RT, 6/7/24

The Russian economy has demonstrated growth rates exceeding the world average and is actively adapting to a new emerging multipolar world built on mutual respect, President Vladimir Putin has stated in his address to the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) on Friday.

The Russian leader was joined on stage by Bolivian President Luis Arce and Zimbabwe’s Emmerson Mnangagwa, as well as moderator Sergey Karaganov – a political scientist and emeritus professor from the Higher School of Economics.

During his nearly one-hour-long prepared speech, Putin addressed a number of issues related to the global economy, as well as the country’s achievements and goals for the near future as it continues to establish ties with international players.

SPIEF

Putin announced that this year’s 27th annual SPIEF event was attended by more than 12,000 people from over 100 countries, including the shareholders and CEOs of leading companies, plus renowned experts, analysts, political, public and government figures.

He emphasized that the forum provides a unique opportunity to establish business contacts, launch joint projects, and engage in discussions on current trends in global and regional markets and the latest developments in the modern world.

New world

Countries across the world have entered a race to strengthen their sovereignty on the basis of three key areas – state, culture, and economy, Putin observed, noting that nations who were previously seen as the leaders in global development are struggling to maintain their “elusive role as hegemons.”

Putin stated that the world is experiencing “explosive technological growth in almost all areas of life,” and that China and India have already become leading world economies, while other South Asian and African nations are on their way to becoming key global economic players by the middle of the century.

Russia

Russia has also demonstrated a high level of readiness and adaptability to technological developments, Putin said, mentioning that the country’s financial sector, e-commerce, transport services and the military have already undergone drastic changes to keep up with the times.

Foreign Economic Relations

Russia is striving to maintain its position as one of the key participants in global trade, Putin said, noting that “despite all the obstacles and illegitimate sanctions,” the country continues to actively develop logistics and expand the number of nations and regions it cooperates with.

He reported that Russia’s trade with Asian countries had grown by 60% from 2020 to 2023, doubled with the Middle East, grown by 69% with Africa and by 42% with Latin America.

Equal partnership

Putin stressed that Russia aims to build economic relations with other countries based on full-scale technological and industrial partnerships, providing a full life cycle of goods and services with training of national personnel and localized production.

Such an approach, based on equal terms and the transfer of technologies instead of their monopolization, will establish strong and resilient ties between nations, allowing companies to play “the long game,” the president said.

Loss of trust in Western financial system

Putin highlighted that global trust in the reliability of Western payment systems has been “fundamentally undermined,” claiming that this was done by Western countries themselves.

He said that the share of payments for Russian exports in “toxic currencies of unfriendly states” had halved while ruble payments almost tripled between 2021 and 2023, approaching 40%.

New BRICS payment system

Putin stated that Russia is already increasing the use of national currencies in foreign trade, while the BRICS group of nations, which continues to accept new members from across the world, is working to develop its own independent payment system that will not be subject to political pressure, abuse, or external sanctions interference.

Russian economy

Putin reported that Russia’s GDP growth reached 5.4% in the first quarter of this year after recording a 3.6% growth rate in 2023. The president stated that the country has long striven to become one of the largest economies in the world and announced that, according to the latest World Bank estimates, it is now in fourth place in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), overtaking Japan.

Future of Russia

The Russian leader outlined a number of steps the country should take to maintain its growth and remain a key player on the global stage. These steps include strengthening financial, technological, and personnel sovereignty, increasing production capacity and boosting the competitiveness of Russian products in both foreign and domestic markets.

To achieve this, Putin proposed ten structural changes to the Russian economy, such as increasing investments in new projects across the country and strengthening the role of small and medium-sized businesses in economic development, creating new financial tools to incentivize businesses, improving the professional education system, boosting labor productivity through automation and the use of AI technologies, reducing poverty, and improving the quality of life for Russian families.

YouTube link here.

The Serbian president thinks the escalations over the Ukraine War may culminate in a catastrophe for the world within 3-4 months.

Seymour Hersh put out a report today that made a few interesting points.

First, he says that, according to several sources in the Democratic Party apparatus, big donors and other officials in the party are worried about Biden’s chances in the November election against Trump. There is discussion of replacing him at the convention if his upcoming debate performance against Trump is disastrous.

