The events in Ukraine and Russia’s actions there are perceived differently around the world. While some countries, under Washington’s onslaught, impose sanctions against Russia overits operation in Ukraine, others are strengthening relations with Moscow, or at least maintaining the status quo. While the Western world, influenced by the Russophobic policies of Washington and its allies, has stepped up the misinformation efforts aimed at its population, making Moscow look like a guilty party, there is also a significant number of states that are objective in their assessment of the events.

And a significant number of those who have supported Moscow’s position are countries of the African continent, whose citizens have considerable combat experience and were among the first to declare their willingness to join Russia’s special operation. It is Africans who have personally confronted terrorists supported by the collective West for years that recognize the EU and NATO fingerprints in the conflict in Ukraine. The Cameroonian fighters, for example, expressed their strong opposition to Nazism, believing that it had no place in the modern world. They know firsthand about racial neglect, as many of their loved ones were victims of abuse from white colonizers who did not consider them human for hundreds of years.

The citizens of the CAR also well remember the assistance of the collective West to the Coalition of Patriots for Change (CPC), a conglomerate of groups that plunged the country into years of armed conflict. They therefore also express their support for Russia in Ukraine and stress that they are prepared to personally participate in the denazification of Ukraine, if necessary.

For the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Vladimir Putin and his courageous policies are also a model of his willingness to defend world peace, and they have shown a readiness to stand shoulder to shoulder with him in preventing Nazism in Ukraine.

North African countries such as Algeria and Libya have not stood idly by either. Libyans, for example, recalled that before the criminal intervention by the US, their homeland was a prosperous state. That is why the Libyan military is ready to help Russia fight back against the collective West, which is destabilizing the world through Ukraine.

Similar assessments have been made by Sudanese, South Africans and several other African states, stressing that the Ukrainian Nazis are one of the cruelest tools the EU and NATO could ever create. They also stressed that the collective West has once again shown how indifferent it is to the fate of civilians, whom it is prepared to sacrifice to satisfy its predatory interests.

This reaction of support for Russia from Africa is not surprising. Africa and Russia have always had a warm relationship. Any Russian on the African continent is not associated by the population with a white colonizer, but with a true friend who is strict about his commitments. After all, it was Moscow that showed the people of Africa that it was ready to develop equal mutually beneficial relations with them, develop their economy, build economic facilities on favorable terms and, even in difficult times for itself, write off multibillion debts of African states. African citizens therefore understand that the Russian special operation has an important purpose. They are well aware of the dangers of Nazism, what it can lead to and why it must be combated by all available means.

A number of African countries abstained in the vote on a UN resolution condemning Russia’s special operation in Ukraine, Frankfurter Allgemeine noted. As the outlet notes, the reasons are different and may include, for example, their historical relations with the USSR, which supported liberation movements in Algeria, Angola, Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, Morocco, South Africa and many other states. Most of the elite of the African continent studied in the USSR. They are doctors, engineers, scientists, pilots in Africa. For this and many other reasons, Africans are deeply grateful to the Russians. However, Moscow’s noticeable expansion of its presence on the continent since 2014 also plays a role. Moreover, many African countries see Russia and China as important allies within the UN.

As South African President Cyril Ramaphosa pointed out during his last speech to parliament, the conflict in Ukraine could have been avoided if NATO had heeded Moscow’s warnings not to expand eastwards. The South African president stressed that if NATO had listened to the warnings of its own leaders and other officials, who have stressed for years that eastward expansion would provoke greater instability in the region, this would not have happened.

The South African president also noted that in recent days there has been increased pressure on the African country, given its international weight, its business contacts with Russia, including within BRICS, to adopt a more “hostile stance.” Nevertheless, the state’s approach seeks to achieve a “lasting solution to the conflict.”

Cooperation between Russia and South Africa within the BRICS and G20 frameworks does contribute to creating a multipolar world and strengthens Russia’s position on the world stage. It also helps to make the multipolar system of international relations more legitimate. The BRICS, meanwhile, is an important intermediate negotiating platform between individual country interests and the G20.

As for South Africa itself, it is the largest economy on the African continent, accounting for a third of sub-Saharan Africa’s combined GDP. South Africa has a well-developed infrastructure, one of the most developed financial markets in the world, and is also a leader in institutional development. In addition, the African continent has the largest reserves of natural resources. There is therefore no doubt that many countries are very interested in cooperating with South Africa, just as Pretoria itself is interested in playing an increasingly important role in world politics.

It is therefore not surprising that South Africa is among the countries that have already offered to be involved in the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine. The country’s leader, Cyril Ramaphosa, called Vladimir Putin on March 10 about Ukraine and cooperation within the BRICS framework. The Russian president briefed on the reasons and objectives of the special military operation to protect Donbas, as well as on the situation in negotiations with representatives of the Ukrainian authorities. For his part, the South African leader “expressed support for the ongoing political and diplomatic efforts.”

South Africa’s particular interest in resolving the Ukrainian conflict is also due to the fact that the authorities are concerned about the treatment of its citizens in Ukraine. In particular, the South African government has expressed concern about the Kiev regime’s brutal treatment of Africans trying to leave Ukraine because of the widespread racist attitude towards them. They have to make detours from cities such as Kiev and Kharkov to get to Lvov, but in the end they are not allowed to cross the Ukrainian-Polish border because priority is given to white people. At the same time, organizations controlled by the Kiev regime are trying to recruit African nationals, including in South Africa, to be used in their military operations. Argus reports, in particular, that African mercenaries are recruited through Ukrainian diplomatic channels. Social media speak of several Africans who have come to Ukraine as such mercenaries, and even that after one of them got into an altercation with fighters from the nazi battalion, they shot him dead.

In light of the conflict in Ukraine, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa called for a revival of the Non-Aligned Movement and also spoke of the weakness of the UN in the current situation. It should be recalled that the Non-Aligned Movement was an international organization, founded in 1961 during the Cold War, which brought together states in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe that adhered to the principle of non-alignment with any military bloc. Speaking to South Africa’s parliament, President Ramaphosa said: “We must work to revive the Non-Aligned Movement so that those countries that are not in a rivalry for hegemony between the major powers can work together to build world peace.” At the same time, he pointed out that while South Africa was in solidarity with the UN position calling for an end to military action in Ukraine, the entire situation demonstrated “the weakness of the structure and practical actions” of this organization. There is a need for a multilateral approach to peace and security issues, he said.

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

By launching information warfare and sanctions against undesirable countries and politicians, the United States clearly did not consider that these same weapons could very well punish the US, its American “stability”, as well as knock many politicians of this “empire of lies” off pedestal.

So, once Moscow, in response to the White House’s insinuations, blacklisted 13 US politicians on March 15, including President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki, and Hillary Clinton, approval of the move and strident criticism of the current US political establishment swept the US public.

From Breitbart and its readers, Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State who is now trying to reserve her place as the future mistress of the White House, got what they call “what she deserved.” After all, it was she who indirectly benefited when her husband, former President Bill Clinton, received a corrupt fee of $500,000 from a Russian investment bank for a lecture he gave in Moscow in 2010, which even the New York Times wrote about at the time. Moreover, Hillary was also recalled for paying her campaign staff to prepare a fake “dossier” of compromising material concerning the then-candidate, Donald Trump. It is therefore not surprising to see very harsh comments on this article from American readers, in particular IdriveAPontiac: “The same list of wanted persons is posted in the offices of sheriffs all over the country. Lol,” or cylde: “Putin is doing the job for our DOJ.”

