Friday 22nd of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the triumvirate of the american empire also blew up the nord sea pipelines.....

We’ve seen an uproar since it’s become apparent that the US has given Ukraine permission to launch long-range strikes deep inside Russia. There are several reasons for this. 

Firstly, Moscow’s unequivocal warnings that such a move would be seen as NATO’s direct entry into the war. And secondly the fallout from the dramatic change in the political situation in the US.

 

Fyodor Lukyanov: Biden is trying to throw Trump under the Ukrainian bus
The White House recognises that negotiations to end the conflict are inevitable, but it wants to delay the day of judgment.

 

Of course, in foreign policy terms, it’s on the Ukrainian issue that the differences between the outgoing and incoming American administrations is most visible. And Kiev is engaged in a feverish search for ways to reverse a situation that is becoming increasingly unfavourable for its interests. Finally, there is the turmoil in Western Europe, where elites are simply unable to comprehend the magnitude of the impending change.

The news, which clearly resembles a fateful turning point, was quickly downplayed, if not denied. The French and the British were quick to distance themselves from speculation that they too had immediately issued such authorizations – at an official level they repeated that they were only considering the possibility. 

Meanwhile, American sources close to the current ruling circles clarified the area of hypothetical use – only where hostilities are currently taking place. Most importantly, the range of reactions in Western countries was extremely wide. From the unbridled jubilation of Ukraine’s staunchest supporters among liberal NGO lobbyists, the EU’s hardline Josep Borrell and the governments of the most militant countries of Eastern Europe, to the sharp criticism of representatives of the future Donald Trump-led American administration and officials from certain European countries.

To sum up, the picture is roughly as follows: the use of the weapons under discussion may complicate Russia’s actions, but will not change the overall nature of the campaign. Nevertheless, they present significant potential for escalation, the limit of which is unclear. A frequently asked question is: why has this decision, which Kiev has been seeking all year, being taken now? Again, there are several purely speculative answers. 

Officially, the last straw was supposedly the data on the presence of North Korean units in the area of the armed conflict. For which there is no evidence. The White House, it is said, wants to send a signal to Pyongyang that it should stop cooperating with Moscow by authorizing strikes on their alleged bases. 

There is no point in speculating on the veracity of these claims. But two points are worth noting. First, it is not entirely clear why the possible involvement of the North Koreans has caused such a stir. Second, why would Pyongyang’s leader Kim Jong-un, seen in Washington as a ruthless totalitarian ruler, would suddenly be frightened by such a signal and rush to reconsider his previous alleged decisions. If indeed it even happened in the first place.

Another version is that the US administration understands that negotiations to end the conflict are inevitable and that Ukraine is approaching them from an increasingly unfavorable position. Accordingly, it is necessary to assist Kiev in improving its bargaining position, and the best way is to hold a bridgehead in the Kursk border area for further bartering. Whether proponents of this theory are right are wrong, we can’t say –  but strangers things have happened.

Finally, let’s look at what is in fact the generally accepted opinion of most commentators, both in the West and Russia. The Biden administration is trying to secure its historical legacy and make it as difficult as possible for Trump’s new team to get out of the Ukraine quagmire. In terms of legacy, of course, the situation is far from black and white – it all started with an attempt to strategically defeat Russia and reaffirm American/Western hegemony in the world. 

Now the task is to ensure that the conflict is prolonged in the hope of some positive changes for Ukraine and vice versa for Russia. What will come out of this is unpredictable. Some Trump associates have been very negative, accusing Biden of trying to provoke World War III. Indeed, if Trump inherits a confrontation at its peak, the responsibility will be enormous and the room to maneuver   will be limited. There is, however, a view that this may be convenient for the Trumpists. After all, the new president has the right to turn American policy on its head as soon as he takes office, citing the real threat of dragging the country into direct war.

This is conceivable, but it remains unclear which way Trump will turn. His approach to governing is still rooted in business, hence the endless references to the deals he will make. Trump’s first term failed to prove that business techniques can automatically transfer to international relations. 

And the members of his team who will influence policymaking are extremely diverse, ranging from market disruptor Elon Musk to more traditional Republican strongmen in positions in the State Department and national security apparatus. Finding a balance won’t easy. 

Meanwhile, everyone is entering a dangerous phase in which the chances of descending into unmanageable confrontation are greater than before. The final days of Democrat rule in Washington promise to be risky.

 

This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team 

https://www.rt.com/news/608009-biden-is-trying-to-throw-trump/

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4n9vgwnnyo

 

 

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

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without shedding tears…”

         Gus Leonisky

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDYjGeuhaF8

mad enough.....

BIDEN IS MAD, BUT LESS MAD THAN THE OTHER THREE DUDES.... BEWARE....

