If Russia Strikes Ukraine, Here's How the Pentagon Could Bring the Heat!

This could be the U.S. military's playbook for a war in Eastern Europe. BY KYLE MIZOKAMI DEC 8, 2021 russian army t72 b3m tanks are seen during the annual armySOPA IMAGESGETTY IMAGES U.S. intelligence officials now believe that Russia's military buildup on its border with Ukraine is a prelude to attack. While an attack is not certain, the stockpiling of forces would allow Moscow to stage a limited invasion of its rival. The Pentagon has a range of options to deal with a potential conflict, from sending Ukraine intelligence data, to deploying U.S. troops to Eastern Europe. Following a virtual summit on Tuesday between U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Washington believes that the Kremlin is preparing to attack its neighbor, Ukraine, and may do so as early as January. The leaders' meeting—which seemed mostly unproductive—centered on Russia's massing of up to 175,000 troops on Ukraine's border, and what the U.S. may (or may not) do about it. Washington has a range of options to deter Moscow, from providing Kiev with key intelligence, to sending troops, aircraft, and ships to Europe. Yet as much as Putin understands the use of force, it may ultimately be the economic sanctions that Biden foreshadowed in their virtual meeting that will prompt Russia to reconsider its bad neighbor policy. If it does come down to a physical conflict—or perhaps even war—the U.S. has a wide range of options to deal with Russia, though. ✅ GET THE FACTS What You Need to Know About a Russia-Ukraine War How Many Russian Troops Have Massed Ukraine? In late November, Bloomberg reported that U.S. intelligence officers had briefed its NATO allies about a Russian massing of ground forces. The buildup, along Russia's border with its neighbor Ukraine, consisted of about 50 battalion tactical groups, or about the equivalent of five divisions of combat troops. Battalion tactical groups (BTGs) are self-contained combat groups consisting of armor, motorized rifle, artillery, and air defense forces capable of independent operations. Intelligence sources believe that the buildup ultimately could consist of about 100 BTGs, or about 175,000 troops. In August, Russian state media reported that the entire Russian Ground Forces fielded "about" 170 BTGs. MORE FROM POPULAR MECHANICS The UH-60 Black Hawk Play Video russia holds amphibious landing exercise The Saratov large landing ship and Mil Mi-8AMTSh helicopters take part in an exercise in amphibious landing, Crimea, October 2021. Ukraine SERGEI MALGAVKOGETTY IMAGES The U.S. and NATO still don't know what Putin truly intends to do with his assembled armies, but during the Tuesday videoconference with President Biden, he said that Russia will not attack. Still, the Kremlin is paranoid about eastward NATO expansion, and wants guarantees that member nations will not deploy weapons near Russia, per the BBC. Those are negotiations that the U.S. and NATO may not be interested in, however. Meanwhile, Putin could be attempting to intimidate Ukraine and its people, hoping they would elect a government more bent on Russian appeasement, if not with a pro-Russian bent. Or, he might be planning limited attacks to seize small tracts of Ukrainian territory. In the worst-case-scenario, Russia might even stage an all-out attack on Ukraine, though Putin seems to understand it would be risky to get himself dragged into an Iraq-style guerrilla war with a country the size of Texas. How Could the U.S. Military Respond to Conflict in Ukraine? rq 4 global hawk The RQ-4 Global Hawk can survey an area the size of Illinois in 24 hours, making it an important surveillance tool in the U.S. arsenal. GETTY IMAGESGETTY IMAGES The first (and arguably most important) tactic is to increase surveillance of Russian forces to figure out what they're up to. The U.S. Army could redeploy RC-12 Guardrail spy aircraft, which typically operate from the Baltic states to monitor Russian communications in and around Kaliningrad (a Russian province between between Poland and Lithuania), to keep watch over the Russian-Ukrainian border. Meanwhile, the Air Force could increase surveillance missions with RQ-4 Global Hawk drones. Those operations typically begin in Sicily and involve the giant 737-sized drones flying eastward over Ukraine and the Black Sea, while looking into Russia itself. Special operations forces might engage on the ground in Ukraine, probing Russian ground forces and collecting information. ➡️ READ THIS NEXT Why the