The satirical website The Babylon Bee also took a swipe at Hillary, describing Putin’s alleged frustration at “her refusal to cooperate” and the Clinton family’s intention to acquire all disinformation and fake news from domestic sources like The Washington Post.

As for the “first person of the US”, it has completely lost its face and its mind after being blacklisted by Moscow. In particular, he has publicly demonstrated this by speaking at a White House event recently where he called Vice-President Kamala Harris’s husband “the first person of state.”

And a week earlier Joe Biden confused Russia and Ukraine altogether, commenting on the Russian military special operation, and said: “How do we get to the place where, you know, Putin decided he is gonna just invade Russia? Nothing like this has happened since World War II.”

So the stormy reaction to this by users of the Internet and the general shame of Americans for such a “leader” is understandable to all…

Already after the inauguration, having become a laughing stock in the US and beyond, Joe Biden became a “talking head” who too often started to talk a lot of gibberish and voice (probably without proper awareness!) the words of “political prompters”. This is clearly illustrated by the events of March 16, when, during a brief meeting with journalists from the White House pool, Biden, when asked by Fox News to describe Putin, first left the room, and then, apparently having been “prompted” on the sidelines, returned and called the Russian president a “war criminal”.

It is notable that exactly one year ago – on March 16, 2021 – Biden made a high-profile statement in an interview with ABC News when he called Putin a “murderer”. Even then, the Chairman of the State Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin, called Joe Biden’s behavior “impotent hysteria” and Russian Ambassador to Washington Anatoly Antonov was invited to Moscow “for consultations” to review Russian-American relations.

And following the referendum on Crimean independence eight years ago (again in March), Hillary Clinton called Russian President Putin “the new Hitler”.

There is no doubt that such labels, which US leading politicians are trying to place in official statements, are unacceptable. Not only for reasons of diplomatic etiquette, but also morality, as it is American politicians themselves who are up to their elbows in blood.  The same applies to Hillary Clinton, who reacted with undisguised enthusiasm to the White House-organized assassination of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. And to Joseph Biden, who personally came up with the idea of bombing peaceful Belgrade in 1999 and sent American pilots to destroy all the bridges on the Danube. “Biden, US senators and congressmen were the initiators and perpetrators of the current events in Ukraine. They are the ones who committed crimes against humanity and should be brought to justice,” the Chairman of the State Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin said. “US President Joe Biden is beginning to understand that he will have to answer for what is happening in Ukraine, which is causing hysteria in Washington.”

US President Joe Biden’s rating has fallen to 37%, the lowest mark from voters in his career – but even that figure is almost certainly inflated as the country is “going to hell” because of his decisions, Biden’s predecessor Donald Trump told Fox News in a phone interview.

The Daily Wire polled Joe Biden’s supporters on the UCLA campus. In particular, when students were asked what achievements the US president had made over the past year, no one could recall a single specific White House head’s success.

Four dozen people from the US House of Representatives, including the former White House chief doctor, called in February for Joe Biden to undergo a medical test of his mental capacity. They suspect that the head of state is being consumed by “senile dementia”. Their appeal, citing the Alzheimer’s Association, stresses that Biden’s behavior is on a list of ten signs of diminished mental capacity.

Inflation at a 40-year high is dragging both Biden’s and the Democratic Party’s approval ratings down, threatening to have them lose the mid-term election to the Congress next autumn and result in the formation of a parliament opposed to the White House. And there are also sanctions imposed by Moscow on him and his closest “prompters”! Yes, the “talking head” of the White House can’t take this kind of “overheating”, so he “went berserk”.

However, public accusations (not for the first time, either!) against the leader of a world power may result in more than just impeachment!

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Against the backdrop of events in Ukraine, Boris Johnson, who just days ago found himself under increased criticism from the British and on the verge of impeachment for his indifference towards the subjects of the kingdom, decided to “brush his feathers and his tufts.” Not surprisingly, in his attempt to stay relevant he turned to a tried and tested tool of Russophobia, and under this banner this descendant of the Circassian muhajirs decided to launch an all out attack on everything Russian.

Despite his previously demonstrated love for freedom and respect for human rights, so far Boris Johnson has not properly condemned, either as a private individual or as a – for the time being – head of government, the recent Russophobic actions of the British extremists. In particular, the recent pogrom at the Russian St Nicholas Church in Oxford, amid a fake news campaign launched in the country personally by the British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister of the Kingdom.

Incidents of xenophobia towards Russians and manifestations of Russophobia have long occurred in Britain, intensifying dramatically whenever relations between the Russian and Western worlds reached the point of direct conflict. This was the case during the Crimean War in the 19th century, after the Great October Revolution and then throughout the Cold War under the banner of the “red menace.” Even before the military special operation in Ukraine, Russophobia had again become widespread in Britain, with images of “Russian spies Petrov and Boshirov” as well as the name of the poisoning agent “Novichok.” However, multiple sources in Britain itself are confidently leaning towards the involvement not of Russia in this provocative Skripals incident, but of British secret services and the Kingdom’s secret biological laboratory at Porton Down. When Moscow’s special operation to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine began on February 24, Boris Johnson was once again dragged anti-Russian sentiments out of a dusty cupboard and widely spread them in the Kingdom, resulting in ordinary Russian citizens and institutions becoming the target of attacks and insults.

At the same time, Johnson failed to condemn or, indeed, mention the recent mass execution, Saudi Arabia’s biggest in decades, in which 81 people were beheaded. Moreover, he has made an urgent visit to Riyadh, though again with the same anti-Russian overtones of replacing Russian energy supplies in the Persian Gulf. Although the sheikhs there have recently refused to participate in Biden’s anti-Russian energy campaign. However, Boris Johnson tried to maneuver his way around British politicians when organizing the trip, as MPs in the House of Commons expressed deep concerns about British-Arab relations. First of all, after 81 people were executed in Saudi Arabia on March 12, 2022, a week after the Crown Prince pledged to modernize his justice system. The House of Commons considers the events of March 12 to be a gross violation of human rights.

Before flying to Riyadh, Johnson met with leaders of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF). But he found here no success either, especially with the elimination of three British mercenaries in a strike on the Yavorivsky training ground near Lviv in western Ukraine, as already reported by the Daily Mirror. The United Kingdom-led Joint Expeditionary Force, established in 2014, is not a permanent force. Participating countries (aside from Britain, these include Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) periodically conduct joint field training exercises. And now Johnson intends to use their “potential” in strengthening the confrontation with Russia in Ukraine.

Moreover, criticism of Johnson’s provocative sanctions policy against Russia, which is hurting the British population the most, has intensified considerably in the Kingdom in recent days. As The Daily Mail reported on March 12, Britain bought a record £2.6 billion worth of goods from Russia in the month before the situation in Ukraine escalated. According to the Office for National Statistics, January imports included fuel worth £911.5 million: coal, coke and briquettes worth £32 million, oil worth £590.4 million and gas worth £289.1 million. All of which Britain will now have to forfeit because of the anti-Russian sanctions initiated by Boris Johnson. The surge in oil prices as a result of sanctions against Russia could have dire economic consequences for the United Kingdom, surpassing even the effects of the 1973 oil crisis, according to The Daily Mail.

