UK, Sweden, and Finland Reach A Security Agreement

Follow NFSC News on Gettr | Gnews on Gettr
Translated by: MOS Gospel Team – Lilian H

Following the Russo-Ukrainian war, Sweden and Finland have been threatened by Russia for expressing a strong desire to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

On May 11, UK Prime Minister Johnson announced that the UK had reached a security agreement with Sweden and Finland, committing military support from the UK for the two countries should they be under attack. In addition, the pact also intensifies intelligence sharing among the three states and accelerates joint military training, exercises, and deployments.

Image Source: dailymail

Johnson, echoing the same account as Miles Guo who has previously stated that the Russian-Ukrainian war had certainly changed the political landscape in Europe and around the world, said that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had changed the landscape of European security and Russia has failed.

Reference:
https://gnews.org/zh-hans/2523417/

Edited by: cosmo YZ
Chief Editors: Ashley W., Stay
Posted by: Peter Chen

For more information, please follow us at:
NFSCNews | Gettr
Gnews | Gettr
New York MOS Himalaya | GETTR
New York MOS Himalaya |YouTube
Free to Join New York MOS Himalaya | Discord

Disclaimer: This article only represents the author’s view. Gnews is not responsible for any legal risks.

Source

A Reckless Policy Of ‘Bleeding Russia’ Risks Getting The United States Into A Foolish Foreign War

A Reckless Policy Of ‘Bleeding Russia’ Risks Getting The United States Into A Foolish Foreign War

The New York Times on Wednesday published an op-ed by Tom Stevenson arguing what some of us have been arguing for a while now: the Biden administration is openly — and recklessly — pursuing a policy of escalation in Ukraine that represents a new and very dangerous phase in the war.

Stevenson, a journalist who reported from Ukraine in the opening weeks of the war, argues that initially the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine rather straightforwardly, with supplies of arms to the Ukrainians and economic sanctions on Russia. But things have changed over the past month.

Now, instead of simply helping Ukraine stave off invasion and conquest, U.S. policy seems to have shifted into something else entirely: the permanent weakening of Russia at any cost. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said so explicitly after a clandestine visit to Ukraine with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken last month. After her own recent visit to Kyiv, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi characterized the war as a global struggle for democracy.

To back up these outlandish claims, the Biden administration has now proposed a $40 billion military aid package to Ukraine, quadruple what the United States has thus far given Ukraine since the outbreak of the war in late February. On top of that, it appears the U.S. military may be providing real-time battlefield targeting intelligence to the Ukrainians, arguably making the United States an active belligerent in the conflict.  

All of this amounts to a major policy shift on the part of the United States, writes Stevenson: “Whereas once the primary Western objective was to defend against the invasion, it has become the permanent strategic attrition of Russia.” This shift, he adds, has “coincided with the abandonment of diplomatic efforts.”

So what possible strategic gain does bleeding Russia in Ukraine hold for the United States? The risks of pursuing such a policy are immense, including the possibility of nuclear war between the world’s top two nuclear powers. If the Biden administration has some overarching goal in mind, it has not bothered to tell the American people. Instead, we are trundling along the road to war as if every decision we make is simply a reaction to Russian aggression.

But in fact, the war itself has shifted dramatically since late February, and conditions now are arguably more favorable to a cease-fire and a negotiated political settlement than they were even a month ago. Having failed in its initial push on Kyiv in the northern part of the country amid fierce resistance from the Ukrainians, Russia has shifted its strategy, limiting its forces to the south and east of Ukraine in hopes of consolidating control of a much more limited territory. 

But instead of recognizing this for the concession that it is and seizing the chance to persuade both sides to stop fighting and make a deal, the United States has responded by publicly calling for the weakening of Russia and committing an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars to arming Ukraine in what might otherwise be turning into a much more limited conflict in the eastern part of that country.

A cynic might conclude that the Biden administration doesn’t really want the fighting to stop and will gladly keep funding a proxy war with Russia, even as it denies that it is doing so. A cynic might also argue that U.S. policy in Ukraine now has very little to do with Ukraine and everything to do with Moscow, possibly even encompassing the dangerous fantasy of regime change in the Kremlin.

That is certainly the view of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who claimed this week that “we can win this war on behalf of Ukraine.” (Recall that Graham called for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin back in March.)

