Hopes for war Between Russia and NATO, Referendum in Ukraine, and Russia's Withdrawal from ISS

Hopes for war Between Russia and NATO, Referendum in Ukraine, and Russia's Withdrawal from ISS

Photo: http://depositphotos.com

Why does the chief intelligence officer of the U.S. Senate suggest that there may be a direct clash between Russia and NATO? How Washington is going to counteract the referendums in southeastern Ukraine. Why Russia's decision to withdraw from the ISS was treated in the U.S. as a sensation?

And how American analysts “bite” Zelensky & Co. for flouting the laws of democracy? Read about it all in the most interesting articles of the U.S. media and think tanks.

If Cyberweapon Goes off

Today, Russia and China are the main heroes of the American media for obvious reasons. More precisely, they are the main anti-heroes, around which the media fuel excitement and hysteria. The main thing is not to follow the footsteps of the U.S. Secretary of Defense James Forrestal in the late 1940s, who worked himself up into an inadequate state, and then jumped out the window shouting, “The Russians are coming!”

A piece describing the current mood of the American political elite recently appeared on Bloomberg where the recent interview with such a prominent figure as Mark Warner (Democrat Party), head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was published. The article, titled “The Evolving Threats From China and Russia” was written by Bloomberg columnist Julianna Goldman, who questioned the influential senator about “what the US can do about two big security threats now facing the world: Russia’s aggression and China’s rise.”

It turns out that Senator Warner is an optimist. The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee explicitly expressed his hope that “there’s the chance that the war in Ukraine will escalate and NATO will become engaged in a kinetic war” (i.e., active hostilities. The word “kinetic” has been actively used in U.S. rhetoric since the invasion of Iraq to describe a high-intensity military conflict).

According to Warner, all hope lies in a clash between Russia and NATO in cyberspace. As Warner puts it, “the shoe that hasn’t dropped” is a cyberattack, which “would fall somewhere in that gray area on whether it’s an Article Five violation or not.” Senator Warner is referring here to Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty, according to which an attack on one NATO member country is an attack on all members of the political-military bloc and requires a collective response.

When asked by the journalist why Russia hadn’t “flexed that muscle yet,” Mark Warner gave three reasons. First, in his words, the Russians “were going to win so quickly, they didn’t want to destroy any Ukrainian systems.” The second reason, according to the Senate intelligence chief, is that they “have appropriate respect for how much we could punch back.” Finally, a third reason is that the consequences of cyber warfare are even more unpredictable than actual hostilities. At the same time, Bloomberg writes that “Russia’s reluctance to use its cyberweaponry has surprised both Warner and the intelligence community.”

I wish I may

According to Bloomberg, the U.S. establishment's most pressing issue is how to counteract the referendum on the annexation of the southeastern regions of Ukraine to Russia. In this regard, a Bloomberg reporter asked how Russia's plans could be countered and how support for Ukraine could be strengthened. “Part of the challenge is we want them to be successful,” he said. “But that might also push Putin to rasher action.” As for the referendum, Senator Warner made it clear that the US would work “to make sure the world will realize that this is a phony election.” That is, the U.S. establishment has already issued a verdict that they will not recognize the results of the referendum.

According to Senator Warner, the U.S. should make public how many Ukrainians have left these regions and double that number to campaign against Russian propaganda. But if we just automatically multiply the number of displaced people in the southeastern regions of Ukraine by 2 and use these pseudo-numbers to campaign against the referendum, is that already a hoax? Or are the U.S. Democrats allowed to?

Another threat Bloomberg discusses with the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee is the rise of China. Moreover, we are talking not only about Taiwan where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flew in, but also about clashes between the U.S. and the PRC in cyberspace. Bloomberg gives very valuable information, predicting that the U.S. and China will clash in such theaters of cyber warfare as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum computing and synthetic biology.

In connection with the confrontation between the United States and China, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, warns Washington against a serious mistake. According to Warner, the U.S. should not compete with China on a one-on-one basis, but on an all-on-one basis. “America would be making a huge mistake if it were a two-state competition. We must create an alliance of democracies,” said the senator. In short, “it's easier to beat Xi Jinping with a bunch.”

By the way, the U.S. media reports that the U.S. establishment is not only discussing, but also working to solve problems in cyberspace. The day after the publication of Senator Warner's interview, such influential U.S. publication as The Hill reported that the U.S. and Ukraine on Wednesday, July 27, signed an agreement on cooperation in cyberspace. The agreement is between the U.S. Agency for Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security and the State Service for Special Communications and Information Protection of Ukraine. According to the document, the USA and Ukraine will exchange information on incidents in the telecommunications space, as well as establish channels to exchange data on critical infrastructure. Also, the two agencies will organize joint events and train personnel. Does this mean that the U.S. will report to Ukraine about its critical infrastructure?

Cato Institute criticized the Ukrainian authorities. Why did the authoritative think tank, which upholds the libertarian ideology, attack the democratic Ukraine led by Volodymyr Zelensky? Peter Goettler comments on the decision of the Ukrainian government's Center for Countering Disinformation to publish a black list of speakers promoting Russian propaganda in his blog, titled ‘Ukraine's Disinformation Board: Terrible Idea, Terrible Results” on the website of Cato Institute.

