Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

By providing military aid to Kiev, the US has strained its own arsenals; the Congressionally approved money pot has run dry

The US Defense Department has asked the nation's  Congress to allocate at least $6.5 billion to replenish its stocks, which have been depleted after two years of constant weapon deliveries to Ukraine, according to a document seen by Bloomberg.

The Pentagon alerted Congress that spending on replenishment was a high priority in the proposals it submitted last month, the outlet reported on Thursday.

The shopping list reportedly includes a wide range of weapons, ammunition and critical components for the production of 155mm shells, HARM anti-radar missiles, Patriot interceptors, GMLRS rockets and anti-tank TOWs.

While the Pentagon estimated the price of its immediate replenishment needs at $6.5 billion, multiple US media reports suggested earlier this week that the total deficit could be at least $10 billion. Unless the shortfall is compensated, the “ongoing hole” will put a strain on the US military, one source told Politico.

READ MORE: Ukraine’s ammo shortage hurting US strategy – White House

Washington had provided more than $75 billion in cash and equipment for Ukraine’s war effort by the end of last year, far surpassing other Western donors, but the deliveries stopped after the Congressionally approved money pot ran dry.

The White House has requested over $60 billion in supplemental Ukraine assistance, but the Republican-controlled House has stonewalled repeated calls by US President Joe Biden to release the money. Biden has blamed US lawmakers for Kiev’s recent battlefield losses, including last month’s fall of Avdeevka to Russian forces.

Despite running out of money, the White House has found enough “unanticipated savings” at the Pentagon to announce a new aid package valued at up to $300 million this week. The Pentagon still has the authority to send some $4 billion worth of aid to Ukraine, but Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has so far been reluctant to tap into that fund, with no assurances the money will be replaced by US lawmakers.

The social media influencing campaign was intended to foster ‘paranoia’ among top leaders in Beijing, Reuters reported

Former US President Donald Trump authorized a secret CIA influence campaign aimed at smearing the Chinese government and turning public opinion against its leaders, Reuters reported on Thursday, citing ex-officials with knowledge of the operation.

According to the report, the CIA formed a team of operatives in 2019 who used fake internet identities to spread “negative narratives” about President Xi Jinping’s government and leak “disparaging intelligence” to foreign news outlets.

Among the narratives spread by the CIA on Chinese social media platforms were allegations that members of the ruling Communist Party were hiding money overseas. The Belt and Road Initiative, China’s global infrastructure development strategy, was also framed as “corrupt and wasteful.”

The US officials who spoke to Reuters said the effort by the Trump administration was intended to “foment paranoia among top leaders” and force the government in Beijing to expend resources chasing up intrusions into its internet space.

“We wanted them chasing ghosts,” one former official said. The sources described the operation as an American response to “years of aggressive covert efforts by China aimed at increasing its global influence.”

A CIA spokesperson contacted by Reuters declined to comment on the existence of the program.

A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the outlet that the revelation proved that Washington uses public platforms “as weapons to spread false information and manipulate international public opinion.”

During his time in office, Trump orchestrated a shift in US foreign policy from the Middle East to China, with the Pentagon branding China as Washington’s top “strategic competitor” in its 2018 National Defense Strategy. Trump also waged a large-scale trade war against Beijing for much of his term.

In 2020, the president also tried to block access to the Chinese-owned TikTok platform through an executive order, arguing that it was a threat to national security.

Amid recently renewed efforts by Congress to ban the app, Trump, now the 2024 the Republican presidential frontrunner, told CNBC this week that he chose to back away from efforts to ban the platform due to its popularity among young Americans and concerns that it would strengthen rival social media giant Facebook, which he described as “an enemy of the people.”

READ MORE: Ex-US Treasury Secretary reveals TikTok purchase plans

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to force the platform’s Chinese owner ByteDance to sell the app within six months or face a US ban – and on Friday, former US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he was building an investor group to buy TikTok.

Reuters said it was unable to determine what impact the secret CIA operation had in China or whether President Joe Biden’s administration has maintained it.

Macron’s latest sallies and the spat they’ve caused show that Western Europe must finally be honest about the causes of the Ukraine conflict

The current situation in the conflict between Ukraine – serving (while being demolished) as a proxy for the West – and Russia, can be sketched in three broad strokes.

First, Russia now clearly has the upper hand on the battlefield and could potentially accelerate its recent advances to achieve an overall military victory soon. The West is being compelled to recognize this fact: as Foreign Affairs put it, in an article titled “Time is Running Out in Ukraine,” Kiev and its Western supporters “are at a critical decision point and face a fundamental question: How can further Russian advances… be stopped, and then reversed?” Just disregard the bit of wishful thinking thrown in at the end to sweeten the bitter pill of reality. The key point is the acknowledgment that it is crunch time for the West and Ukraine – in a bad way.