Indeed, Biden and the Democrats have largely been joined in their strategic folly by most Republicans. Only 57 GOP members of the House voted against the $40 billion aid package to Ukraine this week. 

As things stand now, it’s not unreasonable to suppose a bipartisan consensus is emerging in Washington to expand the war and get the United States directly involved in it under the pretext that the battle for Donbas is, as Pelosi ludicrously claimed, “the frontier of freedom.” To quote Stevenson, “This is not just declamatory extravagance. It is reckless. The risks hardly need to be stated.”


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Source

If The U.S. Is Giving Ukraine Real-Time Battlefield Intel, Congress Needs To Vote On It

If The U.S. Is Giving Ukraine Real-Time Battlefield Intel, Congress Needs To Vote On It

The New York Times claimed this week that the United States is providing real-time battlefield intelligence to Ukraine that has enabled the Ukrainians to target and kill approximately a dozen Russian generals, and helped locate and strike the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet last month.

Described as a “classified effort,” the U.S. provision of targeting intelligence to Ukraine “also includes anticipated Russian troop movements gleaned from recent American assessments of Moscow’s secret battle plan for the fighting in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine,” according to the Times.

The Times’ reporting relies on anonymous “senior American officials,” but if true it represents a sharp and unprecedented escalation of U.S. involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian war, such that Congress should immediately debate and vote on whether to authorize the use of military force in Ukraine.

Indeed, providing real-time targeting intelligence brings the United States right up to the line of belligerence, and arguably over it. The Biden administration seems to understand this. According to the Times, the administration “has sought to keep much of the battlefield intelligence secret, out of fear it will be seen as an escalation and provoke President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia into a wider war.”

The White House is right to fear this outcome, because it’s entirely possible that Putin will absolutely consider this level of battlefield participation by the United States tantamount to an act of war. That’s no doubt why the Biden administration snapped into damage control mode after the Times story about targeting intelligence published on Wednesday.

Adrienne Watson, a National Security Council spokeswoman, criticized the Times’ headline and said in a statement that battlefield intelligence was not provided to the Ukrainians “with the intent to kill Russian generals.” Asked about the Times report on Thursday, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby echoed Watson: “We do not provide intelligence on the location of senior military leaders on the battlefield or participate in the targeting decisions of the Ukrainian military.”

Then on Thursday evening, a second Times story dropped, again sourced to anonymous senior administration officials, detailing how U.S. intelligence helped Ukraine confirm the location of the Russian flagship Moskva, which on April 13 was hit by Ukrainian forces on the ground with two Neptune missiles and eventually sank. The Moskva is the largest warship sunk since World War Two, and a significant loss for the Russian Navy. Some U.S. officials cited by the Times said the American intelligence was “crucial” to the sinking of the Moskva.

The news coincides with reports earlier this week that Russia’s highest-ranking general and chief of the general staff, Valery Gerasimov, was wounded while visiting the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. (According to the Times, the strike that wounded Gerasimov was conducted without the aid of U.S. intelligence.) 

In addition to intelligence sharing, the United States is now providing Ukraine with new and better weapons, including heavy artillery, state-of-the-art tactical drones, and armored vehicles. And that’s just for starters. Last week President Biden asked Congress to authorize $33 billion in weapons funding for Ukraine, on top of the billions we’ve already provided. If the past few months are any indication, as the war drags on we will furnish Ukraine with increasingly advanced (and expensive) weaponry and weapons systems.

It’s time to have a debate about all this in Congress, so the representatives of the American people can at least have a say in the matter before we stumble into war with Russia over Ukraine.

Why? Because the news we might be giving Ukraine real-time Russian targets on the battlefield isn’t some trifling or technical thing. It’s a major development — and potentially a major step toward war. It’s true that the United States has been sharing intelligence with Ukraine since before Russia’s invasion on February 24, and indeed was sharing intelligence with allies in the runup to the invasion, but nothing close to what is described by the Times.

To understand the degree of U.S. escalation the Times report would suggest, a little background is in order. In early March, there appeared to be some confusion among Democrats on the question of intelligence sharing. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that the United States was “providing some intelligence” but not “real-time targeting.”

Asked about this later, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki implied that Smith was wrong, saying the United States was providing the Ukrainians “timely intelligence” that “includes information that should help them inform and develop their military response to Russia’s invasion.” When Politico’s NatSec Daily tweeted this, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, replied on Twitter that Psaki’s answer was “truthy,” but that “it does not capture the full reality.”

