Khren Im – To the USA and Biden ….if this continues, it is lights out for humanity

Khren Im.

Sullivan (above) made it clear to his audience [at the “Arms Control Association,” sic] that the nuclear strategy that the Biden administration approved in October 2022 would remain intact through 2026, when the last remaining U.S.-Russian arms control agreement, the 2010 New START treaty, was set to expire.

Once the New START treaty expires, and barring any agreement replacing it with a new agreement, Sullivan said that, given the state of play between the U.S. and Russia when it came to arms control, the U.S. would have no choice but to develop and deploy newer, more dangerous nuclear weapons [to be made for the foreseeable future using plutonium cores (“pits”) produced by Los Alamos National Laboratory].

Sullivan then laid out the Biden administration’s case against Russia, starting with the Russian suspension of the New START treaty itself. Left unsaid was Russia’s stated reason for this suspension, namely the impossibility from the Russian point of view of engaging in strategic nuclear arms reductions at a time when the United States was pursuing a policy in Ukraine of waging a proxy conflict designed to cause the strategic defeat of Russia.

From the Russian perspective, pursuing the cooperative reduction with the U.S. of the very strategic capability which is, by design, intended to prevent Russia’s strategic defeat at a time when the U.S. was pursuing the strategic defeat of Russia was a non-starter.

If this insanity is allowed to continue unabated, it is lights out for all of humanity.

Chew on that the next time you cheer on the Ukrainian counteroffensive or applaud the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund the Ukrainian military.

It is high time for the American public to recognize that our only hope for a survivable future is one where arms control and nuclear disarmament once again serve as the cornerstone of a U.S.-Russian relationship, and that the shortest possible path toward achieving that objective is for Russia to win its war against Ukraine [which would occur at any time the U.S. said it would not support the war further, thus also saving tens of thousands of lives]

And for those politicians in the U.S. and Europe who have invested their political futures on the suicidal mission of feeding Ukraine’s anti-Russian fantasies? Khren Im.

When Vladimir Putin was recently asked about the potential use of nuclear weapons in the context of Ukraine, an understanding of back-alley Russian slang was needed to understand his response.  

……………………………….During the June 16 discussion period of the plenary session of the 2023 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, the Russian leader was asked about his views on the potential use of nuclear weapons in the context of the ongoing Ukrainian conflict.“This use of nuclear weapons is certainly theoretically possible,” Putin bluntly answered.

Putin paused, before shrugging and, with a half-smile, saying “Khren Im”.Khren Im is a Russian slang term derived from the word “horseradish” (khren), thus a literal translation of the phrase used by Putin would be “horseradish them.” But khren closely resembles a more salty term …….. khren Im is understood to mean “F*ck them.”“F*ck them, you know?” Putin said, to the obvious mirth of the audience……………….

The “them” in the horseradish reference made by the Russian president is the United States. Two weeks prior to Putin’s man-in-the-street reaction, on June 2, U.S. President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, addressed a conference hosted by the Arms Control Association, in Washington, D.C. The topic, not surprisingly, was the administration’s approach to U.S.-Russian arms control.

Biden’s Nuclear Strategy ……………………………………………………….

Likewise left unspoken was Russia’s contention that the U.S. was in violation of the New START Treaty by keeping some 101 strategic delivery systems from being inspected, despite being required to do so by the provisions of the New START Treaty.Khren Im.

Sullivan called out Russia’s decision to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, without elaborating on either the threats made to Belarus by several NATO members, including Poland and the Baltic states. Nor did he acknowledge that the Russian action parallels a similar U.S. policy in stationing some 100 nuclear B-61 gravity bombs on the territories of five NATO nations. Khren Im.

Sullivan strongly criticized Russia for its total disregard for international law, including arms control treaties such as the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) from which Russia recently withdrew, without putting the Russian decision in proper historical perspective. This perspective involves the ongoing disregard by the U.S. and NATO of deliberate inequities in the CFE structure that were brought on by the ongoing expansion of NATO.