Second, notwithstanding the above, Ukraine is not yet ready to ask for negotiations to end the war on terms acceptable to Russia, which would be less than easy for Kiev. (Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, reiterated in an important recent interview that Moscow remains principally open to talks, not on the basis of “wishful thinking” but, instead, proceeding from the realities “on the ground.”)

The Kiev regime’s inflexibility is little wonder. Since he jettisoned a virtually complete – and favorable – peace deal in the spring of 2022, President Vladimir Zelensky has gambled everything on an always improbable victory. For him personally, as well as his core team (at least), there is no way to survive – politically or physically – the catastrophic defeat they have brought on their country by leasing it out as a pawn to the Washington neocon strategy.

The Pope, despite the phony brouhaha he triggered in Kiev and the West, was right: a responsible Ukrainian leadership ought to negotiate. But that’s not the leadership Ukraine has. Not yet at least.

Third, the West’s strategy is getting harder to decipher because, in essence, the West cannot figure out how to adjust to the failure of its initial plans for this war. Russia has not been isolated; its military has become stronger, not weaker – and the same is true of its economy, including its arms industry.

And last but not least, the Russian political system’s popular legitimacy and effective control has neither collapsed nor even frayed. As, again, even Foreign Affairs admits, “Putin would likely win a fair election in 2024.” That’s more than could be said for, say, Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak, Olaf Scholz, or Emmanuel Macron (as for Zelensky, he has simply canceled the election).

In other words, the West is facing not only Ukraine’s probable defeat, but also its own strategic failure. The situation, while not a direct military rout (as in Afghanistan in 2021) amounts to a severe political setback.

In fact, this looming Western failure is a historic debacle in the making. Unlike with Afghanistan, the West will not be able to simply walk away from the mess it has made in Ukraine. This time, the geopolitical blowback will be fierce and the costs very high. Instead of isolating Russia, the West has isolated itself, and by losing, it will show itself weakened.

It is one thing to have to finally, belatedly accepted that the deceptive “unipolar” moment of the 1990s has been over for a long time. It is much worse to gratuitously enter the new multipolar order with a stunning, avoidable self-demotion. Yet that is what the EU/NATO-West has managed to fabricate from its needless over-extension in Ukraine. Hubris there has been galore, the fall now is only a matter of time – and not much time at that.

Regarding EU-Europe in particular, on one thing French President Emmanuel Macron is half right. Russia’s victory “would reduce Europe’s credibility to zero.” Except, of course, a mind of greater Cartesian precision would have detected that Moscow’s victory will merely be the last stage in a longer process.

The deeper causes of EU/NATO-Europe’s loss of global standing are threefold. First, its own wanton decision to seek confrontation instead of a clearly feasible compromise and cooperation with Russia (why exactly is a neutral Ukraine impossible to live with again?) Second, the American strategy of systematically diminishing EU/NATO-Europe with a short-sighted policy of late-imperial client cannibalization which takes the shape of aggressive deindustrialization and a “Europeanization” of the war in Ukraine. And third, the European clients’ grotesque acquiescence to the above.

That is the background to a recent wave of mystifying signals coming out of Western, especially EU/NATO elites: First, we have had a wave of scare propaganda to accompany the biggest NATO maneuvers since the end of the Cold War. Next Macron publicly declared and has kept reiterating that the open – not in covert-but-obvious mode, as now – deployment of Western ground troops in Ukraine is an option. He added a cheap demagogic note by calling on Europeans not to be “cowards,” by which he means that they should be ready to follow, in effect, his orders and fight Russia, clearly including inside and on behalf of Ukraine. Never mind that the latter is a not an official member of either NATO or the EU as well as a highly corrupt and anything but democratic state.

In response, a divergence has surfaced inside EU/NATO Europe: The German government has been most outspoken in contradicting Macron. Not only Chancellor Scholz rushed to distance himself. A clearly outraged Boris Pistorius – Berlin’s hapless minister of defense, recently tripped up by his own generals’ stupendously careless indiscretion over the Taurus missiles – has grumbled that there is no need for “talk about boots on the ground or having more courage or less courage.” Perhaps more surprisingly, Poland, the Czech Republic as well as NATO figurehead Jens Stoltenberg (i.e., the US) have been quick to state that they are, in effect, not ready to support Macron’s initiative. The French public, by the way, is not showing any enthusiasm for a Napoleonic escalation either. A Le Figaro poll shows 68 percent against openly sending ground troops to Ukraine.

On the other side, Macron has found some support. He is not entirely isolated, which helps explain why he has dug in his heels: Zelensky does not count in this respect. His bias is obvious, and his usual delusions notwithstanding he is not calling the shots on the matter. The Baltic states, however, while military micro-dwarfs, are, unfortunately, in a position to exert some influence inside the EU and NATO. And true to form, they have sided with the French president, with Estonia and Lithuania taking the lead.

