

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT IS — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

Ukraine's Zelensky says he wants Russia ‘at the table’ for next peace summit

In an interview with French reporters at a school gym in the western town of Rivne on Tuesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia should be represented at a second peace summit set for November after a first summit convened by Ukraine last month in Switzerland did not feature Russia on the invitee list.

The entire world, including Ukraine, wants Russia to join global leaders at a planned second peace summit to end the war in Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky has told French media including AFP.

With Russian forces gaining momentum on the front and aid from allies ebbing or in doubt, Zelensky has launched an ambitious diplomatic offensive to end the war grinding through its third year.

He gathered leaders and top officials from dozens of countries at the Swiss mountainside resort of Burgenstock in June for a first summit, which Russia derided as a waste of time and China shunned.

While the Kremlin was not invited to the first gathering, now is the time for Moscow to take a seat at the table, Zelensky said.

"The majority of the world today says that Russia must be represented at the second summit, otherwise we will not achieve meaningful results," he said in western Ukraine on Tuesday.

"Since the whole world wants them to be at the table, we cannot be against it."

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he is open to negotiations, but would only order a ceasefire if Kyiv effectively surrendered territory that Moscow claims as its own.

'A serious challenge'

Zelensky's push focuses on a sweeping 10-point plan that would restore Ukrainian territorial integrity, return prisoners of war and give Ukraine energy and economic guarantees.

He acknowledged that China was a key player but said he did not want mediation from Beijing and instead urged it to pressure the Kremlin to end its invasion.

"If China wants, it can force Russia to stop this war," Zelensky said.

While the Ukrainian leader has won broad international backing for his peace efforts, Zelensky hit out at some of those same allies for barring his army from using their weapons to hit deep inside Russian territory.

"It's a serious challenge that we can't use all the weapons we need to stop this enemy. What would you do if you were us?" he said.

He also criticised stilted arms deliveries, saying Ukraine was still waiting for weapons from allies to equip recently mobilised troops.

And if Ukraine breaks the terms of use for Western-donated weapons "then they can say that we won't give you any more help -- that's the risk", he said.

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240731-ukraine-s-zelensky-says-he-wants-russia-at-the-table-for-next-peace-summit

 

THE DEAL IS SIMPLE: SEE TOON AT TOP... AND...

 

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

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

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

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT IS — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

 

General a. D. Harald Kujat: „Schwerwiegende Fehleinschätzungen des Westens mit Konsequenzen für Europa“ – Interview Teil 2

 

Harald Kujat, the former Inspector General of the German Armed Forces and former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, has been warning for some time about the consequences of a further escalation in the Ukraine war. In the second part of the interview, he comments on the danger of a third world war, the negotiations in Istanbul in 2022 and the causes of the conflict. At the same time, he dares to look ahead. Éva Péli spoke to the retired general.

 

You can read the first part of the interview again here.

Hier können Sie den ersten Teil des Interviews noch einmal nachlesen.

 

NachDenkSeiten: Has there been a Western escalation plan, a corresponding strategy, from the beginning? Or are there "sleepwalkers" at work, as the historian Christopher Clark described for the period before the First World War?

 

Harald Kujat: Every strategy contains elements of escalation, because the actions and reactions of the enemy must be considered in advance. The course of the Ukraine war shows that the USA underestimated the strength of the Russian armed forces and their ability to reconstitute (Editor's note: the ability to restore). Therefore, the changing situation had to be responded to again and again by increasing support measures in order to be able to continue to pursue the geostrategic goal [GUSNOTE: SEE https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171]. The critical situation in Ukraine is forcing the West to increase escalation by using increasingly powerful weapons systems. It is thus moving in a gray area between indirect and direct involvement in the war. This includes, for example, the permission to use US weapons systems against targets on Russian territory, which President Biden refused for more than two years in order, as he put it, to "avoid a third world war."

 

Now that he has changed his mind, one must ask whether he is no longer worried about triggering a third world war, or whether he is willing to take this risk in view of Ukraine's critical situation. Combating Russian missiles in Ukrainian airspace with fighter jets from the airspace of NATO neighboring countries is also a significant increase in escalation. Soon, F-16 fighter jets will be able to use their long-range air-to-air missiles to attack Russian aircraft before they release glide bombs from more than 70 kilometers from the Ukrainian border. This also includes training Ukrainian soldiers in the immediate vicinity of the front, within range of Russian weapons.