He also says that according to one US official he spoke to, there have been ongoing backchannel discussions still occurring between Russia and the west and that one such discussion occurred just prior to Putin’s announcement last week of the terms of a possible ceasefire and peace negotiations:

One well-informed American official told me that there has been, as always, some informal communications about concessions between Moscow and the West that both sides could accept. For example, he said, there is Russia’s ambition to attack and seize Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, twenty miles south of the Russian border. Now under siege amid heavy fighting on its outskirts, the historic city could be saved from massive destruction if both sides agree to consider it an independent free territory as was Trieste, a disputed city bordering Italy and Yugoslavia, for seven years after World War II. I was also told that Putin’s speech came after a series of highly secret backchannel communications between some in the West and Russians whose aim was to spare the pending Russian attack on Kharkiv, which is also a major transportation hub.

The official said that the likelihood of significant Ukrainian battlefield success remains low, given Russia’s vast supply of troops and materiel. Despite Ukrainian and American reports of successes near Kharkiv, he added, last Sunday 300 members of one of Ukraine’s most elite units, the 92nd Assault Brigade, which was established twenty-five years ago, was surrounded and captured by Russian troops, with 150 deaths and little word in the Western press.

“Biden just declared war on Russia and nobody cares,” the official said of the president’s recent decision to escalate the reach of American missiles supplied to Ukraine. “It is a theatrical performance.” 

Intellinews, 6/9/24

A new survey by the Institute for Global Affairs, part of the American political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, found the overwhelming majority of Western public opinion is in favour of ending the war in Ukraine through negotiations.

A second survey released for the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy that turned the tide of WWII found that the public significantly underestimate the role the USSR played in winning the war against Hitler.

The Institute for Global Affairs found a dramatic 94% of Americans and 88% of Western Europeans are in favour of Nato member countries advocating for a negotiated settlement to the Ukraine war. This overwhelming majority contrasts sharply with alternative scenarios, such as “Weakening Russia” or “Restoring the pre-2022 borders of Ukraine”, which received support from less than 20% of respondents from both regions.

The results of the survey clash directly with the rhetoric from both US and EU political leaders that have said repeatedly the West should support Ukraine’s military struggle against Russia for “as long as it takes” and have promised significantly military and financial help over the long term.

Nato is shortly due to meet to celebrate the 75 years since the military alliance was founded. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has proposed setting up a $100bn fund to ensure Ukraine is amply supplied and has more predictability in Western support in what is expected to be a long war. However, due to the reluctance of Nato members to commit these resources, Stoltenberg last week revised his plan down to a commitment of €40bn a year, on a par with annual aid sent to the Ukraine over the last two years ahead of the Nato summit.

In contrast to the Western political leadership, the Institute for Global Affairs’ data indicates the Western public has a strong preference for avoiding further escalation and steering clear of a direct conflict between nuclear-armed powers.

President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly “reminded” the West that Russia is a nuclear power and recently ordered snap nuclear missile drills. Last week some US senators suggested that the US respond by redeploying the US arsenal of tactical nuclear missiles in response as part of the creeping escalation in the war. French President Emmanuel Macron has added to the tensions by suggesting France send its own troops to Ukraine as “instructors,” provoking strong protestations from the Kremlin.

The Institute for Global Affairs has also provoked criticism, highlighting that there little public debate on the Western commitment to supporting Ukraine and eliciting complaints that the “political elites are making decisions that hurt the public.” The survey comes as Europe goes to the polls to elect a new European Parliament where the right is expected to dramatically increase its share of seats and where many parties have campaigned on a platform of repairing relations with Russia and ending the war in Ukraine.

Who won WWII?

A second survey, by YouGov, on the anniversary of the Normandy landings highlighted the changing perception of Russia’s role in the second world war, which is increasingly seen as a British victory for the British and a US victory for the Americans.

The USSR lost by far the most people in WWII: a total of 25mn, of which 13mn were Russians, against the 500,000 British dead and 400,000 American dead. Over 85% of German losses were on the eastern front, where fighting was brutal, whereas Europe was quickly overrun by the Nazi forces and the Allies forced to retreat, such as in the famous Dunkirk evacuation of British forces.

While the YouGov survey found that some 45% of European respondents in 1945 acknowledged the Soviet Union’s leading role, that share has fallen dramatically since. Critics of this change blame Hollywood’s portrayal of the war with countless movies glorifying Allied victories, but underplaying Russia’s role in the fighting. Hollywood actor Tom Hanks, the star of one of the most iconic movies, “Saving Private Ryan,” was invited to the D-Day celebrations. However, Hollywood has made only one significant blockbuster movie glorifying the heroism of the Russian forces in the east: “Stalingrad”, starring Jude Law, lionises the legendary sniper Yuri Zaitsev, who was one of Russia’s most famous war heroes.

