Ian Proud
Strategic Culture Foundation

The western governments are turning a blind eye once more to activity that they would never tolerate in their own countries.

A number of topics remain taboo in discussing the war in Ukraine. Busification, Zelensky’s democratic mandate, Ukraine’s casualty numbers and anything suggesting that Ukraine cannot win are all off limits. Likewise the problem of alleged neo-Nazis in Ukraine.

One of the most embarrassing episodes since the Ukraine war started in 2022, was when Yaroslav Hunka, was given two standing ovations in the Canadian House of Commons public gallery by MPs during the visit of President Zelensky in 2023. Hunka has been accused by Russia of genocide, because of his alleged involvement in the Huta Pieniacka massacre of February 28 1944 in which more than 500 ethnic Poles were murdered in a village, in what is now western Ukraine. Hunka was a member of the SS Galicia Division, a mostly Ukrainian unit of the Waffen SS, which Commissions in Germany and Poland later found guilty of war crimes.

This was shocking because it opened the lid on a topic of conversation that has been largely silenced by the western mainstream media since the beginning of the war: Ukraine’s contemporary challenge of far-right ultranationalism. But the Hunka case also illustrates how western authorities airbrushed discussion of nazis in Ukraine after World War II too.

On 13 July 1948 the British Commonwealth Relations Office, what is now part of the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, sent a telegram to Commonwealth governments, proposing an end to Nazi war crimes trials in the British zone of Germany. “Punishment of war crimes is more a matter of discouraging future generations than of meting out retribution to every guilty individual… it is now necessary to dispose of the past as soon as possible.”

After the conclusion of the Nuremberg War Trials in 1946 the western world faced a new enemy in the Soviet Union. Limited security resources in cash-strapped Albion and its colonies were re-deployed to uncover suspected Soviet agents and Communists, rather than to identify and track down lower-order Nazi war criminals.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The sequence of events that would have to transpire in order to turn this into a reality are that: the next NATO leader and his team end up being hawkish on this issue; Polish policymakers overcome their differences and agree that it’s worth the risks; and the US gives them the greenlight.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told the Financial Times in an interview earlier this week that “Membership in Nato does not trump each country’s responsibility for the protection of its own airspace — it’s our own constitutional duty. I’m personally of the view that, when hostile missiles are on course of entering our airspace, it would be legitimate self-defence [to strike them] because once they do cross into our airspace, the risk of debris injuring someone is significant.”

Foreign Ministry spokesman Pawel Wronski clarified that these was Sikorski’s own personal views and don’t reflect Poland’s official ones, elaborating that “If we have the capability and Ukraine agrees, then we should consider it. But ultimately, this is the minister's personal opinion.” Nevertheless, their comments still suggested that this scenario might once again be in the cards under certain conditions despite having earlier been rebuffed by the US, UK, and NATO. Here are three background briefings:

● 17 April: “It Would Be Surprising If Polish Patriot Systems Were Used To Protect Western Ukraine”
● 18 July: “Ukraine Likely Feels Jaded After NATO Said That It Won’t Allow Poland To Intercept Russian   Missiles”
● 30 August: “Poland Finally Maxed Out Its Military Support For Ukraine”

The last of these three included Zelensky’s most recent demand at the time to shoot down Russian missiles over Ukraine. He said that “We have talked a lot about this and we need, as I understand it, the support of several countries. Poland ... hesitates to be alone with this decision. It wants the support of other countries in NATO. I think this would lead to a positive decision by Romania.” That same analysis also cited Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz’s response to him too.

Ian Proud
Strategic Culture Foundation

If foreign policy is human, then the war in Ukraine killed the prodigal child of Biden and many European leaders.

If foreign policy is human, then the war in Ukraine killed the prodigal child of Biden and many European leaders, leaving them bereaved. Proof of death occurred when the 2023 Ukrainian summer counter-offensive failed. Eighteen months on, Zelensky and European leaders remain unable to break out of the cycle of grief. Trump has unwittingly become their therapist.

Loss is devastating. I lost my mum to cancer in 2008, and it was the worst day of my life. Hundreds of thousands of people in Russia and Ukraine have had to confront a premature reckoning with grief of much younger relatives, and in many unforgivable cases, children, in the teeth of this pointless war.

Little thought seems given to them when the polished limos glide up to the red carpets in Brussels and elsewhere, and our besuited leaders shake coiffured heads at how awful it all is.

Yet von der Leyen, Scholz, Macron, and the countless British Prime Ministers since war broke out, have experienced their particular form of grief, caused by the Biden-inspired misadventure in Ukraine. This helps to explain their inability to let go of a lifeless foreign policy. Their dead brainchild was a belief that a smaller, economically fragile, conventionally armed Ukraine could defeat a much larger, economically robust, and nuclear-armed Russia.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

China’s Voluntary Compliance With US Sanctions Prevents Russia From Paying Its SCO Dues. This wasn’t officially a secret, but it also wasn’t exactly public knowledge either.

