Global Research

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

With the current geopolitical developments and the new processes of re-configuration, seriously affecting the landscape of economic cooperation, the basic question many researchers and observers are monitoring is to understand why Russia after the Soviet collapse aspired to transform into an European country. Russia wanted to develop and extend Europe down to the Pacific.

In linguistics, phrases appeared in the direction, such as “developing solid economic cooperation from Lisbon to Vladivostok” and transform the entire vast region into European.

On different occasions, the Kremlin has held several exclusive interactive meetings with European corporate business people. Those meetings raised various issues of fundamental importance for broadening economic cooperation. Throughout the 2000 to 2010, and at one point, Russian and EU businesspeople called on the Russian and EU authorities to resolve the issue of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and begin work on a new basic agreement. President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, took part in the discussions.

Interesting and worthy to note that during his presidency, Dmitry Medvedev sent his greetings to the participants in the second European-Russian Forum held on December 8, 2008. The message read in part:

“This big event has an important part to play in resolving issues concerning Russia and Europe. I am sure that this forum will help to bring Russia and Europe closer together and create opportunities for promising new business and humanitarian projects.”

Participants in the forum, which took place in Brussels, included associations of Russians living abroad, Russian public organisations, and also representatives of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council. The forum’s theme was ‘The European Union and Russia: New Challenges’.

As far back on November 24, 2006, President Vladimir Putin and the European Union leadership held an extensive meeting with participation of the members of the Russia-EU Business Cooperation Council. Taking part in the meeting with Russian and EU business community leaders were Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen, President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso, and Javier Solana, secretary general of the EU Council and EU high representative for the common foreign and security policy.

The meeting between Putin, the European Union leadership and the business leaders took place behind closed doors just before the start of the Russia-European Union summit. The Russia-EU Business Cooperation Council was created in October 2005 and brings together the Russian and EU business leaders most interested in developing economic relations between Russia and the EU.

The Business Cooperation Council acts as a coordinator for practical action to develop new forms and vectors for cooperation between Russian and European businesspeople. The Council sets the objective of ensuring that the business community plays an active part in work to draft a new basic agreement between Russia and the European Union to replace the current partnership and cooperation agreement that expired in 2007.

The Council is responsible for coordinating work by industry and business associations to implement the project for creating a common economic space between Russia and the EU and advancing major forward-looking projects that can have a considerable impact on the structure and level of economic relations between Russia and the European Union.

Projects of this kind include cooperation in the energy sector, joint operation of satellite communications and navigation systems and the formation of mechanisms for cooperating in sectors such as aviation, car making, metals production, energy and machine building.

The Business Cooperation Council is a ‘union of equals’ and has no strong link to any one organisation. The principles on which the Council is formed enable it to expand and involve interested parties in its work. At that time, the Council was co-chaired by Anatoly Chubais, chairman of the board of RAO Unified Energy Systems, for Russia, and by Jukka Harmala, head of Finnish company Stora Enso, for Finland.

Back in 2015, Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the Delovaya Rossiya celebrating the 10th year Russian Entrepreneurs’ Day, praised European business presence in the Russian Federation.

Precisely that year on May 26, Putin said

“Entrepreneurship has come to be considered one of the most important factors of Russia’s confident development. We clearly need to ensure the influx of the largest possible number of self-motivated business-minded people to production companies, people who are ready to take on responsibility for both the work of their companies and their employees. Society and the state are interested in the appearance of a large number of successful, promising foreign companies. Their creation will become a worthy response to the challenges that are currently facing the Russian economy.”

Nevertheless, it would be important to note that during these years both Medvedev and Putin spoke at the plenary session of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. In these platforms, Medvedev and Putin have paid special focus on European businesses compared to Asian counterparts. In fact, Africa was completely not known those earliest formative years of SPIEF.

Not long ago on June 17, 2016, Putin at the plenary session of the 20th St Petersburg International Economic Forum emphasized that the platform served as a venue for discussing strategic issues. In his views on Russia in the changing world, he explained the systemic problems that are besetting the global economy and practically all countries.

According to him, the world’s leading economies are looking for sources of growth, and they are looking to capitalise on the enormous existing and growing potential of digital and industrial technologies, robotics, energy, biotechnology, medicine and other fields. Discoveries in these areas can lead to true technological revolutions, to an explosive growth of labour productivity. This is already happening and will happen inevitably; there is impending restructuring of entire industries, the devaluation of many facilities and assets. This will alter the demand for skills and competencies, and competition will escalate in both traditional and emerging markets.

Putin underlined the fact that it was necessary to proceed from a network of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements that envisage a varying pace, extent and level of interaction and the extent of market openness, depending on specific national economies’ readiness for teamwork, with understandings on joint research, educational and high-tech projects. All these agreements should be future-oriented and provide the basis for harmonious joint development resting on equal and effective cooperation.

“As early as June we, along with our Chinese colleagues, are planning to start official talks on the formation of comprehensive trade and economic partnership in Eurasia with the participation of the European Union states and China. I expect that this will become one of the first steps toward the formation of a major Eurasian partnership. We will certainly resume the discussion of this major project at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok in early September. Colleagues, I would like to take this opportunity to invite all of you to take part in it,” he said at the forum.