The differences in perception is the cause of political friction between Russia and the West, as for Russians the victory over the Nazis was one of Soviet Russia’s greatest achievements and a source of pride in what Russians refer to as “the Great Patriotic War.” An entire generation of young men were wiped out in the fighting and the annual victory day is one of the most poignant celebrations on the Russian calendar – it has been repeatedly snubbed by Western leaders in recent years. Thousands throng on the streets on Victory Day carrying photos of their relatives that fell in the fighting. The phrase “thank you grandfather” is commonly daubed on the photos and cars during the celebration.

This year, Russians will take special umbrage at the D-Day celebrations, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was invited to represent the Soviet allies who fought in WWII. Putin has gone out of his way to link the current battle in Ukraine with Nazism and so link the campaign with one of the most politically evocative common memories that Russians share.

And Putin’s job has been made easier as Ukraine does have a far right problem with groups like C14 and the Azov battalion that openly make use of Nazi symbolism and expound extreme ideologies. Politically, however, the far right groups scored only 4% in the last elections and Zelenskiy himself is Jewish.

According to the YouGov data, Britons are notably more inclined than their international counterparts to credit the United Kingdom with the largest contribution to Hitler’s defeat. The survey found that 39% of Britons believe the UK played the most significant role, compared to 20% who credit the United States and 15% who believe the Soviet Union deserves the most recognition.

In contrast, the American public overwhelmingly sees the United States as the key player in the European theatre. A substantial 59% of Americans believe their country did more than Britain or the Soviet Union to defeat the Nazis. Meanwhile, 13% attribute the greatest contribution to the Soviet Union, which suffered an estimated 27mn casualties, the highest of any nation during the conflict, and only 6% to the UK.

German opinions are more divided, with 34% of Germans saying the Americans were the most influential in ending the war, closely followed by 31% who credit the Soviet Union. A mere 6% of Germans believe the UK’s efforts surpassed those of the US or the Soviet Union.

Today, the French public also predominantly credits the US, with 47% asserting that America was the crucial Allied force, while 17% believe the Soviet Union played the most vital role.

The results of the recent surveys contrast sharply with historical sentiment in France; an IFOP poll from May 1945 indicated that 57% of French citizens at the time thought the Russians were the most important Allied force, compared to 20% for the US.

Interestingly, French views on Britain’s contribution have remained relatively unchanged over the decades. In 1945, 12% of French respondents believed the UK played the largest role; today, that figure stands at 10%.

The survey’s findings illuminate the differing national narratives and historical memories that continue to shape perceptions of World War II. As the world commemorates D-Day, these varied perspectives remind us of the complex and multifaceted nature of history.

By Caitlin Johnstone, Substack, 6/18/24

So I guess we should probably talk about the way NATO powers are rapidly escalating toward hot war with Russia at the same time the US is expanding its draft policies to make it easier to force more Americans go and fight in a giant war.

In an article titled “NATO: 500,000 Troops on High Readiness for War With Russia,” Antiwar’s Kyle Anzalone highlights NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s comments on Friday stating the alliance actually has a far greater number of troops it could deploy than the 300,000 it had previously set as its goal.

“Allies are offering forces to NATO’s command at a scale not seen in decades,” Stoltenberg said on Friday. “ Today we have 500,000 troops at high readiness across all domains, significantly more than the goal that was set at the 2022 Madrid Summit.”

Anzalone writes the following:

“The alliance hit its goal as its members significantly ratcheted up support for Kiev in recent weeks. The US and several other nations also recently gave a green light for Ukraine to use their weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

“The Netherlands and Denmark plan to supply Kiev with F-16s in the coming months, and say the advanced aircraft could be used to bomb Russia. Stoltenberg added that he welcomes the policy shift, and said it should not be considered an escalation by Russia.”

This comes shortly after we learned that NATO is developing multiple “land corridors” to rush troops to the frontline of a future hot war with Russia in eastern Europe.

It also comes as we learn from Stoltenberg that NATO is considering increasing the number of nuclear weapons it has on standby, meaning ready to use in a nuclear war. White House spokesman John Kirby bizarrely told the press that this aggressive move should not be seen as a provocation towards Russia, because NATO is a “defensive alliance”.

“How can this not be perceived as provocation or an escalation of tension in Europe?” Kirby was asked regarding Stoltenberg’s recent comments.

“Who would perceive it as a provocation or an escalation?” Kirby responded.