It remains impossible to be certain what we are looking at. To get the most far-fetched hypothesis out of the way first: is this a coordinated bluff with a twist? A complicated Western attempt at playing good-cop bad-cop against Russia, with Macron launching the threats and others signaling that Moscow could find them less extreme, at a diplomatic price, of course? Hardly. For one thing, that scheme would be so hare-brained, even the current West is unlikely to try. No, the crack opening up in Western unity is real.

Regarding Macron himself, too-clever-by-half, counter-productive cunning is his style. We cannot know what exactly he is trying to do; and he may not know himself. In essence, there are two possibilities. Either the French president now is a hard-core escalationist determined to widen the war into an open clash between Russia and NATO, or he is a high-risk gambler who is engaged in a bluff to achieve three purposes. Frighten Moscow into abstaining from pushing its military advantage in Ukraine (a hopeless idea); score nationalist “grandeur” points domestically in France (which is failing already); and increase his weight inside EU/NATO-Europe by “merely” posturing as, once again, a new “Churchill” – whom Macron himself has made sure to allude to, in all his modesty. (And some of his fans, including Zelensky, a grizzled veteran of Churchill live action role play, have already made that de rigueur if stale comparison.)  

While we cannot entirely unriddle the moody sphinx of the Elysée or, for that matter, the murky dealings of EU/NATO-European elites, we can say two things. First, whatever Macron thinks he is doing, it is extremely dangerous. Russia would treat EU/NATO-state troops in Ukraine as targets – and it won’t matter one wit if they turn up labeled “NATO” or under national flags “only.” Russia has also reiterated that it considers its vital interests affected in Ukraine and that if its leadership perceives a vital threat to Russia, nuclear weapons are an option. The warning could not be clearer.

Second, here is the core Western problem that is now – due to Russia undeniably winning the war – becoming acute: Western elites are split between “pragmatists” and “extremists.” The pragmatists are as Russophobic and strategically misguided as the extremists, but they do shy away from World War Three. Yet these pragmatists, who seek to resist hard-core escalationists and reign it at least high-risk gamblers, are brought up short against a crippling contradiction in their own position and messaging: As of now, they still share the same delusional narrative with the extremists. Both groupings keep reiterating that Russia plans to attack all of EU/NATO-Europe once it defeats Ukraine and that, therefore, stopping Russia in Ukraine is, literally, vital (or in Macron’s somewhat Sartrean terms “existential”) to the West.    

That narrative is absurd. Reality works exactly the other way around: The most certain way to get into a war with Russia is to send troops to Ukraine openly. And what is existential for EU/NATO-Europe is to finally liberate itself from American “leadership.” During the Cold War, a case could be made that (then Western) Europe needed the US. After the Cold War, though, that was no longer the case. In response, Washington has implemented a consistent, multi-administration, bipartisan, if often crude, strategy of avoiding what should have been inevitable: the emancipation of Europe from American dominance.

Both the eastward expansion of NATO, programmed – and predicted – to cause a massive conflict with Russia and the current proxy war in Ukraine, obstinately provoked by Washington over decades, are part of that strategy to – to paraphrase a famous saying about NATO – “keep Europe down.” And the European elites have played along as if there’s no tomorrow, which, for them, there really may not be.

We are at a potential breaking-point, a crisis of that long-term trajectory. If the pragmatists in EU/NATO-Europe really want to contain the extremists, who play with triggering an open war between Russia and NATO that would devastate at least Europe, then they must now come clean and, finally, abandon the common, ideological, and entirely unrealistic narrative about an existential threat from Moscow.

As long as the pragmatists dare not challenge the escalationists on how to principally understand the causes of the current catastrophe, the extremists will always have the advantage of consistency: Their policies are foolish, wastefully unnecessary, and extremely risky. And yet, they follow from what the West has made itself believe. It is high time to break that spell of self-hypnosis, and face facts.

Steven Mnuchin told CNBC he is putting together an investor group to try to buy the short-video app

Former US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said he is building an investor group to acquire TikTok, a day after the House of Representatives voted to force the social media platform’s Chinese owner ByteDance to sell the app or face a US ban.

The House passed the legislation by a vote of 352-65 on Wednesday, citing national-security risks. The bill now goes to the Senate. US President Joe Biden previously said he would sign the bill into law if it passes both houses of Congress.

“I think the legislation should pass and I think [TikTok] should be sold,” Mnuchin, who leads Liberty Strategic Capital, told CNBC on Thursday. “It’s a great business and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok,” he stated.

Mnuchin, who served as Treasury Secretary under former President Donald Trump, did not specify who the other investors would be in such a deal or the potential valuation for the social media site.