What did Rubio mean? The most likely scenario is that the United States was providing battlefield intelligence to the Ukrainians with built-in latency, a delay of 20 or 30 minutes — enough to plausibly deny that we were actively helping Ukraine target Russian troops and thus avoid getting drawn into the war. 

But if the Times report is accurate, we’ve gotten rid of that latency, with huge implications for the U.S. role in the conflict. The Times report goes on to say that “U.S. intelligence support to the Ukrainians has had a decisive effect on the battlefield, confirming targets identified by the Ukrainian military and pointing it to new targets. The flow of actionable intelligence on the movement of Russian troops that America has given Ukraine has few precedents.”

A level of intelligence-sharing that has few precedents might well have huge consequences. As a thought experiment, imagine that during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 we discovered that Moscow was relaying real-time battlefield intelligence about U.S. troop movements to Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard, and that as a result of this intelligence a number of U.S. units and commanders had been taken out.

Would U.S. leaders have said nothing and done nothing? Let it go with a strongly worded statement? Probably not. There probably would have been some form of retaliation on our part.

Likewise, if U.S. involvement in this war continues to escalate — and especially if the United States continues to give the Ukrainians battlefield targets in real-time — we should expect and prepare for some kind of retaliation by Moscow.

In the meantime, it’s not too much to ask that Congress, as representatives of the American people, debate and vote on whether to authorize a U.S. march to war that’s now well underway.  


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Source

Dvornikov-The “Butcher of Syria” entrusted by Putin

Dvornikov-The “Butcher of Syria” entrusted by Putin

Translator: Da Bo Luo
Proofreader: Lish

In early April, Russian forces, which had been repeatedly defeated in Ukraine, began to withdraw from Kyiv in what was widely seen in the West as a gesture by Putin to reorganize his forces and try to attack again. Immediately afterwards, Putin replaced the commander with Aleksandr Dvornikov, known as the “Butcher of Syria,” at the head of the invasion force. On April 8, the “Kramatorsk train station attack” killed at least 57 people, mostly women, children and the elderly. It is believed that the man behind the scenes is Dvornikov.

Miles Guo’s live broadcast on GETTR:
Russia and Ukraine are preparing for a big war, and Russia will be tough this time. I guess this bastard named Dvornikov, who came back from Syria, is always ruthless, and he will use biochemical weapons, siege warfare, missiles, and ground attacks. He will definitely look one way and row another, openly attacking the east of Ukraine and actually hitting Kyiv. Then, the missiles will come like a snowstorm and go straight to Zelensky himself. This guy is not a nice guy!

Dvornikov, 60 years old, who graduated from the Frunze Military Academy in 1991, is one of the most combat-experienced Russian generals. “He has been called a ‘butcher’ since the days of Second Chechen War, then in Aleppo in Syria,” Lieutenant General Ihor Romanenko, the former deputy chief of Ukraines’s general staff of Armed Forces, said of Dvornikov.

Second Chechen War:
In late 1999, Dvornikov commanded a Russian motor rifle division that stormed Grozny, the capital of Chechnya. Russian forces launched an indiscriminate bombardment of the city and moved in small infantry columns that would shoot at anyone in sight. 

Rocket artillery, banned cluster bombs and cruise missiles killed thousands of civilians and razed Grozny to the ground. Grozny fell entirely on February 6, 2000, thus boosting the approval ratings of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who was inaugurated as Russia’s president less than a month later.

Aleppo, Syria:
In 2015, when the Assad regime in Syria was losing ground in the face of jihadist and rebel attacks, Russia immediately intervened militarily in Syria. Dvornikov was appointed as the overall commander of Russian special military operations in Syria, and the Russian air force flew more than 9,000 sorties. And he copied Grozny’s tactics, killing thousands of Syrian civilians and the historic city of Aleppo being turned into smouldering ruins. Moreover, he managed to break civilians’ will to resist by attacking basic infrastructure such as hospitals and water sources.

“Nothing stops him. He sticks to the old Soviet and then Russian approach – if there are forces, they have to be concentrated and used to destroy everything,” Romanenko said.

Dvornikov saved the regime of Syrian President Assad, and Putin awarded him the title of Hero of the Russian Federation. 2020 saw him promoted to the rank of general.

