Why are there longer-range missile strikes into Russia? Simon claims the UK blindly follows the US!

Chethana Janith, Jadetimes Staff

C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter covering science and geopolitics.

---

Why the rush and why not before? As any close observer already understood, or at least one that is worth his or her salt, the outcome of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict is not going to be in favor of Ukraine. All you have to do is tally the numbers in terms of men and equipment and then take a glimpse at Russian history for good measure. There is no step back now, as Stalin decreed in fighting fascist Germany.

Image Source : (Getty Images / AFP-JIJI)

The GREATER problem is that the West is so desperate, as it knows that too much is riding on keeping this proxy war going, at least until the US elections are over. Further Russian successes will not only achieve the well-stated goals of the Russian Federation, but the fallout will be the ousting of many incumbent candidates in US and European elections, upsetting the status quo and efforts to maintain US hegemony. It will also hasten the collapse of NATO and weaken the EU to the point where it is a union in name only.

It is ironic to read in the MSM how Antony Blinken (U.S. Secretary of State), and David Lammy (UK Foreign Secretary), are having meetings on short notice with Volodymyr Zelensky (who was once President of Ukraine), and even U.S. President Joe Biden is involved.

The purported discussions, as if the decision has not already been made, are taking place about “potentially” lifting restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons to strike targets within Russia, or rather, how to save face and their political agenda. The ongoing talks between Ukraine and its Western allies, which focus on the policy surrounding this use of donated UK and U.S. missiles, should be one of real concern, especially for Europeans. Winter is arriving, and what they have experienced so far is but a sample of what is to come.

Nexus to Kursk Region

Meanwhile, Russia has launched a counteroffensive in the Kursk region, responding to Ukraine’s cross-border incursion, The US and UK are not taking much heed of what is going on, as it is basically a day late and dollar short to provide such permission for deep strikes inside Russia now. All this sabre rattling is linked to the reverse of the short-term success of the Ukrainian military in the Kursk region, or that they cannot accept Russia having allowed them to walk into an ambush, while the body count on the side of the Ukrainians shows who has the best advisors in the Art of War.

At least as the Western media reads, and if it would make an iota of difference, Ukraine has requested permission from Western partners to use long-range missiles to attack Russian territory, so to send home a loud message, that Ukraine is still in the fight, and it will be to the last man.

Meanwhile, footage indicates Russian airborne units making steady advances, driving back Ukraine’s stressed out and depleted troops in Kursk, despite Ukrainian forces vain attempts to slow their movement by destroying key bridges.

The situation, its elevation unfortunately bears a resemblance to the Cuban Missile Crisis dating back to 1962, during which tensions escalated between the U.S. and the Soviet Union over the placement of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba and American ones in Turkey. It goes without saying, the potential use of long-range weapons by one side raised concerns of severe escalation. This is all the more reason for advising hesitancy to the ring leader, the US, over allowing Ukraine to use long-range US or UK made missiles against Russia, as it could provoke an uncontrollable escalation of conflict, AKA, WW3 and the demise of civilization.

Of further concern is the way the groundwork has been being laid for this “change of position” with the US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, claiming that Iran has been supplying weapons to Russia, in particular the Fath-360 (BM-120) type, which has a range of 120km and is satellite guided. For some reason, this short range supersonic missile is touted as a “major threat” to US and European security, and justification for the allowing of strikes into Russia with weapons of up to 300km range for the ATACMS and 250km for the Storm Shadow air launched missile.

Odd, isn’t it?

There are a few things to unpack here. Firstly, we have repeatedly seen the US and NATO make spurious claims of weapons deliveries from Iran, China, and North Korea to justify the delivery of artillery, tanks, and the F-16, despite no real evidence being provided. I suspect this is more of the same. Russia has more than enough weapons of this type of its own to not need Iranian short range missiles, regardless of how good they may be.

Combined with the aforementioned cycle of false reports “justifying” increased escalation, we should be very skeptical of what is going on here.

It also seems that the West still has the insane idea that Russian Red Lines can be crossed without consequences. Western leaders seem to have ignored the recent Poltava strike, and the fact that NATO instructors in Ukraine are firmly in the sights of the Russian Armed Forces, and most definitely no longer on the “safe list”. It is like the three monkeys come to life, but as deaf, dumb, and blind.