“This should be owned by US businesses,” he stressed, adding “There’s no way that the Chinese would ever let a US company own something like this in China.” 

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal had earlier reported that former Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick was also shopping a potential deal to prospective partners. However, according to CNBC, it remains unclear whether the Chinese government would permit ByteDance to sell TikTok to a US buyer.

China has lashed out at an ongoing effort to ban the popular social media platform in the US, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin saying that such a step would violate international trade rules. TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew has implied that a sale is not an option.

While TikTok is the only application specifically mentioned in the document currently winding its way through Congress, it creates a framework for Washington to ban other platforms controlled by countries it considers “foreign adversaries,” experts warn. The list of nations labeled as such includes China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela.

If inked into law, the bill would give ByteDance 165 days to divest TikTok, which has more than 170 million American users. If it fails to do so, US web-hosting companies would have to remove TikTok and other apps linked to ByteDance from their app stores.

Benjamin Netanyahu said the IDF is prepared to conduct the attack and evacuate the civilian population

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the latest truce and prisoner-exchange proposal by Hamas and has approved an IDF plan to launch an operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, Israeli media reported on Friday.

”The IDF is prepared for the operation and to evacuate the [civilian] population,” the PM’s office said in a statement, as cited by the Times of Israel.

Earlier in the day, Hamas announced on social media that it had presented its “vision” of a prisoner swap with Israel to Qatari and Egyptian mediators and was looking towards a ceasefire agreement which would involve the withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces from Gaza.

As reported by Reuters, which has seen the proposal, the Palestinian militants proposed the release of Israeli women, including female soldiers, children, the elderly and ill hostages, in exchange for Israel freeing between 700 and 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. Once the prisoner exchange is complete, Hamas said it would be ready to negotiate a date for a permanent ceasefire.

The Jewish state, however, dismissed the proposal and accused Hamas of making “unrealistic demands.”

On Thursday, Netanyahu also reiterated Israel’s determination to complete its mission of “eliminating” Hamas.

Israel’s decision to proceed with a ground incursion into Rafah comes after repeated warnings from the international community, including the US and Egypt, not to enter the city where some 1.5 million Palestinians are currently sheltering.

READ MORE: The Last Stand: Israel is very close to breaking a key accord that defined the Middle East

After Hamas militants launched a surprise attack on Israeli settlements last October 7, which saw 1,100 people killed and 250 taken hostage, Israel has been conducting a relentless siege on Gaza. According to the latest information from Palestinian health authorities, at least 31,341 people have been killed and 73,134 others injured in Israeli airstrikes and ground operations in the enclave over the past half a year.

Potential delivery of German-made Taurus missiles to Kiev could undermine Berlin’s own security, Sahra Wagenknecht says

Lawmakers across the German political spectrum who are considering delivering long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine should realize that this would put the lives of millions of Germans on the line, veteran left-wing politician Sahra Wagenknecht has argued. The MP also pointed out to colleagues that this weapon cannot change the course of the Ukraine conflict.

Kiev has for months been requesting Berlin to supply it with the rockets, with Chancellor Scholz, however, repeatedly ruling out such a possibility. He has explained that Taurus’ long range would enable Ukraine to strike targets deep inside Russian territory, increasing the potential for further escalation. Scholz has also said supply of these missiles, which are made in Germany, would inevitably imply the presence of Bundeswehr troops on Ukrainian soil – a scenario that is “out of the question.”

While the German parliament did vote against arming Kiev with the missiles on Thursday, critics from the opposition as well as from within the ruling ‘traffic light’ coalition have urged Chancellor Scholz to lift the self-imposed prohibition.

Addressing her colleagues in the Bundestag before the vote, Wagenknecht claimed that the “whole world outside of the German political bubble knows that Ukraine can’t win this war.”

“Taurus [cruise missiles] would not change anything at all there, the only [thing this] would change is that Germany would definitely become a party to the war in Russia’s eyes,” she explained.

According to the politician, who is also the leader of her party, what proponents of Taurus missile deliveries to Kiev are “carelessly toying with here is the security and, in the worst case, the lives of millions of people in Germany.”

Wagenknecht, who made a name for herself in German politics as one of the leaders of the Left party before leaving it last October, described as scandalous the fact that “German air force officers calmly debate how one can destroy Russian targets with German cruise missiles.” The MP was apparently referring to a leaked conversation between several German top brass made public by RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan earlier this month.

In the audio, whose authenticity was later confirmed by the German Defense Ministry, the officers theorized about a Ukrainian strike on the Crimean Bridge with the help of Taurus missiles.

Wagenknecht has been a vocal critic of Scholz’s policies toward Russia over the Ukraine conflict since the start of hostilities in February 2022.

