Tuesday 21st of March 2023

an anti-russian alliance of old enemies who forgot their holocausts and their saviours........

The EU must drastically ramp up the production of ammunition and heavy weapons if it wants to help Ukraine succeed in the conflict with Russia, Wolfgang Ischinger, the former chair of the Munich Security Conference and a veteran German diplomat, said on Saturday. He stressed that Kiev’s supporters would run out of supplies unless they transform their economies.

“There is much to suggest that this war is far from over. Therefore, it is necessary for us to plan for the long term,” Ischinger stressed in an interview with Germany’s Welt newspaper. “All the military experts I know are saying that stocks of old Soviet weapons and respective ammunition are running out.”

Ukraine is forced to fire as much ammunition per day as we are producing in half a year. The end of our stocks is in sight. What comes next? Who handles replenishment? A war economy means that we – within NATO and in coordination at a European level – take the initiative and call on European armaments companies to produce more weapons and more ammunition as a result of the war.

Ischinger said that the supplying and resupplying of Ukraine with heavy weapons, such as tanks, missiles, air defense systems, and drones, should be “controlled and coordinated” by the EU, as well as by the governments of individual member states. He added that regular meetings of Western countries that support Kiev with arms and military equipment at the US Ramstein Air Base in Germany are not enough. “They are certainly very helpful, but we need a political prioritization so the industry would have necessary specifications,” he said.

Moscow has repeatedly urged the collective West to stop “pumping” Ukraine with weapons, maintaining that doing so will only prolong the hostilities and the suffering of common Ukrainians, rather than change the ultimate outcome of the conflict. 

From 2008 to 2022, Ischinger served as chairman of the Munich Security Conference, the largest annual multinational security policy event of its kind. The conference was the platform where, back in 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin first voiced his concerns about NATO’s eastward expansion and warned that a unipolar model was not only “unacceptable, but outright impossible” for the modern world.

Now a proponent of even further militarization of Europe, Ischinger previously had a hand in the Ukrainian turmoil as well. In early 2014, he was tapped by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to become its representative tasked with establishing a ‘dialogue’ in Ukraine following the Maidan coup, which toppled the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovich and ushered in the years-long conflict in the country’s east. 

Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, which were designed to give Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.”

The admission has also been amplified by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, who have separately stated the Minsk agreements were never intended to actually be fulfilled but were merely a ruse to buy time for Ukraine to build up its military.







a private testing ground....

by Al manar

Ukraine no longer conceals the fact that it is carrying out a NATO military mission. Acting as it pleases, it has become the private military company of the Alliance, believes the Russian ambassador to the UN. Since kyiv also refuses negotiations with Moscow, it looks like “NATO's proxy war to the last Ukrainian”.

Ukraine is not autonomous in its military conflict with Russia because it carries out NATO military missions, declared on January 13 in New York Vassili Nebenzia, Russian permanent representative to the United Nations.

« In reality, Ukraine has turned into a private NATO military company. She gets paid, delivers weapons and intelligence data. He is told where to shoot and attack. It is the Ukrainian people who are suffering. UKRAINE is forced to make war for tasks that are not hER OWN“, indicated Mr. Nebenzia during a meeting of the Security Council.

To support his statement, he returned to the comments made in early January by the Ukrainian Minister of Defense. Kyiv "carry out the NATO mission without shedding their blood, but with the loss of ours. That's why the West must give us more weapons and money“, estimated Oleksii Reznikov on the set of the Ukrainian television channel 1+1.

In addition, Volodymyr Zelensky refused any negotiation with Russia by a decree acted in September, continues Mr. Nebenzia. At the same time, he is trying to blame Russia for the absence of talks.

In other words, "this is the formula of NATO proxy war to the last Ukrainian" concludes the Russian ambassador to the UN.

A hypocritical approach

In the meantime, the Ukrainian president is proposing to organize a “peace summit” with the support of the UN, an initiative that is nothing but hypocrisy, because the presence of Russia is not planned there. As the idea of ​​negotiations was abandoned, peace would, according to Kyiv, "the capitulation of Russia" which should be noted by the international community suggests Mr. Nebenzia.

"We understand that it is above all an attempt to please the Western public who ask embarrassing questions about where the money granted to kyiv goes and who are surprised to see Ukraine exclude all mediation initiatives", he added.

But Russia will continue its operation until the elimination of all threats emanating from the Ukrainian territory against Russia and the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, underlined Mr. Nebenzia.

"If it is possible to achieve this objective through negotiations, we are ready for this scenario. Otherwise, all the tasks set will be achieved by military means.“, he added.

source: Al manar






a cruel game.....


by Mike Gilligan


Australia’s security policy is a mess. We have been betrayed by our national leaders. Without exception, from Prime Minister Gillard on – with Anthony Albanese shaping up to join – the sell-out to America’s war neurosis is complete. Our leaders have been party to the fabrication of China as a military threat to Australia, by inviting a US military offence against China to settle here and be developed.