Firstly, the major problem is that the prime target for US and UK provided weapons, Russian Air Force strategic bombers such as the Tu-95 and Tu-22M, which launch the array of cruise missiles devastating the Ukrainian energy infrastructure, and the Su-34 and Su-35 fighters that are obliterating the Ukrainian army on the front line with glide bombs, are already, as previously admitted by US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, well outside the range of the ATACMS missiles.

In reality, given this fact, and the way Russia has been able to neutralize the GPS guidance of western supplied long-range weapons, we will see the Ukrainians continue their deliberate policy of targeting civilians, as has already been the case in Belgorod, Kursk, and, to be blunt, throughout the Donbass and Crimea not only since the start of the SMO in 2022, but since just after the Maidan coup in February 2014.

There is no way Russia will let attacks with such devastating weapons be made upon its civilians without retaliation. In fact, Dmitry Peskov has already warned that Russia will “respond appropriately” and there are a number of options to do so.

Firstly, the Russians can, and almost certainly will, respond with further devastating strikes on the remnants of Ukrainian utilities, such as electricity and waste water treatment and distribution systems. Winter is already looking bleak enough in Ukraine with power outages expected to be AT LEAST 12 hours per day.

You expect the Russians to make that 24 hours of blackouts per day.

Secondly, the continued advance of Russian forces to ensure such weapons cannot reach Russian cities from Ukrainian territory. Dmitry Medvedev has already postulated that this might require going all the way to the border of Poland.

Taking the Gloves off!

Thirdly, the long held taboo of not striking directly at Ukrainian government ministries and decision-making centers could (and probably should) be lifted, and the Russians may not care if they catch a few westerners as collateral damage.

Fourth, the supply of modern long-range weapons to other enemies of the west, the Houthis have done great work humiliating western navies using drones and outdated anti-shipping and air defense systems. Can you imagine what they could achieve with the latest Russian air defense and anti-shipping missiles? Or any number of groups, both state and non-state actors that have been the victims of western aggression in the last 30 years?

Finally, the option of striking centers of production and transit of such weapons in Europe may be taken up. After all, if, as the Russians state, such deep strikes into Russia will make the suppliers party to the war. With NATO having only 5% of the air defense systems necessary to cover its eastern flank, this would be devastating for Europe’s anemic weapons production.

Of course, some of these are rather more likely than others, but it must be remembered that the Russians’ legendary patience has its limits.

It is infuriating watching so many people die for this

I firmly believe that the collective West and NATO are strategically positioning themselves to try and achieve the defeat of the Russian Federation, before Trump can win the presidency and cuts off funding for the war in Ukraine. They have misled and instilled fear in a significant portion of the U.S. public, convincing them that Russia poses a direct threat to Europe and, by extension, the United States. This notion is deeply misguided.

During the Cold War, when such a threat might have been more credible, there was both fear and respect for Russia’s boundaries, and direct provocation was avoided. Russia is fully aware that the United States, not Ukraine, is driving the current situation. While much of the public may be misled, Russia is not, which creates a dangerous scenario.

At the same time, the U.S. likely recognizes that President Putin may be hesitant to resort to nuclear weapons first. As a result, they seem willing to push him to the brink for as long as possible.

It’s deeply frustrating to witness the loss of so many lives in pursuit of these goals.

UK's Role in the Conflict: Arms Exports to Israel

Chethana Janith, Jadetimes Staff

C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter covering science and geopolitics.

---

The British government has recently suspended the export of 30 arms export licenses to Israel, citing the violation of international humanitarian law by the latter.

Image Source : (US Defense Ministry/Getty)

Calls for a Full Arms Embargo

However, this move has been widely criticized as insufficient given the persistent Israeli war crimes in the West Bank and Gaza. Experts hold that a full arms embargo on Israel is mandatory to uphold international law, established by the United Nations (UN) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The United Kingdom and other NATO members have often seen neglecting and compromising legal obligations for their geopolitical interests, continuing arms supply to Israel – a war criminal involved in genocidal acts against Palestine. Overall, the actions of the UK and NATO states disregard international law for their military allies.

Recently, the British government suspended 30 arms export licenses to Israel out of a total of 350. In an official statement, it held that these arms exports could be used to “commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law”. Since October 7, Israel has indiscriminately targeted the civilian and military population of Gaza. Numerous hospitals, mosques, churches, and schools have been destroyed by the Israeli occupant forces. Moreover, multiple welfare workers have also been intentionally targeted by the Israeli forces. Israel is continuously attempting to expand the war into the whole region. It not only attacked the Iranian consulate in Syria, but also attacked the nuclear facilities inside Iran. Furthermore, it has also been attacking Lebanon since the start of the Israel-Hamas war. In a recent Israeli cyber-attack in Lebanon, 9 people were killed and around 3000 people were injured. Israel also launched a missile attack on Lebanon after this cyber-attack.