The Palestinian group said it will discuss a permanent ceasefire with Israel after the exchange of prisoners, the outlet has reported

Palestinian armed group Hamas is calling for an exchange of prisoners and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza as part of a ceasefire agreement, Reuters has reported after reviewing the document.

Early on Friday, Hamas announced on social media that it had presented its “vision” of a prisoner swap with Israel to Qatari and Egyptian mediators. The group said it made the move as part of talks aimed at “stopping the aggression against our people in Gaza, providing relief and assistance to them, and [facilitating] the return of those displaced [by the conflict].”

Reuters later revealed details of the Hamas proposal, which it said envisages a two-stage road-map toward ending the fighting.

In the first stage, Hamas stated it is ready to release Israeli women, including female soldiers, children, the elderly and ill hostages, in exchange for Israel freeing between 700 and 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, around a hundred of whom are serving life sentences, according to the agency.

In line with the proposal, a deadline for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza should be agreed following the conclusion of the first stage, Reuters said.

Hamas revealed it would also be ready to negotiate a date for a permanent ceasefire after the initial exchange of prisoners, it added.

According to the agency, the group wants all detainees from both sides to be released in the second stage of the plan.

However, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu downplayed hopes of an imminent ceasefire on Friday, saying in a message on X (formerly Twitter) that Hamas continues to produce “unrealistic demands.

Netanyahu insisted on Thursday that Israel will complete its mission of “eliminating” Hamas. In order to do so, he stated that Israeli forces will enter Rafah on Gaza’s southern border with Egypt, which has become the last refuge for more than a million displaced Palestinians.

At least 1,100 were killed and 250 taken hostage when Hamas carried out a surprise incursion into Israel on October 7. Many of the captives were released by the group during a week-long truce in November, but Hamas is still believed to be holding around 130 people.

READ MORE: UN report finds Israel deliberately targeted journalists – Reuters

The latest information from Gaza’s health ministry suggests that at least 31,341 Palestinians have been killed and 73,134 others injured in Israeli airstrikes and ground operations in the Palestinian enclave over the past half a year.

The UK needs to make “tough choices” to be able to counter the “threats” posed by Russia and China, Richard Dearlove has said

Britain is engaged in a “gray war” with Russia, but neither the authorities nor the public are taking the situation seriously enough, the former head of the famed spy agency MI6, Richard Dearlove, has warned.

The UK military isn’t getting enough money to be able to counter the “threats” posed by Moscow and Beijing, Richard Dearlove, who led the British Secret Intelligence Service between 1999 and 2004, said in an interview with Politico on Friday.

The statement followed last week’s announcement of the UK’s budget for the next financial year, in which there was no increase in defense spending. It remains at 2% of the country’s GDP.

”If you stopped anyone in the street here in the UK and asked them whether they thought Britain is at war, they’d look at you as if you were mad. But we are at war — we’re engaged in a gray war with Russia, and I am trying to remind people of that,” the former spy chief said.

The British authorities have “got to make some tough choices, and I’m afraid the tough choices are in front of us right now. We should be spending at least 2.5%” on defense, he insisted.

“We urgently need to be building more ships. We need a much bigger navy. And we need more boots on the ground, for God’s sake,” Dearlove stressed.

The fighting between Russia and Ukraine has shown the importance of manpower on the modern battlefield, the 79-year-old said. The size of the British army had been reduced by more than 26,000 since 2006, and currently has just over 74,000 full-time troops.

Last month, Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov accused the UK of being “directly involved” in the conflict between Moscow and Ukraine. He was reacting to a report in The Times which claimed that the head of the UK armed forces, Admiral Tony Radakin, had “helped the Ukrainians with the strategy to destroy Russian ships and open up the Black Sea.” According to Peskov, it is “no secret” for Moscow that the British “provide different forms of support” to Kiev such as “people on the ground and intelligence.”

In February, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the UK has been “even more aggressive, more elaborate in its provocative assertiveness” towards Moscow than any other Western nation during the conflict.

READ MORE: Putin issues warning on US troops in Ukraine 

The UK has been one of the leading backers of Ukraine in Europe since the start of the fighting more than two years ago, pledging to provide Kiev with 12 billion pounds ($15.2 billion) in overall support, including 7.1 billion pounds ($9 billion) in military assistance.

The Taiwanese defense chief has confirmed US troops are training the island’s army, with some stationed 10km from mainland China

US special forces personnel are stationed on some of Taiwan’s outlying islands training its armed forces, the island’s defense authority chief Chiu Kuo-cheng confirmed to the press on Thursday.

The official was asked to confirm media reports of a permanent US army presence in Taiwan on the sidelines of a legislative hearing, the news website Focus Taiwan wrote on Thursday. Chiu stated that US service members are training Taiwanese troops, helping them identify weaknesses and blind spots.

