The Cost of Nuclear War in Space
Putting a weapon into orbit is not just a military threat. It’s also a risk to the billions of dollars pouring into the space economy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/24/business/dealbook/the-cost-of-nuclear-war-in-space.html By Ephrat Livni and Vivienne Walt
Just before the Russian-Ukrainian war reached its two-year milestone today, U.S. intelligence agencies warned that Russia might aim a nuclear weapon at an unusual target: not any place on Earth, but satellites orbiting in space.
Putting a weapon into orbit is not just a military threat. It’s also a risk to the space economy — and the one on the ground. There is a little-known but fast-growing industry that insures satellites, but it doesn’t provide insurance against nuclear arms.
What’s at stake: hundreds of billions (and probably trillions) of dollars when including the services that rely on satellites, according to David Wade, an underwriter at the Atrium Space Insurance Consortium, which insures satellites for Lloyd’s.
Of more than 8,000 satellites in orbit, thousands belong to private companies, according to Orbiting Now, a site that compiles real-time satellite tracking data from NASA and other sources. The Russian weapon is said to be designed to target satellites in low Earth orbit, where most commercial satellites operate.
SpaceX’s Starlink dominates the space-based internet services industry, and Amazon also has big aspirations in space. But the sharp drop in launch costs in recent years — driven largely by SpaceX — has made entry possible for many smaller players, leading to a satellite-business frenzy that prompted the Federal Communications Commission to open a Space Bureau last year.
Wade estimated the total value of all insured satellites in orbit at $25 billion. That doesn’t include the revenue they generate. The Satellite Industry Association estimated revenues for nongovernmental satellite services at $113 billion in 2022.
Investment in the space economy is increasing quickly. Space activity could total $620 billion this year, according to the most recently available estimate. That’s up from $545 billion in 2022, according to an estimate from the Space Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes space education and enterprise.
Aspirations for the space economy include mining for rare minerals and water, tourism, communications, and data transfer infrastructure. On Thursday, a lunar lander from Intuitive Machines, traveling on a SpaceX rocket, became the first private craft to land on the moon, which some are hopeful leads to mining for water that could be used to make fuel for more distant industrial missions.
A space weapon would cast a pall across other businesses, too. Industries from agriculture to tech depend on satellites, and sectors like shipping, transport, banking and supply chain management rely on GPS, which uses satellites. The threat would also have “a depressive effect” on space company valuations broadly, said Donald Moore, C.E.O. of the Space Finance Corporation and a space policy lecturer at the University of Michigan Law School.
The new threat could also put a dent in the U.S. government’s plans to rely on private players just as the Department of Defense is expected to release details of a new strategy to integrate commercial satellites in national security, noted Brian Weeden, the chief program officer for the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit that works on space policy.
Some are skeptical of the risk. The precise effects would depend on unknowns about the weapon, company contingency planning and other factors. “We could still communicate,” said Henry Hertzfeld, a space policy professor at George Washington University and former chief economist at NASA. “We still have some landlines,” he added, speaking from his office phone. And he doubts that Russia will introduce this menace, as it would also endanger its space activities. Notably, it would also violate an international space treaty.
But the risk is not covered by insurance. “Exclusions for acts of war, antisatellite devices and nuclear reaction, nuclear radiation or radioactive contamination (except for radiation naturally occurring in the space environment) are typically listed in a space insurance policy,” Wade said in an email.
The U.S. space model depends heavily on commercialization, noted Russell Sawyer, a space insurance broker at Lockton in London. The government has pushed risk out onto private companies, he said, and this trend could shift if this nuclear threat really is serious: “The government would be needed.” — Ephrat Livni
Shock Horror! Serious risk TO INVESTORS of nuclear war in space!
Are investors prepared for *checks notes* nuclear war in space? Space boom, meet actual boom
F.com Sinead O’Sullivan FEBRUARY 24 2024 Sinéad O’Sullivan is a former Senior Researcher at Harvard Business School’s Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness.
Imagine if a country launched a 1.4-megaton nuclear warhead into space and detonated it 400 kilometres above the Pacific Ocean, generating such a huge burst of electromagnetic energy that it resulted in an artificial aurora while disrupting electrical systems over land masses up to 1,500km away and destroying several satellites…………………………………..
This actually happened in 1962. And the actor, naturally, was the United States of America. In the early 1960’s, the United States conducted a series of nuclear tests in space, which were primarily aimed at studying the effects and potential military applications of deploying nuclear weapons in space. The explosion test, called Starfish Prime, was a high-altitude nuclear test conducted as a joint effort of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Defense Atomic Support Agency.
One of the test’s consequences was to catalyse Russian enthusiasm for some ground rules: the Outer Space Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly a few years later, in 1967……
Today, most people — including investors who have bet billions of dollars on SpaceX’s Starlink constellation — have probably not heard of Starfish Prime, and don’t worry much about the impact of mega-radiation war in space………………….
Regardless, what we do know is that any nuclear weapon in space would — along with a great number of other consequences — pose a huge risk to the $300bn of private capital invested into the space sector in the last decade………………..
It is unideal that there are currently no globally binding rules that protect investor interests and assets in space. Consider the $180bn valuation of SpaceX, which is largely credited to its Starlink satellite communications constellation. This constellation could disappear in the space of minutes with the use of a single nuclear anti-satellite weapon in space — Russian or otherwise. It is possible many investors have not considered that a single adversarial event could destroy value so quickly. …………………………………..
The Outer Space Treaty says that nations cannot militarise space, place weapons in space, or take ownership of any celestial space bodies. This makes it an established investor’s friend, not foe — especially if that investor is American.
It is overseen by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN COPUOUS), but this body cannot legally mandate any nation to follow it. After all, in the jurisdiction of space, adherence is done via the complex mechanisms of diplomacy, something capital markets grossly lack……………….. https://www.ft.com/content/5a9c4477-6db9-4ea5-8ba2-7065f2370b02
Tax-payer to take bigger financial risks under new payment plan for nuclear command satellites
Under cost-plus or cost-reimbursement contracts, the government pays contractors for allowed expenses, plus an agreed upon profit margin. In fixed-price agreements, the contractor is paid a negotiated amount regardless of expenses incurred.
the development will move forward with the government absorbing the inherent risks.
Space Force bucks fixed-price trend for nuclear command satellites
Acquisition executive Frank Calvelli said the Space Force will award cost-plus contracts for the upcoming Evolved Strategic Satellite Communications System
Space News Sandra Erwin, February 26, 2024
WASHINGTON — In a departure from recent guidance, the Space Force will use cost-plus contracts for its high-priority strategic communications satellite program.
Space Force acquisition executive Frank Calvelli said Feb. 23 that the service has decided to not use fixed-price contracts for the Evolved Strategic Satellite Communications System (ESS), a critical component of the U.S. military’s nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) network that provides nuclear-survivable communications.
Calvelli has previously indicated a preference for fixed-price contracts as a means to control costs and incentivize efficiency in satellite procurements. However, he said that an exception will be made for the ESS program.
Boeing and Northrop Grumman were selected in 2020 to build ESS satellite prototypes but Calvelli suggested that these designs are not mature enough to transition to fixed-price production.
“It’s not as far along as I would like for us to probably use fixed price,” Calvelli said at an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The ESS program is estimated to be worth $8 billion. These new satellites are intended to augment and eventually replace the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) network of nuclear-hardened satellites made by Lockheed Martin.
Draft solicitation in the works
Calvelli said the Space Systems Command is still working on a draft solicitation for ESS proposals, expected to be released this year.