Given that gas prices have skyrocketed in recent days, increasing about fivefold, Britain is inevitably facing a growing energy crisis, warns The Daily Telegraph. In addition, the cessation of wood pellets supplies from Russia due to the new sanctions will lead to a sharp increase in heating costs for homeowners and organizations that use this fuel. As wood fuel pellets will no longer be imported and purchased from Russian producers, this will also have an impact on supplies globally, not just in Britain, given the huge volumes of previous exports from Russia. Since British and international sanctions and restrictions are now in place against Moscow, total European production could fall by 12-15%, experts warn. So a rise in prices in Britain because of the current situation is inevitable, as is mass bankruptcy in the Kingdom.

Barely recovered from the pandemic, the United Kingdom is once again in crisis: British consumers face “severe hardships” from rising inflation and higher everyday costs, reports The Independent.

It is therefore not surprising that, despite the tense situation around Ukraine, Britain has decided to revisit Johnson’s past sins. BBC journalist Laura Kuenssberg recalled that Johnson not so long ago was “trying to keep his political head above water” with his last bit of strength. As recently as late February, the media were overflowing with headlines about parties, cakes, cheese, wine, questionnaires from the Metropolitan Police and rules during lockdowns. Labour Party leader Keir Starmer said on March 6 that an investigation into coronavirus violations in Downing Street was still pending. In the comments, British readers pointed out that the “Johnson’s problem” needs to be addressed immediately, because when the events in Ukraine are over, he will say he saved everyone, and then there will be no way to get rid of him. “War is not enough reason to stop addressing Johnson and Tories. In fact, them taking Putin’s money and the break up of EU is a significant part of the “war” issue. Get Johnson and his government out now. He is only using the war as an opportunity to showboat,” says @paulio80410204.

Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

As Russia’s special operations continue in Ukraine so does the West’s propaganda war against it. The propaganda is particularly effective but also particularly predictable in terms of who will be drawn in by it and become hysterical because of it.

This includes right-wing extremists from across the Western world but also the many US-sponsored “pro-democracy” movements elsewhere. This includes within the Southeast Asian Kingdom of Thailand.

Reuters in an article titled, “Thai democracy activists sign up to fight ‘tyranny’ in Ukraine,” would claim:

Far-off Thailand might not seem an obvious place for recruits to Ukraine’s efforts to raise an international volunteer force to defend against Russia’s invasion.

But for former Thai Air Force conscript turned political activist Chanaphong “Ball” Phongpai, the cause is a natural fit for members of the pro-democracy movement that emerged in 2020 to protest a military-backed government in the Southeast Asian country.

Reuters would also claim that these Thai “activists” saw Russia as a “superpower and a tyrant,” lifting phrases verbatim from the halls of Western power and from across Western media headlines.

After years of covering up the violent nature of US-sponsored anti-government protest in Thailand, Reuters obliquely admitted in its more recent article that indeed the protests were violent, noting how those interested in fighting in Ukraine claimed they needed to “switch from holding bottle bombs to holding guns.”

The article concluded by quoting one of the so-called activists, claiming:

“We fight for democracy here. They fight for their democracy there,” he said. “We are like friends. Its the same feeling, the same ideology.”

It is without doubt that Thais seeking to fight in Ukraine share a similar ideology with Ukraine’s current regime and those fighting to sustain it. But while Reuters and the Thai “activists” it interviewed attempted to insist that ideology shared is “democracy,” in reality the true common denominator is subordination to US interests, extensive US backing, and belligerent intolerance to alternative views as well as a deep disdain for the primacy of national sovereignty.

Nazis Lead the Fight Thai Volunteers are Joining – So Says the Western Media

Far from “Russian propaganda,” evidence that Ukraine’s current political order is propped up by actual Nazis including those playing a central role in Ukraine’s current security apparatus has been provided by the Western media itself, every single year since the US-backed coup overthrew Ukraine’s last legitimate elected government in 2014.

Scores of articles from each year have covered Nazi military formations folded into Ukraine’s official armed forces.

In 2014, for example, The Guardian in its article, “Azov fighters are Ukraine’s greatest weapon and may be its greatest threat,” would focus on members of the so-called “Azov Battalion,” noting that while they denied they were Nazis, they openly praised Adolf Hitler and used Nazis symbols for their flags and on their uniforms. The article noted the key role Azov played in the ongoing armed conflict already raging at that point in eastern Ukraine.

By 2015 the Western media admitted that Azov Battalion was rolled into Ukraine’s armed forces as part of the National Guard. Reuters in an article that year titled, “Ultra-nationalist Ukrainian battalion gears up for more fighting,” would note:

The 1,000 strong ultra-nationalist militia has a reputation as a fierce pro-government fighting force in the almost year-old conflict with the Russia-backed rebels in east Ukraine, and is disdainful of peace efforts.

But the radical views of the commanders of a group affiliated to Ukraine’s national guard which works alongside the army, and the use of symbols echoing Nazi emblems have caused alarm in the West and Russia, and could return to haunt Kiev’s pro-Western leadership when fighting eventually ends.

Reuters would also point out in its article that Azov had evolved into an organization including infantry, artillery, and even tank forces.

In addition to admissions across the West’s corporate media, are also articles from outlets like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) funded by the US government. A 2016 RFE/RL article titled, “Right-Wing Azov Battalion Enters Ukraine’s Political Arena,” would note that in addition to Azov’s inclusion in Ukraine’s armed forces, the armed organization sought to work its way deeper into the government itself.

The US government-funded outlet would also admit that, “human rights organizations have accused the Azov Battalion of torture,” highlighting the obvious outcome of arming actual Nazis and giving them an increasing amount of power both on the battlefield and off it.

By 2017 the threat Azov Battalion posed to both Ukrainians and Ukraine’s neighbors had raised serious concerns – concerns that many in the halls of Western political power attempted to dismiss as “Russian propaganda.” However, even Western media outlets would contradict this claim. An article that year by The Hill titled, “The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda,” would note:

There are indeed neo-Nazi formations in Ukraine. This has been overwhelmingly confirmed by nearly every major Western outlet. The fact that analysts are able to dismiss it as propaganda disseminated by Moscow is profoundly disturbing. It is especially disturbing given the current surge of neo-Nazis and white supremacists across the globe.

The most infamous neo-Nazi group in Ukraine is the 3,000-strong Azov Battalion, founded in 2014. Prior to creating Azov, its commander, Andriy Biletsky, headed the neo-Nazi group Patriot of Ukraine, members of which went on to form the core of Azov. Biletsky had stated that the mission of Ukraine is to “lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival … against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”

The idea that Thai volunteers are attempting to travel to Ukraine and fight alongside actual Nazis against “tyranny” takes on a particularly contradictory tone in light of such observations made even across the a Western media landscaped mostly committed to covering up the true nature of Ukraine’s post-2014 regime and its increasingly toxic security apparatus.