M1A1 Abrams Is Such a Badass Tank If the U.S. detects that Russia is preparing for imminent attack in the coming weeks, there are options that could dissuade it from doing so, all while laying the groundwork for a more forceful response. Activating the U.S. Military Sealift Command fleet—the force that would transport tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other heavy equipment across the Atlantic—would send a strong signal that the Pentagon is prepared to send ground forces to Europe. (The sealift fleet is also old, and the earlier it's activated, the better.) m2a3 A M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicle with 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, fires a 25-millimeter tracer round during an integrated night live-fire exercise for Winter Shield 2021 at Camp Ādaži, Ādaži, Latvia, November 25, 2021. U.S. ARMY PHOTO BY SPC. MICHAEL BAUMBERGER/DVIDS The Army could also redeploy existing forces in Europe to prepare to counter a Russian buildup. The 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division is in Europe, training with NATO and other European allies, but many of its subunits are widely separated across the continent. Reforming the brigade in eastern Poland would create a potent, on-the- ground intervention force. Other troops that could mass in Poland include the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Germany and the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy. Activating National Guard combat units—like Mississippi's 30th Armored Brigade Combat Team and the Texas Army National Guard's 36th Infantry Division—would send a signal that the U.S. is preparing for an extended crisis, even disrupting the lives of reservists. This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. Naturally, the Navy would also get in on the action. U.S. aircraft carrier assets are thin right now, with just one carrier operating between the East Coast and the Philippine Sea. The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group departed Norfolk, Virginia on November 30 for a regularly scheduled deployment. Truman and her escorts will likely end up off Europe in the coming weeks, and moving the strike group into the Baltic Sea would enable her strike fighters and Tomahawk cruise missiles to threaten Russian forces massing against northern Ukraine. Another option is to send one or more Ohio-class guided-missile submarines to Europe, making visible appearances in local ports. Each is equipped with up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. b 1b craft Originally designed as a low-altitude penetrator, the B-1B is now capable of attacking up to two dozen targets from as far as 575 miles away. ETHAN MILLERGETTY IMAGES The Air Force, with its stealth fighters and long-range cruise missiles, might well be the most decisive arm. Fighters and bombers, including F-22 Raptors, F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, and F-15E Strike Eagles could cross the Atlantic and touch down at bases in NATO countries such as Poland and Romania, both of which share a border with Ukraine. U.S. Strategic Command might forward-deploy bombers, laden with cruise missiles, to bases in the United Kingdom. American military planners would likely elect to send B-1B Lancer bombers due to their ability to carry up to 24 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles at a time. A force of just ten B-1Bs, armed with JASSM cruise missiles, can strike up to 240 separate targets, devastating the Russian military's ability to sustain an invasion force. B-1Bs also have the benefit of being incapable of carrying nuclear weapons, reassuring Moscow that Washington isn't deploying nuclear arms to Europe. Yet. ✈︎ BEFORE YOU GO... Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane Why the F-35 Is Such a Badass Plane The Pentagon's capabilities are so vast that these are just some possible military options. Yet as much as the Pentagon can do, nothing would hit Putin as hard as economic sanctions. Testimony in the U.S. Senate in 2017 claimed that Putin himself had a net worth of $200 billion at the time—making him one one of richest men in the world. The dominance of Western financial institutions and the interconnected nature of the global economy makes his fortune, and those of his allies, vulnerable to economic sanctions. But are threats of military action and sanctions enough to keep Russia out of Ukraine? Only Putin could tell you. KYLE MIZOKAMI Writer on Defense and Security issues, lives in San Francisco.