Retired U.S. Admiral Stavridis commented on April 11 that he is Putin’s hitman and has used a range of terrorist tools in Syria, including building torture centers with the Syrian army, systematic rape, and cooperation with nerve agents.

The words came just after Ukraine accused Russian forces of using chemical weapons in Mariupol on April 12, dropping poison via drones that caused the poisoning of three people with symptoms of respiratory failure and vestibular disorders. Earlier days, Russian forces had already used phosphorus bombs in the Donetsk region.

The invasion has taken a turn that Putin was not expecting, with the Kremlin expecting a quick and easy victory, but it has been met with stiff resistance from the Ukrainian side. Now Putin expects the “Syrian butcher”, who has been brutal to civilians, to lead the Russian army and deter the Ukrainian people from resisting.

Dvornikov led the “Caucasus-2020” military strategic exercise near the Ukrainian border. They demonstrated the use of “mobile echelons,” a new way of coordinating ground, air and sea forces. He told Putin that the forces “proved our readiness for battle.”

So, will Dvornikov turn the tide in this Russo-Ukrainian war? In his large-scale military exercises in recent years, he has focused heavily on advanced command and control communications systems, which have indeed helped the Russian Army on the battlefield. But so far, this war has shown that the Russian Army’s long-standing problem is that only a few elite units have adopted new systems and technologies, and a large number of ground troops have not been exposed to or trained in these systems.


Similarly, Dvornikov had no tactics in Syria; he simply repeated the old Soviet tactic of mass shelling and bombardment before any ground maneuvering of troops; a tactic seen as an indiscriminate and destructive use against civilians in the Chechen war, where he was a brigade commander.

There is nothing new about such tactics. However, in today’s AI-intelligent, digital military communication systems model of warfare, it is no longer possible to emulate the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in the Chechen and Syrian civil wars to break the will of the Ukrainian military and civilian population.

But the brutal general is also a cunning and bottomless soldier who has already had a taste for supporting the massive use of chemical weapons (CWs) by government forces in Syria and is doing it again in Ukraine. This time, however, may be used in different way.

For example, playing a game of a thief crying “Stop thief” in Ukraine (similar to the Syrian government’s early accusations of a rebel program using toxic chemicals in 2012 and 2013) to create opportunities to blame the Ukrainian side and justify retaliation or invasion.

Russia recruited Syrian fighters to help Ukraine’s military campaign. They would be useful puppets to replace the CW attacks carried out by Russian forces, allowing Moscow to avoid direct responsibility for the CWs.

All in all, Putin has high hopes for Dvornikov this time, so can this “Syrian butcher” once again become Putin’s “precious man” with his time running out? But, of course, history will not repeat itself.

Source: https://gnews.org/zh-hans/2339984/

Published by:Wenwu

More Information from Australia Melbourne Athena Farm:
Australia Melbourne Athena Farm Twitter
Australia Melbourne Athena Farm Gettr
Australia Melbourne Athena Farm YouTube
Australia Melbourne Athena Farm Discord

Disclaimer: This article only represents the author’s view. Gnews is not responsible for any legal risks.

Source

Dvornikov-The “Butcher of Syria” entrusted by Putin

Dvornikov-The “Butcher of Syria” entrusted by Putin

Translator: Da Bo Luo
Proofreader: Lish

In early April, Russian forces, which had been repeatedly defeated in Ukraine, began to withdraw from Kyiv in what was widely seen in the West as a gesture by Putin to reorganize his forces and try to attack again. Immediately afterwards, Putin replaced the commander with Aleksandr Dvornikov, known as the “Butcher of Syria,” at the head of the invasion force. On April 8, the “Kramatorsk train station attack” killed at least 57 people, mostly women, children and the elderly. It is believed that the man behind the scenes is Dvornikov.

Miles Guo’s live broadcast on GETTR:
Russia and Ukraine are preparing for a big war, and Russia will be tough this time. I guess this bastard named Dvornikov, who came back from Syria, is always ruthless, and he will use biochemical weapons, siege warfare, missiles, and ground attacks. He will definitely look one way and row another, openly attacking the east of Ukraine and actually hitting Kyiv. Then, the missiles will come like a snowstorm and go straight to Zelensky himself. This guy is not a nice guy!