By 2018 even US government-funded RFE/RL would note the danger Ukrainian military formations like Azov posed to nations beyond Ukraine’s borders. An article that year titled, “Azov, Ukraine’s Most Prominent Ultranationalist Group, Sets Its Sights On US, Europe,” pointed out the concerted effort made by Azov to build ties with ultra-right extremists from across the Western world.

In 2019, Israeli publication Haaretz attempted to draw attention to the growing danger in its article, “Inside the Extremist Group That Dreams of Ruling Ukraine.” The article would elaborate further, claiming:

The Azov movement insists it is not neo-Nazi, yet its members have been captured giving Hitler salutes and being virulently anti-Semitic.

The threat of Nazism in Ukraine’s security forces and as well as within Ukraine’s political structures was pointed out even by the inveterate Russophobic US government-funded think tank, The Atlantic Council.

In a 2020 article titled, “The Azov Regiment has not depoliticized,” the Atlantic Council would admit that even the US government was debating whether or not to designate Azov as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and that Ukrainian Nazis still played a central role in Azov’s political and military activities.

Also in 2020 Western media outlets like Buzzfeed in articles like, “This Neo-Nazi Group Is Organizing On Facebook Despite A Year-Old Ban,” would point out how Azov was by then designated by the US State Department as a “nationalist hate group” and that despite a supposed ban of the organization across US-based social media, US corporations like Facebook continued making exceptions for and profits from Azov’s online activities.

TIME Magazine in an eight minute long video report titled, “Inside a White Supremacist Militia in Ukraine,” would showcase Azov Battalion’s nationwide political and military activities including running camps for children indoctrinating them into white supremacist ideology, providing them with military training, and preparing them to be inducted into military formations like Azov in the near future.

By 2022 US-based media outlet NPR in an article titled, “A closer look at the volunteers who are signing up to fight the Russians,” would admit that members of Azov were the ones receiving foreign volunteers precisely like the Thais mentioned by Reuters seeking to fight “tyranny” in Ukraine.

The NPR article would admit in regards to Azov that:

That regiment has a reputation for having the fiercest fighters in Ukraine. The paramilitary is credited with recapturing the southern port city of Mariupol from Russian separatists in 2014. And despite their neo-Nazi affiliations, they were folded into Ukraine’s National Guard. Groups like this are what Putin uses when he tries to paint Ukraine as rife with Nazis. It’s part of his justification for invading.

And according to the Western media itself, these claims by “Putin” are far from “attempts” to “paint Ukraine as rife with Nazis.” Ukraine is actually rife with Nazis – so much so that those who believe they will be joining the fight against tyranny will instead be received by the worst forms of tyranny – actual Nazis of formations like Azov Battalion – an organization now many thousands strong, consisting of infantry, artillery, tank, and other forces with detachments located in every major Ukrainian city – in other words – an organization of Nazis Ukraine is utterly rife with.

It is abundantly clear that these Thais now volunteering to fight alongside Nazis in Ukraine had nothing to do with democracy back home. The organizations behind the protests they had been a part of were not a product of Thai democratic aspirations, but of US government funding and interference within Thailand’s internal political affairs. Duped once at home, and now by Western media reports depicting Ukraine as a “victim” of Russian “aggression,” they are being thrown into harm’s way once again for a cause even more hopeless and delusional than the one they failed fighting for at home.

“Volunteers” fighting in Ukraine have already been given a stark wake-up call – their training facility in western Ukraine targeted by a missile strike wiping out most of them, and sending those few who survived fleeing back home, before ever stepping foot on the battlefield.

Buzzfeed in their article, ““I Thought I Was Going To Die”: US And UK Fighters In Ukraine Described The “Chaos” Of A Russian Missile Attack,” make it abundantly clear Russia’s statements regarding the operation was not propaganda, but the actual fate foreign fighters face.

Nations who do little to prevent their citizens from being tricked into traveling to Ukraine to face what is almost certain death provide an example of how Western foreign policy objectives have compromised the self-interests of nations worldwide.

Thais victimized by Western narratives illustrate once again the absolute danger a population can be placed in when a nation like Thailand categorically fails to secure its information space, allowing foreign interests like the US to dominate that information space and prey upon Thai citizens to the point of recruiting them into an armed conflict thousands of miles away.

US control over global media and also social media has only tightened since Russia’s special operations began in Ukraine, and the danger this control the US possess over information space worldwide has only grown. Now more than ever nations around the world need to secure their information space as a matter of national security – and not in some abstract way – but to literally protect their citizens from toxic disinformation so pervasive and compelling, that it has Thais and many others from around the globe  literally signing up to join Nazis in combat.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

For several years now, the world economy has been showing signs of a global crisis, affecting not only underdeveloped economies but also fully developed states such as the US or the EU. One of the signs of instability and unease increasing around the world is the rapid growth of the arms trade.

Data on arms transfers are often concealed, and so there are several versions of how they have evolved over the past few years. In March 2022, for example, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published its report on the global arms trade. According to its data, the global arms trade declined slightly between 2017 and 2021, primarily due to lower deliveries to Latin America (LA). This news could be to the advantage of the US, as many blame Washington for the extrajudicial killings of Colombian and Mexican drug traffickers, which led to a struggle between the surviving drug lords for vacated spheres of influence. This struggle has turned into a real war, which claims thousands of lives every year in LA. The decline in arms shipments to Latin American countries suggests that this war may have been on the wane. Probably until the next US force actions.

However, as mentioned above, according to SIPRI, arms trade declined only marginally between 2017 and 2021, as the decline in shipments to LA was almost entirely offset by a rapid increase in arms exports to East Asia, Europe and Oceania.

But there are other data as well. For example, the Russian Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade (CAWAT) gives the following picture for 2018-2021: in 2018, global trade in “conventional weapons” (that is, all weapons and military equipment not related to weapons of mass destruction) was over $76 billion. In 2019, this figure was $79.7 billion, and in 2020 it was over $85.4 billion. In 2021, according to various sources, the global arms trade was about $100 billion. It is believed to be the largest volume since the Cold War.

Given the secrecy of the subject, it is hard to say who provides more reliable information: the pro-Western SIPRI or the pro-Kremlin CAWAT. It is much more interesting to see where they agree. SIPRI and CAWAT are unanimous on the following points:

As always, the US topped the list of arms suppliers, accounting for about 40% of all arms exports by the end of 2021.

Russia comes next in the top ten arms exporters. It should be recalled that the Russian defense industry, established back in Soviet times, was originally “geared” primarily towards national defense and aid to friendly states, with commercial interests being a secondary consideration.

France, Italy, China, Germany, Spain and Israel are next in the top ten according to CAWAT. Interestingly, there has been a movement in this group between 2018 and 2021, with China moving from sixth to fifth place. As for SIRPI, as of the end of 2021, it gives the Celestial Empire an even higher, fourth place after France. Thus, despite significant differences in information from SIRPI and CAWAT, both organizations agree that the PRC has been very successful in the arms trade.

