The US government allegedly plans to back the declaration of a new Russian nation-state and its self-proclaimed government, which would operate outside of the actual country, according to Sergey Naryshkin, the head of the Russian Foreign Security Service (SVR).

The senior intelligence official mentioned the purported scheme during a meeting with his counterparts from former Soviet nations in Minsk on Thursday, dismissing it as “absurd.”

“The CIA is considering a project of creation of a virtual supposedly legitimate state outside of Russian Federation, a so-called ‘Russian Republic’ headed by a so-called ‘interim administration’,”he explained.

The US goal is to destabilize the situation in the country ahead of next year’s presidential election, Naryshkin said. Self-exiled opposition forces will also try to “create a network of anti-government cells inside Russia” to further their ambitions, he added.

In the past, Washington has lent support to anti-government forces throughout the world. Relatively recent examples include armed groups of purported “moderate rebels” in Syria and Juan Guaido, the self-proclaimed president of Venezuela who failed to launch a coup.

Naryshkin did not specify which Russian opposition figures he expected to follow CIA guidance. Some have been acting along the lines he described for years, most notably members of the Free Russia Forum, which chess master Gary Kasparov created in 2016.

The operation holds biannual gatherings in Lithuania, and keeps a list of Russians whom it believes to be accomplices of President Vladimir Putin in the “illegal seizure of power” for future prosecution.

The forum, however, suffers from internal divisions. London-based businessman Yevgeny Chichvarkin, a regular participant, lamented in an interview in 2021 that organizers have an open doors policy for any person opposing Putin. The result, he said in an interview, is the prevalence of “political swindlers, windbags and actual schizoids” at the events.

In November, the forum reportedly fundraised some €50,000 ($55,000) for militant groups of Russian nationals that fight against Russian forces on behalf of Ukraine.

The recipients were behind the June raid on Russia’s Belgorod Region, in which they infamously used Western-made armored vehicles and weapons in apparent breach of Kiev’s promise not to use arms donated to it by the US and its allies to launch direct attacks on Russia.

Both the ‘Freedom of Russia Legion’ and the ‘Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK)’ – the two groups financially aided by the forum – have open neo-Nazis in their ranks.

https://www.rt.com/russia/589099-naryshkin-virtual-russia-cia/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVY4O6EircY

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW................

Same war strategy from Ukraine to Palestine

by Manlio Dinucci

The wars against the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, on one hand, and the Arab population of Gaza, on the other, are being steered in the same way by Washington. From its point of view, the Empire cannot lose, even if everything on the ground indicates otherwise.

Zelensky, invited to Washington by Biden, is pressing the U.S. Congress to pass the spending bill that includes an additional $50 billion in military aid for Ukraine. The New York Times admits that "the Ukrainian counteroffensive launched six months ago has failed. Kiev faces declining military personnel, ammunition reserves and Western support. Moscow is demonstrating the ability to sustain a protracted war." In such a situation, the New York Times also writes: "The United States and Ukraine are looking for a new strategy after the failure of the counteroffensive: the Pentagon is sending General Aguto, who commands support for Ukraine from a base in Germany, to spend long periods of time in Kiev. General Aguto will work more directly with the country’s military leadership."

While continuing to feed the war in Ukraine directly and through NATO, the United States continues to support Israel in the war in Gaza. The plan of Israel’s leaders includes deporting the population of Gaza to the Sinai desert and erasing Gaza as Palestinian territory, then doing the same with the West Bank. The U.S. strategy, supported by Israel, aims to widen the war in the Middle East region, where the U.S. is losing its predominant position in the face of the advancing political-economic projects of Russia and China, including the upcoming BRICS enlargement to include Iran and Saudi Arabia.

To support this war strategy, the United States continues to increase its already huge military spending. The Senate passed an $886 billion defense bill, to which other military-related expenditures are added, bringing the total to more than $1.2 trillion, about half the world’s military spending.

Manlio Dinucci

https://www.voltairenet.org/article220169.html

BY Justin Overbaugh

For the past several years now, a phalanx of defense officials and retired senior officers have been lamenting the dearth of people willing to serve in the U.S. military.