Dvornikov, 60 years old, who graduated from the Frunze Military Academy in 1991, is one of the most combat-experienced Russian generals. “He has been called a ‘butcher’ since the days of Second Chechen War, then in Aleppo in Syria,” Lieutenant General Ihor Romanenko, the former deputy chief of Ukraines’s general staff of Armed Forces, said of Dvornikov.

Second Chechen War:
In late 1999, Dvornikov commanded a Russian motor rifle division that stormed Grozny, the capital of Chechnya. Russian forces launched an indiscriminate bombardment of the city and moved in small infantry columns that would shoot at anyone in sight. 

Rocket artillery, banned cluster bombs and cruise missiles killed thousands of civilians and razed Grozny to the ground. Grozny fell entirely on February 6, 2000, thus boosting the approval ratings of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who was inaugurated as Russia’s president less than a month later.

Aleppo, Syria:
In 2015, when the Assad regime in Syria was losing ground in the face of jihadist and rebel attacks, Russia immediately intervened militarily in Syria. Dvornikov was appointed as the overall commander of Russian special military operations in Syria, and the Russian air force flew more than 9,000 sorties. And he copied Grozny’s tactics, killing thousands of Syrian civilians and the historic city of Aleppo being turned into smouldering ruins. Moreover, he managed to break civilians’ will to resist by attacking basic infrastructure such as hospitals and water sources.

“Nothing stops him. He sticks to the old Soviet and then Russian approach – if there are forces, they have to be concentrated and used to destroy everything,” Romanenko said.

Dvornikov saved the regime of Syrian President Assad, and Putin awarded him the title of Hero of the Russian Federation. 2020 saw him promoted to the rank of general.

Retired U.S. Admiral Stavridis commented on April 11 that he is Putin’s hitman and has used a range of terrorist tools in Syria, including building torture centers with the Syrian army, systematic rape, and cooperation with nerve agents.

The words came just after Ukraine accused Russian forces of using chemical weapons in Mariupol on April 12, dropping poison via drones that caused the poisoning of three people with symptoms of respiratory failure and vestibular disorders. Earlier days, Russian forces had already used phosphorus bombs in the Donetsk region.

The invasion has taken a turn that Putin was not expecting, with the Kremlin expecting a quick and easy victory, but it has been met with stiff resistance from the Ukrainian side. Now Putin expects the “Syrian butcher”, who has been brutal to civilians, to lead the Russian army and deter the Ukrainian people from resisting.

Dvornikov led the “Caucasus-2020” military strategic exercise near the Ukrainian border. They demonstrated the use of “mobile echelons,” a new way of coordinating ground, air and sea forces. He told Putin that the forces “proved our readiness for battle.”

So, will Dvornikov turn the tide in this Russo-Ukrainian war? In his large-scale military exercises in recent years, he has focused heavily on advanced command and control communications systems, which have indeed helped the Russian Army on the battlefield. But so far, this war has shown that the Russian Army’s long-standing problem is that only a few elite units have adopted new systems and technologies, and a large number of ground troops have not been exposed to or trained in these systems.


Similarly, Dvornikov had no tactics in Syria; he simply repeated the old Soviet tactic of mass shelling and bombardment before any ground maneuvering of troops; a tactic seen as an indiscriminate and destructive use against civilians in the Chechen war, where he was a brigade commander.

There is nothing new about such tactics. However, in today’s AI-intelligent, digital military communication systems model of warfare, it is no longer possible to emulate the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in the Chechen and Syrian civil wars to break the will of the Ukrainian military and civilian population.

But the brutal general is also a cunning and bottomless soldier who has already had a taste for supporting the massive use of chemical weapons (CWs) by government forces in Syria and is doing it again in Ukraine. This time, however, may be used in different way.

For example, playing a game of a thief crying “Stop thief” in Ukraine (similar to the Syrian government’s early accusations of a rebel program using toxic chemicals in 2012 and 2013) to create opportunities to blame the Ukrainian side and justify retaliation or invasion.

Russia recruited Syrian fighters to help Ukraine’s military campaign. They would be useful puppets to replace the CW attacks carried out by Russian forces, allowing Moscow to avoid direct responsibility for the CWs.

All in all, Putin has high hopes for Dvornikov this time, so can this “Syrian butcher” once again become Putin’s “precious man” with his time running out? But, of course, history will not repeat itself.