 

On the verge of WWIII?    By Tim Beal

 

‘Joe Biden allows Ukraine to use long-range US-supplied ATACMS missiles on targets in Russia, prompting threat of world war’ – so runs the ABC headline of 18 November. Serious stuff, not to be lightly discounted, and yet perhaps what we are seeing is primarily performative politics, viewed through the smoke of uncertainty and reflected in the distorting mirrors of propaganda. In short, whilst the consequences could not be more dangerous, when we unpack the narrative, it seems that, at the moment at least, the situation is not so critical as it might appear.

At the time of writing (20 November) there has been no official statement from Putin and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov did not threaten fire and brimstone but merely said that the decision ‘if confirmed, indicate[s] a dramatic escalation of the conflict’. The official news agency, TASS, in its English-language review of the Russian press (18 November) gives the lead to an article in Izvestia on the Biden decision, but in a clutch of five, ending with one about Europe’s gas prices doubling this (Northern) winter: ‘Biden OKs long-range missile use as backlash to Scholz’s Putin call grows’. So, no panic from Russia.

The Izvestia article is in Russian, and the machine translation to hand is very clunky, but as TASS comments, it frames Biden’s action in terms of domestic politics:

Experts believe the outgoing US administration is seeking to escalate tensions as much as possible before US President-elect Donald Trump assumes office.

Incumbent US President Joe Biden wants to place Trump in a no-win situation, American historian and former Harvard University professor Vladimir Brovkin said. “America may be dragged into a war, and Trump will have to deal with the trouble that Biden started’.

It is true that American foreign policy is very much an extension of domestic politics, much more so than that of other countries, but the situation is more nuanced than Brovkin suggests, because it is unlikely that Biden wants to be saddled with dragging the US into a war on his watch. If the war turns out badly for America, then he gets the blame but if Trump somehow is seen to win, then it is he who gets the praise. So it is probable that it is more a rhetorical escalation than a substantive one, and the available facts bear this out. The ramifications are well discusses by the informed and astute former senior Pentagon official Stephen Bryen.

The ostensible reason for the authorisation, according to the ABC article by Riley Stuart, is those North Korean troops we’ve been hearing so much about:

Biden’s decision comes shortly after it was revealed North Korean troops had been sent to bolster Vladimir Putin’s forces……

In recent months, Russia has been making steady ground against Ukraine’s forces, although its military is sustaining massive losses.

In a surprise counterpunch, however, Ukrainian forces captured a swathe of Russian territory earlier this year when they stormed over the border and into the Kursk region.

Putin’s army, with the help of North Korean reinforcements, have been attempting to retake that in the months since.

This is a frequent argument but is wrong on the key points. The Russians are not sustaining massive losses for a number of reasons. They have overwhelming superiority in firepower and are fighting a war of attrition, focusing on inflicting maximum losses on the enemy while minimising their own, relegating territory to a subordinate objective. The Ukrainians, on the other hand, despite a shortage of weapons and ammunition, need to take or retain territory to satisfy their foreign patrons, and that involves disproportionate losses, 30,000 so far in Kursk alone according to credible reports. The Russians are moving slowly in Kursk not because they are suffering massive casualties and are so short of troops that they need reinforcement from North Korea, but because they are minimising their own casualties and taking advantage of the enemy’s vulnerability. The Ukrainians have not had ten years to build defensive positions there as they have had in the Donbass.

And then there are the probably mythical North Korean troops, for which after a month of claims there is no evidence -plenty of assertions (the Pentagon ones being heavily qualified with words such as ‘likely’ and ‘expectation’), lots of fake news but so far no hard evidence.

And, as if to underscore the hollowness of the claim it turns out that the first ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) strike after Biden’s decision was at an ammunition depot in Bryansk and not, after all, in Kursk, where the supposed North Korean troops pose such a threat.

The ATACMS themselves have a certain mythical quality in this context. For one thing, as Riley Stuart admits, the Russians have moved military assets, such as the aircraft that launch the devastating glide bombs, out of range. The ATACMS, being land-launched are susceptible to airstrikes as well as being vulnerable after launch to Russian air defence. And there are not many anyway. As the Washington Post puts it:

Biden administration officials note that Ukraine has very limited stocks of ATACMS. Russia has shown that it has a significant shoot-down capability, and the Pentagon, whose own missile supply is dwindling, says it does not have many more to give without affecting U.S. readiness. [emphasis added]

The word ‘limited’ appears frequently in this article:

The Biden administration will allow Kyiv limited use of ATACMS to strike enemy positions in Russia, according to senior U.S. officials…..

A second U.S. official said that Biden’s approval of ATACMS “is going to have a very specific and limited effect” on the battlefield, designed to limit concerns about escalation. [emphasis added]

A mythical sword to slay a mythical dragon?

