Russia Is ‘Slaughtering the Ukrainians’ at Kursk, Reports Scott Ritter

Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

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

“SCOTT RITTER: PUTIN’S GLOVES ARE OFF AS KURSK OFFENSIVE CRUSHES UKRAINE”

Danny Haiphong with Scott Ritter, on 14 August 2024

Ritter has, for many years, been personally in contact with the individual whom Putin has sent in to eliminate Ukraine’s invaders of Kursk in Russia, and Ritter states (at 35:00) that this individual (“Apty”) tells him that “The Russian Ministry of Defense has lied to itself so many times that they believe their lies.” Ritter says “He’s the only Russian official saying that. He can get away with it because he’s on the front line dealing with the consequences of these lies. What happened in Kursk is an incompetence of the Russian Ministry of Defense that left unguarded a critical area on the border. You can’t put 18-year-old conscripts assigned to be border guards and expect them to stand up against what turned out to be the 18 best units of the Ukrainian armed forces, the best equipped units, the best trained units, the best prepared units, who came in operating with American intelligence, using total spectrum warfare, advanced communications systems, using artificial intelligence based on real-time intelligence, to predict Russian movements, to anticipate gaps and then to exploit these gaps. There was no one behind these [Russian] guys. They [the Ukrainians] came through, and off they went [like Hamas did on October 7th, into Israel]. And it was Apty’s job to clean this mess up. And he’s done it. He’s doing it. Slaughtering, slaughtering, the Ukrainians. And he’s killed thousands of them, He’s destroying all of their equipment, And it’s over. All that’s left now is to kill those that are starting to dig in. Don’t believe anything you see on Western TV. Don’t believe any of the garbage that comes out of Ukrainian twitter. But right now, I could pick up this phone, and call Apty. But would I then be digging my own grave [after the FBI just raided his home], to call Apty right now to get an interview, to talk about what’s going on? You know, there’s a hesitancy here. I’m going to tell you that hopefully next week, this hesitancy will go away, because I have put in a request formally. So no one can say it’s personal, [you’re working] for the Russians. You know, journalists have their sources. … I don’t want to get him in trouble, he’s a very responsible individual, but I do have his contact information, and he is making press appearance; and, under normal circumstances, I would have picked this damn thing up and I would be able to tell you tonight [what the situation is].

——

Ritter goes on to dump on CNN, Fox News, NYT, WP, The Atlantic, and all the rest of America’s major ‘news’ media, which report ONLY what the U.S. Government won’t punish being reported. He points out that the Ukrainian force that went into Russia “was hand built by NATO.” Only the troops aren’t from NATO — all the rest is. Ritter repeatedly asserts “NATO invaded Russia.” “We are so close to a direct conflict with Russia now; right now, it is a proxy conflict, but we are so close to a direct conflict.”

Both of the major-Party U.S. Presidential candidates are fully committed to defeating Russia, but even if they were to succeed in the non-nuclear conflict, Russians would immediately launch a nuclear invasion against the U.S. and any cooperating countries, so that whatever nuclear weapons they still have and can launch and still operate, will then be launched in return; and this exchange would BE the WW3 that everyone who has any sanity knows would be mutually suicidal, regardless of which side will have released the bigger megatonnage against which specific targets.

For Russia, this is unquestionably an existential war. For the U.S. empire, it is being treated as-if it were, but it’s actually not (no country that’s not already a part of the U.S. empire has ever posed any threat to U.S. national security; all of this is about ONLY whether that empire will be allowed to grow any further), and what is instead at stake is whether or not the U.S. empire will continue to grow without any limit so as to include also Russia, and China. What’s at stake for “The West” — today’s Nazi empire — is its own continuing ability to increase without limit. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and whatever other countries are not YET colonies of the U.S., are on each others’ side in this war, hoping that both Russia and China — the two main targets of the U.S. regime for ultimate conquest — will both emerge from the conflict as the sovereign and independent (that is, in international relations) FREE nations, that all of them still are, and are determined to REMAIN. They want to live with us in peace, but the American empire DOES NOT, and (so far) REFUSES TO.