Russia aggression, … Ukraine, NATO & United States…in war possible?

Russia and Ukraine Are Dangerously Close to War. That Puts the U.S. in a Bind Inaction could embolden Moscow, but will the U.S. really go to war with another nuclear power? BY KYLE MIZOKAMI DEC 6, 2021 russian soldier in gas maskGAVRIIL GRIGOROVGETTY IMAGES Recent troop movements in western Russia point to the possibility of war with Ukraine. The two countries have centuries' worth of tensioned of history, with recent strains exacerbated by an expansionist Russia. New fighting could drag the U.S. (and the rest of NATO) into the conflict, though not all NATO countries are enthusiastic about standing up to Russian aggression. U.S. intelligence officials recently warned NATO allies that Russian military forces are massing up to 175,000 troops on Ukraine's border—and could be in a position to invade that country by late January. If true, this would mark the second round of fighting between the two neighboring countries, and the second time in eight years that Russia has invaded Ukraine. Unlike last time, this new conflict could draw in the United States and elements of NATO, pitting nuclear-armed powers against one another. Here's everything we know about the possibility of a war between Russia and Ukraine. Why Does Russia Want to Invade Ukraine? After Russia, Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe by area, and the two share a land border. Historically, Ukraine made up a major part of the territory inhabited by the greater Rus people (ancients who gave their name to Russia and Belarus); it was politically dominant among the Rus before the Mongol Empire invaded it in the 13th century. The territory never fully recovered, and its neighbors, including a Moscow-centered Russia, continually divided up the land until the early 20th century. Although Ukraine enjoyed a brief stint of independence between 1918 and 1920, it subsequently joined the Soviet Union, which collapsed in 1991. Ukraine has had full political independence ever since. ✅ GET THE FACTS: GLOBAL CONFLICTS IN 2021 Is Russia Planning a January Invasion of Ukraine? Will Tensions Over Taiwan Lead to an All-Out War? Logistics at Kabul's Airport Were Complicated However, Ukrainian independence has never sat well with Russia, and that has held true under the reign of President Vladimir Putin. A history of foreign invasions, from the Mongols to Nazi Germany, has caused many in Russia to desire a wall of buffer states, including Ukraine, surrounding the country. NATO's expansion eastward in the 1990s and 2000s to include countries like Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia stoked Russian paranoia about foreign encroachment. Despite NATO's purpose as a defensive alliance, many across Russia view it as a military organization dominated by the United States, which has invaded foreign countries (Afghanistan, Iraq) twice in the last 20 years. Ukrainian sovereignty is also a sore point for those in Russia, particularly Putin, who came up during the reign of the Soviet Union and remember a time when the USSR was a superpower. While the U.S. and NATO primarily see Ukrainian independence as a net positive for the Ukrainian people. Meanwhile, Moscow sees it as a rejection of a union between ex-Soviet states; Under this zero-sum thinking, Ukraine's sovereignty is a win for the United States and NATO. What Happened Last Time Russia Invaded Ukraine? crimea under russian control Russian special forces storm the Ukrainian Belbek Airbase on March 22, 2014 near Sevastopol, Crimea. EPSILONGETTY IMAGES Crimea, a peninsula along the northern coast of the Black Sea, had long been a part of Russia, but the Soviet Union transferred it to Ukraine in 1954. This was not a big deal as long as the Soviet Union existed, as it was about the same as the U.S. federal government transferring a swath of land from California to Nevada. But once the two countries were independent, however, Crimea proved strategically important for Russia's control of the Black Sea. In 2014, things came to a head. Russian marines, paratroopers, and Spetsnaz special forces invaded and captured the Crimea region of Ukraine with hardly any fighting. At the same time, Russia-backed proxy forces attacked Ukraine in the country's Donbas region, seeking to break it off from Ukraine and join it to Russia. The unofficial war is still ongoing, with occasional flare-ups of violence along the Russia-Ukraine border. ➡️ ON CRIMEA Chess Game of Troop Movements in Crimean Crisis Drone Footage of Russia's 12-Mile Bridge to Crimea The response from the United States and NATO has been tepid. The annexation of Crimea, and the use of proxies in the Donbas, were met with economic sanctions and minor military aid to Ukraine, though not nearly enough to re-equip the Ukrainian ground forces in any meaningful way. Now, a broader concern has emerged: failure to inflict sufficient punishment on Russia for its aggression has only emboldened it (and Putin in particular). Moscow reasons