57 search results for "micimatt"

The Latest on Israel, Gaza, Iran

As Nima and I discuss the latest on Israel, Gaza, Iran, and the report that Russia shot down an F-35 carrying a nuclear weapon, the US Congress voted to throw good money after bad at the MICIMATT to support Ukraine in a losing cause and Israel in genocide.

 

Russia, Ukraine, Finns, Swedes

March 25 interview: Terrorist attack in Moscow – how could the US, with unprecedented speed, absolve Ukraine, blame ISIS-K? Killing the canard WILL RUSSIA STOP IN UKRAINE? Bay of Pigs ‘mousetrap’ precedent. What’s with the Finns and Swedes? MICIMATT rules.

 

Geopolitics in Conflict

“Geopolitics in Conflict” hosts me on Zionism; the MICIMATT; emerging alliance among China, Russia, N Korea, Iran. Besides, NATO has no more 155 mm shells? Does that suggest that Europe saw no “Russian Threat” — not before, not even after coup in Kyiv?

Media Miss Major Moves on Russia-Ukraine

By Ray McGovern, July 22, 2022

Corporate media are ignoring the stark implications of Russia’s stated intention to take control of more Ukrainian territory than just Donetsk and Luhansk. I discussed this on The Critical Hour yesterday and supplement those thoughts in the paragraphs below.

On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced Moscow’s broadened aims, explaining, “Now the geography is different. It’s far from being only the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, it’s also Kherson and Zaporizhia Oblasts and a number of other territories.” (I had just written on this: https://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2022/07/20/ukraine-us-russia-dangers-of-tit-for-tat/ )

In his interview, Lavrov pointed specifically to HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, made by Lockheed-Martin) as the kind of “weapon that will pose a direct threat to our territory and the territories of those republics who have declared their independence (Donetsk and Luhansk)”. The HIMARS being provided to Ukraine have a range of 50 miles, putting them also at easy reach of Crimea — which Kyiv (and the U.S.) insist is legally still part of Ukraine. It all depends on “geography”.

I’ll See You and Raise You

Just a few hours after the Lavrov interview was reported came the announcement by U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin that the U.S. will give Ukraine four more HIMARS, bringing the total to 16. Austin bragged that HIMARS have already “made a difference on the battlefield”.

But which battlefield? Lavrov and Russian President Putin can have no illusions that the wider, strategic “battlefield” includes Russia. Indeed, this is the same benighted Lloyd Austin who let that cat out of the bag three months ago:

“One of the US’s goals in Ukraine is to see a weakened Russia. … The U.S. is ready to move heaven and earth to help Ukraine win the war against Russia.”

( See: https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/biden-administration-russia-strategy/index.html )

Will Blinken and Biden Wake Up?

It seems a sure thing that Biden’s advisers anticipate being engaged in a proxy war in Ukraine at least until this November when the U.S. mid-term elections take place. Until then the Democrats surely will not want to appear to be slackers in confronting Russia on this critical issue (which, truth be told, they themselves did so much to create).

The reality, of course, is that U.S. policy makers go blithely along, enriching the MICIMATT (and enhancing campaign coffers) by giving advanced weaponry to Ukraine – and replacing them as needed. It’s very good for the multifaceted profiteering business. What is really troublesome is that there appears to be little understanding of the high stakes involved; little appreciation of what it means that Russia considers U.S./NATO behavior in Ukraine an existential threat — one that Russia is determined to remove, and can.

As fall approaches and more HIMARS arrive, their 50-mile range and (as Lavrov tried to explain) the dictates of “geography” may lead to a much deeper Russian offensive well beyond the Donbass. Military prospects for Washington’s proxies in Ukraine are already poor and are likely to grow worse as the mid-terms grow near. Understandably, Putin will be worried that the U.S. will move: “I’ll see you and raise you.”

Domestic Politics

President Putin is no stranger to the reality that U.S. presidents are beset by domestic political pressures. In June 2021, he acknowledged this specifically in a keynote speech to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum:

“I am sure that it [US policy towards Russia] is primarily impacted by domestic political processes. Russia-US relations have to a certain extent become hostage to the internal political processes that are taking place in the United States.” ( See: https://tass.com/politics/1298867 )

In my view, this gives the Kremlin considerable incentive to defeat what’s left of the Ukrainian army and move west, taking control of Odessa and moving toward Moldova, in due course. Again, Putin would fully expect the Biden administration to raise the ante at that point. So, by October things could get quite dangerous quite quickly.

Media Consumers in for Shock?

Given the Walter-Mitty-type reporting on how well Kyiv’s forces are doing, and the overall absence of balanced reporting and commentary in Establishment media, future Russian army advances beyond the Donbass are likely to come as a shock. Factor in the 6-year-long indoctrination/brainwashing on Russia’s “interference” in elections and its other alleged Russia-gate misdeeds (now disproven, but with the truth still hidden). Salt with a dollop of Russophobia and continual one-side-of-the-story reporting, and U.S. media consumers would probably be malleable enough to support giving Ukraine even longer-range weapons systems and/or aircraft.