NATO’s Compromise of International Law

Although this step by the United Kingdom has been hailed by many as a positive development to pressurize Israel against its persistent war crimes and genocide in Gaza, it does not fulfill the UK’s obligation to comply with international law. In reality, it depicts NATO members’ persistence in prioritizing their allies over international law. Under international law, all the states are responsible for imposing an arms embargo on the war criminal state, Israel, due to its ongoing genocide in the West Bank and Gaza. This obligation derives from the recent decisions of the ICJ in January and July 2024, which declared that Israel is ostensibly involved in genocide in Gaza, violating the Genocide Convention, and is illicitly occupying Palestinian territory.

The United Nations Human Rights Council also obliges countries to impose this embargo on Israel. Hampering the export of energy, arms, and other such facilities is imperative to ensure the protection of the civilian population of Palestine and stop the ongoing genocide in Gaza. The British government has enlisted the violations committed by the Israeli government in its legal note, including suspending the delivery of humanitarian assistance and the violation of rights of the Palestinian prisoners. However, the legal note drafted by the United Kingdom’s Foreign Office lawyers shows that they endorse the legality of Israel’s occupation of Gaza and its operations in the territory.

The UK’s interpretation of the Israeli acts in Gaza and the West Bank is by the US-made anti-terrorism framework developed by the US in the 2000s. This framework is widely recognized among all the NATO member countries and is known for providing impunity to powerful nations in achieving their ambitions militarily. Surprisingly, despite this sham arms embargo, British officials deny all the allegations of war crimes and genocidal operations of Israel, including attacks on civilians and their infrastructure. The British government holds that the available information is insufficient to make such declarations about Israel. Moreover, it supports Israel’s stance over civilian deaths in its war against Hamas.

Implications for Global Order

The British government’s stance is factually incorrect, as it considers the evidence provided by Israel more credible than the Palestinian officials, despite the former’s history of deceiving. Israel’s stance on civilian casualties is also a farce to justify its war crimes in Gaza. The embargo on merely 30 out of 350 arms exports to Israel is nothing more than a travesty, but the British government shamelessly justifies its continuation of 320 arms exports to Israel by maintaining that it is mandatory to ensure peace and security in the region. Ironically, it fails to realize that Israel’s conduct and its regional policy itself is a threat to Middle Eastern peace and security. The United Kingdom must not forget that the United Nations, an institution supported by all the Western states, is responsible for ensuring peace and security around the world.

The United Kingdom, despite being a UN member, prioritizes the interests of its NATO allies over the international law and obligations imposed by the United Nations. All NATO member states have leveraged the concept of “peace and security” to advance their interests. Such actions by the NATO members, especially the UK, Germany, France, and the United States, illustrate that these states are audaciously defying the International Court of Justice’s decision about Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territory. It is evident from such actions that the self-proclaimed champions of human rights and liberal world order are the biggest supporters of illegal occupations and war crimes. It would be apt to assert that all the states providing arms and energy to Israel are directly complicit in the ongoing war crimes in Gaza. Moreover, these states are also responsible for the rapid decline of the new world order led by the US and the West.

The Bioeconomy Won't Save the Amazon

Chethana Janith, Jadetimes Staff

C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter covering science and geopolitics.

---

The emerging consensus among conservationists and environmental organizations is that the best way to save the Amazon rainforest is to cultivate a “bioeconomy” based on regenerative agriculture and sustainable practices. But this approach could inadvertently accelerate deforestation and biodiversity loss.

Image Source : (ceylontoday/Getty)

CAMBRIDGE – The Amazon rainforest, one of the world’s most vital natural resources, plays a crucial role in maintaining climate stability and safeguarding biodiversity. As global warming and deforestation push the Amazon toward a catastrophic tipping point, the question on everyone’s mind is how to preserve it.

The emerging consensus seems to be that the best way to protect the Amazon is to cultivate a “bioeconomy.” Over the past few years, this idea has been endorsed by conservationists and various stakeholders, including Brazil’s government, private philanthropies like the Moore Foundation, bilateral donors such as the United States Agency for International Development, multilateral lenders like the Inter-American Development Bank, and prominent organizations such as the World Economic Forum and the World Resources Institute.