that it can outlast any repercussions, short of war, with the West. What Kind of Military Action Could Russia Take Against Ukraine? ukraine Russian armored vehicles drive on the road between Simferopol and Sevastopol on March 17, 2014. VIKTOR DRACHEVGETTY IMAGES On November 19, the New York Times reported that U.S. intelligence officials had warned NATO allies that Russia was preparing for action, moving forces westward toward the border with Ukraine. The U.S. believes Russia has been redeploying Russian Ground Forces amounting to about nine or ten combat divisions, or about as many divisions in the active-duty U.S. Army. The activity began in October, and will be complete by late January or early February. Interestingly, Russian steel and oil companies began complaining about a shortage of rail transport that also began in October—perhaps due to high levels of military transport. This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. What kind of military action could Russia take against Ukraine? Unlike in 2014, when Russia used proxies and its own military personnel, stripped of their identification, a new conflict would see direct, open conflict between the two countries. The 90 or more battalion tactical groups of the Russian Ground Forces, bolstered with tanks, artillery, and air support, would be far too large to hide their identities. If it does come to all-out war, Russia will likely only use a fraction of its assembled combat power, quickly seizing a limited amount of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine is too large to completely occupy, and the longer a conflict drags on, the more likely a NATO military response will become. The occupation of Ukraine, to satisfy Putin's appetite for expansion, is merely part of Russia's goal; The rest is about cowing the country into political submission to intimidate NATO. How Would the U.S. and NATO Respond to Russia Invading Ukraine? bundeswehr receives first leopard 2 a7v battle tanks German Army Leopard 2 A7V tanks. If war breaks out in Ukraine, these tanks probably won’t head East. JENS SCHLUETERGETTY IMAGES Would NATO respond militarily? Jens Stoltenberg, secretary general of NATO, has warned member states that they must "expect the worst," while stating that Russia would "pay a high price" for attacking Ukraine. Many NATO countries—especially small, formerly Soviet states such as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, as well as former captive Warsaw Pact nations—back military involvement in Ukraine, reasoning that they could be next. Germany, however, has all but signaled it would not use military force against Russia, which supplies it, and much of the rest of Europe, with natural gas in the winter. Other countries closer to the Atlantic than the Black Sea might well reason that, with no direct stake in a Russian-Ukrainian war, there is no reason to start a wider one. ➡️ MUST-READ This MiG Super Fighter Terrified NATO If Russia attacks Ukraine, it will be over quickly, and there won't be much NATO can do about it. There are no NATO combat troops in Ukraine, and deploying them in sufficient numbers to resist the Russian Army would take weeks. By the time NATO cobbles together a credible military force, Russia will sue for peace, demanding a ceasefire. A major problem is the potential for Putin to miscalculate. If Putin aims for a larger piece of Ukraine, and there is significant resistance, NATO forces could end up opposing him, suddenly giving him a bigger war than even he wanted. If Putin attacks NATO forces directly, Article 5 of the Atlantic Charter, NATO's founding document, would require all NATO countries to respond militarily. Suddenly, Russia would be looking at a war with virtually all of Europe. multinational military exercises "balkan sentinel 21" A NATO intervention in Ukraine would largely fall on the U.S. armed forces to provide the bulk of troops and equipment. ANADOLU AGENCYGETTY IMAGES Putin is already laying the groundwork for freezing out NATO from the equation. Russia broke diplomatic ties with the alliance in October, then complained that Brussels had "destroyed all mechanisms for dialogue" that could de-escalate the crisis. The Russian President has also warned that NATO long-range missiles in Ukraine would be a "red line" that would force Russia to act. Putin hinted that the short flight time of tactical missiles (potentially with nuclear warheads) from Ukraine to Moscow would force him to preemptively attack. It's quite possible that Russian military deployments are merely posturing meant to frighten Moscow's enemies; Maybe Putin isn't even contemplating invasion. But it's not like Russia hasn't attacked Ukraine before. NATO is split: some countries are warning that inaction will further embolden Russia, while others have signaled they won't consider military action. If push comes to shove, will the United States really go to war with another nuclear power? Let's hope Putin has other plans this winter and we never have to find out.