Having developed into a superpower with the world’s second largest economy, in recent years China has been actively building up its military might by developing and producing modern weapons and military equipment in large quantities sufficient for both the Chinese army and for exports. According to some estimates, China’s arms exports are growing faster than those of other countries, and a new reshuffle of the top exporters’ rankings is not long in coming.

It should be noted that, despite all the negative elements that are associated with periods of growth in an economy sector such as the military trade, it should be recognized that arms production is a very high-tech, knowledge-intensive industry that stimulates scientific and technological development and generates large revenues. Therefore, military technology and its exports are not only means of competition between states, but also spheres of that competition.

Of course, to win in arms export competition, the quality of the arms produced and their price are important: every state that cares about its security wants to provide its troops with effective weapons in the right quantities. However, the relationship between the purchasing state and the arms supplying country also plays a significant role. No one understands certain types of weapons better than the manufacturer, and by purchasing weapons, especially high-tech ones, the importer makes his defense dependent on equipment whose characteristics are all known to the exporter. Therefore, arms are usually bought from countries with which, at the very least, one is not in conflict. Often the purchase of arms is a friendly gesture on the part of the importer towards the supplier, a demonstration of trust, and so arms are often bought from those countries with which they want to maintain friendly relations, sometimes even if the weapon is not the best in terms of price/quality ratio. Thus, arms exports can be used to assess current international relations.

In 2020, for example, the main purchasers of weapons from the PRC were from the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East. China is competing with the US for influence in both of these regions, and the success of Chinese sales suggests that its struggle with America is also going well. The situation in South Asia is also revealing: India is the most powerful and wealthy state in the region. It does not buy weapons from China because it is its old and bitter rival. Instead, the People’s Republic of Bangladesh has acquired many Chinese weapons, which is interesting: for a long time it was considered a zone of Indian influence, then there was a competition between India and China for it, and now it seems that China is prevailing. Pakistan, another South Asian state, also purchases a lot of Chinese arms. On the one hand, this is not surprising, as Pakistan has very strained and even hostile relations with India. On the other hand, in past years, the US was considered Pakistan’s main military and technical partner. Now, Pakistan prefers to cooperate with Beijing.

It can be concluded that the state of the arms market clearly reflects the situation in international relations: China is steadily gaining weight on the world stage, gradually overtaking its competitors, and its arms exports serve both as a means of increasing Chinese influence and as an indicator of it.

Dmitry Bokarev, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) is celebrating its tenth anniversary this year. Launched on February 2, 2012, it has become the permanent regulatory body of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The main purpose of the Eurasian Economic Commission is to ensure the conditions for the functioning and development of the EAEU and to draw up proposals for the further development of integration. “Despite external pressure, the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union are strengthening and developing cooperation,” Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin said at the EAEU intergovernmental council on February 25.

It is well known that the US and the EU are trying to obstruct the development and strengthening of Eurasian integration by subversively suggesting to the states that have not yet become full members of the Union (in particular Uzbekistan and Tajikistan) that joining the EAEU would allegedly have a negative impact on their trade and economic ties with Western countries. Washington is particularly active in preventing Uzbekistan from moving closer to the EAEU, primarily because it is one of the most attractive states in Central Asia in terms of resources and development potential. Back in the mid-1990s, the US placed its bets on a number of post-Soviet republics to increase its geopolitical influence: Georgia in the South Caucasus, Ukraine in the European part of the CIS, and Uzbekistan in Central Asia. Washington’s policy shows that this trend is still valid today. However, unlike Ukraine, which has been put under a tough choice – either the West or the EAEU, Washington has so far failed to impose such conditions of choice and bloc confrontation on Uzbekistan, as there are no serious contradictions between WTO membership and the development of Eurasian integration. Prior to the Andijan events in 2005, the desire to choose the best format of cooperation led Tashkent to swing its foreign policy course like a “seesaw,” first to Russia, then to the United States. However, the attempted coup convinced Uzbekistan to take a more balanced course towards military and political cooperation with the US.

In recent years, the EAEU has become a powerful regional association with prospects for integration into the global economy through a network of FTAs. For example, existing and pending agreements provide opportunities to enter markets in Southeast Asia (via Vietnam and Singapore), the Middle East (via Iran), Africa (via Egypt) and, in the future, Latin America as well. In some cases, the terms of trade for EAEU exporters under the FTA are much more favorable than under WTO conditions (certain groups of goods are subject to a complete abolition of import duties).

In the context of global geopolitical and economic turbulence, the development of integration in the Eurasian space is of particular importance. And along the way, Russia has had considerable success in strategizing integration processes in the Eurasian space and bringing its closest neighbors together within the EAEU. An updated concept of Eurasian integration in relation to the new geopolitical and geo-economic context has been elaborated and its gradual implementation with the most prepared partners from the CIS countries has been initiated. At the same time, the negative experience in the EAEU space, the existing problems in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia are also taken into account. Russia is also going through a difficult geopolitical and economic period, under the burden of international sanctions, which are negatively affecting its own economy.

Nevertheless, as a result of the calibrated policy of Eurasian integration, in 2021 the volume of mutual trade of the EAEU countries in value terms set a record, reaching $72.6 billion and increasing by 31.9% compared to the previous year. The growth rate of mutual trade was only slightly behind that of external trade (35.1%), which is much more dependent on energy exports and tends to grow much faster in a well-priced hydrocarbon market. Kyrgyzstan (44.9%) tops the list in terms of trade growth with the EAEU countries in 2021, managing to significantly increase its supplies of metals and textiles to the Union. Kazakhstan (34.9%) and Russia (34.3%) rank second with almost identical results, showing high increases in shipments of food, metals and metal products as well as wood and pulp and paper products. Armenia (25.2%) and Belarus (24.7%) are the next fastest growing intra-union trade, with the former most active in food, agricultural raw materials and textiles, and the latter in food and metals.

The high growth rate of mutual trade between the EAEU countries is evidence of the economic sustainability of the association, which has significant prospects for further development. And in the face of sanctions pressure on Russia and Belarus, the role of the intra-union market may become even more important.

It is therefore not surprising that Tashkent is slowly but surely moving closer to the EAEU. It is well known that Uzbekistan obtained observer status in the Eurasian Economic Union in December 2020 and since then the republic has been systematically studying the rules of the EAEU in an effort to deepen economic cooperation. On February 25, Prime Minister of Uzbekistan Abdulla Aripov addressed a meeting of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council, where he announced accession to certain EAEU projects. A little earlier, on January 31 this year, President of the Republic Shavkat Mirziyoyev signed a development strategy for Uzbekistan for 2022-2026, under which the EAEU treaty will be analyzed and proposals for the country’s further integration with this international organization will be drawn up; there will be a smooth synchronization of economic policies to bring together the regulations, to which businesses must prepare in time. This work should be completed by the end of 2022. The main interest for Uzbekistan is the very large EAEU market, which is already the main destination for Uzbek fruit and vegetable products and textile goods. Moreover, Uzbekistan is interested in the joint development of the transport and transit potential of all EAEU countries.