 

These and similar measures, even taken together, are not likely to change the military situation in Ukraine's favor, but each one carries the risk of direct confrontation with Russia. As the war in Ukraine approaches a climax, the impression is growing that Zelensky wants to escalate to a war between Russia and NATO, because for him this is the only way to avoid a catastrophic military defeat and survive as Ukrainian president.

 

Not only the German Chancellor, but also the Italian and Hungarian foreign ministers and President Biden have ruled out military involvement of their armed forces in the Ukraine war. Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán has even stated: "What is happening today in Brussels and Washington - perhaps more in Brussels than in Washington - is a kind of preparatory mood for a possible direct military conflict; we can safely call it: Europe's preparation for war." Within the alliance, however, the number of states that do not agree with the previous confrontational course is growing. Now Czech President Petr Pavel, a former chairman of the NATO Military Committee, has also changed his mind and called for realism instead of naivety and proposed a negotiated solution in the form of a compromise.

 

There were early talks between Kyiv and Moscow in 2022 about ending the fighting, with an astonishing willingness to compromise on both sides. In autumn 2023, you published an analysis of the Istanbul negotiations in March 2022 together with political scientist Hajo Funke. Recently, there have been new publications on the subject that speak of a possible peace treaty in April 2022. Why and by whom was this opportunity for peace missed?

 

The German public was not informed of this fact for a long time. US media, on the other hand, reported on it very early on, for example the specialist magazine Foreign Affairs in early September 2022: "Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appear to have provisionally agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim solution. Russia would withdraw to its position of February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbass region and all of Crimea. In return, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries."

 

Although more and more publications on the Istanbul negotiations are appearing in the US, for example in Foreign Affairs on April 16, 2024, the importance of the negotiations in Istanbul and the chances of ending the war are being disputed. However, on June 15, 2024, the New York Times published the documents produced during the negotiations under the title "Ukraine-Russia Peace Is as Elusive as Ever. But in 2022 They Were Talking" to show the progress of the negotiations. The article also shows that some NATO countries were informed about the progress of the negotiations and were in possession of the documents. Although the negotiations continued until mid-April, the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson played a key role in breaking off the negotiations during his visit to Kyiv on April 9, according to the online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda on May 5, 2022.

 

Carefully researched documentation has also been published in Germany that proves the influence of the West on the termination of the Istanbul peace negotiations. However, anyone in Germany who points to the possibility of an early end to the war is slandered as spreading “Kremlin narratives.” Even the statements of the Ukrainian negotiator Davyd Arachamija are ignored:

 

"The Russians were prepared to end the war if we had agreed to neutrality - like Finland once did - and committed ourselves not to join NATO." And further: "When we returned from Istanbul, Johnson came to Kiev and said that we should not sign anything at all and just fight."

 

This is one of the serious misjudgments made by the West under the leadership of the USA. The economic consequences for Europe have already reached enormous proportions. They will have to be shouldered for many years after the end of the war. However this war ends, the losers are already clear: the Ukrainian people and Europe.

 

German government politicians such as Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock repeatedly speak not only of Russia's "war of aggression" but of a "war of annihilation" against Ukraine. Again and again it is also declared that "Russia must not win" and even statements that they want to "take the war to Russia". How should this be assessed?

 

I do not want to go into individual comments. In general, I believe that a major reason for unqualified statements is the lack of security policy vision and strategic judgment. In Germany, you can say a lot of nonsense and still be sure of media attention as long as you do not leave the prevailing opinion corridor. This is possible above all because the discussion about the Ukraine war is predominantly characterized by incompetence, ignorance and ideology.

 

How do you see the role of the German media in the conflict?

 

The German media have overwhelmingly and unreservedly taken the side of Ukraine, which has been attacked by Russia. This is an understandable emotional reaction. It cannot be denied that the Russian attack is contrary to international law and that Ukraine is exercising its right to self-defense as enshrined in the UN Charter. However, the UN Charter states that the main goal of the United Nations is the maintenance and restoration of peace. Unfortunately, this aspect plays no role in the media.