Biden’s Marxist Socialist Democratic Party on the road again!

Every day it becomes quiet clear that Putin is playing Chess while Biden is struggling to play checkers! The Biden Regime is is hopelessly outclassed by the majority of its opponents on the world stage!

Putin outsmarts Biden with ace up sleeve to deliver 'chokehold' before Ukraine invasion Jacob Paul Russia will reportedly increase the volumes of gas supplies to the bloc in accordance with requests, according to its ambassador to Hungary, Yevgeny Stanislavov. It comes after the leaders met to discuss a range of issues, from the gas crisis to the reported build-up of Russian troops at the Ukraine-Russia border. Mr Stanislavov said: "Gazprom has increased supplies to Europe by 10 percent this year, whereas the total increase in supplies of the Russian gas to the continent equals 15 percent, including liquified natural gas. "There has been not a single rejection." It comes as tension with the West escalated after Mr Putin reportedly slashed the volumes of gas transiting into Europe, while also sparking panic as fears of an imminent invasion of Ukraine appears to be on the cards. Mr Putin was accused of tightening gas supplies in Europe in the hope to speed up certification of his new Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will transit gas from Russia into Germany, bypassing Poland and Ukraine. The move exposed Mr Putin's tight grip on the European energy market and led to accusations that the Russian President uses gas as a "geopolitical weapon" rather than a commodity. But now that Mr Putin has reportedly agreed to boost gas supplies to Europe, some say the pipeline can be used as leverage against Russia as Mr Biden threatens to scrap Nord Stream 2. But Olexander Scherba, a chief advisor at Ukraine gas giant Naftogaz and former diplomat is not so convinced. He told Express.co.uk: "The pipeline connecting Russia and the West running through Ukraine was a major factor stopping Putin from undertaking any full-blown aggression so far. "If this pipeline for some reason becomes unnecessary or expandable, it is one reason less for Putin to be reasonable. "But also, Putin knows for sure if he attacks then Nord Stream 2 will be shut down, but if it is operational Putin can get Ukraine in an energy chokehold. "It would be like saving someone from a shooting squad but then right away giving someone to a strangler. "One has to be cautious about being overly optimistic about the pressure being applied to Putin so far, maybe it is not enough." Brandon Weichert, a geopolitical analyst and author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, also believes that using the pipeline as leverage may not be the wisest tactic. READ MORE: Greece blows top at EU and warns Russia gas reliance is 'unavoidable' He told Express.co.uk:" Yes. The West can use the pipeline as leverage. But to what end? Ultimately, Germany and the rest of Europe need that gas flowing as soon as possible. "Beyond that, though, sanctioning the pipeline might actually put the Putin regime in a use-it-or-lose-it mentality when it comes to taking what they want in Ukraine. "Beyond a temporary halt of the pipeline, though, my personal opinion is that the Germans will not permanently scrap the pipeline." While Mr Biden has called for abandoning the project altogether, Germany's new chancellor Olaf Sholz has also warned of "consequences" if Russia decides to invade Ukraine. When asked by Welt television whether Nord Stream 2 could be used as leverage, Mr Sholz said: "We have a very clear view - we want everyone to respect the integrity of borders. "Everyone understands that there will be consequences if that doesn't happen, but the thing is to do everything to make sure they remain unbreached." DON'T MISS Russia could deliver hammer blow to UK economy [REPORT] Pfizer vaccine horror: Jab 40 times less effective against Omicron [INSIGHT] Bible archaeology: Location Jesus walked on water challenged [REVEAL] Professor Tracey German, from Kings College London, does not think that the pipeline can be used as leverage at all. She told Express.co.uk: "Not sure I fully agree with US national security adviser Jake Sullivan who said the fact that gas was not yet flowing through Nord Stream 2 created leverage for the West over Putin." Prof German said that it is more the other way round, with Gazprom and Russia in fact having leverage over Europe. We have seen following the latest announcement that Russia will boost supplies, if it also has the power to cut that off again, arguably what it reveals is that Europe needs Russia's gas and is in no position to use gas as "leverage" over Russia. Prof German said: "Gazprom and Russia still have considerable leverage over Europe. "Russia is happy to exploit vulnerabilities, such as over-reliance on it as a supplier of natural gas, to achieve its own objectives, but it did not necessarily create these vulnerabilities. "Europe has long been aware of the dangers of over-reliance on a single supplier such as Russia, but, despite a series of wake-up calls that prompted the EU to re-assess both its energy and foreign policies in an attempt to further diversify their sources to ensure the security of supply and prevent over-reliance on any one fuel or any one country. "Russia has developed new pipelines such as TurkStream and now NordStream 2, which undermine this aim of importing non-Russian sources of gas. "In 2020 Russian gas giant Gazprom exported 174.9 Billion cubic metres of gas to Europe, down from the record highs of around 200 Bcm in 2018 and 2019 - despite diplomatic tensions and the EU's long-running objective to reduce its dependence on Russia."

Yes, Today’s Pearl Harbor Day! However, we are Again Under Attack…by Enemies Within!!!

The Marxist Socialist Democrats say it's only a couple Trillion $$$$$$$, actually 5T++++ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Biden’s Obvious Weakness & Afghan Humiliation has Emboldened China & other American Enemies Across the Globe!

‘Setting Off Alarm Bells’: U.S. Officials Scramble As China Pushes To Build Atlantic Military Base By Ryan Saavedra • Dec 6, 2021 DailyWire.com