Last week, the US military news site Special Operations Forces Report (SOFREP) wrote that America’s “Green Berets” were planned to be deployed to Taiwan to act as permanent training observers and prepare the island’s special units. This represents a departure from past practice that saw frequent but non-permanent visits by US personnel to Taiwanese training facilities, the report said. The permanent US forces, according to the article, would be situated on the Kinmen Islands, just 10 kilometers from mainland China.

Beijing sees the self-governing isle as part of China’s sovereign territory, and has repeatedly warned it against formally declaring independence. Although Taiwan has governed itself since 1949, most of the international community, including the US, does not officially recognize it as a sovereign state.

While the US does not officially support Taiwanese independence, it maintains security ties with the island. Under the ‘Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act 2022,’ to “deter People’s Republic of China (PRC) aggression against Taiwan” the US is authorized to spend up to $2 billion a year in military grants to bolster the island’s security up until 2027.

Mainland China has slammed the increased rotation of US military personnel to the island. The US always prioritizes its own interests, and Taiwan is merely a “pawn” it uses against mainland China, Beijing’s spokesman Chen Binhua stated on Wednesday. He claimed that by “closely aligning with the US to carry out so-called military training programs,” Taiwan’s political leadership is gradually “pushing the people of Taiwan into a crisis.”

“Any attempt to seek ‘independence’ through military means or rely on external forces for ‘independence’ will only lead to danger and ultimately result in self-destruction for Taiwan,” he warned.

Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric has expressed “concern” over attempted bombing of the Zaporozhye facility

The spokesman for United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said all sides are responsible for maintaining security at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, after staff at the Russian facility accused Ukrainian forces of dropping a bomb near fuel tanks containing diesel for backup generators.

UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric was asked about the recent attack in the immediate vicinity of the nuclear plant during a press briefing on Thursday.

“We have stated over and again, and we’re very concerned about the situation around the nuclear power plant, and it’s incumbent on everyone to ensure and to guarantee its safety. One would hate to even think about what could happen,” Dujarric said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, told Russian media that it was aware of the incident, but offered no further comment.

The improvised bomb, composed of explosives wrapped in foil, was dropped just five meters away from the perimeter fence, plant director Yury Chernuk said in a video published on social media on Thursday. The attack caused no damage or casualties, but if the fuel tanks were to be destroyed, the plant’s “preparedness for emergencies would be reduced by orders of magnitude,” Chernuk said.

Europe’s largest nuclear power plant fell under Moscow’s control in 2022, early in the conflict with Ukraine. It was formally transferred to Rosatom management after Zaporozhye Region was incorporated into Russia following a referendum.

Russia has repeatedly accused Kiev of launching artillery, missile, and drone attacks against the facility, as well as repeatedly sending in special forces teams to try and seize it. The plant has suffered multiple blackouts and sustained minor damage to its support infrastructure, and has been placed in a dormant state in order to minimize the chances of a potentially catastrophic scenario.

The French leader again refused to rule out NATO deployments in Ukraine, after controversary over his recent remarks on the subject

French President Emmanuel Macron described Russia as “an adversary,” but stopped short of declaring it an “enemy,” during an interview with the France 2 and TF1 TV channels on Thursday.

He again refused to rule out NATO deployments in Ukraine, reiterating that Paris is ready to make any “decisions necessary to prevent Russia’s victory” – and noting that he sees no opportunities for negotiations with the Kremlin at this point.

”I am absolutely ready for discussions at any time, but we need someone sincere and peace-oriented to do that,” Macron said, adding that he hoped that the time would come one day to negotiate with a Russian president “whoever it might be.”

Noting Macron’s reluctance to engage in direct communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the interviewers wondered if the United States could potentially mediate such talks, especially if Donald Trump is reelected.

Macron brushed off the question, pointing out that Trump is not the current occupant of the White House.

Back in January, Macron said he would deal with whoever wins the US election, claiming “I’ve always had the same philosophy, I take the leaders that people give me.”

The French leader said there was “nothing personal” behind his decision to refrain from dialogue with Putin. “Undoubtedly, I am the head of the state that used to talk to him more than anyone else.”

US President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are set for a rematch in November, with recent polls showing Trump leading his incumbent rival by between two and nine percentage points. Trump has promised to end the Ukrainian conflict “in 24 hours” if voted back into office, without specifying how peace could be achieved. Meanwhile, Russia is holding its own presidential election this weekend, in which Vladimir Putin faces three opponents.

READ MORE: Polls open in Russian presidential election

The Western European bloc’s representatives no longer try to understand those who disagree with them, instead they deliver lectures dripping with arrogance

A recent incident in which a group of ambassadors from EU states refused to attend a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov perfectly encapsulates the state of European diplomatic culture today. The reason is simple – over the past 30 years, the need to be diplomatic in the traditional sense of the word has almost disappeared.