The “greater Eurasia” project – is, of course, open for Europe, and that such cooperation be mutually beneficial. Despite all of the well-known problems in the relations, the European Union remains Russia’s key trade and economic partner, Putin said and added:

“It (EU) is our next-door neighbour and we are not indifferent to what is happening in the lives of our neighbours, European countries and the European economy.”

The challenge of the technological revolution and structural changes are no less urgent for the EU than for Russia. I also understand our European partners when they talk about the complicated decisions for Europe that were made at the talks on the formation of the Trans-Atlantic partnership. Obviously, Europe has a vast potential and a stake on just one regional association clearly narrows its opportunities. Under the circumstances, it is difficult for Europe to maintain balance and preserve space for a gainful manoeuvre.

As the recent meetings with representatives of the German and French business circles have showed, European business is willing and ready to cooperate with this country. Politicians should meet businesses halfway by displaying wisdom, and a far-sighted and flexible approach. It is necessary to return trust to Russian-European relations and restore the level of cooperation.

He, however, acknowledged there were some pitfalls. Russia did not initiate the current breakdown, disruption, problems and sanctions.

“All our actions have been exclusively reciprocal. But we don’t hold a grudge, as they say, and are ready to meet our European partners halfway. In this context, let me repeat that we are interested in Europeans joining the project for a major Eurasian partnership. This can, by no means, be a one-way street,” Putin added in his speech.

In closing, the plenary session moderator, CNN host Fareed Zakaria, offered Putin for his last remarks. Putin said:

“We agree on some points and disagree on others but there are still more things that unite us – this is absolutely clear. After all, Europe is Europe. The foundations of its economy don’t give us reason to believe that Europe will come to an end at any point, no matter what internal processes are playing out. It is our leading trade and economic partner. We have here the leader of a European country – Italy, and the leader of Kazakhstan – our closest partner and ally with which we are building an integration association. Today, we have gathered everyone together.”

Quite recently, Putin rained praises on French businesses in the Russian Federation. It was precisely on 29 April 2021, Putin held videoconference with leaders of several French companies – members of the Franco-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI France-Russia) to discuss some aspects of Russian-French trade, economic and investment cooperation, including the implementation of large joint projects as well as the prospects for collaborative work.

From the historical records, France has been and remains a key economic partner for Russia, holding the 6th place among EU members in the amount of accumulated investment in the Russian economy and 5th place in the volume of trade. Despite a certain decline in mutual trade in 2020 (it went down by 14 percent compared to 2019) the ultimate figure, quite acceptable, at $13 billion. French investment in Russia was hovering around $17 billion, while Russian investment in France was meagre at $3 billion.

Over 500 companies with French capital were operating in various sectors of the Russian economy. French business features especially prominently in the Russian fuel and energy complex, automobile manufacturing and, of course, the food industry.

“It could have been more if the French regulatory and state authorities treated Russian businesses as Russia is treating French businesses. We appreciate that in a difficult economic environment, French companies operating in Russia have not reduced their activity,” Putin pointed out in the speech, addressing them.

“We are interested in involving foreign companies that would like to invest in Russia and in projects we consider high priority. In order to do this, we will continue to use preferential investment regimes and execute special investment contracts, as you know. A lot of French companies successfully use these tools on the Russian market. For example, more than one third of 45 special investment contracts have been signed with European, including French, partners,” he explained during the meeting.

He further mentioned continuous efforts to attract foreign companies to localise their production to state purchases and to implementing the National Development Projects, as well as existing opportunities for French businesses in special economic zones. Today, there are 38 such zones created throughout the Russian Federation.

Russia pays particular attention to attracting high-quality foreign specialists. Their employment is being fast-tracked, and their families can now obtain indefinite residence permits, with plans to launch a special programme of ‘golden visas’ whereby to issue a residence permit in exchange for investment in the real economy, a practice is used in many other countries.

Taking his turn, Co-Chair of the CCI France-Russian Economic Council, Gennady Timchenko, noted that the pandemic has changed the world, people and business, and that French companies in Russia are responsible employers and socially responsible members of Russian society.

Despite the crisis and the geopolitical situation, a number of French companies have launched production in 2020–2021. Despite the current geopolitical conditions and information field, there are important signals for French business and the Russian side to strengthen economic cooperation, attract investment, and create partnerships on a new mutually beneficial basis.

Co-Chair of the CCI France-Russian Economic Council, Patrick Pouyanne, noted that the meeting has become an excellent tradition, the presence of 17 CEOs and deputy CEOs of French companies showed the importance of these joint meetings, and further reflect the deep interest of French business in Russia.

In addition to above, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has several times held meetings with European Union members. With the same perception, despite the challenges today, that diplomacy has to continue playing an important role in settling differences, and that businesses could convincingly create bridges to strengthen investment and economic cooperation between Russia and the European Union.