The bioeconomy framework aims to foster the sustainable use of forest resources and promote the welfare of local communities. This includes, for example, harvesting non-timber forest products like Brazil nuts, açai berries, and rubber, as well as producing and marketing creams and perfumes under the Amazon 4.0 label. The hope is that further research will discover more valuable applications, enabling conservationists to counter destructive practices that contribute to deforestation, such as cattle ranching.

Although well-intentioned, this approach is likely to backfire. The bioeconomy’s potential has been overstated, and its actual impact is often misunderstood. First, despite being fashionable, açai berries and Brazil nuts represent niche markets valued at about $1 billion, or roughly 0.05% of Brazil’s GDP. Such a small market cannot sustain the Brazilian Amazon’s 30 million inhabitants.

Second, even if the market for sustainable Amazon-sourced goods were to expand, local farmers would struggle to compete with farms that mass-produce their crops through less environmentally friendly methods. Moreover, if there were a significant increase in demand for açai, specialized monoculture farms would likely emerge to meet it, which in turn would accelerate deforestation and lead to significant biodiversity loss.

Third, developing the Amazon’s bioeconomy will require infrastructure, skills, roads, housing, social services, property rights, and financial resources that are lacking in much of the region. Introducing them could increase the land’s value, thus incentivizing deforestation. Recent research by the World Bank’s Marek Hanusch finds a striking correlation between deforestation and exogenous shocks, such as exchange-rate and commodity-price fluctuations, that affect the profitability of agricultural activities. By contrast, productivity gains in non-commodity sectors tend to make land-clearing less attractive, thereby reducing deforestation.

Similarly, a 2023 study of the Colombian Amazon by Harvard’s Growth Lab highlights the connection between deforestation and road infrastructure, showing that more than 80% of deforestation occurs within 7.2 kilometers (4.5 miles) of tertiary roads. The construction of such roads frequently falls under the purview of local mayors, who often build them to improve their chances of reelection.

The Harvard study also underscores the vital importance of property rights, showing that deforestation is significantly less likely in national parks and indigenous reserves than in areas governed by the property-rights regime for so-called “national wastelands.” By providing a route to private ownership of occupied lands, this regime increases the profitability of land-grabbing and deforestation.

A better way to protect the Amazon would be to boost the productivity of the region’s urban centers and surrounding non-forested areas. Given that most people prefer the comforts of urban living to the hardships of forest life, this strategy moves individuals seeking stable and quality jobs from forested regions to the cities.

This is evident in Brazil and Colombia. Brazil’s rural population has declined by more than 15 million since the early 1970s, whereas Colombia’s has fallen by over 800,000 people since 2000. As the rural population declines, the amount of arable land per person increases. When combined with increased productivity per hectare, this demographic shift should be enough to improve the well-being of those living off the land without disturbing the forest. And yet, deforestation rates remain high, suggesting that deforestation is not driven by population pressure.

Moreover, urbanization and development are closely linked. By facilitating specialization and knowledge-sharing, cities make it easier for people with different skills to collaborate, thereby boosting productivity. For governments, it is easier to provide infrastructure, public services, and security to densely populated urban areas than to dispersed rural communities. Agricultural value chains have also largely moved to cities, where the majority of tool and agrochemical production, logistics, support services, agro-processing, and distribution now occur.

But when urban amenities are inadequate, as is the case in numerous towns and cities across the Amazon, more people are willing to relinquish the comforts of urban life. In Colombia, for example, rural residents often shy away from cities and prefer land near local processing facilities and support services.

By contrast, in regions with high deforestation rates like Colombia’s Guaviare and Caquetá, most of the population already live in urban areas. Yet, these cities need primary and secondary roads that connect them to the rest of the country. They also need expanded public housing and urban development programs, as well as strategies to boost their competitiveness. In more successful Amazonian cities, such as Manaus (Brazil) or Iquitos (Peru), the urban population has access to more attractive employment opportunities than farming. Consequently, deforestation rates in these regions are extremely low.

Complex urban production is crucial to reducing poverty. In the Amazon, it would come with the added benefit of protecting the rainforest. Developing a bioeconomy, on the other hand, would attract resources and people into the rainforest instead of driving them away. While the bioeconomy model is unlikely to create livelihoods, owing to the limited scope of local endeavors and fierce external competition, scaling it up might inadvertently make deforestation more profitable.