Thanks to Bevan Ramsden’s work we now know that formal agreements have been devised, which make Australia an American base for war anywhere in the Indo-Pacific, formally yielding our sovereignty to America:

…prepositioned materiel of United States Forces, and Agreed Facilities and Areas designated for storage of such prepositioned materiel shall be for the exclusive use of United States Forces, and full title to all such equipment, supplies, and materiel remains with the United States. United States Forces shall have exclusive control over the access to, use of, and disposition of such prepositioned materiel and shall have the unencumbered right to remove such prepositioned materiel at any time from the territory of Australia.

That creates security risks of existential proportion for Australia, unacknowledged by our governments.

Whereas once Australia’s security policy had been open and bipartisan, since 2011 it has been deceptive and secretive. The deception began with President Obama’s speech to our Parliament which, buried amongst the rhetoric of 4000 words, employed the term “defence posture” as if it was everyday vernacular:

Indeed, we are already modernising America’s defence posture across the Asia Pacific. We see our new posture here in Australia. The initiatives that the Prime Minister and I announced yesterday will bring our two militaries even closer together. We’ll have new opportunities to train with other allies and partners, from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. And it will allow us to respond faster to the full range of challenges, including humanitarian crises and disaster relief.

It sounds like old friends getting their militaries together to train and respond to random natural events. Who would have guessed that this was code for US planning to enmesh Australia into militarily confronting China?

What could explain the naïvety of Australia’s leaders? It took forty years from Federation for our leaders to discern their sovereignty responsibility in World War 2. With such little depth of independent thought we negotiated the ANZUS treaty with the Americans. While a second-rate treaty, without a security guarantee, it was nevertheless exalted by then PM Menzies.

After America diminished itself and Australia in Vietnam, some adult leaders did emerge here who realised Australia had no alternative but to embrace self -reliance in its defence– Prime Ministers Whitlam and Fraser each were behind the first White Paper of 1976, and both were open about the risks and consequences. Nothing cute or misleading besmirched the comprehensive documents and speeches which laid this profound policy before the Australian people. And the Americans supported it for another thirty years. Because it suited America then.

But from the moment Obama visited Australia in 2011 our leaders went from being open and frank to conniving and secretive, misleading Australians egregiously. They had learnt this conniving through that humiliating period which began with GW Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2001, on a lie, through to the rape of Afghanistan. Today treating citizens as mushrooms is reflexive for the leaders of both nations. Shoulder to shoulder, half-truths are the fare on security.

But it’s not as if sense and truth were unknowable before the deception. In 2013 prominent American geostrategist Robert S Ross observed:

Australia’s geopolitical distance from the South China Sea and the East China Sea and China’s limited naval capabilities in distant waters allows Australia to distance itself from the region’s territorial conflicts without jeopardising its national security or alliance cooperation with the United States.

Those conflicts involve insignificant islands that possess minimal economic and strategic value for both the United States and Australia. The leadership transition at the US Department of State presents Canberra with the opportunity to support and encourage US reconsideration of the pivot in an effort to restore regional stability.

Rather than become entangled in regional disputes, Australian foreign policy can contribute to US-China cooperation and to a restoration of regional stability.

Here was a disinterested, thoughtful expert advising on Australia’s options two years after Obama’s “pivot”. But already PM Abbott and Foreign Minister Bishop were busy documenting concessions to the US for its military domicile in Australia. The Force Posture Agreement between Australia and the United States (FPA) was signed in August 2014 at AUSMIN talks in Sydney. The joint press communique had no hint of the sovereignty sacrifice and risks imposed on Australia:

With the signature today of the legally-binding Force Posture Agreement between Australia and the United States, we reaffirmed our commitment to work towards full implementation of the Force Posture Initiatives in Australia. The agreement provides a robust policy and legal framework and financial principles for implementation of the force posture initiatives announced in 2011. The agreement also reaffirms our mutual intent to deepen our relationship and regional security through expanded cooperation together and with other countries in the region.

Sound like a bean counting exercise overseen by lawyers? Who would suspect the farm was being handed over? Narrative control and duping with half-truth had found another gear.

The reality is that ANZUS holds no security guarantee for Australia even if we were attacked by China. And the FPA delivers America the right to wage war from our territory at its pleasure, making attack on us far more likely.

America’s territory is not threatened by China. Its pride is. America is picking a fight to preserve its global domination as it sees it. Even then America doesn’t need to base its military forces here for its military strategy against China. We are peripheral. It’s about control, options and our money. With unspeakable and unnecessary risks and consequences for Australians.

The Americans know our leaders are mugs who emotionally conflate our interests with theirs. Proudly “joined at the hip.” It’s time, for Australians to recognise we are on our own, sold out slyly by our leaders. A new beginning becomes possible then.