He said he had expected the ESS payload designs to be more mature by now and nearing the prototyping stage. ESS was one of the programs selected for rapid-prototyping under a Pentagon initiative known as “middle tier acquisition”
“But it seems like we spent a lot of time in MTA just doing tech risk reduction or technology maturity,” said Calvelli. “Had we built a real payload or actually built the prototype, then maybe we could actually go off and do something fixed-price.”
Under cost-plus or cost-reimbursement contracts, the government pays contractors for allowed expenses, plus an agreed upon profit margin. In fixed-price agreements, the contractor is paid a negotiated amount regardless of expenses incurred.
Cost-plus contracts are used in higher risk projects where technical requirements are uncertain or unknown and the work involves “non-recurring engineering.” These are upfront costs associated with the design and development of a new product.
“Given the amount of NRE that still has to go into the ESS program, and feedback I’ve gotten from industry, we are probably looking more towards the traditional cost-plus model for something like that,” Calvelli said.
The use of cost-plus versus fixed-price contracts has been a contentious issue recently, with some defense companies experiencing significant losses on fixed-price contracts. Executives from major defense contractors, including Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, have warned that they would be reluctant to bid on some fixed-price programs due to the financial risk.
Calvelli has said the preference is to use fixed-price vehicles once new systems are proven but ESS does not meet that threshold so the development will move forward with the government absorbing the inherent risks.
No excuses for late deliveries
Calvelli during his talk at CSIS also said he plans to crack down on program delays, especially those blamed on supply chain woes or pandemic impacts. ……………………………….. https://spacenews.com/space-force-bucks-fixed-price-trend-for-nuclear-command-satellites/
Iran Reduces Near-Weapons-Grade Stockpile, Defying Expectations
Move could signal an effort to de-escalate nuclear tensions with Washington
By Laurence Norman, Feb. 26, 2024
VIENNA—Iran reduced its stockpile of near-weapons-grade nuclear material even as it continued expanding its overall nuclear program, the United Nations’ atomic watchdog said Monday, marking a surprise step that could ease tensions with Washington.
The move comes at a moment when Iran and the U.S. have sought to avoid direct confrontation in the regional conflict that grew out of Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7 and Israel’s aggressive response………… (Subscribers only) more https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-reduces-near-weapons-grade-stockpile-defying-expectations-ba384777
An Anxious Europe Ponders Nuclear Weapons
To acquire nuclear weapons, European states would have to withdraw from the NPT which would, no doubt, undermine the international rules-based order that they wish to preserve.
Australian Institute of International Affairs, 26 FEB 2024, By Jasper Hufschmidt Morse
After comments made by the US presidential candidate, Donald Trump, some Europeans are considering the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons. They should think again.
On 10 February, former United States President Donald Trump recounted a conversation with an unnamed European counterpart in which he stated that he “would not protect” them from a possible Russian attack because they failed to allocate two percent of their gross domestic product to defence, and thus fell short of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) spending targets. Such delinquency would lead Trump to “encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want.”
Given Trump is the probable Republican candidate at the election in November, and currently polling ahead of incumbent President Joe Biden, these comments have triggered concern among European leaders, including German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, Polish Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz, as well as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. These concerns were exacerbated on 9 February when Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen warned that Russia might militarily challenge NATO’s mutual defence article within the next three to five years, considering “new knowledge.” Some are now calling for the expedited integration of European defence capabilities to the point of acquiring nuclear weapons. This conversation was initiated by European Union (EU) parliamentary vice president Katarina Barley who perceives a joint nuclear deterrent as part of Europe’s path toward to an eventual joint EU army. Her fellow social democrat, former German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel concurs, as does German Finance Minister Christian Lindner. However, others – such as chancellor Olaf Scholz, Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, or Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, who chairs Germany’s parliamentary defence committee – deem a European nuclear option “unrealistic.” According to political scientist Karl-Heinz Kamp, “debate about European nuclear weapons is a very German debate.” Nonetheless, non-Germans have also chimed in, including the chair of the EU Military Committee Robert Brieger – who argues in favour of European nuclear weapons – and Stoltenberg, who opposes them.
Until recently, discussion of a European nuclear deterrent was unthinkable. Current debate fluctuates between proposals for joint EU nuclear procurement, merging existing capabilities, and individual European states acquiring nuclear weapons. Indeed, there are many barriers to all of these options, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the ongoing stationing of American nuclear warheads on European soil.
One suggestion might propose that the two existing European nuclear powers, namely the United Kingdom and France, could increase their stockpiles and integrate them into a joint framework. However, this is also unrealistic as the cost of these two powers expanding their stockpile would be exorbitant. For instance, Britain is already projected to spend 34 percent of its military budget on maintaining its existing nuclear arsenal. Moreover, it is unlikely that the UK would participate in an EU nuclear weapons program post-Brexit.
European states would do well to consider Australia’s pursuit of nuclear-powered submarines through the AUKUS agreement to inform their own ongoing debate. While these submarines will not carry nuclear warheads, regional powers such as Indonesia did question AUKUS’ legitimacy, considering Australia’s commitment to non-proliferation. Certainly, the outright pursuit of nuclear warheads by the EU would be legitimately challenged in the same way. To acquire nuclear weapons, European states would have to withdraw from the NPT which would, no doubt, undermine the international rules-based order that they wish to preserve.
Furthermore, it would be hypocritical of Europe to insist on non-proliferation, for instance toward Iran through the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA) or other states which might wish to acquire nuclear weapons, such as Saudi Arabia or South Korea, but then become a proliferator itself. This would set a dangerous precedent, potentially perceived as a “go ahead” by other states who wish to acquire nuclear weapons.
Similarly, it is questionable whether the US would tolerate nuclear proliferation in Europe. Certainly, the US has the means to prevent the pursuit of nuclear weapons, as seen in 2009 and 2010 when it allegedly employed the Stuxnet computer virus to sabotage Iranian enrichment centrifuges. Even if the US were to abstain from sabotaging European efforts, it would nonetheless constitute a rupture in the transatlantic alliance. ………………………………………………… more https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/an-anxious-europe-ponders-nuclear-weapons/
Fatal Flaws Undermine America’s Defense Industrial Base
Many elements of the traditional DIB have yet to adopt advanced manufacturing technologies, as they struggle to develop business cases for needed capital investment.
In other words, while adopting advanced manufacturing technologies would fulfill the purpose of the US Department of Defense, it is not profitable for private industry to do so.
Despite virtually all the problems the report identifies stemming from private industry’s disproportionate influence over the US DIB, the report never identifies private industry itself as a problem.
If private industry and its prioritization of profits is the central problem inhibiting the DIB from fulfilling its purpose, the obvious solution is nationalizing the DIB by replacing private industry with state-owned enterprises. This allows the government to prioritize purpose over profits. Yet in the United States and across Europe, the so-called “military industrial complex” has grown to such proportions that it is no longer subordinated to the government and national interests, but rather the government and national interests are subordinated to it.
US defense industrial strategy built on a flawed premise
Beyond private industry’s hold on the US DIB, the very premise the NDIS is built on is fundamentally flawed, deeply rooted in private industry’s profit-driven prioritization.
The report claims:
The purpose of this National Defense Industrial Strategy is to drive development of an industrial ecosystem that provides a sustained competitive advantage to the United States over its adversaries.
The notion of the United States perpetually expanding its wealth and power across the globe, unrivaled by its so-called “adversaries” is unrealistic.
China alone has a population 4-5 times greater than the US. China’s population is, in fact, larger than that of the G7 combined. China has a larger industrial base, economy, and education system than the US. China’s education system not only produces millions more graduates each year in essential fields like science, technology, and engineering than the US, the proportion of such graduates is higher in China than in the US.
China alone possesses the means to maintain a competitive advantage over the United States now and well into the foreseeable future. The US, attempting to draw up a strategy to maintain an advantage over China (not to mention over the rest of the world) regardless of these realities, borders on delusion.