“Russia,” the reporter answered.

“Oh, Russia, Russia, the same country that invaded Ukraine which posed absolutely no threat to them,” Kirby replied indignantly, saying, “NATO is a defensive alliance and NATO countries are some of the most sophisticated in the world when it comes to military capabilities. And it would be irresponsible and imprudent if we weren’t constantly talking to our NATO allies about how to make sure we can meet our commitments to one another across a range of military capabilities, and that’s as far as I’ll go.”

One of the dumbest things the empire asks us to believe these days is that surrounding its official enemies with existentially threatening war machinery should always be seen as a defensive measure. The last time a credible military threat was placed near the US border, Washington responded so aggressively the world almost ended. Yet nations like Russia and China are expected to let the US and its allies amass military threats right near their borders without even regarding this as a provocation.

This and other frightening nuclear escalations with Russia are happening at the same time US lawmakers are working to expand draft registration to women and to automate registration for men, both of which would help broaden the pool of warm bodies the US would have available to throw into a hot war with a major military power.

Edward Hasbrouck writes the following for Antiwar:

“The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) approved a version of the NDAA that would expand Selective Service registration to include young women as well as young men. This version of the NDAA will now go to the floor as the starting point for consideration and approval by the full Senate.

“Also on June 14th the full House of Representatives approved a different version of the NDAA that would make Selective Service registration automatic while keeping it for men only.”

As Reason’s CJ Ciaramella explains in an article about this move to automate draft registration, the official reason for this push is to make the system run more efficiently, but “The other, unspoken effect would be removing young men’s choice to engage in civil disobedience.” If the US war machine starts a new horrific conflict that the Zoomers don’t believe in, ideally you want to make it as hard as possible for them to resist being fed to the cannons.

The draft is one of those things that gets more disgusting the more you think about it, especially in a nation whose government is as belligerent and psychopathic as the USA’s. These freaks can engage in any amount of brinkmanship they like with nations they have no business fighting — all without any of their actions ever being put to a vote from the general public — and then if it goes hot they get to turn to a bunch of kids in their teens and early twenties and say “This isn’t our problem, it’s your problem. Go fight and kill and die for your country.” They can start a war with their own recklessness and then chill out and sip martinis while your kids go get killed in it.

This is evil, this is ugly, and it needs to stop.

***

Why is NATO expanding its nuclear force?

By Stephen Bryen, Asia Times, 6/18/24

Jens Stoltenberg, the 13th secretary general of NATO, says that the alliance is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons and modernize their delivery systems. Stoltenberg told the Telegraph in the UK: “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. That’s exactly what we’re doing.” Stoltenberg emphasized that NATO is a “nuclear alliance.”

He explained: “NATO’s aim is, of course, a world without nuclear weapons. But as long as nuclear weapons exist we will remain a nuclear alliance, because a world where Russia, China and North Korea have nuclear weapons and NATO does not is a more dangerous world.”

The Russians say that Stoltenberg’s nuclear weapons declaration was “bully tactics.“

Stoltenberg could not act on NATO’s nuclear deterrent without deep coordination with the United States. Thus the NATO expansion of nuclear weapons has to be a Biden administration policy and program.

Nuclear sharing in NATO

NATO’s nuclear deterrence is based on nuclear sharing arrangements. As described officially,

NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies on the United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe, as well as on the capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies concerned. A number of NATO countries contribute a dual-capable aircraft (DCA) capability to the Alliance. These aircraft are central to NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission and are available for nuclear roles at various levels of readiness. In their nuclear role, the aircraft are equipped to carry nuclear weapons in a conflict, and personnel are trained accordingly.

The United States maintains absolute control and custody of their nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe, while Allies provide military support for the DCA mission with conventional forces and capabilities.

While NATO’s nuclear weapons are American, the UK and France have nuclear weapons too.

US nuclear weapons stored in Europe are nuclear gravity bombs that can be launched either by NATO aircraft or by the US operating independently of NATO.

Technically, nuclear gravity bombs fall into the category of tactical nuclear weapons. The US, UK and France also deploy strategic nuclear weapons in and around Europe. The UK has around 225 nuclear warheads (more than half in storage) for its Trident nuclear submarine program. The British nuclear capability requires US coordination.

France is the only NATO country with a fully independent nuclear arsenal. It consists of ballistic missile submarines and a small number of cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. The French have floated the idea of replacing the US nuclear deterrent with a French one and there have been discussions with Germany about the idea.