The fact is that Ukrainian grant-eaters took a broad approach to the matter, listing dozens of experts and politicians from around the world as spokespeople, “promoting Russian propaganda.” They also declared the analyst Doug Bandow an agent of the Kremlin, which angered the Cato Institute.

In this connection the author expresses his indignation and recalls how Cato Institute analysts have written for many years that “bringing Ukraine into NATO’s security orbit was not in the interests of the United States, and—by heightening Putin’s perception of threats close to Russia’s borders—risked a serious Russian reaction.” In general, in short, the Cato Institute warned about the current situation, and now its predictions are coming true.

“Furthermore, he and many others have cautioned against deepening U.S. involvement in the conflict, given the significant risk of sparking a broader conflagration: especially a war between the United States and Russia or increased risk of a nuclear exchange,” said Goettler.

At the same time, the Cato Institute stresses that it opposes the NWO and the policy of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“But it’s simply wrong to conflate an argument that the policy of NATO enlargement impacted Putin’s security calculus with the idea that doing so excuses his war in Ukraine,” Goettler explains. “And while Ukraine has a clear interest in deeper U.S. and NATO engagement in its defense, advocating for a sensible U.S. foreign policy that limits risk to American safety and security doesn’t place one on the side of Russia in the conflict.”

Out of Space

Earlier, many media outlets had sensationalized Russia's announcement that it was pulling out of the International Space Station project.

The influential think tank The Atlantic Council in its column ‘New Atlanticist’ publishes a cross-section of expert opinions on the topic “Russia's pulling the plug on space cooperation. Should the world be worried?”

In a nutshell, the influential The Atlantic Council is worried about Russia's withdrawal from the ISS, and even more so about the strengthening of cooperation between Russia and China in space.

“The Atlantic Council analyzes Russia's announcement of plans to withdraw from the International Space Station and build its own space laboratory by 2024.

The Atlantic Council is joined on the news by retired Lieutenant Colonel Chris Mulder, former Senior Air Force Affairs Officer at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, and Mir Sadat, freelance Senior Fellow at the Scowcroft Center.

Mulder did not hold back and openly trolled The Atlantic Council several times. According to the Atlantic Council, allegedly, Russia “appeared to launch its standoff with the west to new heights this week by announcing that it pull out of the International Space Station (ISS) by 2024 and build its own space laboratory.” In this connection, the expert poked fun at The Atlantic Council, twice reminding in an interview that Russian authorities warned about withdrawal from the ISS project back in 2015.

Mir Sadat accused Russia of an attempt at the military development of space, saying that “the Untied States’ strategic competitor does not view space only as a diplomatic instrument of national power.” It is true that Sadat himself then reminded that the US Department of Defense recognized space as another line of military action six years ago. In other words, the United States was the first to officially declare outer space a military area several years ago. Yeah, sometimes in an investigation it's important not to get out on your own...

As for Russia's plans to build its own space station, experts assess them differently. Chris Mulder opined that Russia will cooperate with China on a plan to launch the International Lunar Research Station.

Mir Sadat issued a grim prediction that between 2024 and 2035, the Russian Federation will lose the ability to send astronauts to low-Earth orbit.

“This vulnerability effectively undermines Russia as a space superpower because it seems increasingly likely that they would be a follower, rather than a leader, in space at least for the next decade,” he wrote.

In addition, Mulder pointed out that Russia's “decision to partner with China in space is also a clear signal that it will continue to diverge from the West.” Finally, American experts agreed with The Atlantic Council that Russia's withdrawal from the ISS is cause for US security concerns. Chris Mulder reiterated that the U.S. had already defined space as a war zone, suggesting that, as a result of the breakdown in cooperation, “one can expect to see increased tension and stress in that area.” According to Mir Sadat, Russia's decision to withdraw from the ISS shows that tasks such as peace and diplomacy in space are no longer a priority “as they have exhibited by their “evil empire” strategy and tactics in Ukraine, Syria, on the high seas, and their trolling of US satellites in space.”

At the same time, Sadat drew attention to the fact that Russia has a higher risk threshold than the US and their space partners. In short: anyone who does not want to cooperate with the US is a “bad guy,” because he does not help the Anglo-Saxons to promote their interests.

As we can see, the American media and think tanks cover the confrontation between the US (and the collective West in the broad sense) and Russia on a wide list of topics such as the military conflict in Ukraine, the threat of a collision between NATO and Russia, the competition for dominance in outer space, and the US-China rivalry. Yes, at the moment, most of the U.S. media and think tanks are pushing a confrontational agenda. Although voices like those of Cato Institute experts, who tend to see the current crisis primarily as a faulty foreign policy of the United States and NATO, also sound against the “bad Russian guys” mainstream.

Small and Medium-Sized Businesses Save on Employees Erdogan and Guterres Meet With Zelensky