Source: https://gnews.org/zh-hans/2339984/

Published by:Wenwu

More Information from Australia Melbourne Athena Farm:
Australia Melbourne Athena Farm Twitter
Australia Melbourne Athena Farm Gettr
Australia Melbourne Athena Farm YouTube
Australia Melbourne Athena Farm Discord

Disclaimer: This article only represents the author’s view. Gnews is not responsible for any legal risks.

Source

Biden’s Lack Of Any Strategy For Ukraine Shows He’s Got None For U.S. National Security Either

Biden’s Lack Of Any Strategy For Ukraine Shows He’s Got None For U.S. National Security Either

The White House said this week it plans to release up to 180 million barrels of oil from strategic reserves, a million barrels a day for 180 days, to help bring down near-record gas prices that were climbing before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but have since spiked. It will be the largest release of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve since it was established in the early 1970s, and it probably won’t work.

The specific reasons it probably won’t work — congestion on the Gulf Coast, a possible reduction in supply from Saudi Arabia and other oil producers, the fact that 180 million barrels over the next six months isn’t enough to offset the loss of Russian oil exports — are not as important as what the announcement tells us about the Biden administration’s plan for Ukraine and how it fits into an overarching national security strategy for the United States.

What it tells us is this: Biden has no plan for Ukraine, and no overarching national security strategy for the United States.

The forthcoming release of oil is not unique in this respect. It’s just the latest in a string of seemingly haphazard, impromptu policies and pronouncements from the Biden administration that have sown confusion among our allies and projected weakness and indecision to the wider world.

Some fault Biden for not doing more to help the Ukrainians, some for doing too much and risking open war with a nuclear power. What these critics should share, though, is the belief that Biden’s contradictory signals over the past month — halfhearted and constantly shifting military aid to Ukraine, the absence of any off-ramps for Russia, total economic war on Moscow, virtually no effort to facilitate or encourage negotiations —have been perhaps more dangerous than any clear and consistent policy might have been.

As the war drags on, this problem is getting worse, not better — more chaos, less clarity. Consider the past week’s fusillade of so-called “gaffes” during Biden’s trip to Europe. He told members of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division in Poland they would see the bravery of Ukrainians “when you’re there,” suggesting U.S. troops would soon be going into Ukraine.

He said the U.S. would respond “in kind” if Moscow used chemical weapons in Ukraine, implying we would launch a chemical weapons attack on Russia. Then in his big Warsaw speech he blurted out that Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power,” which sent White House aides scrambling to clarify that no, Biden was not announcing a policy of regime change in Russia, he was just saying Putin can’t be allowed to invade his neighbors. (But then on Monday, Biden said he makes “no apologies” for his statement and he’s “not walking anything back.”)

At this point, no one is sure what the Biden administration’s plan is to help end the war in Ukraine, what it thinks a stable peace might look like, or even if regime change in Moscow is really off the table as a matter of White House policy. Biden has announced no conditions for the easing of sanctions on Russia, articulated no vision for how Ukraine might “win” or what that might look like, and with each new Biden “gaffe” the window for the United States to take the lead in a negotiated political settlement narrows.

All this suggests Biden has no idea what the American national interest is or what our national security strategy should be — in Ukraine or anywhere else. He seems only to have a vague sense that large and powerful countries should not invade their smaller and weaker neighbors. But when they do, how should America respond? What goals or national interests should guide our response? What should our priorities be? Biden and his advisors don’t seem to know.

They had better figure it out. The Ukraine war heralds a new era in geopolitics, one in which rival powers like China will press their claims and pursue their ambitions with every tool they have. It’s not enough anymore to hide behind the platitudes of a “stronger-than-ever NATO alliance,” as if that alone encompasses the American national interest. It’s not enough to insist, as then-Secretary of State John Kerry did when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, that “you just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped up pretext,” as if just wishing it would make it so.

What we need now is that which we have least: clarity and resolve. We need clarity about our chief adversary, China, and the resolve to prioritize containment of China above all else.

Elbridge Colby noted recently in Time that a return to global military dominance, such as the United States enjoyed in the “unipolar moment” after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is not feasible now even with increased military spending. While we do need to spend more on defense, he says, what we need above all is a strategy that prioritizes “being able to deny China, our greatest challenge by far, the ability to subordinate Taiwan or another U.S. ally in Asia, while enabling us also to modernize our nuclear deterrent and sustain our counterterrorism efforts.”