Despite the fact that the envoys of EU countries in Moscow are relatively well-educated and not stupid, these individual peculiarities no longer count for much. Everything is determined by their dogmatic world view, which has become the opposite of what is necessary for civilized relations between states.

Those observers who question why in today's world each EU state needs its own separate ambassador in Moscow have merit in their arguments. After all, the envoys really do not decide anything and cannot fulfil their duties in the traditional accepted way. It would be much easier for everyone if these people – both great and not so great – would return to their countries for a while.

There are several reasons why Western Europeans have ventured so far on the road to their own, different world. First, they experienced a colossal upheaval just over 30 years ago. Since the 16th century, these states had been neighboring Russia, which they could not defeat.

Dominic Lieven, a fine British scholar of the Russian Empire's origins, wrote that the Russians were the only people Western Europeans had to deal with who were capable of fighting for their special, independent niche in the modern world with boundless courage, perseverance, and self-sacrifice.

Consider these words – we are the only civilization against which the West has attempted to act aggressively, and failed to achieve its goals. All the rest – the Great Empire of China, the ancient civilization of India, and many others – were unable to withstand the decisive thrust of the West, which for 500 years had been expanding the frontiers of its power by fire and sword. They were beaten, even if they were able to restore their statehood after some time.

Our country was never defeated. But let’s try to put ourselves in the Western Europeans’ shoes and understand their emotional state. For centuries, they have been living with a trauma called ‘an independent Russia’. However, we ourselves have never had the opportunity to understand what it is like to have a permanent enemy that can never be conquered.

So, when the USSR suddenly collapsed in 1991 and the unified state disintegrated, Western Europe found itself in a situation it had never experienced before. Overnight, the most unfulfilled wish of generations of European politicians and military leaders came true. All by itself, without a decisive military clash, and with the Russians’ full of desire to join the ‘European family’, even as pupils. Such a shock could not pass without serious consequences for the psyche of the statesmen and ordinary citizens of these Western European states.

Their entire foreign policy culture was based on the fact that Russia would never be pushed around or told what to do. Suddenly, the West felt it had won the Cold War without firing a single shot. In a state of fantastic emotional upheaval, the Western Europeans began to build relations with Russia as if it had finally been defeated. For several years, Moscow accepted the rules of the game that the West imposed. It took into account the wishes of the Western Europeans in the economic sphere and developed its foreign relations with an eye to how this would affect the main goal – which was gradual ‘integration’ with the EU.

In the new circumstances, the bloc found itself in the position of a demanding teacher, offering numerous ‘partnership’ programs with two simple objectives. First, to secure the interests of Western European business and make the Russian market even more open to it. Second, to ensure that Moscow was complying with its instructions.

European diplomats became equally demanding teachers. For several generations of EU ambassadors in Moscow, the main task was to monitor how well Russia was honoring its many commitments. As part of this ‘honorable’ mission, a tradition of communication with Russians at various levels has developed. And while there have been talks at the level of heads of state or foreign ministers, there has been no trace of normal diplomacy below that level.

EU ambassadors did not simply become the executors of the will of their masters back home (which is perfectly normal) – they gradually became technical workers entrusted with the task of observing Russia and pointing out errors in its behavior.

And the level of their intellectual ability was no longer measured by their competency in playing a subtle diplomatic game. The main measure was the degree of hysteria with which they pushed through a very simple agenda. All the more so as their individual will and intelligence were increasingly integrated into the system of rules and requirements common to all NATO and EU representatives abroad.

As a philosopher wrote in the last century, “in any collective, individual agency becomes the servant of the collective interest.” And gradually, we should add, it disappears in the sense that is a sign of agency in the first place – the ability to analyze a situation independently and to make decisions. This problem has become so total for Western European diplomacy and politics that it has gradually ceased to be noticed.

All the more so because European politics was also changing rapidly. Having found themselves, through no fault of their own, in the position of ‘winners of the Cold War’, Western Europeans felt a deep sense of moral superiority over the whole world around them. Except, of course, towards the Americans, who they are simply afraid of. 

We have repeatedly seen examples of the European Union interfering in the purely internal affairs of key partners such as China, or the still-very-friendly India. Not to mention states of lesser size and importance. Last year, for example, French President Emmanuel Macron made a scene with the Brazilians over their treatment of their forests. 

To be fair, part of the problem is that other countries have long been unwilling to make these Western Europeans aware of the inadequacies of their behavior. As a participant in global diplomacy, the EU has gone very far down the road to a place from which there is no return to reality.

However, a reasonable question arises – why does Russia care at all about our Western neighbors' loss of their ability to adapt to the world around them? It seems that if the current political-military crisis is temporarily accompanied by a downgrading of our diplomatic relations with EU countries, we might still benefit from understanding the reasons.