 

In an open, pluralistic society, the media have a duty to provide information, which they can only credibly fulfill by respecting the truth. German media have largely lost this credibility through one-sided reports and excessive opinion journalism. The misjudgments of the so-called experts, who almost exclusively speak in the media, have proven particularly serious. I also consider one-sided reports to be fatal because the influence of published opinion on politicians is known to be great and often plays a role in their decisions. The fact that every demand for a new weapons system creates the impression that this would turn the tide in Ukraine's favor and that it could achieve political goals that are unattainable may suit the Ukrainian government, but is irresponsible towards the Ukrainian people.

 

Various authors and experts, including Alexander Rahr, see NATO's eastward expansion as one of the most important causes of current events. You were responsible for one of the NATO expansion rounds. How do you assess this?

 

In November 1991, NATO responded to developments in Russia and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact with a Strategic Concept that was intended to overcome the Cold War and initiate a new phase of relations with Russia. For the former Warsaw Pact member states and the former Soviet republics, a window to the West opened; however, they were skeptical that it would remain open in the long term. They therefore sought to join NATO and the European Union quickly. German politicians in particular were very positive about this wish out of historical responsibility and the cultural affiliation of these states to Central Europe. In addition, the accession negotiations with NATO and the prospect of membership in these countries have brought about many positive domestic and interstate changes.

 

Russia's primary interest, on the other hand, was already in the mid-1990s to create a buffer zone in the area of ​​the former Warsaw Pact states and former Soviet republics in order to mutually and amicably resolve potential tensions and crises that could escalate into a war between Russia and NATO. This aspect also played an important role in the negotiations on the NATO-Russia Basic Treaty. The geostrategic interest in a "cordon sanitair" ("barrier belt") between Russia and NATO arose again some time ago in a modified form in connection with the Ukraine war. In the course of NATO expansion, Russia then assessed each individual case in a very differentiated manner from a bilateral historical perspective and with regard to the geostrategic impact on the balance between NATO and Russia.

 

NATO tried to allay Russian concerns about the expansion through a strategic partnership with Russia on the basis of the NATO-Russia Basic Treaty. And in fact, close political coordination developed in the NATO-Russia Council and constructive military cooperation. But as early as 2002, Russia saw the balance of power threatened by the unilateral termination of the ABM Treaty while NATO was simultaneously building a ballistic missile defense system in Poland and Romania. Further unilateral terminations of important disarmament and arms control treaties by the USA followed. This also includes the INF Treaty on Eurostrategic medium-range nuclear missiles, which is once again highly relevant due to the planned stationing of US medium-range systems in Germany.

 

The political break was initiated when the then US President George W. Bush tried to push through an invitation for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008. From Russia's point of view, this would have completely changed the balance of power into a serious geostrategic risk for Russia.

 

I consider the suspension of the NATO-Russia Council to be a particular problem, because the NATO-Russia Council provides a mechanism for effective crisis management at both the political and military levels. It is not a sign of rational political action to discard something that was created in a time of trusting cooperation to reduce tensions and control a crisis when it arises.

 

The war in Ukraine is being used in Western countries as a reason for increased military buildup. This is justified by the new "Russian threat", including the repeated claim that Russia would attack a NATO country in a few years. How do you assess the new "Russian threat"?

 

Neither the Russian government's security policy and strategic policy documents nor Putin's public statements indicate plans for attacks on NATO countries. Even the US government's official threat analyses - including those from 2024 - give no indication of any such Russian intention, although this is also claimed by US politicians. The current US threat analysis states:

 

"Russia almost certainly does not want a direct military conflict with US and NATO forces and will continue its asymmetric activities below what it estimates to be the global military conflict threshold.”

 

The course of the war so far also does not justify this assumption. When the attack on Ukraine began, the Russian contingent had a strength of around 190,000 soldiers. The conquest and occupation of a large country such as Ukraine against Ukrainian forces that are more than twice as strong and have been well equipped and trained by the West for eight years is out of the question and is clearly not intended by Russia. This would have been pointless. However, it would have been necessary if Russia wanted to use Ukraine as a springboard for a later attack on a NATO country. The longer the war lasts and the military situation in Ukraine worsens, the greater the risk of expansion and escalation into a NATO-Russia war, although Russia and the USA want to avoid a direct confrontation.