Nor did the U.S. national security adviser acknowledge that it was the U.S., not Russia, which had withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate Forces Treaty, both of which are considered foundational for all arms control treaties going forward.[Related: U.S. Establishment: Nixing Arms Control]Khren Im.

Sullivan’s presentation ignored such salient matters as the purpose behind NATO’s certification of the F-35 fighter as a nuclear-capable delivery system, and what the deployment of nuclear-capable F-35s to NATO nations not included in the existing shared nuclear defense scheme meant to the scope and scale of the NATO nuclear deterrence model considering the continued NATO Baltic Air Policing and South European Air Policing operations.

Sullivan also failed to address the current “launch-on-warning” posture employed by the Biden administration, which positions the U.S. to carry out a first nuclear strike against Russia, and the role that the continued patrols in Europe and Asia by American nuclear-capable B-52H strategic bombers, including aggressive flight profiles appearing to simulate the launch of nuclear-armed cruise missiles against Saint Petersburg.

Sullivan also ignored the impact of the Biden administration’s ongoing plans to bring back medium- and intermediate-range nuclear-capable missiles to the European theater will be on the overall nuclear balance of power between the U.S.-NATO and Russia.Khren Im.

A day before Putin addressed the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov spoke to the media about the “opposing, irreconcilable positions” of Russia and the U.S. concerning the resumption of discussions regarding the New START treaty. “[T]he suspension of New START remains in effect,” Ryabkov said, “and this decision may be revoked or reconsidered only if the U.S.  demonstrates a willingness to abandon its fundamentally hostile policy toward the Russian Federation.”Khren Im……………………………………………………………………

While people are right to be concerned about the policy recommendations made by prominent Russians such as Karaganov, they must also address the root cause of such pronouncements, namely the policies of the Biden administration to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia in Ukraine, seemingly at whatever cost (especially when the cost is paid in the blood of Ukrainian soldiers)

Russia will not use nuclear weapons to fulfil the tasks set forth in its Special Military Operation. It will use nuclear weapons to preserve Russian territorial integrity. The reality today is that the irresponsible policies of the U.S. and its NATO allies have sought the expansion of NATO up to the Russian borders . As they abandoned every opportunity to prevent a conflict with Russia over Ukraine, there is a war between Russia and Ukraine that has resulted in Ukraine irrevocably losing 20 percent of its territory (the oblasts of Kherson, Zaparizhia, Donetsk and Lugansk, along with the Crimea).

All of that territory has been absorbed into the Russian Federation and makes any effort to strip them away from Russia by definition an existential conflict where, if Russia were to lose, would necessarily trigger the use of nuclear weapons.

And yet Biden and his NATO allies continue to feed a Ukrainian fantasy where the reacquisition of these territories by Ukraine is a desirable outcome.

Has either Biden, his advisers, or the American public considered the potential consequences of this action? Are they willing to trade Boston for Poznan, or sacrifice humanity for the sake of appeasing Ukrainian sensibilities? The answer appears to be “no.”

As for Russia, one is guided by the words of Vladimir Putin: “Khren Im”F*ck them. But in reality, F*ck us. All of us. If this insanity is allowed to continue unabated, it is lights out for all of humanity.

June 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The false counter-offensive and the refusal of good offices

Morale among Ukrainian troops is at an all-time low. The Ministry of Defense assures us that there are plenty of men left in the rear. However, the Ivano-Frankivsk oblast has decreed the mobilization of all men aged 18 to 60. Exemptions are rare. The reality therefore seems to be that there are no combatants left ready for action.

by Thierry Meyssan VOLTAIRE NETWORK | PARIS (FRANCE) | 20 JUNE 2023, Translation
Roger Lagassé

It’s a fool’s game. Kiev’s communication asserts that its army launched a counter-offensive two weeks ago. But this does not correspond to what can be seen on the battlefield. It also claims to welcome with hope the two missions of good offices from China and the African Union. But Volodymyr Zelensky has interrupted the negotiations he was conducting with Moscow and enacted a law prohibiting their resumption.

ccording to the authorities in Kiev, the Ukrainian army launched “a vast counter-offensive against the Russian aggressor” on June 8.

THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A COUNTER-OFFENSIVE

Military literature prefers to speak of a counter-attack rather than a counter-offensive. A counter-attack consists in taking advantage of the enemy’s momentary weaknesses to launch an assault. We think of Napoleon at Austerlitz, who had some of his troops beaten back in order to trap his adversaries, from which he emerged victorious.

Choosing the term “counter-offensive” is not neutral. It’s a communication device suggesting that the Russians have launched an “offensive” to seize Ukraine. In fact, they fought at the capital’s northern airport before withdrawing.

In reality, the Russians have never attempted to take Kiev and have no intention of invading Ukraine. That’s what their president, Vladimir Putin, said in the first week of his “special operation”. Taking a military airport, even one north of Kiev, is just a battle to give the Russians air superiority. It does not indicate that they intended to take the capital.

The term “special operation” is not neutral either. Moscow is stressing that it is not waging a war of invasion, but is implementing its “responsibility to protect” the populations of the Donetsk and Lugansk oblates, who had officially been the targets of a punitive operation by Kiev, since 2014. To question the validity of the Russian special operation would be like questioning the French army’s operation to put an end to the massacres in Rwanda. Both special operations were authorized by resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (resolutions 929 of June 22, 1994 and 2202 of February 17, 2015). Except that the resolution on which Moscow is relying was not taken in a hurry. It is the one that endorses the Minsk agreements and gives Germany, France and Russia the ability to intervene to enforce them.

From a communications point of view, the term “counter-offensive” has the advantage of making us forget that for eight years, Kiev waged a war against its own citizens, killing between 14,000 and 22,000 people, depending on the count.

For months, Kiev begged for and obtained a large quantity of Western weapons. It also trained its soldiers to handle them. Meanwhile, Moscow fell back on the lines it had accepted during the peace negotiations, conducted in Belarus and then Turkey, before being denounced by the Verkhovna Rada (the Kiev parliament in which Washington has installed an office of permanent advisors from the State Department and USAID). Moscow went further, abandoning the right bank of Kherson (but not the left), making the Dnieper River the natural border between Ukraine and Novorossia. The inhabitants of this region having joined the Russian Federation by referendum, Moscow built two defense lines, stretching from the mouth of the Dnieper to the Donbass (Lugansk and Donetsk). These are two lines of dragons’ teeth (fortifications preventing the passage of armoured vehicles) and trenches.

The Atlantic Alliance, which is providing the weapons and strategies, has given the order to launch the counter-offensive at a time when Kiev has no control over the air and little ammunition. During the previous year, the Ukrainian army was able to use drones to monitor its adversary’s movements. Today, it can no longer do so, as the latter jams all communications on “its” territory and a little beyond. In theory, Kiev has an impressive array of land-based weaponry, the likes of which no country has ever had. In practice, however, many of the weapons delivered have disappeared, bound for other climes, with or without the agreement of the generous donors. As for ammunition, it cannot be stored in Ukraine without being destroyed by Russian hypersonic missiles. They are also warehoused in Poland and Moldavia, crossing the border only to reach the front line.

For two weeks, Ukrainian forces have been trying to break through Russian defensive lines, but without success. The troops are amassing in front of these lines and are being fired on by Russian artillery. When they decide to withdraw, the Russians send drones scattering mines on their way home.

The only thing Kiev’s forces can do is take the villages that lie a few kilometers in front of the defense lines. Meanwhile, enemy aircraft are bombing their arsenals, sometimes deep inside Ukraine. The most effective anti-aircraft protection systems, the Patriots, were destroyed as soon as they were installed. There’s not much left, just enough to reach old missiles. The Ukrainian General Staff claims to have destroyed six Kinzhal missiles, which, given their speed (10 mach), is impossible. The mayor of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko, released a photograph of himself posing in front of a Kinzhal wreckage. Unfortunately, the wreckage does not correspond at all to this weapon.