Iran continues its efforts to join the Eurasian Economic Union as a full-fledged member of the organization. Since March 21, 2021, Iran’s trade turnover with the Eurasian Economic Union has reached $5.034 billion, a 48% increase over the same period last year. At the same time, Iran’s non-oil exports to the EAEU amounted to over $1 billion, a 15% increase over the same period last year, and Iran’s non-oil imports from the Union amounted to $3.949 billion, a 95% increase over the same period last year. The full membership in the EAEU by Iran, a hundred million nation, would make the organization potentially more powerful than the European Union, and the territory of the Eurasian Economic Union would spread from the Arctic Ocean to the Indian Ocean.

It has been reported that, against the background of the positive results of the integration processes in the EAEU, Abkhazia and South Ossetia may ask for observer status in the Union. Although formal discussion of Abkhazia and South Ossetia joining the Eurasian Economic Union is premature for the time being, increased economic integration with the Union could allow the republics to qualify for observer status in the EAEU.

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

So, the elections have finished and a winner has been declared! The election results have been discussed in detail in the Korean media, with breakdowns of the results by region and in terms of the age and sex of voters.

According to data published by the Korean Electoral Commission following the counting of votes, elector turnout was 77.1%, 0.1% less than in 2017. According to the television and radio broadcasters KBS, МВС, SBS and the Korean Television and Radio Broadcasters’ Association, Yoon Suk-yeol was elected with 48.4% of the votes.  Lee Jae-myung received 47.8% of the votes. The gap between the two leading candidates was less than the statistical error margin.

In general, voting patterns were consistent with the traditional regional sympathies in Korea. Lee Jae-myung won the support of “his” Gyeonggi Province (where he served as governor) and the Honam region (Gwangju and the South Jeolla and North Jeolla Provinces), a traditional opposition stronghold.   Equally predictably, Yoon Suk-yeol won the support of traditional Conservative regions – the Yeongnam region (North Gyeongsang and Daegu, Park Geun-hye’s home city).

As expected, Sejong City voted in favor of Lee Jae-myung, or rather against Yoon Suk-yeol. Since the government is currently trying to transform that city into an administrative centre by relocating ministries and other bodies there, the city’s vote can be seen as an expression of the sympathies of Korea’s civil servants.

In general female voters supported Lee Jae-myung, probably as a result of the Conservative Party’s promise to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and the Family, which many young people see as supporting reverse discrimination.

Men’s voting choices are also worth looking at. Yoon Suk-yeol was supported by men in their 20s and pensioners. People over 60 traditionally tend to support the Conservatives, and this was the only age group in which most women voted for Yoon Suk-yeol, but the voting choices of Koreans aged between 18 and 29 are interesting. In addition to protest voting and social justice, another factor is also relevant: this generation was born after South Korea became a developed nation. According to Park Sung-min, President and founder of MIN Consulting, “they have never experienced poverty or lived under a dictatorship… They are very critical of China and North Korea, and very positive in their attitudes to the USA and Japan.” Unemployment, especially among young men, has also led to anti-feminism and anti-migration sympathies, which helped to boost the vote for Yoon Suk-yeol.

There has been a lot of focus on the 586 generation, who were born in the 1960s, took part in the protests against the dictatorship of the 1980s. On the whole, this cohort voted for Lee Jae-myung. Those in their thirties or in their fifties tended to be evenly split between the two leading candidates. Within those age groups, the closer voters were to the age of forty, the more likely they were to vote for Lee Jae-myung.

Some conservatives have already started making a fuss about falsifications, but since Yoon won the vote anyway and they lacked support, the Democrats have accepted their defeat, fearful of a scandal should there be a recount. While the present author attributes this to a conspiracy theory, it may also be due to other mistakes made by Lee Jae-myung and his supporters, who were too indulgent to Yoon Sook-yeol.

Lee Jae-myung himself disassociated himself from his election team and party leadership during the campaign. He may have believed that his personal charisma was enough to win him the vote, but he had little support from Song Young-gil or Lee Nak-yon, leaders of two other Democratic Party factions.  Moon Jae-in also failed to lend him his full support, seeing him merely as the lesser of two evils. Thus, while Yoon Seok-yeol held difficult but ultimately successful talks with Ahn Cheol-soo and Lee Jun-seok and was able to unify his party, Lee Jae-myung, despite not having to deal with any external scandals, was left on his own as a result of party infighting.

Some people believe that if Lee Jae-myung had managed to persuade Sim Sang-jung to withdraw from the race then he could have won, although probably by a similarly narrow margin to that by which he lost. But the present author doubts whether she would have agreed to do that. Firstly, the Justice Party is a left-leaning group that does not get involved in party-political intrigues of this sort. Secondly, the Democrats stole a number of her election promises to use in their own campaign. And thirdly, the Justice Party had not forgotten about how their performance in the 2020 parliamentary elections was undermined by the creation of a number of “satellite” parties, thus – according to some experts – reducing their vote by two thirds.

One can therefore see Yoon Seok-yeol’s victory not so much as a swing towards the right, but as a protest against recent political maneuvering and an expression of hope that an honest public prosecutor can restore a culture of justice and fair play. However, his image was also damaged in the mutual mud-slinging that characterized the campaign, and a number of commentators expressed dissatisfaction with both of the main candidates.

Following the election, Yoon Seok-yeol was congratulated over the phone by US President Joe Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, and the Russian President Vladimir Putin sent him a telegram complimenting him on his victory. Xi Jinping did not call him in person but during a regular press conference Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian congratulated him on his election victory and expressed the hope that relations between the two nations would continue to develop. Yoon Seok-yeol later had a meeting with ambassador Xing Haiming, who passed on the congratulations of the Chinese premier. Unusually, the North Korean media also reported on Yoon Seok-yeol’s victory – in the past they have refrained from commenting when Conservative presidents have been elected.

This is the first time in the country’s history that a president has been democratically elected without first serving as a lawmaker or minister. The new president has inherited a considerable number of problems, including, to name but a few, the challenge of dealing with the rampant COVID-19 epidemic, foreign policy challenges, particularly in relation to North Korea, and economic pressures (especially in relation to social support and housing shortages).

Yoon Seok-yeol will officially become president in two months – his inauguration is scheduled for May 10, 2022 – and under the Constitution, his term of office will be five years.

As you may have noticed, he seized his victory at the last moment, and while the election result is far from inconclusive, the narrow margin makes it clear that the divisions in Korean society have yet to be overcome. And it is one thing to win an election, it is quite another to govern well and fulfil one’s campaign promises. The new president has a difficult journey ahead of him, and will face significant resistance from his defeated opponents. As a result one can be sure that the next season of Korea’s “Game of Thrones” will be every bit as entertaining as the previous ones have been.

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of the Far East at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

This week, writing as of the 2nd week of March 2022, the United States will reach 1 million dead from COVID 19. This disease, according to, not so much facts, but rather the tired acceptance of corrupt press and a public sated with conspiracy theories, is the “Kung Flu.”

As with false narratives, and there are so many, it all began with the Chinese love of “bat soup.” Behind this fanciful deception, the US began seeding tales of illegal Chinese bioweapons laboratories into the mix, all part of the “cover and deception “program that has, for many years, hidden a network of over 300 mysterious laboratories in over two dozen countries.