Yet for 60 pages, US policymakers attempt to lay out a strategy to do just that.
Not just China, but also Russia
While China is repeatedly mentioned as America’s “pacing challenge,” the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is perhaps the most acute example of a shifting balance of global power.
Despite a combined population, GDP, and military budget many times greater than Russia’s, the collective West is incapable of matching Russian production of even relatively simple munitions like artillery shells, let alone more complex systems like tanks, aircraft, and precision-guided missiles.
While the US and its allies appear to have every conceivable advantage over Russia on paper, the collective West has organized itself as a profit-driven rather than purpose-driven society.
In Russia, the defense industry exists to serve national security. While one might believe this goes without saying, across the collective West, the defense industry, like all other industries in the West, exists solely to maximize profits.
To best serve national security, the defense industry is required to maintain substantial surge capacity – meaning additional, unused factory space, machines, and labor on standby if and when large surges in production are required in relatively short periods of time. Across the West, in order to maximize profits, surge capacity has been ruthlessly slashed, deemed economically inefficient. Only rare exceptions exist, such as US 155 mm artillery shell production.
While the West’s defense industry remains the most profitable on Earth, its ability to actually churn out arms and ammunition in the quantities and quality required for large-scale conflict is clearly compromised by its maximization of profits.
The result is evident today as the West struggles to expand production of arms and ammunition for its Ukrainian proxies.
The NDIS report would note:
Prior to the invasion, weapon procurements for some of the in-demand systems were driven by annual training requirements and ongoing combat operations. This modest demand, along with recent market dynamics, drove companies to divest excess capacity due to cost. This meant that any increased production requirements would require an increase in workforce hours in existing facilities—commonly referred to as “surge” capacity. These, in turn, were limited further by similar down-stream considerations of workforce, facility, and supply chain limitations.
Costs are most certainly a consideration across any defense industry, but costs cannot be the primary consideration.
A central element of Russia’s defense industry is Rostec, a massive state-owned enterprise under which hundreds of companies related to national industrial needs including defense are organized. Rostec is profitable. However, the industrial concerns organized under Rostec serve purposes related to Russia’s national interests first and foremost, be it national health, infrastructure or security.
Because Russia’s defense industry is purpose-driven, it produced military equipment because it was necessary, not because it was profitable. As a result, Russia possessed huge stockpiles of ammunition and equipment ahead of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in February 2022. In addition to this, Russia maintained large amounts of surge capacity enabling production rates of everything from artillery shells to armored vehicles to expand quickly over the past 2 years.
Only relatively recently have Western analysts acknowledged this.
Continue reading
“military industrial complex” has grown to such proportions that it is no longer subordinated to the government and national interests, but rather the government and national interests are subordinated to it.
the collective West has organized itself as a profit-driven rather than purpose-driven society………………………………across the collective West, the defense industry, like all other industries in the West, exists solely to maximize profits.
By Brian Berletic, Orinoco Tribune. February 24, 2024 https://popularresistance.org/fatal-flaws-undermine-americas-defense-industrial-base/
The first-ever US Department of Defense National Defense Industrial Strategy (NDIS) confirms what many analysts have concluded in regard to the unsustainable nature of Washington’s global-spanning foreign policy objectives and its defense industrial base’s (DIB) inability to achieve them.
The report lays out a multitude of problems plaguing the US DIB including a lack of surge capacity, inadequate workforce, off-shore downstream suppliers, as well as insufficient “demand signals” to motivate private industry partners to produce what’s needed, in the quantities needed, when it is needed.
In fact, the majority of the problems identified by the report involved private industry and its unwillingness to meet national security requirements because they were not profitable.
For example, the report attempts to explain why many companies across the US DIB lack advanced manufacturing capabilities, claiming:
Many elements of the traditional DIB have yet to adopt advanced manufacturing technologies, as they struggle to develop business cases for needed capital investment.
In other words, while adopting advanced manufacturing technologies would fulfill the purpose of the US Department of Defense, it is not profitable for private industry to do so.
Despite virtually all the problems the report identifies stemming from private industry’s disproportionate influence over the US DIB, the report never identifies private industry itself as a problem.
If private industry and its prioritization of profits is the central problem inhibiting the DIB from fulfilling its purpose, the obvious solution is nationalizing the DIB by replacing private industry with state-owned enterprises. This allows the government to prioritize purpose over profits. Yet in the United States and across Europe, the so-called “military industrial complex” has grown to such proportions that it is no longer subordinated to the government and national interests, but rather the government and national interests are subordinated to it.
US defense industrial strategy built on a flawed premise
Beyond private industry’s hold on the US DIB, the very premise the NDIS is built on is fundamentally flawed, deeply rooted in private industry’s profit-driven prioritization.
The report claims:
The purpose of this National Defense Industrial Strategy is to drive development of an industrial ecosystem that provides a sustained competitive advantage to the United States over its adversaries.
The notion of the United States perpetually expanding its wealth and power across the globe, unrivaled by its so-called “adversaries” is unrealistic.
China alone has a population 4-5 times greater than the US. China’s population is, in fact, larger than that of the G7 combined. China has a larger industrial base, economy, and education system than the US. China’s education system not only produces millions more graduates each year in essential fields like science, technology, and engineering than the US, the proportion of such graduates is higher in China than in the US.
China alone possesses the means to maintain a competitive advantage over the United States now and well into the foreseeable future. The US, attempting to draw up a strategy to maintain an advantage over China (not to mention over the rest of the world) regardless of these realities, borders on delusion.
Yet for 60 pages, US policymakers attempt to lay out a strategy to do just that.
Not just China, but also Russia
While China is repeatedly mentioned as America’s “pacing challenge,” the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is perhaps the most acute example of a shifting balance of global power.
Despite a combined population, GDP, and military budget many times greater than Russia’s, the collective West is incapable of matching Russian production of even relatively simple munitions like artillery shells, let alone more complex systems like tanks, aircraft, and precision-guided missiles.
While the US and its allies appear to have every conceivable advantage over Russia on paper, the collective West has organized itself as a profit-driven rather than purpose-driven society.
In Russia, the defense industry exists to serve national security. While one might believe this goes without saying, across the collective West, the defense industry, like all other industries in the West, exists solely to maximize profits.
To best serve national security, the defense industry is required to maintain substantial surge capacity – meaning additional, unused factory space, machines, and labor on standby if and when large surges in production are required in relatively short periods of time. Across the West, in order to maximize profits, surge capacity has been ruthlessly slashed, deemed economically inefficient. Only rare exceptions exist, such as US 155 mm artillery shell production.
While the West’s defense industry remains the most profitable on Earth, its ability to actually churn out arms and ammunition in the quantities and quality required for large-scale conflict is clearly compromised by its maximization of profits.
The result is evident today as the West struggles to expand production of arms and ammunition for its Ukrainian proxies.
The NDIS report would note:
Prior to the invasion, weapon procurements for some of the in-demand systems were driven by annual training requirements and ongoing combat operations. This modest demand, along with recent market dynamics, drove companies to divest excess capacity due to cost. This meant that any increased production requirements would require an increase in workforce hours in existing facilities—commonly referred to as “surge” capacity. These, in turn, were limited further by similar down-stream considerations of workforce, facility, and supply chain limitations.
Costs are most certainly a consideration across any defense industry, but costs cannot be the primary consideration.
A central element of Russia’s defense industry is Rostec, a massive state-owned enterprise under which hundreds of companies related to national industrial needs including defense are organized. Rostec is profitable. However, the industrial concerns organized under Rostec serve purposes related to Russia’s national interests first and foremost, be it national health, infrastructure or security.