Surprise, surprise: This week the New York Times  failed to put 1 and 1 together, so to speak: (1) Lavrov on “geography” and HIMARS prompting Russia to go deeper into Ukraine; and (1) and Austin’s pledge of four more HIMARS to make “a difference on the battlefield”.

Instead, NYT readers today get front-page, above-the-fold, he-said-she-said drivel from Andrew E. Kramer in Kyiv; his piece is titled To Rally Allies, Ukraine points to Fresh Gains.

Kramer writes:

“Through it all, the Ukrainians’ message to the world did not change. We can win. Our strategy is working, if slowly. Just keep the weapons coming.”

Among the successes the Ukrainians have told Kramer about is a strike on a Russian ammunition depot with, you guessed it, HIMARS. And, scraping the very bottom of the barrel, Kramer reports that the head of Britain’s MI6 (the UK counterpart to the CIA) believes Russian forces “are about to run out of steam … giving Ukrainians opportunities to strike back”. To remind (because Kramer forgot to), MI6 has a well deserved reputation for “fixing the intelligence and facts around the policy”, as official British documents show it did before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq in March 2003.

What Really Matters

One must skim half-way through Kramer’s 38-paragraph article to find a sensible paragraph on what really matters. But he does hit paydirt with this one:

The question of whether the long-range weaponry now arriving in Ukraine can indeed roll back the Russian army has become a pivotal unknown in the war.

Agreed: the answer to that cannot be known now with certainty. But the risk of tit-for-tat escalation getting out of hand, as early as this fall, can be known. A pity that NY Times readers are not warned of that.

Beware the Lucrative Tilt  With Windmills in Ukraine

By Ray McGovern, July 21, 2022

A  certain “Drew Hunkins” (I don’t know who h/she is) has written some provocative remarks in a “comment” under Information Clearing House’s (commendable) posting of an unusual article by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Hunkins’s comments are very hard to ague against. I guess that’s why no Establishment media would touch them with a 10-foot Pole – or a 12-foot Czech.

Here is Hunkins’s text: See what you think.

_____________________________________

Comment by Drew Hunkins: The Six Reasons Why

It’s becoming clear that “NATO” (i.e., the Washington-Zio-militarist imperium) is now set on upping the ante in Ukraine by attempting to bleed Russia dry. The occasional HIMARS artillery launch into Russia proper will be occurring regularly as well as attacks on the ethnic Russians in Donbas. The Russian military and DPR and LPR forces are adept at blowing up much of the NATO weaponry sent to the Ukies, but it’s almost impossible to destroy it all.

So where does this all end? The Kremlin had no choice but to embark on its liberating SMO since Washington was baiting and harassing Russia’s border for several years. Washington is not intending to back down to enter a Cold War style detente any time soon. Ergo, we stare down the barrel of a potential low simmering World War III that will rage for many years to come.

It’s noteworthy to remember why Washington is intent on destabilizing Russia to eventually foment regime change. The following are those reasons:

1.) To enforce the Wolfowitz Doctrine despite the potential danger. This dictated that Washington would never allow a competing power to rise on the global stage, one that could potentially put a check on neocon/Ziocon global ambitions.

2.) To return Russia to the 1990s when it was exploited and pillaged and plundered at will by the Wall St boys of international finance. During this lost decade poverty skyrocketed as well as unemployment and deaths of despair.

3.) As payback for interceding in Russia successfully interceding in Syria to essentially defeat the jihadi mercenary lunatic terrorists who were supported by the Zionist power configuration to destabilize the Assad administration.

4.) Washington’s proxy war on Russia in Ukraine is being conducted in order to de-link the growing economic ties between Russia and Western Europe, especially Germany. Washington’s goal for NATO’s Western Euro policy was always to keep Germany down, Russia out, and the U.S. in.

5.) Finally, Washington’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is the first step in an eventual attack on China. No way could Washington expect to be successful in a Sino U.S. war with Russia still in the picture, so the first step is to take on the Russian bear first then turn to the rising Chinese economic juggernaut.

6.) The domestic US military-industrial-complex must have a formidable enough foe that strikes fear in the public in order to justify the trillion dollar annual budget and careerism of the MIC personnel. Of course Russia fills the role of evil villain quite well, though obviously the criminality of Russia is almost entirely exaggerated by the Western media who also profit off the ruse.

Of course, none of this has to happen. But right now Washington’s dominated by sociopathic and extremely dangerous Ziocon/neocons in the form of Blinken, Sherman, Sullivan, and Nuland. All bets are off when folks of this kind are running the show. [End of Hunkins’s comment.)

______________________________________

I believe the U.S. objectives described in paragraphs 1 through 5 are the main ones in play. But their achievement is fanciful and — as long this is not understood as fanciful – those aims are downright dangerous. Paragraph 6, though, is a different kettle of fish. The dominating power of the MICIMATT makes paragraph 6 of transcendent importance.