Russia's Special Presidential Representative for SCO Affairs Bakhtiyor Khakimov revealed last week that “It's no secret, but we, for example, and I mean the Russian side, are facing serious difficulties in transferring our share contribution to the general budget of the SCO, because the bank is located in China, and, according to the basic documents, the share contribution is made only in US dollars.” China’s voluntary compliance with US sanctions therefore prevents Russia from paying its SCO dues.

Unlike what Khakimov claimed, while this wasn’t officially a secret, it wasn’t exactly public knowledge either. Many among the Mainstream Media and the Alt-Media Community alike are under the false impression that China proudly rebuffs all of the US’ sanctions demands due to Beijing’s sharp rhetoric about them. This is in spite of RT informing the world about Russia and China’s US-provoked payment problems in early September. They wrote about it here, which was then analyzed here.

Those who might have shrugged off that report as hyperbole or imagined that it was a “5D chess master plan” to “psyche out the US” like some on social media speculated now know that it was accurate after what Khakimov just revealed. China is so afraid of the US’ secondary sanctions threats that it won’t even let Russia pay its dollar-denominated SCO dues despite both being among its founding members. This reality is the exact opposite of what the general Western and non-Western public thought.

Few among them knew that the organization’s dues were denominated in dollars, which was probably agreed to at the turn of the century during its founding for reasons of financial convenience but wasn’t ever modified even after the West’s unprecedented sanctions against Russia since 2022. It’s frankly surprising that no changes were made after that nor any workarounds devised, so much so that Khakimov felt that he had to complain about this publicly, considering the SCO’s security-centric focus.

Karim Charara
Al Mayadeen English

We didn’t get the chance to talk to you during your lifetime, but perhaps these words can reach you now.

We could be anyone, a boy or girl, man or woman, young or old, Christian or Muslim, religious or agnostic…It doesn't really matter. We’re the millions whose lives you’ve impacted, here to say a few words to you.

Where to start?…Maybe somewhere near the beginning?

Many perhaps didn’t take you seriously at first, after all, yours was still somewhat a movement that hadn’t yet proven itself against the Israelis, and you were... what? 31? when you became the leader of the Resistance? Even though you were against handling such a great task, you shouldered it when it was thrust upon you, placing your complete trust in God so that he’d aid you in your endeavor.

That in and of itself was a lesson you taught us; us who are scrounging for answers in these dark times; us who are so used to looking to you for answers…

It was a hard few years for you, that we know. Between the Israeli occupation and its collaborators planted everywhere, the torture your fighters and people had to endure in prison, and the overwhelming disparity between your capabilities and those of the Israelis, you sacrificed a lot for our wellbeing, including your son, who was martyred on this very path.

Still, you stood strong, until you gifted us with liberation. Even then, you called it an achievement of the Lebanese people, and didn’t think to capitalize on it for political gain for one second.

Dmitry Trenin
RT.com

The conflict between Russia and the West won’t end after Kyiv is no longer viable as a proxy

The “Ukraine crisis” is not actually an accurate name for what is happening now in relations between Russia and the West. This confrontation is global. It touches virtually every functional area – from finance to pharmaceuticals to sport – and spans many geographical regions.

In Europe, which has become the epicenter of this confrontation, the highest level of tension outside Ukraine is now in the Baltic region. The question often asked in Russia (and in the West) is: Will this become the next theater of war?

In Western Europe and North America, a scenario has long been contemplated in which the Russian Army, after its victory in Ukraine, continues to march forward – next seeking to conquer the Baltic republics and Poland.

The purpose of this simple propaganda fantasy is clear: to convince Western Europeans that if they do not “invest fully” in supporting Kyiv, they may end up with a war on their own territory.

It is telling that almost no one in the EU dares to publicly ask whether Moscow is interested in a direct armed conflict with NATO. What would its aims be in such a war? And what price would it be willing to pay? Obviously, even posing such questions could lead to accusations of spreading Russian propaganda.

Our country takes note of provocative statements made by our northwestern neighbors, the Poles, the Baltic states, and the Finns. They have referred to the possibility of blockading the Kaliningrad exclave by sea and land, and closing Russia’s exit from the Gulf of Finland. Such statements are mostly made by retired politicians, but sometimes sitting ministers and military officers also raise their voices.

Marion Kawas
Al Mayadeen English

Each new atrocity in Gaza brought forth performative and useless expressions of concern from Western leaders and most Arab regimes, often coined as a “global outcry”.

Two months into the Gaza genocide, I wrote an article about why I hated the cruel ideology of Zionism and everything it had done to the Palestinian people.

At that point, most activists could not imagine that this genocide would now be close to reaching its first anniversary and that almost one year on, we would still be seeing the images of headless children, bodies draped off the edges of buildings, and humiliated and tortured detainees proudly displayed by their captors.

Each new atrocity brought forth performative and useless expressions of concern from Western leaders and most Arab regimes, often coined as a “global outcry”. With the tent massacre in Rafah, we thought that surely the world would now intervene to stop this, and then again with the horrific revelations from Sde Teiman prison and the defense of such by many Israeli legislators. But we were wrong:

This new phase of openly dispossessing and crushing Palestinians continues unabated. It not only continues but also brings new levels of destruction as in this week’s al-Mawasi massacre where two-ton US-made bombs obliterated humble tents and everything and everyone they housed. Over and over again, the grief and rage of Palestinians also grow in ways that will impact generations to come.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The US simply cannot accept that it lost the battle for hearts and minds across the Global South and even among a growing segment of the Western population itself.