Because Russia’s defense industry is purpose-driven, it produced military equipment because it was necessary, not because it was profitable. As a result, Russia possessed huge stockpiles of ammunition and equipment ahead of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in February 2022. In addition to this, Russia maintained large amounts of surge capacity enabling production rates of everything from artillery shells to armored vehicles to expand quickly over the past 2 years.
Only relatively recently have Western analysts acknowledged this.
Continue reading
Netanyahu’s Post-War Plans for Gaza Call for Military Occupation ‘Without Time Limit’
The Israeli Prime Minister also wants to deploy troops along the border with Egypt
by Kyle Anzalone February 23, 2024, https://news.antiwar.com/2024/02/23/netanyahus-post-war-plans-for-gaza-call-for-military-occupation-without-time-limit/
Israel has released its first draft of its plans for post-war Gaza. Throughout the four months of a brutal onslaught, Israeli forces have decimated the Strip and killed 30,000 Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s post-war plans call for “operational freedom of action in the entire Gaza Strip without a time limit” and “demilitarization” of Palestinians.
The Israeli government first released the document to some media outlets on Thursday. According to the translation from NBC News, the document says, Israel will “maintain its operational freedom of action in the entire Gaza Strip, without a time limit,” and “The security perimeter being created in the Gaza Strip on the border with Israel will remain as long as there is a security need for it.”
Israel is also requesting control of the border between Egypt and Gaza. Netanyahu’s plan may face resistance in Washington and Cairo. Egypt has demanded that Israel not deploy its forces along the border. The US has asked Israel not to expand buffer zones in Gaza. However, Tel Aviv has ignored nearly all of Washington’s requests over the past four months with no impact on US aid shipments to Israel.
Netanyahu says he will not allow the rebuilding of the Strip to begin until the Palestinians have been “deradicalized.” Additionally, Tel Aviv plans to have complete control over the future political system in Gaza. Netanyahu says the Strip will be fully demilitarized.
President Joe Biden has requested that Netanyahu allow Arab states to finance the reconstruction of Gaza and allow the Palestinian Authority (PA) to govern Gaza in the process of creating a sovereign Palestine. Netanyahu’s proposal did not mention the PA.
The Israeli government has repeatedly stated that it will not allow the PA to control Gaza or the Palestinians to have a state. In the statement released by the Israeli government, Netanyahu says, “Israel utterly rejects international diktats over a final-status agreement with the Palestinians.”
Netanyahu additionally plans to shut down UNRWA, the main aid agency in Gaza, that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians rely on for survival. Tel Aviv recently accused the UN Relief and Works Agency of employing 12 people who took part in the Hamas attack in Israel. However, a US intelligence community assessment only endorsed the claim with “low confidence.”
NATO says Kiev can use F-16 jets to strike targets ‘outside Ukraine’, despite Russia’s warning
More recently, some Russian officials have threatened that further western backing for Ukraine could lead to a global nuclear war.
Financial Times, Thu, 22 Feb 2024 https://www.sott.net/article/489220-NATO-says-Kiev-can-use-F-16-jets-to-strike-targets-outside-Ukraine-despite-Russias-warning
Ukraine has the right to strike “Russian military targets outside Ukraine” in line with international law, the Nato secretary-general has said for the first time since the start of the full-scale war nearly two years ago.
Jens Stoltenberg earlier this week acknowledged that the use of western-supplied arms to strike targets in Russia had long been a point of contention among Kyiv’s allies, due to fears of escalating the conflict.
“It’s for each and every ally to decide whether there are some caveats on what they deliver, and different allies have had a bit different policies on that,” Stoltenberg told Radio Free Europe in an interview published on Tuesday.
“But in general, we need to remember what this is. This is a war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine, in blatant violation of international law. And according to international law, Ukraine has the right to self-defence,” Stoltenberg added. “And that includes also striking legitimate military targets, Russian military targets, outside Ukraine. That is international law and, of course, Ukraine has the right to do so, to protect itself.”
A Nato official confirmed to the Financial Times on Thursday that Stoltenberg said Kyiv had the right to self-defence, including by striking legitimate Russian military targets outside Ukraine.
The comments represent a step up in rhetoric from Stoltenberg, who has previously referred to Kyiv’s rights under international law without explicitly mentioning attacks on Russian territory.
Comment: There have been a significant number of attacks on Russian territory, albeit mostly sabotage, but indeed this would represent an overt escalation, and to which Russia will be forced to respond: 14th Feb Massive explosion at Russia’s Voktinsk munitions factory
The debate over using western weapons to strike Russia is likely to intensify as some Nato allies begin to ship F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine. The US-made aircraft, if armed with long-range missiles, could significantly increase the potential range of Kyiv’s strikes into Russian territory.
In recent months Kyiv has stepped up strikes on military targets inside Russia with drones and long-range missiles, including an oil depot used by the Russian army near St Petersburg.
However, due to western sensitivities around attacks on Russian territory, Ukraine has only ever alluded to its responsibility. A spokesperson for Ukraine’s air defence forces, Yuriy Ignat, said that Ukraine “as a rule, does not comment”.
France and the UK, which have already supplied Kyiv with long-range missiles, have been cautious about endorsing such strikes for fear of escalation with Moscow.
In Germany, lawmakers are seeking to persuade Chancellor Olaf Scholz to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine, a long-standing demand from Kyiv as it could use the advanced German weapon to strike Russia’s supply lines.
The government’s parliamentary majority on Thursday was set to approve a motion asking Scholz to deliver “additional long-range weapons systems” to Kyiv, which many take to mean Taurus. The German missile has a slightly longer range than its French and British equivalents and is more sophisticated against reinforced structures, such as bunkers and bridges.
Russian President Vladimir Putin hinted last year that Moscow could strike western-supplied F-16s outside Ukraine’s borders, which he said risked bringing Nato into a direct conflict with Russia. “This seriously risks dragging Nato further into this armed conflict,” Putin said in June.” The tanks are burning and the F-16s will burn just as well.”
More recently, some Russian officials have threatened that further western backing for Ukraine could lead to a global nuclear war.
“We should do everything to stop [nuclear war] happening, but the clock is ticking faster and faster,” Dmitry Medvedev, a former president and prime minister, said in an interview published on Thursday.
“And in this I also see the impotence of western governments that are always saying the same thing: ‘The Russians are trying to scare us, they’ll never do it.’ They are mistaken. If the existence of our country is at stake, then what choice does our head of state have? None.”
Long-range strike capabilities for Kyiv have become more critical as the situation on the frontline becomes increasingly stalled in a gruelling artillery battle where Russian troops are able to outfire Ukraine’s by about three to one.
While Russia captured the town of Avdiivka last week, its first major battlefield victory since May 2023, the 1,000km frontline is largely static.
“It’s also important to actually recognise that even though the situation on the battlefield is difficult, we should not overestimate Russia and underestimate Ukraine,” Stoltenberg told reporters last week, noting that Ukrainian forces were able to carry out “deep strikes” into Russian-occupied Crimea and that they succeeded in sinking one of Russia’s ships in the Black Sea.
Comment: RT explains Russia’s position:
The way the US-made jet is designed means it might have difficulties operating from Ukrainian runways, sparking speculation that they could be flown from Poland, Romania or the Baltic states instead.
Russia has repeatedly warned such a deployment would be an escalation of the conflict and may even risk nuclear war, as the F-16 is capable of delivering B61 gravity bombs.
“So, if one of those planes takes off from a NATO nation – what would that be? An attack on Russia. I shall not describe what could happen next,” Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and deputy head of Russia’s National Security Council, said in an interview on Thursday.