If news reports about the Biden administration’s recently completed, classified version of the National Defense Strategy are accurate, then we’re in trouble. According to Foreign Policy, the administration apparently delayed rolling out its national security and defense strategies because the Pentagon was making last-minute tweaks in light of the war in Ukraine, “suddenly shifting focus from a U.S. defense strategy that had eyes on China.”

Shifting our focus from China is one thing we should not do. The war in Ukraine has underscored the need for a clear-eyed assessment of what the United States can and can’t do overseas, and what the national interests really are. We can condemn Moscow’s predation on its neighbor and work to ease the suffering of the Ukrainian people while also recognizing that our great security challenges aren’t in eastern Europe but in the Asian Pacific.

Indeed, we need not just a defense strategy to contain China but an economic strategy as well. That includes policies aimed at U.S. corporations that do business in China, allies that trade with China, and indeed a wholesale reassessment of global trade and global supply chains. China is in effect our only peer competitor, and without a laser-like focus on containing Beijing, even if it means letting Europe take more responsibility for its own security, we will likely find ourselves before long watching another large country invade a smaller one.

If that happens, let’s hope we have people in the White House who won’t be caught by surprise, wondering what to do, and making it up as they go along.


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Source

Miles Guo: The CCP Would Still Invade Taiwan Even If Russia Ceased Fire

Miles Guo: The CCP Would Still Invade Taiwan Even If Russia Ceased Fire

Witten by Skagen

source: IFE

On the broadcast 17.03.2022, Miles Guo revealed that Putin might find a way out of his invasion against Ukraine and that Xi Jinping is waiting for the Covid vaccine disaster to finalise in order to attack Taiwan.

Yury Kovalchuk is a think tank master of Russia and also Putin’s psychological and spiritual mentor. He is one of the key figures involved in Putin’s war against Ukraine. According to Guo’s intelligence,  Kovalchuk recently told Putin, “If you keep going any further, you will be all over, so find a way out.” 

It is reported that the United States and European Union are likely to offer Putin a huge promise to unseal all of his personal assets and guarantee his safety, as long as Putin reaches a settlement. In fact, Putin has taken his girlfriends and sons back to Russia from Switzerland, according to Guo’s intelligence.  

Miles estimated that there is a big chance that Putin will put an end on the war. The bad news is that it may slow the dismantling of Chinese Communist Party, but it all depends on how Xi Jinping and his think tank master evaluate the situation. 

The Russia-Ukraine war has completely changed the political landscape of the world with no possible reversion. “Mark my words, there will be no more Russia”, concluded Miles Guo, yet he states that CCP would still invade Taiwan even if Russia ceased fire. 

Most importantly, Xi believes that the United States, who is Communist Party’s ever-enemy, can be brought to the ground once the disaster of the coronavirus vaccine appears from March to April , no later than May.  Moreover, People from neighboring countries will flee to the United States, creating a refugee crisis.Xi is waiting for this moment to come. He believes that the arrival of Covid vaccine disaster will be the right time for him to take action to attack Taiwan.

Guo recommended that the US pass legislation after this May to demand all the information about the Covid virus from the CCP, otherwise the US should impose economic sanctions on the CCP as it did on Russia and seize the CCP’s assets overseas.

Source:

broadcast 17.03.2022, Miles Guo

Disclaimer: This article only represents the author’s view. Gnews is not responsible for any legal risks.

#post_policy ul{padding-left:0px !important;} #post_policy ul li{ list-style:none !important; display:inline-block !important; padding:10px !important; } #post_policy ul li:hover,#post_policy ul li a:hover{text-decoration: none; !important;} #disclaimer,#post_policy ul li{font-size:15px !important;} #post_policy ul li a{font-size:15px !important;text-decoration: underline;}

Source

If Western Leaders Will Not Stop Putin By Force, They Should Help Negotiate Peace

If Western Leaders Will Not Stop Putin By Force, They Should Help Negotiate Peace

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine stretches into its second week, and Moscow’s tactics shift to the direct targeting of urban centers and civilian populations, the United States and our European allies are facing tough questions about how much assistance to give the Ukrainians without becoming belligerents — or being considered belligerents by Russia — and thus widening the war.