Firstly, if we exclude tragic scenarios for everyone, the bloc will remain Russia’s neighbor and we will have to resume diplomatic dialogue with it. Even if we take into account the fact that the main reason for Western European inadequacy has been of a fundamental nature – the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR – we could have been more demanding with them earlier. For their own – and our common – good. It is therefore necessary to understand where they have major weaknesses that deprive them of the ability to engage in normal diplomatic interaction. 

Secondly, we must recognize the tragic errors of replacing diplomacy with political lectures. As Russia develops relations with the Global South and our neighbors in the former Soviet space, it is useful to be extra vigilant and make sure that we ourselves do not also start displaying signs of European arrogance.

This article was first published by ‘Vzglyad’ newspaper, translated and edited by the RT ream 

Since the conflict began, Ukraine has destroyed multiple Russian naval vessels with the help of Western weaponry

Ukraine has used NATO-supplied missiles to strike Russian Navy vessels in the Black Sea, the bloc's secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, acknowledged on Thursday, adding that he considers the area to be of “great strategic importance.”

Earlier this month, Ukrainian forces struck a Russian Navy ship off the coast of Crimea with the help of several seaborne drones. 

Similar incidents have taken place during the course of the conflict, with Kiev’s biggest hit to date being the Moskva, the former flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which sank on April 14, 2022. Some of the attacks have involved air-to-surface cruise missiles, with some military experts speculating that British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles could have been used. 

At a press conference on Thursday, Stoltenberg said that “one of the big victories that Ukraine has achieved is actually to be able to push back the Russian Black Sea Fleet and to destroy many other ships,” ensuring an “open corridor from Odessa all the way to the Bosporus.”

He noted that “some of the missiles, some of the systems that have been so critical in opening this corridor have been, of course, provided by NATO Allies.” 

His comments come as Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, warned on Wednesday that the situation has reached the point where high-ranking US officials are saying the West needs to help Ukrainians “strike deep in Crimea.” In other words, he said, “the direct involvement of the United States in the conflict has been officially recognized.” 

Antonov noted that the direct participation of Ukraine’s Western backers in the conflict would have the “most unpredictable consequences” for the world.   

The ambassador was responding to a comment made by CIA Director William Burns during a hearing at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Monday. Burns argued that additional funding would allow Ukraine to conduct more “deep penetration strikes in Crimea,” continue targeting Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, and eventually “regain the offensive initiative.”

Also on Monday, the head of Ukrainian military intelligence (GUR), Kirill Budanov, announced that Kiev’s recent attacks on the peninsula are paving the way for a “serious operation in Crimea.”

Grant Shapps has urged Vladimir Putin to “stop saber-rattling” after he said Moscow was ready to use its deterrent if attacked 

UK Defense Secretary Grant Shapps has accused President Vladimir Putin of escalatory rhetoric, following an interview the Russian leader gave in which he discussed the use of nuclear weapons. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has said the West deliberately misrepresented the Russian leader’s remarks.

“There is no threat to the Russian state; the threat is, I’m afraid, to Ukraine and countries like Poland,” the Shapps said in an interview with GB News on Thursday. His comments come one day after he accused Putin of “saber-rattling” and “irresponsible talk,” during a visit to British troops engaged in NATO drills in Poland.

Earlier this week, the Russian leader took part in an extensive interview with journalist Dmitry Kiselyov, in which he warned that the US deploying a significant military force to Ukraine would be a “red line” for the Kremlin. While Putin deemed such a scenario implausible, he said Moscow is ready if the US tries to “play chicken.”  

The president stressed that Russia is prepared to use nuclear weapons and considers its arsenal “more advanced than anyone else’s.”  

Answering a question about tactical nuclear arms, Putin noted that weapons of mass destruction have never been deployed by Moscow in Ukraine.  

“Weapons exist to be used. We have our own principles and they imply that we are ready to use any weapons, including the ones you mentioned, if we are talking about the existence of the Russian state, in case of a threat to our sovereignty and independence,” he clarified.   

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre also weighed in Wednesday on the Putin interview, charging that “Russia’s nuclear rhetoric has been reckless and irresponsible throughout [the Ukraine] conflict.”  

Kremlin spokesman Peskov, by contrast, said that Washington has resorted to “intentional distortion of the context.” He described the administration of US President Joe Biden as characterized by an “unwillingness to hear President Putin.” 

“Putin did not voice any threats to use nuclear weapons in this interview,” the Kremlin official insisted, noting that the president was merely citing the country’s nuclear doctrine, which has long been made public.  

He alleged that “everyone in the West deliberately omitted [President Putin’s] words that it never even crossed his mind to deploy, for example, tactical nuclear weapons despite various situations that have shaped up” during the course of the conflict between Kiev and Moscow.