It’s becoming clear that the US is intent on escalating the situation in one way or another, and alongside this Russia has been revealing just how involved with the proxy war the West is:
Pentagon’s New Military Satellite Program Poses Threat to Russia
Ekaterina Blinova, 24 Feb 24 https://sputnikglobe.com/20240222/pentagons-new-military-satellite-program-poses-threat-to-russia-1116925932.html—
Washington recently raised a great fuss over the alleged “Russian threat”, citing, in particular, possible space-based nuclear deployments. Moscow shredded the speculations, suggesting that the US is using the rumors as a smokescreen for its own military programs.
Hours after the US press published groundless claims of Russia’s space-based nuclear program, the Pentagon sent “a missile-tracking system” into orbit – part of the Department of Defense’s new plan dubbed Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture that aims to fill the low-Earth orbit with myriads of small and cheap satellites.
The New York Times broke the Pentagon’s new initiative on February 15, explaining that the US military had adopted an approach similar to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite constellation. If America’s adversaries knock down even a dozen of those small and cheap Pentagon satellites, the system would continue operating shifting to other units, according to the media outlet. As Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen H. Hicks stated last month, the Pentagon will be able to launch those small cost-effective satellites “almost weekly.”
“Now, as you all know, SPACECOM is DoD’s newest combatant command,” Hicks said at a US Space Command gathering on January 10. “Every day, SPACECOM delivers tremendous value across our Joint Force, with satellite communication, early warning radars, GPS that enable not only navigation for people, planes, trucks, and ships – but also the precision-guided munitions that have become a hallmark of how the US military fights in the modern era.”
The Pentagon’s new satellite program poses a challenge to Russia, according to Sputnik’s interlocutors, Ivan Moiseev, the head of the Russian Institute of Space Policy, and Dr. Natan Eismont, a leading researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Space Research Institute.
Starting from 2014, the Pentagon has been dramatically increasing its capabilities in space, according to Moiseev. In December 2019, then-US President Donald Trump authorized the establishment of the US Space Force (USSF), as a special military service branch of the US Armed Forces.
In addition, the Pentagon boosted cooperation with commercial firms specializing in space technologies which dramatically enhanced the DoD’s capabilities, the scientist pointed out. To illustrate his point Moiseev referred to the Pentagon’s cooperation with Musk’s SpaceX, which operates over 5,400 satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO). Commercial satellites can be used by the Pentagon as any dual-use equipment, but formally they would not be considered “military satellites”, he continued.
These satellites are controllable. And if there is a tense situation, because in order to do this, you need a very tense situation – virtually a war or at least a hybrid war – then these satellites can target any of [Russia] 160 satellites. This has never been announced, it is simply clear because such a possibility exists,” Moiseev presumed.
Presently, the United States has approximately 9,000 satellites in space with 70% of them being communication satellites to “connect the world,” as USSF Maj. Gen. Gregory Gagnon, deputy chief of Space Operations for Intelligence, outlined at the Air and Space Forces Association’s Warfare Symposium on February 13.
However, the number of US satellite constellations is rapidly growing, noted Dr. Natan Eismont.
“The composition of these [satellite] groups is growing, and literally within five years, Musk alone is expected to increase the number of these devices to more than 10,000. Does this create any additional problems? Of course it does, yes,” Eismont told Sputnik.
On the one hand, one cannot rule out collisions of various spacecraft as the low orbit would become “crowded”. On the other hand, myriads of satellites could be used for military purposes, he noted.
“That is, these are both civilian and military [satellites]. It is almost impossible to separate them. Although there were attempts to separate. And not only attempts, in general, and implementation, when these tasks were divided. But still, one cannot say that these devices are exclusively for military purposes, and those are for civilian purposes. If the device was intended for civilian purposes, then converting it for use by military structures is simple. The device will remain the same. This is something that has to be considered and taken into account,” the leading researcher continued.
Eismont agreed that in this respect, US satellite constellations pose a threat to Russia. However, he resolutely rubbished the possibility of Russia using space-based nuclear weapons, promoted by the US press: “There will be no winners here. There will only be losers,” he stressed. When it comes to space, great powers need to sit and talk; these issues should be solved solely diplomatically, Eismont concluded.
$14 Billion US Aid Package for Israel Crafted to Prepare for ‘Multi-Front War,’ Not Just Gaza
The $14 billion is included in the $95 billion foreign military aid that was recently passed by the Senateby Dave DeCamp February 22, 2024 at 1:26 pm ET CategoriesNewsTagsIsrael, Palestine
The $14 billion in additional military aid for Israel that President Biden is seeking was designed not just for operations in Gaza but also to prepare Israel for a “multi-front war,” The Times of Israel has reported.
A senior Biden administration official told The Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the $14 billion is “for Israel to defend itself in a multi-front war and to be sure it can deter a multi-front war.”
Israel has been escalating airstrikes in Lebanon against Hezbollah, though many strikes have killed civilians. The fire across the border risks a full-blown war, and there are no signs tensions will ease anytime soon. Israeli officials have been threatening to invade if Hezbollah doesn’t move back from the Israel-Lebanon border.
US officials have acknowledged to The Washington Post that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might view war in Lebanon as key to his political survival, as polling has shown Israelis want him to step down after the current conflict.
Israel also appears to be attempting to provoke Iran as several members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have been killed by Israeli airstrikes in Syria since October 7. According to The New York Times, Israel was also behind a covert attack on two natural gas pipelines inside Iran.
The $14 billion is packed into the $95 billion foreign military aid bill that passed through the Senate but has yet to be brought to the House floor for a vote as Republicans are still looking for a border deal. The legislation also includes about $60 billion for Ukraine, and $4.8 billion for Taiwan and other spending in the Asia Pacific.
The $14 billion for Israel is on top of the $3.8 billion the country receives from the US each year. According to The Times of Israel, It includes $5.2 billion to go toward Israeli missile defense, which is seen as a critical necessity for a war with Hezbollah.
Another $3.5 billion will replenish munitions Israel has used in Gaza. The US will use $4 billion US to refill its own stockpiles, including a contingency stockpile located in Israel that the Israeli military has been allowed to use for its operations in Gaza.
Since October 7, the US has been shipping bombs and other types of weapons on a near-daily basis. According to the Israeli news site Ynet, the US has shipped over 25,000 tons of military equipment to support the Israeli slaughter in Gaza, which has killed over 29,000 Palestinians.
Ten years after Maidan: Why won’t the West admit that the coup was based on a lie?
Felix Livshitz, RT, Sat, 24 Feb 2024, https://www.sott.net/article/489209-Ten-years-after-Maidan-Why-wont-the-West-admit-that-the-coup-was-based-on-a-lie
—
This feature was first published on February 6, 2023. On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the events that took place in Kiev on February 22, 2014, we are again posting it on the front page.
Political scientist Ivan Katchanovski – of the University of Ottawa – revealed last year, in a paper, that the February 2014 massacre of Ukrainian protesters by sniper fire, a defining moment of the Western-backed Maidan coup, was not published by an academic journal for “political reasons.”
Evidence that external forces were involved has been suppressed for ‘political reasons’
‘The evidence is solid’
In a lengthy Twitter thread, Katchanovski first laid out the circumstances behind the rejection of his article, and the bombshell evidence included in it. The paper was initially accepted with minor revisions after peer review, and the journal’s editor offered a glowing appraisal of his work, writing:
“There is no doubt that this paper is exceptional in many ways. It offers evidence against the mainstream narrative of the regime change in Ukraine in 2014… It seems to me that the evidence the study produces in favour of its interpretation on who was behind the massacre of the protesters and the police during the ‘Euromaidan’ mass protests on February 18-20, 2014, in Ukraine, is solid. On this there is also consensus among the two reviewers.”