 

We should return to a strategy of military balance, as advocated by Helmut Schmidt. A fundamental basic idea of ​​this strategy is to create a situation in which neither side is stronger than the other - and thus war is not even considered. The Bundeswehr's ability to defend the country and the alliance should therefore finally be restored - as the constitution demands - and, together with our ally Russia, the determination should be signaled not to allow any change to the balance that has then emerged.

 

Schmidt has, however, stressed that a balance of power is a necessary but not sufficient element to preserve peace. In addition, there must be a willingness to politically stabilize the military balance. This includes maintaining contact with the other side in order to understand where their problems and interests lie. This also includes stabilizing agreements, military confidence-building measures, and arms control and disarmament treaties, which are important elements of a new security architecture and strengthen mutual trust and political and military predictability.

 

Politicians such as Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and others want Germany to become "fit for war" again. They themselves are calling for the Bundeswehr to be able to perform the task of national defense again, something it is currently unable to do. What is the difference between the two views? And who and what specifically threatens the Federal Republic?

 

For me, the constitution is the benchmark for foreign and security policy action, and it should be the same for the federal government. Article 87a of the constitution states that "the federal government shall establish armed forces for defense." In conjunction with Article 24 (2) - "the federal government may join a system of mutual collective security in order to maintain peace" - i.e. the North Atlantic Alliance, this means the ability to defend the country and the alliance. In 2011, the federal government at the time initially suspended conscription for financial reasons and then implemented a reform - the reorientation of the Bundeswehr - which gave up the ability to defend the country and the alliance.

 

The reason given was that there was no conventional threat to Europe and Germany and that relations with Russia had developed positively. This was a clear breach of the constitution and - as we should have known even then - a misjudgment. Defense Minister Pistorius deserves credit for wanting to correct this negative development. In my view, no further justification is required for this than that of fulfilling the constitutional mandate. In 2011, we were wrong in our assessment of the security situation and threat analysis, and another mistake could cost us dearly.

 

You warn of the danger of the war in Ukraine escalating into a global conflict. In the view of some observers, World War III has already begun. You recently spoke of an "age of uncertainty and major conflicts". Can you explain that briefly?

 

The longer the war lasts and the military defeat of Ukraine becomes apparent, the greater the risk of it escalating into a major European war, including the danger of nuclear escalation. Other conflict zones that have the potential to become a major war are the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, including the unresolved Palestinian issue, the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as tensions between Iran and the USA, Turkey's regional hegemonic ambitions and the escalation of tensions between North and South Korea. Kim Jong-un described South Korea as an enemy state in January. The USA is also concerned about Russia's growing influence in the Middle East, Africa and South America. Finally, the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca because of the Taiwan question and the geopolitical rivalry between the USA and China.

 

What do you think a European security system that includes Russia could look like?

 

Whether it is possible to create a European peace and security order depends on how the Ukraine war ends. The opportunity to conclude the Istanbul negotiations with a peaceful solution based on a balance of interests has been missed. Even if the bilateral negotiations were to be resumed, the same result would not be achievable after everything that has happened in the meantime. Nevertheless, I still think that the approach proposed by China more than a year ago in its 12-point paper makes sense because it overcomes the hurdles put in place by both sides.

 

The Hungarian Prime Minister's initiative seems to go in the same direction. After his talks with Zelensky and Putin, he spoke with Xi Jinping and Donald Trump, who have not only expressed their interest in ending the war, but also have the power to enforce a ceasefire and a negotiated peace. It is to be hoped that Orbán's peace initiative will result in a new European peace and security architecture that meets the security interests of all Europeans, is lasting and brings Europe closer to political, economic and military self-assertion.

https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=118685

 

Mehr zum Thema:

 

General a. D. Harald Kujat: „NATO könnte ähnlichen Fehler begehen wie die USA in Vietnam“ – Interview Teil 1

General a. D. Kujat zur aktuellen Ampel-Regierung: „Das ist keine Politik, sondern Fanatismus“

„Nato-General Kujat: Ukraine-Krieg ist für Selenskyj ungewinnbar, EU-Eskalation bleibt eine Gefahr“

Vortrag von Vizeadmiral a. D. Schönbach: Zeitenwende in Eurasien und die Interessen Deutschlands

Russlands Botschafter: „Nicht nur an die Geschichte, sondern auch an die Zukunft denken“

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.