To some degree, Stoltenberg’s announcement on upgrading NATO’s nuclear alliance could be interpreted as offsetting French pressure to diverge from the US-led deterrent in Europe.

There has long been suspicion in Europe that the US would not launch nuclear weapons to defend European territory because of the risk of a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States. To an unknown extent, the presence of tactical nuclear weapons (under US control) is intended to enable the US to use the tactical part of its nuclear arsenal – reducing the risk of a strategic nuclear exchange with Russia.

Yet it is certainly the case that Stoltenberg’s emphasis on NATO as a nuclear alliance was primarily intended to offset fears that Russia could turn to nuclear weapons to settle the Ukraine conflict. Compared with the US, Russia has a vast arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. And many of its tactical missiles can be equipped with nuclear warheads. In fact, the Ukrainians have been warning Europe that this is exactly what Russia could do.

The Russians have been conducting nuclear exercises and claim to have put nuclear weapons in Belarus, although none have been spotted there as of now. Likewise the US has been flying its strategic bombers close to Russia’s borders, as a US warning.

Ukraine has also attacked two sensitive radar sites that are important parts of Russia’s early warning system. It is not clear why these targets were selected whether by Ukraine or by NATO, which supplies the weapons and intelligence for these attacks.

NATO relies on nuclear gravity bombs for deterrence. These weapons would be delivered against Russian targets by NATO aircraft. About 150 bombs are stored at six bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Base in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands and Incirlik in Turkey. These are part of NATO’s nuclear sharing agreement.

In addition, the US announced in January that it was upgrading parts of the RAF Airbase at Lakenheath, Suffolk, in the UK. There a special squadron, the 48th Security Force, of F-35s will be capable of carrying B-61 gravity bombs. The US is building special hydraulic loading ramps, upgrading storage facilities and installing a nuclear “shield” to protect personnel at the base.

These F-35s will be operated solely by US pilots and are outside of NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement – meaning that their mission could be linked to NATO’s security and deterrence but could be used outside of any general NATO agreement.

US B-61 gravity bombs are close to completing a modernization program (Mod 12). The B-61 is a “dial-a-yield” weapon, meaning that the bomb yield can be adjusted to fit specific targets. The US also will retain some Mod 11 B-61 bombs.

The Mod 11 B-61 is regarded as a bunker buster bomb and is not “dial a yield.” It has a special 400 kiloton warhead. About 30 of these bombs were manufactured. It is not clear if they are deployed in Europe.

The Mod 12 B-61 can select yields (in kilotons) from .3, 1.5, 10 or 50 kt. For comparison purposes, the Hiroshima bomb was between 11 and 16 kt.

The modernization of the B-61 requires the modernization of the delivery systems, including changes in the aircraft’s electronics. There is very little information on how quickly the upgrades and changes can be made. New F-35s can carry B-61 bombs if they are equipped to do so. It isn’t known how many of the F-35’s delivered to Europe are nuclear capable.

Many unanswered questions

It is important to point out that neither the US nor NATO has any treaty obligation, or any other responsibility, to protect Ukraine from a nuclear attack. Thus NATO deterrence, at least insofar as it is understood, does not apply to Ukraine in any formal manner. But that does not mean that Stoltenberg, and by proxy the United States, is not shifting the alliance to extending a nuclear umbrella over Ukraine.

One reason to assess there may be a change in strategy underway is the NATO-US decision to unleash long-range weapons in Ukraine on Russian territory.

In the proxy wars prior to Ukraine, the US and Russia have been careful to avoid directly attacking each other. That is why Truman was against US forces crossing the Yalu River in Korea; why neither China nor Russia was attacked in the Vietnam war; why in the Cuban missile crisis President John F. Kennedy refused any nuclear attack on Cuba and the Soviet Union.

But there were moments when tensions grew to approach the nuclear threshold. That was especially the case in 1973 when Russia began threatening intervention with nuclear weapons in the Yom Kippur war, and when the US declared a DEFCON-3 alert.

In the context of superpower rivalries, and proxy and other conflicts (the Cuban Missile Crisis was not a proxy conflict but a direct confrontation between the US and USSR), NATO-approved attacks on Russian territory appear to cross a dangerous red line.

When combined with the no-negotiations, no-talks, no-peace posture of the US and most of Europe regarding Ukraine, the danger of an expanding conflict – even one involving nuclear weapons – is increasing. Upgrading nuclear arsenals in that context adds fuel to the fire.