Source:
https://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index4318.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

July 11, 2023

Washington Press “Slowly Coming To Grips With Enormity Of Disaster” Biden Caused

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

A compelling new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today first noting top Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov observing about the 2023 NATO Summit: “This is about the summit of an alliance which is vehemently anti-Russian in nature; Russia is also perceived by them as an enemy, as an adversary, and the discussions will be held precisely in this spirit...We are tracking events at the NATO summit very thoroughly because, of course, a lot of remarks will definitely be carefully analyzed in order to take measures directed at ensuring our own security”, says in response to the socialist Western colonial powers possibly inviting their puppet state Ukraine to join the NATO military bloc, he warned: “Potentially, this is very dangerous for European security and this really harbors very big dangers...Those who make such a decision, should be aware of that”—a warning quickly followed by German news outlets reporting: “The draft of the NATO final statement that will be published following the summit in Vilnius contains requirements for Ukraine, but does not indicate the timeframe and specific details on the possible admission of Ukraine to NATO membership”.

As it pertains to the socialist Western colonial “Vaudevillian Visitors In Vilnius”, this report notes, the NATO Summit is taking place in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, and runs over two days: 11 and 12 July—The meeting will be attended by some 40 heads of state and over 150 other high-ranking officials from 48 delegations, bringing with them an army of 2,400 diplomatic workers, paper-shuffling, number-crunching bureaucrats, and of course, military officers—Lithuania will provide the delegations with 800 vehicles, and deploy up to 11,000 troops and police officers gathered from across the country, plus as many as 1,000 NATO troops from other countries, including Poland and Spain, to ensure security—Patriot and NASAMS air defense systems and a Combined Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear defense task force have also been deployed.

When the NATO Summit began earlier today, this report continues, the Wall Street Journal observed: “Biden has emerged as the leading opponent to granting Ukraine speedy membership in the alliance, or even offering clear guidance on when membership might be considered, putting him at odds with several key American allies...The U.S. president has spent much of the past year rallying the world behind Ukraine, funneling billions of dollars in aid to the war-torn country and strengthening ties with President Volodymyr Zelensky...But for Biden, Kyiv’s campaign for rapid NATO entry is a bridge too far”, and revealed: “President Biden is taking flak for sending cluster bombs to Ukraine, and over the weekend he blurted out the truth that both Kyiv and the U.S. are running low on firepower...The U.S. has given Kyiv more than two million 155mm artillery rounds, and the Pentagon says Ukraine is burning through 3,000 shells a day...The U.S. is ramping up to produce more than 20,000 shells a month this year and more in 2024, the U.S. Army says...But America’s adversaries can do the math and understand the U.S. may struggle to support a long war”.

Also joining the opening of the NATO Summit today, this report details, was the news: “Kiev hasn’t received enough military assistance from the West to succeed in its counteroffensive against Russia, a joint investigation led by a Ukrainian news outlet has claimed...Some EU member states acted too slowly and selfishly to produce and ship enough supplies, the probe, which was funded by Brussels, has found...The scathing report was released by several media organizations, including the Western-backed online newspaper the Kyiv Independent...The outlets detailed problems that Ukrainian troops are facing in their fight against Russia...A shortage of munitions has been a key factor behind Russia’s superiority in artillery, they said”—news that was immediately followed by puppet leader Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky posting the message to his socialist Western colonial masters:

“We value our allies. We value our shared security. And we always appreciate an open conversation.

Ukraine will be represented at the NATO summit in Vilnius. Because it is about respect.

But Ukraine also deserves respect. Now, on the way to Vilnius, we received signals that certain wording is being discussed without Ukraine.

And I would like to emphasize that this wording is about the invitation to become NATO member, not about Ukraine's membership.

It’s unprecedented and absurd when time frame is not set neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine's membership. While at the same time vague wording about "conditions" is added even for inviting Ukraine.

It seems there is no readiness neither to invite Ukraine to NATO nor to make it a member of the Alliance.

This means that a window of opportunity is being left to bargain Ukraine's membership in NATO in negotiations with Russia. And for Russia, this means motivation to continue its terror.

Uncertainty is weakness. And I will openly discuss this at the summit.”

At near the exact moment puppet leader President Zelensky was slamming his socialist Western colonial masters attending the NATO Summit, this report notes, the Global Firepower (GP) defense analysis organization released its 2023 rankings of the world’s militaries, which saw the United States maintaining its top spot, while Russia remained the world’s second largest military force, and it revealed: “Key NATO states have lost strength amid massive aid campaigns for Kiev…France dropped from seventh in the 2020-2022 rankings to ninth place in 2023...Germany, which ranked in the top ten as recently as 2019, tumbled to 25th, falling behind the likes of Thailand, Taiwan and Spain...NATO ally Canada slid from 23rd to 27th place”—seemingly lost to the attention of President Zelensky is the fact that NATO is a political weapon the United States uses to enforce its will on others, as best documented today in the leftist New York Times article “NATO Isn’t What It Says It Is”, wherein it reveals:

NATO, from its origins, was never primarily concerned with aggregating military power.

Fielding 100 divisions at its Cold War height, a small fraction of Warsaw Pact manpower, the organization could not be counted on to repel a Soviet invasion and even the continent’s nuclear weapons were under Washington’s control. Rather, it set out to bind Western Europe to a far vaster project of a U.S.-led world order, in which American protection served as a lever to obtain concessions on other issues, like trade and monetary policy. In that mission, it has proved remarkably successful

Many observers expected NATO to close shop after the collapse of its Cold War rival. But in the decade after 1989, the organization truly came into its own.