Chinese tanks parade at the end of the day of the Vostok-2018 (East-2018) military drills at Tsugol training ground not far from the borders with China and Mongolia in Siberia, on September 13, 2018. MLADEN ANTONOV / AFP via Getty Images Communist China has officials in the Biden administration scrambling as classified U.S. intelligence reportedly shows that China is pushing to build a military base on the Atlantic Ocean, which poses a major threat to U.S. national security. “Classified American intelligence reports suggest China intends to establish its first permanent military presence on the Atlantic Ocean in the tiny Central African country of Equatorial Guinea,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “[U.S. officials] said the reports raise the prospect that Chinese warships would be able to rearm and refit opposite the East Coast of the U.S.—a threat that is setting off alarm bells at the White House and Pentagon.” A top U.S. official reportedly visited Equatorial Guinea this fall to push the nation’s leaders to reject China’s overtures as the communist nation ramps up its aggression in the face of a weak and incompetent U.S. administration that has repeatedly botched major foreign policy decisions from Afghanistan to dealing with allies to delisting terrorist organizations. The Journal added: The great-power skirmishing over a country that rarely draws outside attention reflects the rising tensions between Washington and Beijing. The two countries are sparring over the status of Taiwan, China’s testing of a hypersonic missile, the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and other issues. World-wide, the U.S. finds itself maneuvering to try to block China from projecting its military power from new overseas bases, from Cambodia to the United Arab Emirates. In Equatorial Guinea, the Chinese likely have an eye on Bata, according to a U.S. official. Bata already has a Chinese-built deep-water commercial port on the Gulf of Guinea, and excellent highways link the city to Gabon and the interior of Central Africa. Gen. Stephen Townsend, commander of U.S. Africa Command, told the U.S. Senate earlier this year that the “most significant threat” from China could pose to U.S. national security would be “a militarily useful naval facility on the Atlantic coast of Africa.” “By militarily useful I mean something more than a place that they can make port calls and get gas and groceries,” he said. “I’m talking about a port where they can rearm with munitions and repair naval vessels.” The report said that not only has the Biden administration sought to portray that aligning itself with China would be a mistake, but they have also tried to warm relations with the small African nation. The report added: Beijing set up its first overseas military base in 2017 in Djibouti, on the opposite side of the continent. The former French colony looks onto the Bab-el-Mandeb strait, a strategic chokepoint for shipping traffic transiting the Suez Canal. The Chinese facility has a pier capable of docking an aircraft carrier and nuclear submarines, according to U.S. Africa Command. The base is 6 miles from the largest American base in Africa, Camp Lemonnier, home to 4,500 U.S. troops. “China doesn’t just build a military base like the U.S.,” said Paul Nantulya, research associate at the Pentagon-funded Africa Center for Strategic Studies. “The Chinese model is very, very different. It combines civilian as well as security elements.”

Sorry, Everyone, Hamas is Still a Terrorist Group by Khaled Abu Toameh • December 5, 2021 at 5:00 am

First, the document reportedly depicting Hamas as a moderate group that accepts the "two-state solution" is a bluff intended to dupe the international community. As Mashaal himself explained, even if Hamas accepts a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, that does not mean that it would ever recognize Israel's right to exist. Second, Hamas has not renounced violence and terrorism. In fact, it intends to continue the "resistance" and jihad (holy war) against Israel after the establishment of the Palestinian state with the purpose of "liberating all of Palestine." Third, the new document did not cancel or change the content of the Hamas charter, which, according to Hamas leaders, remains valid and relevant to this day. Hamas's representative in Iran, Khaled Qaddoumi, confirmed.... that the talk about Hamas accepting a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem was in the context of a plan to destroy Israel in phases. "There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by jihad." — Hamas charter, Article 13. Hamas, of course, never misses an opportunity to remind its followers and the rest of the world that it remains faithful to the words of the prophet Mohammed, who said: "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" — Hamas charter, Article 7. Days after the decision was announced, the Hamas leadership leader said...: "Palestine - all of Palestine - from its [Mediterranean] sea to its [Jordan] river, is for the Palestinian people, and there is no place or legitimacy for strangers over any inch of it." — hamas.ps, November 29, 2021. The statements of Hamas leaders show that they dissemble less than many of their own apologists in the West, who claim that they understand Hamas better than Hamas understands itself. The document reportedly depicting Hamas as a moderate group that accepts the "two-state solution" is a bluff intended to dupe the international community. As Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal (pictured) explained, even if Hamas accepts a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, that does not mean that it would ever recognize Israel's right to exist. (Photo by Mohammed Saber/AFP via Getty Images) One of the arguments that is being raised against the British government's recent decision to designate Hamas an extremist terrorist organization is that the Gaza-based movement, which does not recognize Israel's right to exist, has changed and now supports the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel. Opponents of the UK's decision claim that in 2017 Hamas "softened its stance on Israel by accepting the idea of a Palestinian state in territories occupied by Israel in the six-day war of 1967." The purported change, they argue, was included in a new document announced by Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal at a press conference in Doha, Qatar. Mashaal was quoted as saying: "Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine, but is ready to support the [Palestinian] state on 1967 borders without recognizing Israel or ceding any rights." Continue Reading Article