Those labs, such as those in Ukraine, Georgia and throughout the Caucasus studied diseases like COVID, Swine and Avian Flu and others that eventually manifested themselves into varying degrees of pandemic but with no known source of origin, unless you were to assume, wrongfully according to the United States, that the labs that created the diseases may well have unleashed them themselves.

There is an even worse problem, however, the inordinate lack of curiosity on the part of everyone until very recently. America’s military budgets have shown billions spent on investigating the most horrific diseases imaginable, including both Smallpox and Anthrax “seeded” with hemorrhagic fever type viruses, think “Ebola.”

The basic idea is this, according to the United States:

• Every imaginable new disease that can be created in a laboratory using the most advanced technologies available must be made, must be stored and must be improved upon so that just incase someone else is as stupid or plain evil as the United States, a plan for defending against these disease vectors can be developed.
• The military programs that fund over 300 laboratories that research biological weapons exist based on assumptions that unnamed other nations, may well begin similar programs and that the United States should not be left with a “missile gap” type scenario as existed during the late 1950s and early 1960s.
• Moreover, these laboratories, working with the most dangerous substances known to man, far more dangerous than nuclear weapons, tend to exist in the most unstable regions of the world in nations with the most corrupt governments as well. Here, things begin to fall apart.

So, let’s look at all of this again, historically.

Back in late 1945, the US began Operation Paperclip, run by CIA Director Allen Dulles (he and his brother, later to be Eisenhower’s Secretary of State were attorneys for Adolf Hitler in the United States during the period before World War II) and assisted by a Naval Lt. Commander Richard Milhouse Nixon.

It was their job to bring Axis scientists and others, including almost the entire Abwehr, to the United States. America got Werner Von Braun, but it also got “Unit 731.”

This was the Japanese germ warfare program that unleashed bubonic plague, not only on China but the Western United States as well and murdered thousands during “tests.”

Unit 731 became the basis for the Pentagon’s biological research program that continues today, using laboratories located in remote areas where governmental control is weak and planned “leaks,” in reality limited scale tests of pathogens, could be “contained,” if not medically, certainly through disinformation.

In fact, with the rare exception of the program in the Republic of Georgia being exposed by Jeffrey Silverman, other programs have managed to function year after year without question.

How many have died?

How close did the world come to the total erasure of mankind?

There is no one to ask, no media investigates, until days ago, no one even know where these labs are.

There is strong reason to believe that an additional parallel capability exists even inside the US. From National Public Radio:

Fort Detrick, Md., was created in the middle of World War II and became the center for America’s biological warfare efforts. But that role shifted in 1969, the government says, to focus solely on defense against the threat of biological weapons.

Then called Detrick Airfield, the science and research facility housed four biological agent production plants.

Anthrax was considered the most important agent. Simulants were tested, and one bomb was readied for production in 1944. One million bombs were ordered, though the order was canceled when the war ended in 1945.

During the 1950s, the biological weapons program was among the most classified within the Pentagon. There was an emphasis on biological agents for use against enemy forces as well as plants and animals.

The Army says no biological weapons were used during the Korean War, though such allegations were made by the Chinese and the Koreans.

However, since 1969, research into weaponization of diseases, research that includes developing new pathogens, new means of dispersal and, above all, the means of deploying bioweapons and blaming others has been outsourced, not just to labs hidden across the third world but stashed within universities across the United States as well. From Veterans Today:

In 2017, a “study” funded by a CIA front created COVID 19 at the University of North Carolina, made from a sample received from Wuhan. Backtracking, we find this 2006 study on how to re-engineer the more deadly but less effective SARS virus into something exactly like COVID 19, a study published by UNC in 2006. There are others dating back to 2006, part of a covert Bush-era program to renew America’s biological warfare capability.

One need only to look for published papers and follow the academic histories of those involved in research of monstrous new diseases to find a trail leading back to Fort Detrick, Maryland.

Conclusion

The hard questions are the ones never asked. If there is another nation, other than perhaps Israel, an American ally, actively developing bioweapons that represents a high degree of threat to the United States, why are they never named?

Then again, with billions in funding for hundreds of laboratories in the remote backwaters of the world developing “planet killer” diseases for no stated purpose whatsoever, can simple denials such as the one we heard from Victoria Nuland this week be allowed to stand, even among America’s supposed allies?

We might also state that this week, forces of the Russian military entered several of the American labs in Ukraine. Those involved in this process told this writer that tribunals are planned in order to address some of the questions we are asking here.

If the United States is engaged in what evidence suggests, a decades old massive biological weapons program, perhaps even one tasked with developing diseases capable of targeting certain population variants, why was this allowed to continue so long under so many administrations?

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Even in an era of moral decline of the autochthonous population, the rulers of the Roman Empire relied on mercenaries when military service turned from prestigious to onerous for their own citizens. The Persians also relied during the crisis of their empire on Greek mercenaries, who represented the most combat-ready troops of Darius III in his war with Alexander the Great. France actively used the Senegalese during World War I, Britain used the Gurkhas, and the latter were also part of the British occupation forces in Serbia. There are many similar examples of mercenary activities in world history.

A similar situation is happening today in the Western world, when the invasive policies of the current establishment of the Old and New World do not get a “surge of emotional support” from its own population, resulting in the fact that Washington and its NATO vassals have to turn to mercenary militias, that have long been transformed into the Western PMCs, “assisting units”. This tactic was used by the West in the war in Yugoslavia, because no one in the North Atlantic Alliance was willing to throw their soldiers into the Balkan meat grinder to enforce the geopolitical interests of Washington. Therefore, it is not surprising that the PMCs and Turkey were chosen by Brussels as the “main striking force” (or rather “the main cannon fodder”) in the Yugoslavia events, as it was not the precious blood of European masters to spill!

Therefore, the military and political strategy of today’s Anglo-Saxons began to actively use advanced weapons and PMCs, allowing them to destroy the enemy at a safe distance, while minimizing direct combat contact with them and their own losses. This was the case in Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. There is nothing surprising here, because the PMCs usually employ former fighters, including those of special forces. Having combat experience, they take part in the most complex and dangerous operations. Accordingly, public opinion, both in the US and other Western European countries, is less sensitive to casualties among them. And their insurance and social security payments are considerably lower.

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that former combatants living in the US or other Western countries, with their PTSDs and other mental traumas, become a significant burden not only on the social services of those countries. They deal considerable damage on the Western propaganda machine, periodically telling the media of their sorrows, hardships and the moral and physical damage inflicted on them by the authorities who sent them to war. The authorities of Western countries are therefore openly interested in getting rid of such persons on their territories by promoting calls to join mercenary forces in certain areas of armed conflict, which, incidentally, are unleashed and supported precisely by Washington.

This is what is happening in Ukraine today. In early March, the first 200 Croatian mercenaries arrived in Ukraine under the obvious influence of a Russophobic propaganda campaign unleashed by the United States, although the President of Croatia, Zoran Milanović, had earlier stated that no Croatian soldiers would take part in the escalation of the situation in Ukraine. However, it should not be forgotten that it is in Croatia that thousands of people still consider the Ustashas, who responded to the calls of their ideological friends, the Banderites, to be their heroes.

Multiple reports then appeared in various media that Syrian pro-Turkish fighters and former members of terrorist organizations were being sent to Ukraine. Allegedly, the US has purposely released prisoners in Syrian Kurdistan, and is moving them into the area of fighting.

Washington has “tasked” Ukrainian embassies with recruiting volunteers in many countries. Dmytro Kuleba had already announced in early March that “20,000 foreign fighters were ready to go to the front.” The cost of a professional mercenary is up to $2,000 a day.  Given that Ukraine has long been a bankrupt country, it is quite understandable that the “fees” of the mercenaries will be paid by the US and its NATO allies. Again, professional mercenaries with real military experience are recruited mainly through foreign PMCs, mostly American, such as Academi, Cubic and DenCorp.

Most of the mercenaries enter Ukraine via Poland, with its large logistics centers operated by NATO military specialists and CIA agents, in particular in Lublin and Wroclaw Strachowice. They form military convoys travelling to the area of combat operations. Up to 17 NATO military transport aircraft with “military aid” arrive in Poland every day.

In general, the US is following a well-trodden “path,” tested back during the two Chechen wars in the North Caucasus when it employed mercenaries from dozens of foreign countries and almost all regions of the world. At the time, mercenaries with Canadian, Georgian, German, British, Danish, French, Italian, Swedish, Swiss, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian and other passports left their trail of blood in Chechnya. According to media reports, more than 100 foreign firms (including banking groups) were involved in providing material, financial and other assistance to terrorists in the North Caucasus, most of which had offices in the United States and Europe.

According to Ukrainian Minister Kuleba, citizens of 16 countries have already arrived in Ukraine. As noted by representatives of the Russian military department, now not only employees of PMCs, but also fighters of special operations forces of NATO countries can be sent under the guise of “volunteers” to conduct combat operations against Russian troops. These are people who want to engage in terror, to kill and have total indulgence for it.

Last week, 200 mercenaries from Croatia arrived in the country via Poland and joined a national battalion in southeastern Ukraine, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov said. In any case, all Western mercenaries arriving in Ukraine will have no rights to POW status, Konashenkov said, making their fate unenviable. All of them, as well as the military equipment and weapons coming to Ukraine from “external sponsors,” will be immediately destroyed.

This was confirmed, in particular, by the Russian army’s missile strike on March 13 on the centers of the Ukrainian armed forces in Starichi and the Yavorivsky military training ground, which resulted in the liquidation of up to 180 mercenary fighters and a large shipment of weapons from the West. This mercenary unit was planned to reach 2,500-3,000 men in the near future and throw it into the front line. Most of them had arrived in Ukraine hours before the Russian strike. There were also US fighters there, as evidenced, in particular, by US media reports. A few hours later, however, the few survivors made an emergency escape to Poland, telling their relatives on social media that they would no longer come to fight in Ukraine because it was not an easy walk.

Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

When the US President Joe Biden announced, on March 8, his decision to ban imports of Russian oil and gas to the US, he opened up a potential business opportunity for the US LNG gas business to expand further into Europe and beyond. While Biden’s decision does not automatically apply to Europe, given how Europe is mindlessly following the US in its footsteps at the expense of its own strategic autonomy, there was/is no denying that most European nations will follow suit the US decision. Indeed, this was Biden’s intention when he said that this decision was made in “close consultation with our Allies and our partners around the world, particularly in Europe .. to keep all NATO and all of the EU and our allies totally united.” But this is not just about unity; it is about business, making money and keeping Europe under exclusive US control.

For quite a long time, the US has been making efforts to prevent Europe from asserting too much autonomy in the international arena as a player in itself. Europe decided to refuse to follow the US decision to scrap the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. Until recently, it had differences with the US over NATO, with the French President Macron even calling the organisation “brain dead.”

But things are fast changing to the US advantage. By deliberately pushing for NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe and by denying Russia any reasonable security guarantees, the US set the stage for the present crisis, which has now not only ‘united’ the EU under the US leadership, but many NATO members – in particular, Germany – have decided to increase their defense budget by at least 100 billion Euros.

What the US President Trump was unable to do through table-talks, the Biden administration has achieved through generating an actual war/ crisis in Eastern Europe. Other than NATO members, non-NATO members like Sweden, too, have decided to increase their budget, with public opinion in Sweden swinging for the fits time in favour of NATO membership in the wake of the on-going crisis. Where will this defense spending go?

There is no denying that no European county will be buying weapon systems from Russia or China, but mainly from the US military industrial complex. (NATO does not have its own force; “NATO forces” refer to multinational forces from NATO member countries, who in turn contribute both personnel and equipment to the organisation for “collective defense.”) A highly expected sale will involve F-35 fighter jets. It is, therefore, not surprising to see two major US military industrial groups, Lockheed and Raytheon, have seen their market shares rising up by 16 per cent and 3 per cent since the start of the war in Ukraine, respectively.

Apart from this massive increase in defense production, a clear indication of war in Europe being a business opportunity for the US is the field of energy export to Europe. The US decision to impose a ban on energy exports from Russia is symbolic insofar as the US is not a large buyer of Russian oil and gas. The imposition of the ban is, however, aimed at luring European markets to the US. The US, in short, is eyeing capturing the European market on a long-term basis.

As it stands, US LNG exporters are already appearing to be the big winners as gas prices in Europe hit all-time high. Major US exporters like Cheniere Energy Inc are among the top beneficiaries, as they have been able to sign long-term delas to sell LNG to Europe in very recent months. The present crisis has only made their task a lot easier and much more profitable at the same time.

This is happening at a time when the US LNG exports are expected to reach 11.4 billion cubic feet per day in 2022, accounting roughly for 22 per cent of the expected global LNG demands next year. The number of cargos of LNG shipped from the US to Europe, only in the first two months of 2022, has reached a record high of 164, as compared to the previous record of 125 in 2020. This trend is likely to continue – and even intensify – amidst European nations’ claims to reduce their dependence on Russian natural gas.

Supplying the US LNG to Europe is also part of a US plan-in-the-making to globalise its exports. As a recent report in the Washington-based think-tank, Centre for Strategic and International Studies – which receives funding from the US government – the US export of LNG to Europe for the next 20 years could provide the foundation for the export of US LNG to Asia, which is the largest market for LNG. Expansion of US LNG gas supply lines to Asia would also mean a direct territorial expansion of the US global influence.

The New York Times’ advocacy of a yet another “trans-Atlantic Pact” between the US and Europe reflects essentially how the path for increasing Europe’s dependency on the US is being laid. The EU/NATO already largely depends on the US for its security, which is one reason why there was, until recently, a growing demand from within Europe to enhance its own strategic autonomy by developing weapon systems “independently of the US.”

These initiatives are unlikely to develop any time sooner, and even if they do develop, they will have no impact on Europe’s quest for strategic autonomy. It will only add to the US-led trans-Atlantic alliance.

It is important to understand that until very recently, Europe was seeking autonomy from the US, not from Russia. By manufacturing a crisis in Europe and by forcing the European nations to confront a war in their own continent, the US has been able to bring a sea-change in the European political discourse from seeking autonomy from Washington to reducing ‘dependence’ on Russia. From the US perspective, therefore, the war is already a major strategic victory – a victory that the European elite is either completely unaware of, or has been forced to shut its eyes to.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.