The problem is particularly acute for the Army, the largest of the U.S. forces, which fell short of its target by 25,000 recruits over the past two years. The situation is so grave that experts claim it imperils the all-volunteer force, an institution that has provided manpower for the American military for half a century.

Why does the Army, an organization that prides itself on achievement, fail at this fundamental task? Excuses tend to focus on market dynamics such as shrinking recruiting pools, lack of knowledge among American youth about service opportunities, and impacts from COVID 19. These factors are undoubtedly relevant, but are they the actual cause of the Army’s failure?

Current officials seem to think so. After failing in 2022, the Army increased its efforts to convince young people to serve. This, combined with a campaign to overcome “misperceptions” about life in the military, was a primary focus of the branch’s $104 million advertising budget in 2023.

Additionally, the Army estimated it invested over $119 million in the future soldier preparatory course. This new program enabled young Americans, initially disqualified because of low aptitude scores or high body-fat results, the opportunity to improve their marks. The Army claimed over 8,800 recruits completed the course and moved on to basic combat training. In the end, however, none of these initiatives enabled the force to achieve its quotas.

If market dynamics are not the underlying cause of the crisis, what is? I believe that the Army fails to meet its recruiting goals not because of a challenging market environment, but rather because a sizable portion of the American public has lost trust in it and no longer sees it as an institution worthy of personal investment.

Professor of sociology Piotr Sztompka defines trust as “a bet about the future contingent actions of others.” He presents the concept of trust in two components: beliefs and commitment. Essentially, a person trusts when they believe something about the future and they act in accordance with this belief. This is directly relevant to recruiting: in a high trust environment, people are more likely to enlist because they have a reasonable expectation of future benefit.

Unfortunately, anyone considering service today can look to myriad examples of the Army failing to meet their end of the bargain. Whether it is a lack of adequate and safe housing for soldiers and their families, the persistence of sexual assault, an inability to address suicide rates or to accurately account for property and funds — or even to develop a comprehensive physical fitness test — the Army, and the Department of Defense more broadly, consistently fail to achieve results.

But these shortcomings, while disastrous, pale in comparison to the Army’s ultimate failure: the failure to win wars.

In his book, “Why America Loses Wars,” Donald Stoker reminds us that winning in war means, “the achievement of the political purpose for which the war is being fought.” Judging by this standard, the Army has clearly failed at its raison d’être, to fight and win the nation’s wars, over the past two decades. This failure has come at catastrophic cost: the loss of over 900,000 lives, the death of over 7000 U.S. service members, and the depletion of eight trillion dollars. Additionally, on the international scene, the U.S. has bled influence, and levels of violence are on the rise.

Considering the wreckage listed above, it is little wonder that the American people have markedly lost confidence in the institution and its leaders in recent years and could explain the unwillingness to volunteer for service. Essentially, signing up for the military is starting to look like a really bad bet.

Adding insult to injury, a recent survey of military members indicates their enthusiasm to recommend military service has also declined significantly. While quality of life issues are highlighted as a concern, one cannot ignore the impact of failed wars on this trend. The 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, leaving the Taliban in control of the country after 20 years, has left veterans feeling betrayed and humiliated, and naturally, unlikely to encourage others to follow their path in life.

Instead of flailing about trying to overcome challenging market dynamics, therefore, the Army should immediately commit to fixing itself. It can start by admitting its significant failures and its baffling inability to be honest with the American public about them. There are plenty of retired officers who have had public epiphanies about these systematic failures, but this kind of candor and responsibility needs to propagate among currently serving senior officials across the defense enterprise and the political establishment.

Once honesty is re-established as a core value, and the Army has come to grips with the fact that it failed, it can then begin to explore the reason why.

Simply put, the Army fails because it is set up to fail. It was asked to accomplish objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq that it could not possibly hope to achieve. Professors Leo Blanken and Jason Lapore point out what every senior defense official should clearly understand by now: that despite its impressive capabilities, the U.S. military is of limited utility in the type of non-existential conflicts we have fought in the past two decades. This is because the U.S. military is built for and excels at “battlefield dominance,” yet it was saddled with conducting counterinsurgency, reconstruction and building democratic institutions, tasks it was not trained for or prepared to accomplish.