NATO acted as a ratings agency for the European Union in Eastern Europe, declaring countries secure for development and investment. The organization pushed would-be partners to adhere to a liberal, pro-market creed, according to which — as President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser put it — “the pursuit of democratic institutions, the expansion of free markets” and “the promotion of collective security” marched in lock step. European military professionals and reform-minded elites formed a willing constituency, their campaigns boosted by NATO’s information apparatus.

When European populations proved too stubborn or undesirably swayed by socialist or nationalist sentiments, Atlantic integration proceeded all the same.

The Czech Republic was a telling case. Faced with a likely “no” vote in a referendum on joining the alliance in 1997, the secretary general and top NATO officials saw to it that the government in Prague simply dispense with the exercise; the country joined two years later.

The new century brought more of the same, with an appropriate shift in emphasis. Coinciding with the global war on terrorism, the “big bang” expansion of 2004 — in which seven countries acceded — saw counterterrorism supersede democracy and human rights in alliance rhetoric. Stress on the need for liberalization and public sector reforms remained a constant.

In the realm of defense, the alliance was not as advertised. For decades, the United States has been the chief provider of weapons, logistics, air bases and battle plans.

The war in Ukraine, for all the talk of Europe stepping up, has left that asymmetry essentially untouched. Tellingly, the scale of U.S. military aid — $47 billion over the first year of the conflict — is more than double that offered by European Union countries combined. European spending pledges may also turn out to be less impressive than they appear.

More than a year after the German government publicized the creation of a special $110 billion fund for its armed forces, the bulk of the credits remain unused. In the meantime, German military commanders have said that they lack sufficient munitions for more than two days of high-intensity combat.

Whatever the levels of expenditure, it is remarkable how little military capability Europeans get for the outlays involved. Lack of coordination, as much as penny-pinching, hamstrings Europe’s ability to ensure its own security.

By forbidding duplication of existing capabilities and prodding allies to accept niche roles, NATO has stymied the emergence of any semiautonomous European force capable of independent action.

As for defense procurement, common standards for interoperability, coupled with the sheer size of the U.S. military-industrial sector and bureaucratic impediments in Brussels, favor American firms at the expense of their European competitors.

The alliance, paradoxically, appears to have weakened allies’ ability to defend themselves.

Yet the paradox is only superficial. In fact, NATO is working exactly as it was designed by postwar U.S. planners, drawing Europe into a dependency on American power that reduces its room for maneuver.

Far from a costly charity program, NATO secures American influence in Europe on the cheap.

With truthful articles now appearing like “Seven Times Biden Lied On Ukraine”, this report concludes, they’ve now been joined by the analytical document “Underestimate Russia At Your Own Risk: A Comparison Of Hubris By Germany During WWII And Today’s Collective West”, wherein it proves that the lies told by the Nazi German Regime about Russia are identical to the lies told today by the socialist Western colonial powers—a fact noted by world-renowed Pulitzer Prize winning legendary American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who just observed:

Pity the Washington columnists and national security correspondents who seem to rely heavily on official backgrounders with White House and State Department officials. Given the published results of such briefings, those officials seem unable to look at the reality of the past few weeks, or the total disaster that has befallen the Ukraine military’s counter-offensive.

There is an enormous gap between the way the professionals in the American intelligence community assess the situation and what the White House and the supine Washington press project to the public by uncritically reproducing the statements of Blinken and his hawkish cohorts.

The current battlefield statistics that were shared with me suggest that the Biden administration’s overall foreign policy may be at risk in Ukraine. They also raise questions about the involvement of the NATO alliance, which has been providing the Ukrainian forces with training and weapons for the current lagging counter-offensive.

The Washington press in recent days seems to be slowly coming to grips with the enormity of the disaster, but there is no public evidence that President Biden and his senior aides in the White House and State Department aides understand the situation.

Putin now has within his grasp total control, or close to it, of the four Ukrainian oblasts—Donetsk, Kherson, Lubansk, Zaporizhzhia—that he publicly annexed on September 30, 2022, seven months after he began the war. The next step, assuming there is no miracle on the battlefield, will be up to Putin. He could simply stop where he is, and see if the military reality will be accepted by the White House and whether a ceasefire will be sought, with formal end-of-war talks initiated. There will be a presidential election next April in Ukraine, and the Russian leader may stay put and wait for that—if it takes place. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has said there will be no elections while the country is under martial law.

Biden’s political problems, in terms of next year’s presidential election, are acute—and obvious.

The looming disaster in Ukraine, and its political implications, should be a wake-up call for those Democratic members of Congress who support the president but disagree with his willingness to throw many billions of good money after bad in Ukraine in the hope of a miracle that will not arrive.

Democratic support for the war is another example of the party’s growing disengagement from the working class. It’s their children who have been fighting the wars of the recent past and may be fighting in any future war. These voters have turned away in increasing numbers as the Democrats move closer to the intellectual and moneyed classes.

If there is any doubt about the continuing seismic shift in current politics, I recommend a good dose of Thomas Frank, the acclaimed author of the 2004 best-seller What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, a book that explained why the voters of that state turned away from the Democratic party and voted against their economic interests. Frank did it again in 2016 in his book Listen, Liberal: Or, Whatever Happened to the Party of the People? In an afterword to the paperback edition he depicted how Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party repeated—make that amplified—the mistakes made in Kansas en route to losing a sure-thing election to Donald Trump.

It may be prudent for Joe Biden to talk straight about the war, and its various problems for America—and to explain why the estimated more than $150 billion that his administration has put up thus far turned out to be a very bad investment.

[Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]

https://youtu.be/7D5KuPUnHPU

https://www.bitchute.com/video/MoBcK508aEkk/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/j8d7nHFATSYu/

https://rumble.com/v2z602s-crosstalk-home-edition-cluster-bombs-and-unicorns.html

July 11, 2023 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~