As long as greed, lies, exceptionalism, and racism prevail, those who profiteer on arms making/selling, and who prostitute politicians with the proceeds will prevail —  UNLESS we use the freedoms we still have to confront them.

As for the greedy politicians who acquire and sit forever in lucrative seats in House and Senate by funding and sharing in the profits from arms manufacturers and traders, Pope Francis chided them directly at a joint session of Congress on Sept. 24, 2015, but they didn’t seem to “get it”. Francis minced no words:

“Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.”

The blood-drenched arms traders. Are we powerless before them?

The Pentagon gets more money, and Americans pay the price

By Katrina vanden Heuvel, June 22, 2022
https://www.washingtonpost.com/global-opinions/?itid=sn_opinions_3/
Text below

Bipartisanship is a rare and endangered species in today’s bitterly divided Washington. Except when it comes to one thing: the Pentagon budget.

From Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democrats to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his fellow Senate Republicans, all agree that the Defense Department — which already boasts a budget higher, in comparable dollars, than its levels during the Cold War, and bigger than the combined military budgets of the next nine highest-spending countries — must have more. The only argument is how high the “top line” should go.

Ironically, this lone area of bipartisan consensus is a tribute not to the wisdom of the center but to its folly. Even as the military budget keeps going up, Americans are growing less and less secure.

The pandemic has taken the lives of more than 1 million Americans. With much of the world still lacking vaccines, as well as serviceable public health systems, the global toll keeps rising. And neither the United States nor the rest of the world is even close to prepared for the next pandemic, which, given our global economy, is certain to follow.

Meanwhile, last year, the United States alone suffered 20 climate catastrophes that wreaked over $1 billion in damage. Drought now endangers much of the West. Floods threaten the heartland. Hurricanes are predicted to be ever fiercer. Yellowstone National Park, with its recent drastic snowmelt and subsequent devastating floods, is only the most recent victim of a warming climate’s destructive effects. And yet, the Pentagon will get more money while efforts to kick-start investments to address catastrophic climate change are blocked by the Republican opposition in the Senate.

What is all this new defense spending for? Part will go to building up bases and weaponry in Asia to counter China. But the Chinese are competing most effectively not with military forces but with successful economic mercantilism. They are focused on capturing markets, locking up access to resources, and investing to dominate the emerging industries and technologies of the future. The Pentagon’s new weapons and bases won’t substitute for our failure to invest in cutting-edge R&D, in a modern and efficient infrastructure, and in a trade policy that serves Americans rather than multinational corporations.

The other target is Russia. Some of the most popular arguments for more military spending have been exposed as weak while the Ukraine war reveals the limits of the Russian military and Germany and other NATO allies pledge to increase their military spending dramatically. And yet, somehow, the Russian threat, as manifested by its invasion of Ukraine, remains the excuse for more Pentagon spending, not less.

The core of the argument is both logical and absurd. The United States maintains more than 700 bases in some 80 countries around the world. The Pentagon has carried out counterterrorism operations in at least 85 countries, nearly half of the world’s nation-states. It’s now gearing up to be able to take on both Russia and China. If the United States is committed to policing the world, the military budget will always by definition be inadequate. The mission, however, is absurd — and ruinous, if we want to rebuild and secure a healthy and prosperous democracy at home.

What powers the bipartisan consensus on military spending isn’t, of course, logic or even security. Pentagon spending is armed and armored by the military-industrial complex that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against more than 60 years ago. Eisenhower was prescient but too optimistic. Now we have, as former intelligence official Ray McGovern dubs it, “MICIMATT”— a military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think-tank complex that is the most powerful lobby of all.

OpenSecrets, the authoritative, nonpartisan source on campaign financing and lobbying, reports that the weapons industry has spent about $300 million on campaign contributions and $2.5 billion on lobbying during the Pentagon’s post-9/11 spending surge. In any given year, the industry employs an average of 700 lobbyists, more than one for every member of Congress. The Pentagon virtually invented the revolving door: A recent Government Accountability Office report identified 1,700 generals, admirals and Pentagon procurement officials who went to work in the 14 major arms contractors after leaving the government. According to a 2020 report, contractors and the Pentagon contributed more than $1 billion to the nation’s top 50 think tanks, another source of sinecures for former military officials, from 2014 to 2019.

None of these, though, are as powerful as the defense industry’s political contracting and production process, which systematically spreads jobs to key congressional districts nationwide. As William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, recently reported, the website for Lockheed Martin, a leading defense contractor, includes a map showing the state-by-state impact of the 250,000 jobs it claims are tied to its work on the troubled F-35 fighter jet. The company claims to have subcontractors in 45 states and Puerto Rico.

As Congress completes work on the defense budget authorization, bipartisan support will likely lift the top line higher even than the Pentagon or the president have asked for. But as the military grows, Americans will become less secure, battered by real threats that more weapons won’t address.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/global-opinions/?itid=sn_opinions_3/