As the editor noted, the massacre was a “politically crucial development,” which led to the “transition of powers in the country” from the freely elected Viktor Yanukovich to the illegitimate and rabidly nationalistic administration of Aleksandr Turchinov, a former security services chief. It was endlessly cited in Western media as a symbol of the brutality of Ukraine’s government and an unprovoked attack on innocent pro-WesternMaidan protesters, who allegedly sought nothing more than democracy and freedom.
Rumors that the killings were a false flag intended to inflame tensions among the vast crowds filling Maidan, and provoke violence against the authorities, began circulating immediately.
No serious investigation into what happened was ever conducted by the Western media, with all claims that the sniper attacks were an inside job dismissed as Kremlin “disinformation.” However, even NATO’s Atlantic Council adjunct admitted in 2020 that the massacre was unsolved and that this “cast a shadow over Ukraine.”
Ask the witnesses
It may not remain unsolved for much longer though, due to an ongoing trial of policemen at the scene on the fateful day. The legal action has been unfolding for well over a year and has received no mainstream news attention at all outside Ukraine. Katchanovski drew heavily on witness testimony and video evidence that has emerged over the course of the trial in his suppressed paper.
For example, 51 protesters wounded during the incident testified at the trial that they were shot by snipers from Maidan-controlled buildings, and/or witnessed snipers there. Many spoke of snipers in buildings controlled by Maidan protesters shooting at police. This is consistent with other evidence collected by Katchanovski, such as 14 separate videos of snipers in protester-controlled buildings, 10 of which clearly feature far-right gunmen in the Hotel Ukraina aiming at crowds below.
In all, 300 witnesses have told much the same story. Synchronized videos show that the specific time and direction of shots fired by the police not only didn’t coincide with the killings of specific Maidan protesters, but that authorities aimed at walls, trees, lampposts, and even the ground, simply to disperse crowds.
Among those targeted by apparently Maidan-aligned snipers were journalists at Germany’s ARD. They weren’t the only Western news station in town at the time – so too were Belgian reporters, who not only filmed Maidan protesters screaming towards Hotel Ukraina for snipers not to shoot them, but also participants being actively lured to the killing zone. This incendiary footage was never broadcast.
CNN likewise filmed far-right elements firing at police from behind Maidan barricades, then hunting for positions to shoot from the 11th floor of the Hotel Ukraina, minutes before the BBC filmed snipers shooting protesters from a room where a far-right MP was staying. The network opted not to report this at the time.
We needn’t rely purely on video footage. Over the course of the trial, no fewer than 14 self-confessed members of Maidan sniper groups testified they had explicitly received massacre orders, Katchanovski claims. By contrast, no police officer at the scene has said they were directed to kill unarmed protesters, no minister has come forward to blow the whistle on such a scheme, and no evidence Yanukovich approved of the killings has ever emerged.
Separate from the trial, leaders of the far-right Svoboda party have openly stated that Western government representatives expressly told them before the massacre that they would start calling for Yanukovich’s ouster once casualties among protesters reached a certain number. This figure was even actively discussed by both sides – were five enough, or 20? Or even 100? The latter was the final total reported, and indeed led to calls for the Ukrainian government’s abdication.
***
Katchanovski previously published a landmark study on the Maidan massacre in 2021, which has been referenced over 100 times by scholars and experts, already making him one of most cited political scientists specializing in Ukraine, according to Google Scholar.
Whatever the nature and source of the political pressure applied to the journal that led to the censoring of the dynamite paper, the move may well backfire massively, in the spirit of the Streisand Effect. Indeed, it could help the truth of what happened on those deadly days come out, and assist in those responsible for the killings being brought to justice.
It should also prompt a wider reconsideration of the nature of Maidan too, and the government it produced. The banning of opposition parties, attacks on the Orthodox Church, the closure of dissident media outlets, and the war on Russian culture and language are all consequences.
Comment: It is interesting that the West keeps claiming that Ukraine is fighting for European values for as the last paragraph shows, those values contain nothing democratic, just or fair in them. The West might be right though as European values in reality are getting closer and closer to those demonstrated in Ukraine, namely fascism and totalitarianism.
See also:
Donald Trump and nuclear weapons are a scary mix.
A failing British nuclear arsenal reliant on the goodwill of Donald Trump? It’s a terrifying thought
Simon Tisdall. Guardian, 24 Feb 24
Believing US-supervised nuclear weapons make Britain safer is not only delusional and unsustainable, it’s dangerous.
Donald Trump and nuclear weapons are a scary mix. As president, he greatly expanded the US nuclear arsenal, scrapped arms control treaties and repeatedly threatened to start a nuclear war. On leaving office, he stole nuclear secrets from the White House and leaked their contents. A judge recently questioned his mental health.
For close ally Britain, the scariest thought is that Trump, if re-elected in November, could fatally undermine the UK’s “independent” nuclear deterrent, or worse, pressure London into actually using it. If Trump blundered into a nuclear showdown with, say, China, Russia or North Korea, Britain would be expected to back him – and could become a target.
None of these scenarios may be ruled out, despite UK insistence that it retains sole operational control of its four Vanguard-class nuclear missile submarines. In truth, such outcomes grow more plausible as the international security situation deteriorates, Trump threatens to abandon Nato and Europe, and nuclear arms proliferate globally. Successive UK governments are primarily to blame for Britain’s deepening nuclear nightmare. All have colluded in the pretence that the UK deterrent, known generically as Trident, is independent. In fact, the Vanguard submarines rely on American technology, logistics and maintenance, as will their Dreadnought-class successors. The new W93 replacement warhead borrows from US designs.
Even the US-made Trident II D5 ballistic missiles that carry the warheads are not owned but leased under the terms of the 1958 US-UK mutual defence agreement (MDA) and 1963 Polaris sales agreement. “UK nuclear weapons are only as independent as the US wants them to be,” a new study by the anti-nuclear Pugwash scientists’ network says. “The MDA [locks] the UK into dependence on the US for the procurement of nuclear weapons,” Pugwash states. “In practice, the UK’s technical dependence on the US would constrain any attack to which Washington objected. For example, the UK is reliant on American software for all aspects of nuclear targeting.”
This chronic dependency would give a re-elected Trump huge leverage, should he choose to use it, in the not improbable event of a security or foreign policy clash with a Labour government, for example, over Ukraine. Britain’s deterrent has always ultimately relied on US goodwill, an all-party commission on Trident noted in 2014……………………………………………………………………………
Britain’s habitual willingness to follow America to war, seen again recently in the Red Sea and notoriously in Iraq in 2003, could be its undoing – unless policy changes. “The UK is more likely to use nuclear weapons in a bilateral UK-US operation than either as part of a Nato strike or independently,” Pugwash says. The House of Commons defence select committee concluded in 2006 that “the only way that Britain is ever likely to use Trident is to give legitimacy to a US nuclear attack by participating in it…. In a crisis the very existence of the UK Trident system might make it difficult for a UK prime minister to refuse a request by the US president to participate.”
Trump aside, Britain’s deterrent faces multiple problems. One estimate puts the overall cost of renewing and maintaining Trident from 2019 to 2070 at £172bn. The system already faces delays and cost overruns. The first Dreadnought submarine is not expected to enter service until the early 2030s.