The only REAL question is: Will the U.S. empire go all the way, even beyond all of the red lines that it has already crossed, and INITIATE the nuclear portion of WW3? If there is to be a world-destroying WW3, it will be initiated by the U.S. and its colonies, because this is the way that ANY cancer naturally is: it keeps on growing until the organism itself dies. The U.S. empire has thus far been behaving like a terminal cancer.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

🔴 Live: Israel president condemns ‘pogrom’ after deadly settler attack in West Bank

Israeli President Isaac Herzog on Thursday condemned a “pogrom” after a Jewish settler attack on a village in the occupied West Bank that the Palestinian Authority said killed one Palestinian and wounded another. Follow our liveblog for all the latest developments.

Zelensky’s top aide denies Kiev’s involvement in Nord Stream attack

The Wall Street Journal earlier reported that the Ukrainian leader initially approved the plan to blow up key pipelines

Kiev had nothing to do with the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, Mikhail Podoliak, the top adviser to Ukrainian leader, Vladimir Zelensky, has said. 

Podoliak made the statement to Reuters on Thursday in response to a report by the Wall Street Journal, claiming that Zelensky had initially authorized operation. The September 2022 attack ruptured the key energy infrastructure, built to deliver Russian gas to Germany and the rest of Western Europe.

According to the US outlet’s sources, which included officers allegedly involved in the operation, Zelensky initially approved the attack on Nord Stream. He later tried to call it off , following pressure from the CIA, but then-Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny told him it could not be done as the sabotage group had already been dispatched and there was no way to contact it.

“Such an act can only be carried out with extensive technical and financial resources… and who possessed all this at the time of the bombing? Only Russia,” Podoliak told the agency.

Read more

Zelensky gave initial order for Nord Stream attack – WSJ

Russia has ridiculed claims that it would destroy its own pipelines, which provided it with steady revenue. Top officials in Moscow, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, have previously pointed the finger at Washington, arguing that it stood to gain the most from the disruption of Russian gas supplies to the EU.

“Ukraine has nothing to do with the Nord Stream explosions,” Podolyak insisted, adding that Kiev did not gain any strategic or tactical advantage from the sabotage.

The report by the WSJ claimed that “a handful of senior Ukrainian military officers and businessmen” came up with the idea of blowing up the pipelines during a drinking party in May 2022, a few months after the outbreak of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. The plotters believed that it would reduce Russia’s energy profits and make the EU less dependent on Moscow, it said.

Zaluzhny, who is now Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, told the outlet that claims of his – or Kiev’s – involvement in the destruction of Nord Stream were a “mere provocation.” A senior official in the Security Service of Ukraine, the SBU, also denied the report, insisting that Zelensky in particular “did not approve the implementation of any such actions on the territory of third countries and did not issue relevant orders.”


READ MORE: Germany issues first arrest warrant over Nord Stream blasts – media

The WSJ said its reporting is partially corroborated by the findings of the German police investigation into the Nord Stream explosions. The German Federal Public Prosecutor issued a first arrest warrant in connection with the sabotage this week, according to local reports. The suspect is believed to be a Ukrainian citizen identified as ‘Vladimir Z’. 

The newspaper suggested that the police investigation could “upend” relations between Kiev and Berlin, which has been Ukraine’s biggest backer in the EU amid the conflict with Russia.

Dmitry Trenin: This European region could be the next Ukraine

The conflict between Russia and the West won’t end after Kiev is no longer viable as a proxy

The “Ukraine crisis” is not actually an accurate name for what is happening now in relations between Russia and the West. This confrontation is global. It touches virtually every functional area – from finance to pharmaceuticals to sport – and spans many geographical regions.

In Europe, which has become the epicenter of this confrontation, the highest level of tension outside Ukraine is now in the Baltic region. The question often asked in Russia (and in the West) is: Will this become the next theater of war?