These revelations are not new, senior defense officials should have understood these dynamics all along, and speaking frankly, they did. From General Shinseki’s ignored warnings about the number of troops at the beginning of the Iraq invasion, to ongoing assessments throughout both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it seems that it was clear throughout the defense establishment (at least behind closed doors) that the U.S. military could not and would not achieve the nation’s political objectives.

Yet despite this, top defense officials assured the American public that the U.S. military was “making progress” towards its goals, right up to the point that it was manifestly evident that they were not. And yet, at precisely the moment the American public is looking for accountability, many of the same senior officials who failed to achieve results for the nation, are instead rewarded with lucrative positions in the defense industry and with foreign countries.

Seeing that the military refuses to hold itself accountable, it is unsurprising that by withholding their most precious resources, their sons and daughters, the American public is.

The service’s leadership handbook states that “trust is the foundation of the Army’s relationship with the American people, who rely on the Army to ethically, effectively and efficiently serve the Nation.”

To earn back the trust of the American people and solve the recruiting crisis, the Army is going to have to do what everyone else has to do when relationships are broken: accept responsibility and begin to show, by deeds not words, a commitment to change.

Senior Army officials could immediately improve by critically examining the “unquestioned assumptions that form the basis of…American grand strategy,” reevaluating military officer professional development models, and understanding how misaligned military incentive structures work against achieving policy goals. Regardless of the approach, it should be laser-focused on delivering the ethical, effective and efficient service to the nation mentioned above.

If the Army lets this opportunity pass them by, however, claims that the military and the broader defense establishment are in a position to decisively win the nation’s wars lack credibility, as the American public will understandably remain uneasy about making a personal investment in the Army.

Justin Overbaugh

Justin Overbaugh is a Colonel in the U.S. Army with experience in Combat Arms, Special Operations, Intelligence, and Talent Acquisition. In his 25-year career, he led operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and across Europe and he commanded the Tampa Recruiting Battalion from 2017-2019. This article reflects his own personal views which are not necessarily endorsed by the United States Army or the Department of Defense.

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/01/05/why-america-fell-out-of-love-with-its-army/

The UK Royal Navy has been forced to post job ads on LinkedIn as it seeks to hire a new rear admiral to preside over the country’s submarine fleet, a move dubbed “unprecedented” and “shameful” by British military sources. 

The advertisement was spotted by UK media outlets on Friday, after first appearing on the professional networking site late last month. While senior officers typically rise through the ranks, the Times reported that “there is currently no one serving who is suitable” to replace outgoing submarine director Rear Admiral Simon Asquith, or who is willing to do so.

“The Royal Navy is recruiting for a director of submarines, responsible for highly classified stealth, elite operations and trident, our nuclear deterrent,” the Royal Navy recruitment ad said, noting that “Candidates must be a member of the reserves forces or have served with the regular forces.”

A separate page on the military’s website states the two-star position would require a commitment of at least two years. It would reportedly pay a yearly salary of £150,000.

In comments to the Times, an unnamed former senior submariner slammed the online recruitment drive as “utterly shameful,” claiming that “the only person who applied was a weapons engineer commodore, who was not properly qualified,” soon after the ad went live.

Another military source described the decision as “unprecedented,” suggesting it highlighted a recruitment crisis in the British armed services, chief among them the Royal Navy.

Earlier this week, the Telegraph noted that the navy was so strapped for personnel that it would be forced to decommission two warships in order to properly man a new class of frigates. The vessels facing the cut are the HMS Argyll and the HMS Westminster – the latter of which recently completed costly renovations.

UK Defense Secretary Grant Shapps has also floated plans to retire a pair of amphibious assault ships due to a lack of manpower, according to the Times, while recent figures published by the Defense Ministry show a nearly 4% decline across the armed forces in 2023.

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/news/590177-uk-submarine-admiral-linkedin/

READ FROM TOP

FREE  JULIAN ASSANGE NOW............... PLEASE........................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IzosIxvVKk

What a sorry state to be in - when the elected government feels forced to basically declare war on its own super-woke ministry of defence.

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOWWWWWWWWWW....................

https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/49833