Meanwhile, the four Vanguard subs and their crews are undertaking record-length patrols, continuously at sea for five months or more. This reportedly compounds maintenance and morale problems. The entire fleet is now older than its originally planned service life of 25 years, according to the independent Nuclear Information Service. And the deterrent’s reliability is in question after a second, consecutive missile test failure last month. Official secrecy hinders public and parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial claims that all is working well…………………………………………………………………………………………
An incoming Labour government must not wait until disaster strikes. It should reallocate Trident’s billions to more socially useful projects. The belief that US-supervised and controlled nuclear weapons somehow make Britain safer and boost its global influence is delusional, unsustainable, unaffordable – and, in the age of Trump, downright dangerous. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/24/failing-british-nuclear-arsenal-reliant-on-the-goodwill-of-donald-rump-is-terrifying-thought
First 2 years of US proxy war against Russia finds both US and Ukraine in downward spiral
Between 2007, and February 24, 2022, former presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden floated NATO membership to Ukraine. This was in violation of George H.W. Bush’s 1991 promise not to expand NATO eastward toward Russia.
Sensible diplomats and historians scolded the US that such a move east was a red line of provocation that would inevitably result in military Russian pushback. They compared it with JFK’s willingness to start nuclear war with Russia to prevent installation of Russian missiles just 90 miles from the US in Cuba.
But the reckless presidents occupying the While House pushed on with their lust to expand NATO till Russia was completely surrounded to the west by US allies, possibly nuclear armed, to both isolate and degrade Russia as a political rival to US European hegemony.
But it was President Biden, after 15 long years of Russian pleading with America to cease NATO expansion, to trigger a violent Russian response. While touting NATO membership for Ukraine, he poured hundreds of millions in weaponry for Ukraine to finish off the Russian leaning Ukrainian dissidents in the Donbas seeking independence from Kyiv. He rebuffed every Russian entreaty to consider Russia’s security concerns. He even told Russia thru his spokesperson that ‘Russia’s security concerns were not up for discussion.’ A first year political science student wouldn’t have made that mistake.
So, after 15 years of pleading, Russia’s military response began 2 years ago today. What has it achieved for Ukraine who lobbied the US hard for NATO membership? Over 400,000 dead soldiers and 10,000 dead civilians. Over 14 million Ukrainians displaced from their homes, with 6 million fleeing as refugees in 11 European countries. Over a third of the prewar Ukraine economy is gone, putting Ukraine on US/NATO life support just to function. The Ukrainian military is near collapse. That is quite a needless decline for the US and Ukraine to provoke a senseless war.
Tho certainly not bloody nor broken economically as Ukraine, the US is also in decline from the war it provoked 2 years ago. Our sanctions against Russia have failed spectacularly. Our call for worldwide support to defeat Russia have been, outside of NATO and a few others, ignored. Dozens of countries, large and small, have abandoned US hegemony to join BRICS AND SCO, two political economic organizations dedicated to a multi polar world of nations not dominated by America. The US has boxed itself into a decline in world influence from which it will likely never recover. That is both good and long overdue.
But rather than face reality and direct Kyiv to negotiate the best resolution possible in a hopeless war, the US slogs on,pledging Ukraine $60 billion more in weapons for which there a few soldiers left to fire.
America’s decline which began 2 years ago today is political, diplomatic and moral, a trifecta of stupidity of which the Big Fools in the Biden administration are too blind or simply unwilling to see.
Ralph Nader: What the Mass Media Needs to Cover Re: Israel/Gaza Conflict.
By Ralph Nader, February 23, 2024
Last October 27, I suggested subjects the mainstream media needed to cover relating to the saturation bombing of Gaza and its defenseless civilian families and infrastructure. Looking at these topics now, four months later, despite massive reporting, the attention to these subjects is still thin and more deserving of reporting than ever.1. How did Hamas, with tiny Gaza surrounded by a 17-year Israeli blockade, subjected to unparalleled electronic surveillance, with spies and informants, and augmented by an overwhelming air, sea and land military presence, manage to get the weapons and associated technology for their October 7th surprise raid? Readers still do not know how and from where these weapons entered Gaza year after year.
2. What is the connection between the stunning failure of the Israeli government to protect its people on the border and the policy of P.M. Netanyahu? Recall the New York Times (October 22, 2023) article by prominent journalist, Roger Cohen, to wit: “All means were good to undo the notion of Palestinian statehood. In 2019, Mr. Netanyahu told a meeting of his center-right Likud party: ‘Those who want to thwart the possibility of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy.’” (Note: Israel and the U.S. fostered the rise of Islamic Hamas in 1987 to counter the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)). Readers still need more information about the context of Netanyahu’s declared support for Hamas over the years and his connection to the buildup of Hamas funding and weaponry.
3. Why is Congress preparing to appropriate over $14 billion to Israel in military and other aid without any public hearings and without any demonstrated fiscal need by Israel, a prosperous economic, technological and military superpower with a social safety net superior to that of the U.S.? USDA just reported over 44 million Americans struggled with hunger in 2022. This, in the midst of a childcare crisis. Should U.S. taxpayers be expected to pay for Netanyahu’s colossal intelligence/military collapse? As an elderly Holocaust survivor told the New York Times “It should never have happened” in the first place.
4. Why hasn’t the media reported on President Biden’s statement that the Gaza Health Ministry’s body count (now over 7000 fatalities) is exaggerated? Indications, however, are that it is a large undercount by Hamas to minimize its inability to protect its people. Israel has fired over 8,000 powerful precision munitions and bombs into Gaza so far. These have struck many thousands of inhabited buildings – homes, apartments buildings, over 120 health facilities, ambulances, crowded markets, fleeing refugees, schools, water and sewage systems, and electric networks – implementing Israeli military orders to cut off all food, water, fuel, medicine and electricity to this already impoverished densely packed area the size of Philadelphia. For those not directly slain, the deadly harm caused by no food, water, medicine, medical facilities and fuel will lead to even more deaths and serious injuries.
Note that over three-quarters of Gaza’s population consists of children and women. Soon there will be thousands of babies born to die in the rubble. Other Palestinians will perish from untreated diseases, injuries, dehydration, and from drinking contaminated water. With crumbled sanitation facilities, physicians are fearing a deadly cholera epidemic.
Israel bombed the Rafah crossing on the Gaza-Egypt border. Only a tiny trickle of trucks are now allowed there by Israel to carry food and water. Fuel for hospital generators still remains blocked.
The undercount of fatalities/injuries is far greater now. The official figure is about 30,000 lives lost, with hundreds dying every day under the rubble. There is too little media interest in more realistic estimates. Undercounting lessens the pressure on Washington officials’ co-belligerents in the White House to call for a permanent ceasefire.
5. Why can’t Biden even persuade Israel to let 600 desperate Americans out of the Gaza firestorm?
6. Why isn’t the mass media making a bigger issue out of Israel’s long-time practice of blocking journalists from entering Gaza, including European, American and Israeli journalists? The only television crews left are Gazan-residing Al Jazeera reporters. Israeli bombs have already killed 26 journalists in the Gaza Strip since October 7th. Is Israel targeting journalists’ families? The Gaza bureau chief of Al Jazeera, Wael Al-Dahdouh’s family was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Wednesday. Israeli commanders now have killed over 100 journalists in addition in some cases to their entire families and continue to block foreign journalists except for a few brief “guided tours” in Israeli armored vehicles.
7. Why isn’t the mainstream U.S. media giving adequate space and voice to groups advocating a ceasefire and humanitarian aid? The message of Israeli peace groups’ peaceful solutions are drowned out by the media’s addiction to interviews with military tacticians. Much time and space are being given to hawks pushing for a war that could flash outside of Gaza big time. Shouldn’t groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace, the Arab-American Institute, Veterans for Peace and associations of clergy have their views and activities reported? Still being underreported are the activities all over the country of the Veterans for Peace and large labor unions demanding a permanent ceasefire and humanitarian aid.