Myths often express deeper meanings. The key issue with ATACMS (and Storm Shadow cruise missiles, etc) is that they require direct NATO involvement in operational targeting. And that, as Putin has quietly but forcefully said, would require an appropriate Russian response. That might be asymmetrical – the rapid development of the Houthi’s ballistic missile capability used against Israel-bound shipping in the Red Sea and the US-led navies protecting it that the Pentagon finds so ‘scary’ might well be an example. Or there might be direct retaliation against a NATO airbase. There are so many possibilities that might lead further up the escalatory ladder. But Putin carefully used the word ‘appropriate’ and it is he who decides what that might be. He clearly does not want a war with NATO, and he might well be waiting for the incoming Trump administration. Trump will find negotiations much more difficult than his narcissism anticipates, and he might escalate out of chagrin, but Putin is a cautious strategist and he is unlikely to foreclose on the possibility he may agree to an acceptable deal.

The major driver behind this push for deep strike authorisation is the effort of the Zelensky regime, facing collapse on the battlefield and an energy-starved winter, to drag the US, under Biden or under Trump, into direct involvement in the war because that is seen as the only way to stave off disaster. That road, of course, may well lead to World War III. However, the Biden administration is aware of this (although there are contesting factions within it) and it does seem, if one reads carefully, the Pentagon is adamantly opposed. Its stockpiles are depleted, it cannot recruit personnel, has problems maintaining its ships, its wunderwaffe don’t perform too well, and Pete Hegseth is just around the corner.

This may well be a case where the US cavalry is coming to the rescue, though not in the way that John Wayne played it.

Faced with pressure from Kyiv, and opposition from the Pentagon, Joe Biden is playing performative politics, staging a piece of theatre to give the impression of forceful action but actually just blundering along to little effect. Dangerous stuff, but perhaps -hopefully- not quite so dangerous as appears at first sight.

https://johnmenadue.com/on-the-verge-of-wwiii/

 

REPEAT:

BIDEN IS MAD, BUT LESS MAD THAN THE OTHER THREE DUDES.... BEWARE....

AND BEWARE OF "EXPERTS".....

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

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

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without expertise…”

         Gus Leonisky

 

 

what did you expect?....

 

In just a few days, Ukraine and Russia appear to have significantly upped their weapons capabilities.

First, Washington gave Kyiv long-awaited approval to use Western-made longer-range missiles on targets inside Russian territory.

Then US President Joe Biden agreed to give Ukraine anti-personnel land mines, a step that could help slow Russian advances in its east.

This decision has drawn condemnation from human rights groups over the risks posed to civilians. 

The flurry of last-minute policy changes comes two months before Donald Trump, who has vowed to swiftly end the war, is set to take over the White House.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-22/us-anti-personnel-landmines-ukraine-atacms-russia-icbm/104628784

 

RUSSIA HAS WARNED THE WEST NOT TO DO WHAT BIDEN (NOT HIM BUT HIS IDIOTS IN CHARGE) JUST DID... WHAT DID YOU EXPECT THE RUSSIAN RESPONSE WOULD BE?

DO NOTHING?

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

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

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without expertise…”

         Gus Leonisky

WH nutsoes....

President Joe Biden is not afraid of dragging the US into war with Russia and is willing to take risks to derail Donald Trump’s future presidency and any chance of a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson told RT.

On Thursday, the Russian military launched its new hypersonic ballistic missile, dubbed ‘Oreshnik’ (Hazel), against an industrial facility in Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin described the strike as a warning to the West in response to “aggressive actions of NATO member states,” specifically Washington’s approval for Kiev to use its ATACMS missiles for strikes within Russia’s pre-2014 borders.

In an interview with RT, Johnson argued that Biden is escalating the Ukraine conflict to “embarrass”Donald Trump, who had claimed he could resolve the situation in 24 hours – a feat now unlikely to occur.

“The more extreme possibility is that he hopes to provoke a war that would impose martial law in the United States and make it impossible for Trump to take office on January 20th,” he claimed. “These people are not acting in the interests of US national security or world peace.”

There is little Trump can do at this point besides speaking out forcefully and demanding that the Biden administration “stand down,” but “they have nothing to lose.”

“They've already lost. It’s like someone diagnosed with a terminal illness; they’re willing to take risks they might not have taken before,” Johnson argued. “He's going to be removed from office anyway in two months. Why does he care? I mean, he's like a suicide bomber at this point.”

Johnson contended that the West completely misunderstands and underestimates both Russia's capabilities and willingness to respond, due to a combination of “confirmation bias and reporting bias on the intelligence side.”

Frankly, I've been amazed at the patience of the Russian authorities in putting up with this,” he said. “Let's flip the tables: if Russia supplied Mexican narcotics gangs with missiles that were being launched into US territory along the Texas-Mexican border, or Arizona, or New Mexico, the United States would view that as an act of war and retaliate immediately. Yet, we think we can do that to Russia, and Russia is just supposed to sit back and take it.”

“Vladimir Putin was sending a very clear message to the United States and to Europe that Russia now has the ability to respond with a weapon system that the West is incapable of defending against, a weapon system that can reach to the United Kingdom, that can reach anywhere in Europe. And that Russia is prepared to do so if the British and the French persist in using missiles that are being launched into Russian territory,” he added.

https://www.rt.com/news/608013-biden-ukraine-suicide-bomber/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

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

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without expertise…”

         Gus Leonisky