The US’ sanctions against RT on the basis of it supposedly functioning as an undeclared intelligence agency “engaged in covert influence operations” are the continuation of its liberal-globalist elite’s efforts to revive the Russiagate conspiracy theory ahead of the November elections. Elements thereof earlier smeared Jill Stein as “a useful idiot for Russia” and then RT was accused of financing some top conservative influencers, who weren’t even aware of these alleged ties, all of which was explained here:

● 4 September: “The Democrats’ Attacks Against Jill Stein Show How Desperate They’re Getting”
● 5 September: “The Latest Russiagate Scandal Aims To Discredit Alt-Media & Trump”
● 7 September: “Russia’s Tenet Media Operation Was A Total Flop If The Reports Are True”

The intent was to discredit third-party candidates, Alt-Media, Trump, and top conservative influencers in the hopes of manipulating more voters into casting their ballots for Kamala. It remains to be seen whether this will succeed, but the complementary goal being advanced by the latest move is to scapegoat RT for the US’ global soft power failures. RT has proudly informed their audience of “inconvenient truths” about US foreign policy, however, so there’s nothing conspiratorial about that.

Daniele Ganser
Journal of 9/11 Studies

The “Strategy of Tension” in the Cold War Period *

[06/02/14] Historians today and in the coming years face a challenging task: they must write the history of the events of September 11, 2001. What they write will be taught in history classes. But what will they write? Will they write that Osama Bin Laden sent 19 Muslims to launch a surprise attack on the U.S.? Or will they write that the administration of President George W. Bush was responsible for the attack, either constructing it or deliberately permitting it in order to shock the U.S. population and to create a pretext for increasing military spending and attacking Afghanistan and Iraq?

Having examined much of the data related to the 9/11 events, I am convinced a new and thorough investigation is needed. But when I have questioned the official narrative of 9/11 in my native Switzerland I have encountered vigorous objections from people. Why would any government in the world, they have asked, attack its own population or, only slightly less criminal, deliberately allow a foreign group to carry out such an attack? While brutal dictatorships, such as the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, are known to have had little respect for the life and dignity of their citizens, surely a Western democracy, the thinking goes, would not engage in such an abuse of power. And if criminal elements within a Western democracy, in North America or in Europe, had engaged in such a crime, would not elected officials or the media find out and report on it? Is it imaginable that criminal persons within a government could commit terrorist operations against innocent citizens, who support the very same government with the taxes they pay every year? Would nobody notice? These are difficult questions, even for academics who specialize in the history of secret warfare. But in fact, there are historical examples of such operations being implemented by Western democracies.

In this essay, I will not deal directly with 9/11 but will look at what we can learn from history. I will report on some of the newest academic data about secret warfare during the Cold War. A secret military strategy that targets domestic populations with terrorism does indeed exist. It is called the “strategy of tension.” And it was implemented by Western democracies.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Those Alt-Media Community influencers who aggressively gatekept all prior criticisms of Lula 3.0’s foreign policy and then “canceled” those who shared such views while continuing to insist that he’d never align himself with the US’ regime change operations in the region have just been exposed as frauds.

The Alt-Media Community (AMC), which refers to the diverse collection of non-Mainstream Media outlets and individuals, generally has a positive view of Brazilian President Lula. His arrest as a result of the US-backed “Operation Car Wash” turned him into a political martyr. Many then celebrated his victory over Bolsonaro during the fall 2022 elections after his surprise release from jail 18 months prior. He could do no wrong in their eyes and they eagerly awaited the next iteration of his foreign policy.

Much to their surprise, he became the first BRICS leader to condemn Russia and then did so once again in a joint statement with Biden, thus confirming that “Lula’s Recalibrated Multipolar Vision Makes Him Amenable To The US’ Grand Strategic Interests” exactly as the preceding analysis explained at the time. Soros then endorsed him for being “on the front-line of the conflict between open and closed societies” and is even reportedly considering creating a global influence network with the US Democrats.

The only explanation that accounts for these unexpected foreign policy moves is that he either transformed during his imprisonment from a proud multipolar socialist into a cheap Brazilian knockoff of the US Democrats or he finally stopped pretending to be what he might have always been all along. In any case, these moves sharply contrasted with what many expected of him, yet his most zealous followers – who can be described as the “Lula Liberals” – gaslighted and attacked all online dissidents.

The reality became such that “The Latest Hybrid War On Brazil Is Now Being Waged By Putatively Pro-Lula Forces”, not anti-Lula ones, as explained in the preceding analysis. Basically, the Workers’ Party (PT) split into liberal-globalist and multipolar-socialist factions during Lula’s imprisonment, with the former nowadays far outweighing the latter in influence. The liberal-globalists largely align with the US Democrats’ foreign policy while the multipolar-socialists are largely independent thereof.