8. Why is the coverage of the war overlooking the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Charter and the many provisions of international law that all the parties, including the U.S., have been violating? (See the October 24, 2023 letter to President Biden). Under international law, Biden has made the U.S. an active “co-belligerent,” of the Israeli government’s vocal demolition of the 2.3 million inhabitants in Gaza, who are mostly descendants of Palestinian refugees driven from their homes in 1948. (See, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide). Coverage has expanded to include the U.S. vetoes on the Security Council and to global reporting on the International Court of Justice proceedings on South Africa’s calling for the Court to address Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
9. What about revealing human-interest stories? For example: How do Israeli F-16 pilots feel about their daily bombing of the completely defenseless Gazan civilian population and its life-sustaining infrastructures? The reporting on the military orders given to Israeli soldiers in Gaza who are slaying indiscriminately thousands of innocents of all ages and snipers attacking people and children in hospitals is inadequate. Why are no Hamas fighters taken as prisoners of war? Is there an order of “take no prisoners” even after capture? What are the courageous Israeli human rights and refuseniks thinking and doing in a climate of serious repression of their views as a result of Netanyahu’s defense collapse on October 7th? The open letter to President Biden on December 13, 2023, by 16 Israeli human rights groups appeared as a paid notice in the New York Times but received very little notice to its clarion call to stop the catastrophe in Gaza. (See the letter here).
10. Where is the media attention on the statements from Israeli military commentators, who, for years have declared high-tech US-backed, nuclear-armed Israel to be more secure than at any time in its history? Israel is reasserting its overwhelming military domination of the Middle East region, fully backed by U.S. militarism. The Israeli government is putting ads in U.S. newspapers wildly exaggerating long-subdued Hamas as an “existential” threat. Without Netanyahu strangely failing to keep the border guarded on October 7, 2023, what followed would not have happened!
Historians remind us that in a grid-locked conflict over time, it is the most powerful party’s responsibility to lead the way to peace.
Establishing a two-state solution has been supported by many Palestinians. All the Arab nations, starting with the Arab League peace proposal in 2002, support this solution as well. It is up to Israel and the U.S., assuming annexation of what is left of Palestine is not Israel’s objective. (See, the March 29, 2002 New York Times article: Mideast Turmoil; Text of the Peace Proposals Backed by the Arab League).More media attention on this subject matter is much needed.
The Rebellious CEO by Ralph Nader was published on November 14th. For more information go to: rebellious.ceo
U.S. Militarizes Space While Accusing Russia of Doing So
Since the creation of the U.S. Space Force in 2019, Washington has seen the militarization of space as a true strategic priority. At the time, then-American President Donald Trump had made it clear that the country’s objective was to achieve “American dominance in space.” Since then, several activities to increase American military space capabilities have been undertaken – many of them in partnership with other NATO countries and international allies.
In 2022, NATO began drafting a “space doctrine” based on “interoperability”. The following year, the alliance published a document exposing its main interests in space and pursuing American guidelines for the militarization of the orbit.
Lucas Leiroz, Strategic Culture Foundation, Tue, 20 Feb 2024, https://www.sott.net/article/489189-US-militarizes-space-while-accusing-Russia-of-doing-so
Recently, the U.S. began spreading rumors about alleged Russian space-based nuclear weapons. According to American intelligence, Moscow is developing a powerful anti-satellite weapon to be deployed in space, thus violating international norms that prohibit the militarization of Earth’s orbit.
In 2022, NATO began drafting a “space doctrine” based on “interoperability”. The following year, the alliance published a document exposing its main interests in space and pursuing American guidelines for the militarization of the orbit. According to analysts, the “interoperability” of NATO’s space activities simply means the creation of mechanisms for U.S. allies to help pay the high costs of military space development – while, on the other hand, only the Pentagon maintains real control of the activities and benefits from “space control”.
Mike Turner, head of the House Intelligence Committee, formally asked for the declassification of documents concerning the investigation on the “space-nukes”, stating that a deliberation on the case in the National Congress is necessary. According to Turner, American parliamentarians need to discuss this serious “threat” to U.S. national security, having therefore the requirement to fully release data obtained by intelligence on the subject.
Subsequently, the White House stated that there was no imminent threat to the country’s national security according to the information obtained so far. Spokespersons confirmed they are monitoring the possible existence of a Russian nuclear space program, but denied the existence of any evidence of a high-risk threat at the moment. As a result, once again American officials made contradictory statements, discrediting the image of U.S. authorities.
Moscow denied the accusations and stated that the rumors were intended to strengthen the anti-Russian establishment, pressuring parliamentarians to recognize the existence of a “threat” and thus approve the billion-dollar military aid package to Ukraine. Considering the domestic political stalemate in the U.S., with pro-war sectors failing to convince their opponents to continue aid to Kiev, it is very likely that the intention behind the spread of anti-Russian rumors is to actually increase fear among policymakers about a possible “danger”.
Obviously, as a major military power, the Russian Federation has its own anti-satellite systems and is able to employ them, if necessary, in a possible large-scale conflict scenario. However, the current tensions between Moscow and Washington, despite high, do not bring any need to use military force against American satellites, and there is therefore no “imminent threat” to the U.S. in the Russian arsenal.
In parallel, Moscow remains firmly committed to complying with international space law standards. The deployment of weapons of mass destruction in Earth’s orbit is banned by the treaties that regulate space activities. Therefore, even though it has weapons strong enough to inflict damage on enemy countries’ satellites, Russia is not willing to allocate nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in outer space, as this would violate current regulations on the matter.
In fact, Russian actions regarding the outer space make it clear that Moscow intends to cooperate to prevent the militarization of Earth’s orbit. Russia, although it has the military capacity to do so, does not invest in “space-based” weapons, focusing its space activities on the peaceful and scientific sphere. This, however, is not the case with the U.S., which openly promotes the militarization of space, with constant efforts to turn Earth’s orbit into a true battlefield.
Since the creation of the U.S. Space Force in 2019, Washington has seen the militarization of space as a true strategic priority. At the time, then-American President Donald Trump had made it clear that the country’s objective was to achieve “American dominance in space.” Since then, several activities to increase American military space capabilities have been undertaken – many of them in partnership with other NATO countries and international allies.
“The U.S. Space Command planning document stated that the U.S. will ‘control and dominate space and deny other nations if necessary access to space (…) At the Space Command HQ in Colorado just above their doorway they have a sign that reads ‘Master of Space (…) Even with all its resources the U.S. can’t afford to pay for its ‘Master of Space’ plan by itself (…) [In order to maintain its dominance], the U.S. sets up a story line that it ‘must protect space’ from the dark forces in Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea (…) Interoperability’ ensures that all NATO members purchase new expensive space technologies mostly from U.S. aerospace corporations like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and others. In addition, ‘interoperability’ means that all space information, surveillance, and targeting is run through the U.S.-dominated system. In other words, NATO allies help pay for these costly space warfare systems but the Pentagon controls the ‘tip of the spear’,” Professor Bruce Gagnon, director of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, once said commenting on the topic.
All these factors lead us to believe that there really was an attempt on the part of the U.S. to create a smokescreen for its own space militarization activities. By pointing out the existence of a “Russian danger”, Washington legitimizes its own “reactive” policies, thus encouraging increased investment in space weapons in NATO. In the same sense, this smokescreen helps to pressure parliamentarians to revise their stance on supporting Ukraine. With the popularity of the anti-Russian war gradually decreasing, the creation of a non-existent threat could serve as a legitimizing factor for the conflict.
In addition to all this, it is curious how contradictory U.S. narratives about Russia fluctuate. Previously, the American media accused the Russians of fighting using shovels due to the lack of weapons. Now, on the other hand, they accuse Russia of deploying nuclear weapons from space. These lies only worsen the mainstream media’s own image among Western public opinion, leading to absolute discredit.
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (74)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