Morale among Ukrainian troops is at an all-time low. The Ministry of Defense assures us that there are plenty of men left in the rear. However, the Ivano-Frankivsk oblast has decreed the mobilization of all men aged 18 to 60. Exemptions are rare. The reality therefore seems to be that there are no combatants left ready for action.

The Atlantic Alliance has deployed all its AWACS to remotely monitor the battlefield. It cannot ignore the scale of the defeat. Strangely, it continues to push the Ukrainians into battle, or rather, into death.

KIEV DOESN’T WANT A GOOD OFFICES MISSION

Washington still hopes that Kiev will win, giving President Joe Biden a resounding re-election. It could, however, back down and rely on the two good offices missions of China and the African Union. However, at Washington’s urging, the Verkhovna Rada has forbidden anyone to negotiate with the “invader”.

China has published 12 principles which it believes should underpin any peace agreement. Beijing’s special envoy, Li Hui, refuses to discuss their implementation until they have been approved by both parties. This has now been done. But Westerners are not fooled. We can only pretend to share these principles by continuing the lies we have been developing for three decades. Otherwise, they will lead us to recognize the validity of Russia’s position, and thus to wish for Kiev’s defeat.

The African Union and Fondation Brazaville have sent four heads of state. Azali Assoumani (Comoros and current President of the African Union), Macky Sall (Senegal), Cyril Ramaphosa (South Africa) and Hakainde Hichilema (Zambia). All the others failed to show up. Egypt’s President sent his Prime Minister, Mostafa Madbouly. Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni, suffering from Covid, sent his former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ruhakana Rugunda. Congo’s Denis Sassou-Nguesso was represented by Florent Ntsiba, Minister of State at the Presidency.

On arrival, the entire delegation was invited to visit Boutcha, where their hosts explained that the Russian occupiers had committed atrocities. The Africans did not meet the international investigators who established, on the contrary, that the massacres had been perpetrated with darts; (ammunition widely used during the First World War). Above all, the Russians left Boutcha on March 30, 2022. The local mayor saw nothing unusual. Then, the following day, the full nationalists of the Azov battalion entered the town but the bodies weren’t found till April 4. Clearly, then, this was a scene of civil war, in which the Integral Nationalists executed fellow citizens they believed to have collaborated with the Russians. In any case, Africans know all about such situations and are not easily fooled.

When they arrived in Kiev, the sirens went off. But these leaders were not impressed. They saw that the capital had not been bombed, but only a few military targets.

During the final press conference, Comorian President Azali Assoumani declared: “The path to peace must involve respect for the United Nations Charter, and Africa is ready to continue working with you in the search for lasting peace (…) Even if the road to peace may be long, there is hope that talks are possible”. To which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky replied: “Today I made it clear during our meeting that allowing any negotiations with Russia now, when the occupier is on our land, means freezing the war, freezing the pain and suffering.

After this rejection, the Africans travelled to Saint Petersburg to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin. Of course, Putin was far more forthcoming. Not only did he have nothing to lose, he also had a massive argument in his favor. He presented the delegation with the text of the peace treaty and addendum negotiated by the Ukrainians in March 2022, and signed by the head of their delegation. He even explained that, in application of this project, Russian troops had left the oblasts of Kiev and Chernihiv, and that the Ukrainians had not only refused to ratify these texts, but had adopted a law prohibiting the continuation or resumption of peace negotiations.

It remains to be seen, at the Africa-Russia summit scheduled for July 26-29, which of the two heads of state will have appeared more sincere in the eyes of the African Union delegation. Kiev’s interest in missions of good offices is as false as its counter-offensive.

June 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment