Category Archives: WW3 Watch

Posted on by

World War III Watch: the British and French are discussing sending their own troops to fight in Ukraine

Sometimes there are little things hidden inside of more sensationalized stories.

Though we haven’t seen as much about this recently — our American credentialed media were fixated on the election, and Israel’s war against the Palestinians — meaning that the Russo-Ukrainian War has somewhat faded into the background. Stories about foreign soldiers who traveled to Ukraine to fight the Russians? We heard a lot about them early on, though little recently. Yet this headline from the Associated Press might be seen as either misleading, or at least somewhat disingenuous clickbait.

Russia reportedly captures a Briton fighting for Ukraine as Russian troops advance

Monday, November 25, 2024 | 10:09 AM EST

Russia’s military captured a British national fighting with Ukrainian troops who have occupied part of Russia’s Kursk region, according to reports Monday, as Moscow began daylight drone attacks on civilian areas of Ukraine and its ground forces accelerated gains along parts of the front line.

Continue reading →

Posted on by

World War III Watch: John Bolton is a blithering idiot!

When I was in college, back in the days of quill pens and inkwells, my best friend, Ken Vermillion and I used to have fanciful and oh-so-educated discussions about nuclear war. We had deterrence down flat, and Mr Vermillion, who sadly left this mortal vale in 2018, could quote his favorite movie, Dr Strangelove, extensively.

We met in 1973, drinking coffee with several other students in the old Student Center cafeteria, speculating whether an underwater nuclear explosion off the coast of California could trigger a tidal wave to hit Los Angeles.

But we were sophomores, and sophomores can discuss stuff like that with both impunity and the knowledge that we’d almost certainly ever be in a position to wage nuclear war.

John Bolton, now 76 years old, is not a sophomore. Having previously held the positions of assistant to the president for national security affairs (APNSA), commonly referred to as the national security advisor, from April 9, 2018 until September 10, 2019, when he was fired resigned, and as Under Secretary of State and Ambassador to the United Nations under the younger President Bush, he has a reputation which gets him all of the good news channel appearances. But, sadly, he’s just an idiot. He tweeted:

This ongoing threat of a “wider war” in Ukraine could be conventional, or it could be nuclear. If it’s a conventional threat, then where is the Russian army that’s going to provoke this war? And if it’s nuclear, it is important to remember that the U.S. has never renounced the first use of nuclear weapons. While these threats should not be entirely disregarded, it’s critical that the U.S. does not fall for Putin’s bluff.

What kind of absolute stupidity is that? Continue reading →

Posted on by

World War III Watch: I’m amazed at how many people actually want war!

August of 1914 saw tens of thousands or men marching off to war, amid cheering throngs, knowing that their brave soldiers would be returning home soon, victorious in what would be called the Great World War. The French managed to stall the invading Germans short of Paris, and the armies dug in for what became four bloody years of stalemated trench warfare. On the eastern front, the German army under General Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff used brilliant tactics and railroading to first engage and destroy the Imperial Russian Second Army and a few days later, the First Army.

Machine guns made a real appearance on the battlefields, and tanks came later. There were air battles, but the airplanes of the time were few and flimsy, and not able to make the deep bombing runs into enemy territory that were seen twenty years later in World War II. Continue reading →

Posted on by

World War III Watch: Will American/NATO weapons be used against North Korean troops inside Russia? With President Biden sinking into dementia, who will take that decision?

This site noted, four days ago, that there were roughly 3,000 North Korean troops ‘undergoing training at military bases in eastern Russia’, and that John Kirby, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said those troops would become “legitimate military targets” if they should be used in the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Now those troops aren’t quite so far away. From The New York Times:

Ukraine Braces for Russians to Assault With North Korean Troops

Several thousand North Korean soldiers have arrived in Russia’s western Kursk region, where they are expected to support Moscow’s efforts to dislodge invading Ukrainian forces.

By Constant Méheut | Monday, October 28, 2024 | 10:53 AM EDT

Kyiv — Ukraine is bracing for assaults involving North Korean soldiers who arrived last week in Russia’s western Kursk region, where they are expected to support Moscow’s efforts to dislodge Ukrainian forces who invaded in August. Continue reading →

Posted on by

World War III Watch: North Korean troops are ‘training’ in Russia

With the presidential election only twelve days away, this story is not getting nearly as much traction as it should have. From The Washington Post:

North Korean troops are in Russia, would be ‘legitimate targets’ in Ukraine, U.S. says

Citing newly declassified intelligence, the Biden administration said that at least 3,000 personnel are undergoing combat training in Russia, though it is unclear if they’ll join the war.

By Dan Lamothe, Missy Ryan, and Michelle Ye Hee Lee | Wednesday, October 23, 2024 | 6:20 AM EDT | Updated: 5:56 PM EDT

The U.S. government has evidence that at least 3,000 North Korean soldiers are in Russia receiving training, senior Biden administration officials said Wednesday, a development they said could have global implications and make those troops “legitimate military targets” in Ukraine should they enter the ongoing war there.

The disclosure, which officials said is based on newly declassified U.S. intelligence, coincides with similar pronouncements in recent days from the governments of Ukraine and South Korea. NATO and the United States had not previously confirmed the North Korean troop movements, and the administration said Washington was doing so now to convey the seriousness with which it views the matter.

“We recognize the potential danger here,” John Kirby, a spokesman for the National Security Council, told reporters at the White House. “And we’re going to be talking to allies and partners, including Ukrainians, about what the proper next steps are going to be.”

He emphasized repeatedly that the U.S. government does not yet know for certain that any North Korean soldiers will join the fighting in Ukraine, but he warned there would be consequences if they do.

“If these North Korean troops are employed against Ukraine,” Kirby said, “they will become legitimate military targets.”

That’s a simple statement of fact, but the obvious question becomes: “legitimate military targets” by whom? Representative Mike Turner (R-OH), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said yesterday the US should consider taking “direct military action” if North Korean troops enter the war in Ukraine.

Not just no, but Hell no!

I would not anticipate that, if the story details are accurate, that the troops are undergoing training at military bases in eastern Russia, those troops would enter the war before our election. With winter approaching, the ‘traditional’ seasons for ground troop warfare are ending. The распу́тица, the season of mud, can occur in Ukraine at any time in the autumn that heavy rains fall, to be followed by the hard freezes of winter. I feel confident that, if elected, Donald Trump would not be sending American troops to fight in Ukraine even if elements of the Korean People’s Army Ground Force did join the battle and move into Ukraine, but the possibility exists that Kamala Harris Emhoff will be the one taking that decision.

However, even if the chances that the United States would take “direct military action” are relatively low — though neocons like Bill Kristol, who wants to get the United States involved in every war that comes along, though he never chose to serve when he could have during the latter stages of the war in Vietnam, would push for it — there would be huge pressure on our European NATO allies to send troops to fight in Ukraine.

The Russo-Ukrainian War has mostly been a stalemate for the better part of two years, and I have said it before: Ukraine might be able to hold off the Russians for a while, but they cannot win their war and expel Russia from Ukraine without NATO troops on the ground in direct combat with Russia. If North Korean troops appear on the battlefield, it will be seen as legitimizing the introduction of NATO troops in Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine has largely faded in the American conscience, with the real military debate being about the war between Israel and the Islamist terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the possibility of expansion of that war to Iran. But the war in Ukraine is the one in which the enemy has nuclear weapons, and any move of NATO troops into Ukraine to defend against the Russians, and perhaps North Koreans, brings with it the possibility of Vladimir Putin ordering the use of ‘tactical’ nukes against NATO troop concentrations and supply bases.

This is a very bad thing.
__________________________________
Also posted on American Free News Network. Check out American Free News Network for more well written and well reasoned conservative commentary.

Posted on by

World War III watch: We have a President sinking into dementia taking these decisions!

I saw the hints of this story on Twitter, but it seemed so insane that I was determined to find a credentialed media, a liberal credentialed media source before I would comment on or believe it. Well, the Grey Lady certainly fits the definition of a liberal credentialed media source, and the idea is simply appalling. From The New York Times:

Meeting With Biden, British Leader Hints at Ukraine Weapon Decision Soon

As the president deliberated with Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the question of whether to let Ukraine use long-range weapons in Russia was a rare point of contention between allied nations.

By Michael D. Shear and David E. Sanger

President Biden’s deliberations with Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain about whether to allow Ukraine to attack Russia with long-range Western weapons were fresh evidence that the president remains deeply fearful of setting off a dangerous, wider conflict.

But the decision now facing Mr. Biden after Friday’s closed-door meeting at the White House — whether to sign off on the use of long-range missiles made by Britain and France — could be far more consequential than previous concessions by the president that delivered largely defensive weapons to Ukraine during the past two and a half years.

In remarks at the start of his meeting with Mr. Starmer, the president underscored his support for helping Ukraine defend itself but did not say whether he was willing to do more to allow for long-range strikes deep into Russia.

“We’re going to discuss that now,” the president told reporters.

For his part, the prime minister noted that “the next few weeks and months could be crucial — very, very important that we support Ukraine in this vital war of freedom.”

Let’s be clear here: the Prime Minister is very concerned that Joe Biden will not be President after January 20th, and that, if former President Donald Trump is elected, that’ll be it: no more aid to Ukraine. And while Vice President Kamala Harris Emhoff has supported Mr Biden’s policies on Ukraine, she pretty much had to do so, because he is boss, and she isn’t. If she wins the election, she becomes boss, and perhaps, just perhaps, she won’t be as eager to set off World War III keep sending money and equipment to Ukraine.

Russia isn’t advancing, at least not in Ukraine. In 2½ years of war, the Russian advance has been mostly stymied. But it’s also true that, in 2½ years of war, the Ukrainians have been unable to reconquer anything, haven’t been able to defeat and expel the Russians. The United States and European NATO nations have sent billions of dollars in money, economic aid and military equipment to Ukraine, and it hasn’t been enough to defeat Russia. Prime Minister Starmer’s purported advocacy of deeper strikes into Russia is simply more evidence that what the West have provided Ukraine is not enough to defeat Russia. I have said it before: it doesn’t matter how much money and military aid we send to Ukraine, they cannot defeat Russia absent the US and NATO sending actual ground troops to fight Russia, and fighter aircraft and pilots to gain air superiority. That would mean the US and NATO in direct combat with Russia, a nation with a strategic nuclear arsenal. We have had our ‘proxy wars’ with the Soviet Union, in Korea, in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan, but those things were very different from direct combat against the USSR in the USSR.

The article noted that Mr Starmer is talking about “the use of long-range missiles made by Britain and France,” which would mean that the President of the United States does not have direct authority to authorize their use, but the US is the largest, most powerful, and wealthiest member of NATO, and it isn’t even close. If His Majesty’s Government approved the use of those long-range British missiles without American consent, it would create a major split in NATO, something Mr Starmer definitely does not want with Mr Trump possibly taking office again in four months, because the former President is not all that thrilled with an alliance which would require the United States to declare war on Russia if Vladimir Putin ordered an invasion on one of the small Baltic states, which are NATO members.

Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

European officials said earlier in the week that Mr. Biden appeared ready to approve the use of British and French long-range missiles, a move that Mr. Starmer and officials in France have said they want to provide a united front in the conflict with Russia. But Mr. Biden has hesitated to allow Ukraine to use arms provided by the United States in the same way over fears that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia would see it as a major escalation.

On Thursday, Mr. Putin responded to reports that America and its allies were considering such a move by declaring that it would “mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia,” according to a report by the Kremlin.

There was a fine gentleman named Jake Broe, whose Twitter profile tells us that he is a “Fmr. Nuclear & Missile Operations Officer US Air Force”. Mr Broe tweeted:

If Russia uses a nuclear weapon against a NATO country, then this is what will happen to Russia in response.

About 45 million Russians will be vaporized in the first hour. Not much of a life remaining for the other 100 million.

Maybe the people of Russia should stop supporting Putin and deescalate the conflict?

He included a nasty World War III scenario video showing hundreds of nuclear warheads devastating Russia, but think about exactly what he said: “If Russia uses a nuclear weapon against a NATO country, then this is what will happen to Russia in response.” Ukraine is not a NATO nation!

Vladimir Putin might be a bit crazy, but he’s not stupid. He could respond to any NATO escalation of allowing longer-range weapons to be used to attack Russian military sites in Russia — and I’m old enough to remember President Richard Nixon’s expansion of the Vietnam war into Cambodia to attack Viet Cong bases there, and just how well that worked — with the use of ‘tactical’ or ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons against Ukrainian military sites of troop concentrations inside Ukraine, and it would not be a nuclear attack against a NATO country. That would leave President Biden and Prime Minister Starmer and President Emmanuel Macron of France absolutely defecating in their drawers — and yes, I contemplated writing that in more vulgar terms — over how to respond. Ukraine has no nuclear weapons, and no one has been stupid enough to give them any, so any nuclear response, even if it is ‘just’ a small, tactical weapon, would have to be a direct attack by the US, UK, or France, the only NATO members which have nuclear weapons, and that would be a declaration of war against Russia.

That we have a President who’s clearly sinking into dementia taking this decision is appalling.

Let me be clear about this: I do not want President Putin and Russia to win this war, and so far, they haven’t. But I also do not want the United States involved in this war; the potential consequences are too dire. How many Americans am I willing to sacrifice to preserve Ukraine’s independence? The answer to that is: zero!

Posted on by

World War III Watch: Have we forgotten the history of our ever-increasing involvement in Vietnam?

Some of us are old enough[1]I was just barely young enough to not have served in Vietnam had I been drafted. When I did try to enlist, after graduation from college, my right eye failed the vision test anyway, so I never served … Continue reading to remember how President Lyndon Johnson slowly expanded our involvement in the war in Vietnam, piece by piece, little by little, until we had half a million troops there.

There are 58,276 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington, but our ‘leaders’ in Washington seem to have forgotten that.

Biden gives Ukraine permission to carry out limited strikes within Russia using US weapons

Continue reading →

References

References
↑1 I was just barely young enough to not have served in Vietnam had I been drafted. When I did try to enlist, after graduation from college, my right eye failed the vision test anyway, so I never served in the military.
Posted on by

World War III watch: This is entirely Jimmy Carter’s fault

If, on November 5, 1979, President Carter had told the Ayatollah Khoumeini, in no uncertain terms, that either our embassy personnel being held hostage would be safely on a plane, heading out of Iran, within 72 hours, or we would regret their passing in the attack which reduced Tehran and Qom to radioactive black holes in the ground, and meant it, almost every bad thing which has happened in the Middle East and with Iran would have been subsequently avoided.

Instead the President of the United States played the beta-male, and we have seen the effects his disastrous policy of weakness he generated.

Posted on by

World War III watch: Warmongers gotta warmonger!

It seems that the neoconservatives — who haven’t seemed very conservative when it comes to domestic policy — simply have never met a war in which they didn’t want the United States to fight. Of course, by that, they meant other Americans to fight, not themselves. We have previously reported on Bill Kristol, the neoconservative founder and later destroyer of The Weekly Standard, because as a dedicated #NeverTrumper he couldn’t stand to allow any support of Donald Trump in a magazine marketed to conservatives and Republicans. Mr Kristol and the other neocons, such as Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin, all love wars and want the United States to participate in them. Today’s left have managed to become so seduced by President Biden’s support for Ukraine in its war against Russia than even the very much not-a-neocon Amanda Marcotte was supporting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, albeit for different reasons.

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Trudy Rubin also fits into that category:

Are there four brave GOP House members with the courage to save Ukraine?

That’s all it would take to get the majority needed to bypass speaker Mike Johnson and get a vote on Ukraine aid to the House floor.

by Trudy Rubin | Friday, February 23, 2024 | 6:30 AM EST

Wanted: Four GOP House members with a tiny fraction of the courage of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny.

Saturday marks the second anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine. It comes one week after Navalny died in an icy Siberian prison for his fight for democracy and opposition to the Ukraine war.

Yet the United States is on the verge of surrendering Ukraine into Putin’s hands because House Republican leaders refuse to allow members to vote for urgent military aid for Kyiv, a vote that would most likely pass (as it did with in a bipartisan vote in the Senate).

Pressed by Donald Trump and extremist MAGA members, Congress may doom brave Ukrainians to destruction by a Russian dictator who despises the West — and is armed by Iran and North Korea. Nothing like this has been seen since British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain conceded part of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler in 1938 in hopes of dissuading him from occupying more European lands.

Mrs Rubin is most certainly dedicated to fighting the evil Vladimir Vladimirovich — addressing someone by his given and patronymic names is considered polite and respectful in Russian — but her comparison is accurate only in the most inaccurate of ways. Adolf Hitler was only 49½ years old when the Munich Pact was signed on September 30, 1938, and France and the United Kingdom were neither willing to fight Germany, nor able to send much aid to Czechoslovakia at the time. The Wehrmacht was an unknown quantity at the time, but Josef Goebbels’ propaganda made the world believe it was a tremendous fighting force.

Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, is 71½ years old, and the Russian military, if not mostly exhausted by the two-year-long war in Ukraine, would still be in no shape to invade any other countries for perhaps ten years or more after their war with Ukraine is over.

These are undisputed facts which must be taken into account, but the neocons don’t really do that, because those facts just don’t fit the narrative they wish to push.

Whether Trump and GOP extremists succeed in gifting Ukraine to Putin may depend on whether four GOP House members have the courage to stand up to MAGA appeasement and defend America’s long-term security.

Here’s how it could work.

The best chance to skirt House Speaker Mike Johnson’s refusal to permit a vote on Ukraine aid would be via a discharge petition. That is a parliamentary maneuver that effectively bypasses the speaker to bring a bill before the full House for a vote — if a majority of members agree to do so. If all Democrats signed on, it would only require four Republicans to get the Ukraine supplemental aid bill to the floor.

Heaven forfend! “Trump and GOP extremists”! “MAGA appeasement”! Mrs Rubin is telling Inquirer readers that there is no reasoned debate here, that only the extremists could possibly, possibly! be opposed to wasting sending yet another $60 billion in money and war materiel to Ukraine.

But let’s tell the truth here: it doesn’t matter how much money and military aid we send to Ukraine, they cannot defeat Russia absent the US and NATO sending actual ground troops to fight Russia, and fighter aircraft and pilots to gain air superiority. That would mean the US and NATO in direct combat with Russia, a nation with a strategic nuclear arsenal.

Given Russia’s relatively poor showing against the Ukrainians, it would seem probable that American and NATO troops could push the Russians out of Ukraine, at least once they got there, but it has to be asked: at what point of a seeming military defeat would President Putin decide to cross the nuclear threshold? A concentration of US and NATO troops would be the perfect target for Russian ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons, and once that threshold is crossed, who could say when the nukes would stop being used? Would Russia even risk that deployment, rather than strike the deployment bases, either in Poland, a NATO member, or Ukraine once the troops moved into the country but before they reached the front lines?

There is something truly sickening about the fact that Johnson — and so many GOP supporters of aid for Ukraine — are too scared to allow Congress to vote on such a key measure. Johnson fears being ousted from his speakership by the MAGA clique, as was the previous speaker, Kevin McCarthy. House members fear that, if they buck the Trump line, a MAGA candidate will run against them in the GOP primary. And above all hangs the threat of physical danger to them or their families by deranged MAGA supporters who take Trump’s ugly rhetoric to heart.

Yet, surely, among more than 200 GOP House members, there are four whose belief in democracy and U.S. security would embolden them to take the risk.

Mrs Rubin, naturally, asserts that there’s a serious physical danger to any Republicans who voted to support this, “by deranged MAGA supporters who take Trump’s ugly rhetoric to heart,” but, shockingly enough, no such thing has happened to the Republicans in the Senate who voted to support Ukraine.

But, more importantly, Mrs Rubin noted that Republican House members who voted for such might face primary opponents. Well, if they fear primary opponents, then they must believe that their constituents wouldn’t support wasting sending more aid to Ukraine. Aren’t congressmen supposed to represent their constituents?

“This is not just about Ukraine, it is about our security,” (Representative Brendan) Boyle (D-PA) told me. “Putin is evil on the same level as Hitler. It is a lot less expensive to stand up to him now; if we wait until later, it will be much more costly in money and lives.”

Mr Putin might be “evil on the same level as Hitler”, but his military forces have not proven to be on the same level as the Wehrmacht in 1939. We are not likely to see Russian troops landing on the beaches of Maine and Virginia even if Ukraine collapses completely. We’re not going to see them invading even tiny Estonia, a NATO member roughly the size of New Hampshire and Vermont, because Ukraine has shown the Russians that they simply don’t have the wherewithal to do invasions well. Perhaps in ten years Russia will have rebuilt its forces enough to contemplate that, but Vladimir Vladimirovich will be 81 years old in ten years. if he’s even still alive then.

I don’t want to see Ukraine lose either, but I am not willing to waste American dollars and American weapons, and possibly American lives — remember: my older daughter is a reservist with the Army Corps of Engineers — to prop up Ukraine.

$60 billion in US aid would do what? It would help Ukraine to keep fighting the stalemate they’ve managed to achieve, but that’s all. $60 billion would keep the war going, and keep the killing on both sides and the destruction in Ukraine marching ever-forward, but it wouldn’t enable Ukraine to throw the Russians out of their country.

Mrs Rubin noted that the European Union have committed twice as much aid to Ukraine as the US has, to which I say, “Great! It’s a European problem; let the Europeans handle it! But leave the United States out of it.”