As I write, Russian forces are laying siege to cities across Ukraine, contesting vital ports, and targeting civilians and critical infrastructure. The bombardment of Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, has left at least dozens dead and hundreds more injured. Russian troops are now in control of Kherson, a major city in the south. The southern port city of Mariupol has been encircled, and the Russian attack there has cut power, water, and heat. Kyiv is under attack, and there are reports that Russia is preparing a major amphibious assault on Odessa.

Meanwhile, our leaders appear to be living in a fantasyland where their expressions of solidarity with Ukraine mean something tangible. Economic sanctions, the banning of Russian products from store shelves, the exclusion of Russian cats from cat shows, and the seizure of mega-yachts owned by Russian oligarchs, among other weak and inchoate responses from the West, are not going to stop Russian artillery and missiles from reducing Ukrainian cities to rubble in the coming days and weeks. The Ukrainians have fought bravely and inspired the world with their valor, but a new phase of the war is beginning, and Western leaders need to think seriously about what’s coming, and how this will end.

To stop the Russian invasion, the Ukrainians need more from the West than economic sanctions and bans on Russian products. They need heavy weapons, munitions, air support, and real-time intelligence from Western powers, and they need these things right now. The NATO allies understand this, on some level, and are pouring weapons into Ukraine — rocket launchers, Javelin antitank missiles, Stinger surface-to-air missiles, along with machine guns, sniper rifles, and ammunition.

But they are not sending military aircraft, and they are not sending troops. The United States will not even impose sanctions on Russian oil or entertain the idea of ramping up domestic oil production to offset Russian imports. A White House flack told reporters aboard Air Force One this week: “We don’t have a strategic interest in reducing the global supply of energy.” So that’s that. 

The West, it seems, is trying to go right up to the line of belligerence without crossing it. Helping Ukraine, but not helping too much. For example, it appears that the U.S. is sharing some targeting intelligence with Ukraine but not real-time targeting of the kind that would enable Ukraine to take out individual Russian units.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chair of the House Armed Services Committee, who said Thursday morning on MSNBC that “we are providing some intelligence” to Ukraine, also said that real-time targeting would cross a line “to marking us participating in the war.” Hours later, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki implied that we were not giving any targeting intelligence to Ukraine, which prompted pushback from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who called Psaki’s comments “truthy” and that they do not “capture the full reality.”

Most likely, we are indeed providing targeting intelligence to Ukraine, but giving them the information only after a delay, so Russia cannot accuse us of assisting in the direct targeting of their forces.

That’s just one example of the needle Western powers are trying to thread. As the war goes on, and the fighting intensifies in and around Ukraine’s urban centers, the eye of that needle, so to speak, will get smaller and smaller. That means our leaders need to get serious about what they are prepared to do, and not do, in the defense of Ukraine. And they need to be clear with Ukraine and Russia about their intentions.

Right now, there is a galling lack of seriousness and clarity among them. On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., took to Twitter to call for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin, as if that’s a realistic option to end the crisis and avert catastrophe in Ukraine.

His comment follows other reckless comments in recent days from U.S. lawmakers and former generals calling for NATO to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. A no-fly zone would mean NATO warplanes shooting down Russian warplanes. It would mean open war with Russia. That’s precisely what some neocons in Washington want, for reasons of their own, but it’s not something the vast majority of Americans want.

Here is the hard truth: If the West is not going to send warplanes and troops, if we are not going to stop Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by force of arms, and by our inaction allow the bombardment of Ukrainian cities to proceed, then we need to be honest with the Ukrainians about that. We owe it to them to give them a realistic picture of what they can expect from us, and what they cannot expect. Indeed, we owe them a great deal more, but we at least owe them that.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is understandably trying to get NATO involved in the war. He is doing what any leader should do in his position, and he will likely go down in history for his courage and bravery in the face of the enemy. But if there is an off-ramp that might prevent what now appears to be the inevitable reduction of Ukraine to rubble, then Western leaders should not block it with bellicose talk and weak half-measures. We have had quite enough of both. Indeed, there were opportunities for the West to prevent this war, to persuade Moscow and Kyiv to negotiate a settlement, going back years. But in our fecklessness, we chose not to and instead kept talking tough and hoping for the best.

Now that Russia has entered this new phase of the war, the worst thing we could do for the Ukrainians would be to give them false hope as Russian forces close in, and then do nothing while their cities burn. If we will not do what’s necessary to stop Russia by force, then we should do what we can, right now, to broker a negotiated peace.


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)