In Western Europe and North America, a scenario has long been contemplated in which the Russian Army, after its victory in Ukraine, continues to march forward – next seeking to conquer the Baltic republics and Poland.

The purpose of this simple propaganda fantasy is clear: to convince Western Europeans that if they do not “invest fully” in supporting Kiev, they may end up with a war on their own territory.

It is telling that almost no one in the EU dares to publicly ask whether Moscow is interested in a direct armed conflict with NATO. What would its aims be in such a war? And what price would it be willing to pay? Obviously, even posing such questions could lead to accusations of spreading Russian propaganda.

Our country takes note of provocative statements made by our northwestern neighbors, the Poles, the Baltic states, and the Finns. They have referred to the possibility of blockading the Kaliningrad exclave by sea and land, and closing Russia’s exit from the Gulf of Finland. Such statements are mostly made by retired politicians, but sometimes sitting ministers and military officers also raise their voices.

The threats do not cause panic among Russians. Decisions of this magnitude are made in Washington, not in Warsaw or Tallinn. Nevertheless, the situation cannot be ignored.

The Baltic Sea region lost its status as the most stable and peaceful region in Europe many years ago. Since Poland (1999), Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (2004), and most recently Finland (2023) and Sweden (2024) joined NATO, it became, as they proudly and happily repeat in Brussels, a “NATO lake.” It is a two-hour drive from Narva (i.e. NATO) to St. Petersburg. After Finland joined the US-led bloc, the line of direct contact increased by 1,300km, meaning it doubled. St. Petersburg is less than 150km from this border. Thus, the price of Moscow’s voluntary abandonment of the principle of geopolitical containment at the end of the Cold War was high.

NATO territory has not only expanded and moved closer to the Russian border; it is actively being equipped for operations. Corridors for rapid access of NATO forces to the frontier (the so-called military Schengen) have become operational; new military bases are being built and existing ones are being upgraded; the physical presence of US and allied forces in the region is increasing; military, air and naval exercises are becoming more intensive and extensive. Washington’s announcement that it intends to deploy intermediate-range missiles in Germany in 2026 draws parallels with the so-called Euro-missile crisis of the early 1980s, which was considered the most dangerous period of the Cold War after the Cuban standoff in October 1962.

Read more

Ivan Timofeev: Here’s why Russia doesn’t care about Trump

The current situation in the northwest is forcing Moscow to strengthen its strategy of military deterrence against the enemy. A number of steps have already been taken. To bolster non-nuclear deterrence, the Leningrad Military District has been reconstituted and new formations and units are being created where they had long been absent. Military integration between Russia and Belarus has progressed significantly. Nuclear weapons have already been deployed on Belarusian territory. Exercises involving Moscow’s non-strategic nuclear forces have taken place. Official warnings have been issued that, under certain conditions, military facilities in the territory of NATO countries will become legitimate targets. A modernization of Russia’s nuclear doctrine has been announced. Atomic deterrence is becoming a more active tool of Russian strategy.

We can only hope that Washington realizes that a naval blockade of Kaliningrad or St. Petersburg would be a casus belli – an excuse to declare war. The current American administration does not seem to desire a major direct conflict with Russia. But history shows that they sometimes happen when neither side seems to want them. The strategy of creeping escalation in order to strategically defeat Russia, which the US has adopted in the protracted proxy war in Ukraine, carries with it the risk of just such a scenario, where the logic of a process once set in motion begins to determine political and military decisions and the situation quickly spirals out of control.

Another danger lies in Washington’s de facto encouragement not only of irresponsible rhetoric but also of irresponsible action by American satellites. The latter, convinced of their impunity, may go too far in thoughtlessly provoking Moscow, thereby bringing the US and Russia into direct armed conflict. Again, we can only hope that America’s instinct for self-preservation will be stronger than its arrogance.

Hopes are hopes, but it is clear that Russia has already exhausted its reserve of verbal warnings. The hostile actions of our adversaries do not call for condemnation, but for an appropriate response. We are now talking about airfields in NATO countries, including Poland, where the F-16s handed over to Kiev may well be based; possible attempts by Estonia and Finland to disrupt shipping in the Gulf of Finland; the prospect of Lithuania cutting the railway link between Kaliningrad and mainland Russia on various pretexts; and significant threats to our ally Belarus. A tough response at an early stage in the development of each of these possible schemes has a better chance of preventing a dangerous escalation. Of course, the strongest position for Russia is to be proactive, to pursue a preventive strategy in which Moscow does not react to the enemy’s escalatory steps, but takes the strategic initiative.

It should be borne in mind that Russia’s confrontation with the collective West will continue after the end of active military operations against Ukraine. From the Arctic, which is a separate area of rivalry, to the Black Sea, there is already a solid, unbroken dividing line. European security is no longer a relevant concept, and Eurasian security, including the European component, is a matter for the distant future. A long period of “non-world peace” lies ahead, during which Russia will have to rely on its own forces and capabilities rather than on agreements with Western states for its security. For the foreseeable future, the Baltic region – that once-promising bridge on the road to a “Greater Europe” – is likely to be the most militarized and Russia-hostile part of the neighborhood. How stable the situation will be depends, of course, on the goals of the Ukraine operation being achieved.

This article was first published by Profile.ru, and was translated and edited by the RT team

Restoring order is ‘first priority’ – ex-foreign secretary of Bangladesh

Shamsher M. Chowdhury, the country’s former senior diplomat, has spoken to RT about the road ahead after regime change

Resolving the concerns of the nation’s youth is key to addressing strife in Bangladesh, a former Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh and a senior diplomat, Shamsher M. Chowdhury, has said in an interview with RT. 

The former government minister, who also served as ambassador to Sri Lanka, Germany, Vietnam and Russia, shared his observation days after deadly demonstrations in Bangladesh against discriminatory job quotas forced the country’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to resign and an interim government to be sworn in. 

The “main force” driving change in the country’s electoral politics, Chowdhury noted, is the youth, which constitutes around 50% of the population. Hence, every effort has to be made to provide them with “a sense of safety and security” of “jobs, economic opportunities, and a “more fair” distribution system for wealth, he added.

The first priority is to restore order, calm, and peace in society, the diplomat said, noting that sporadic incidents of violence are still being witnessed in the strife-torn nation. Over 400 people, mainly students, as well as dozens of police officers, have been killed in the protests, according to media reports. 

The head of an interim government, economist Muhammad Yunus, 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner and globally known as the “banker to the poor” for founding a robust micro-lending model in Bangladesh, was sworn in last week. 

Read more

The Bangladesh government did not survive the wave of protests and killings. What does the future hold for the country?

“Elections in Bangladesh do not enjoy the public trust anymore because of the polarization of the main political parties,” Chowdhury explained, referring to the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the recently ousted Awami League, led by now-ousted Sheikh Hasina. He advised that a non-party interim government should conduct the next election, to restore the people’s trust in the election process.

Chowdhury also questioned Hasina’s allegations that foreign countries were behind her ouster from power. Hasina was earlier quoted by the Economic Times as saying that she could have retained power if she had agreed to host a US military base on Saint Martin Island in Bangladesh. Notably, she has long blamed the United States for attempting to unseat her. After the last general election, the White House alleged that the polls were neither free nor fair.

However, Chowdhury insists that the recent protests that led to a change of government were rather “organic.”

Following the resignation of Hasina, reports of violence against Hindus, the largest minority in Muslim-dominated Bangladesh, emerged. At present, Hindus constitute around 8% of Bangladesh’s population. On Wednesday, Yunus met some members of the Hindu community at the Dhakeshwari Temple in the capital, Dhaka. He had condemned the alleged attacks and described them as “heinous.”

Meanwhile, neighboring India has set up a special panel to monitor alleged atrocities against Hindus in Bangladesh and turbulence along the country’s 4,000-kilometer long border with Bangladesh.