Lavrov has oftentimes reiterated Russia’s recognition of the enormous significance and invaluable contributions of European businesses. The stark reality is that Russians simply adore European brands at the expense of their local brands. That makes European businesses, their products and services solid in the Russian Federation. The European enterprises has prominently made their presence always at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. As an association, it adheres to the principle of mutual cooperation. It marked 25 years in 2020 in Russia.

Over the years, the Association of European Business has held corporate meetings with participation of top Russian politicians and business stalwarts. In St. Petersburg, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has always been the guest speaker during special panel sessions, with participation of the Association of European Business, highlighting with an appreciation their various efforts in promoting economic, investment and trade ties, laying the solid foundation for building good relations between Europe and Russia.

The last time Lavrov addressed the gathering, he stressed the fact there were alarming geopolitical trends that have also affected Russia-EU relations.

“We regret that trade and economic cooperation is becoming increasingly politicized. Trade and economy have been viewed as a safety net in relations among nations. Nowadays though, things seem to have shifted into a somewhat different phase,” Lavrov told the business gathering.

“Politicized energy cooperation is yet another blow at the foundations of what we call European security. Energy is the area of cooperation dating back over 50 years. Protectionism and other barriers and restrictions will only aggravate the economic situation, which is already complicated. By the way, we noted that the Confederation of European Business published recommendations aimed at protecting European businesses amidst sanctions-related restrictions,” he added.

Nevertheless, Lavrov suggested the discussions become a global economic driver, firmly believe that it is in common interests to prevent the appearance of undesirable dividing lines in the new economic spheres created by the new technological paradigm. It is strong conviction that this calls for combining efforts rather than trying to play zero sum games again, as was the case in the past. Russia is ready for cooperation on the broadest possible basis.

Obviously, the future Russia and European business relations can still be consolidated despite the current political differences, Lavrov said with high optimism. Russia is ready to build its relations with the European Union along some principles. The European Union remains as its important trade partner. As before, there is optimism that both are open to cooperation, European partners are keen on building businesses in the economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, this vast country and in the Eurasian region.

The interest in strengthening and diversifying trade and economic ties have been growing since Soviet collapse. According to statistics, trade with the European Union reached almost $300 billion in 2019. The Association of European Business, which unites European companies, believes that both business circles and business diplomacy can and should make a useful contribution to restoring mutual trust and confidence in the business sphere. Under its aegis, European businesses show readiness to expand cooperation and to implement mutually beneficial joint projects across Russia.

Here is a bit of interesting point about Russia’s demography. Records show that European Russia accounts for about 75% of Russia’s total population. But the documents further indicate that 1.8 million Russians live in the European Union (majority in Britain, Germany and France). But then, the rhetorical questions are: Can Russia lead the emerging global economic order? Is Moscow a financial hub and host to international organizations’ offices as in New York and Washington, and in Europe? Is this the end of Russia’s European dream?

During the past several years, Putin’s meetings with EU members included those, such Germany, Italy, France, Spain et cetera. In addition to Putin’s meetings, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and, the Economic and Development Minister held series of meetings, both the Federation Council and the State Duma discussed consistently issues relation to their point cooperation. Today, with the global changes and the war on Ukraine that necessitated the imposition of stringent sanctions, Russia has gunned down its the post-Soviet dream of becoming purely European. What remains in this emerging new world, despite the sharp differences among them Russia might only and eventually become Greater Eurasian.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

This article was originally published on Freenations in September 2022.

My first post on Corporatism described the nature of the disease from an analytical point of view, the ingredients from left and right which make it so virulent and hard to fight and how it is a destroyer of the basic pillars of a civilised society – democracy, truth and prosperity. In fact it is even more dangerous than that! Here we deal with the power of corporatism to destroy humanity itself. In wars, by corruption and by disease.

Big Pharma

One of the chief characteristics of an anti democratic corporatist society is the way parliament and people become the servant of business. Large construction, transport, pharmaceutical or military projects are driven not by Government implementing a democratically expressed need but often by corporations creating “needs” – and the plans, systems and budgets to implement them.

Nowhere is that more blatant than in pharmaceutical corporations and their vaccines where deadly viruses are created with the excuse that “if we don’t create them nature or an enemy will and we need to develop a vaccine.”

The vaccines for COVID 19 have proven obscenely profitable for the vaccine producers who have made tens of billions of dollars in profits for themselves, despite tens of thousands of deaths following vaccination and a cover up of deaths and abortions in vaccine trials (not disclosed until long after millions were vaccinated). See this.

The 1918-1920 flu pandemic killed millions. It was over within two years and no vaccine was developed. Now scientists in the USA and Canada have created by “reverse engineering” an even more deadly version of that flu “in order to create a vaccine for it”: see this.

But we know that COVID emanated from a laboratory in Wuhan China which was doing dangerous “gain of function” work in collaboration with America scientists – who had been forbidden by law to carry out that research in the USA. There is no reason why this new recreation of the 1918 flu should not bring the same disaster.

These dangerous projects are totally out of the control of democratic representatives and are classic corporatist collaborations between ignorant governments who have access to the public’s pocket and corporations whose main incentive is profit seeking.

The Ukraine War

No one denies the value of a strong defence for the democratic nation state but today big multi national corporations seeking markets and armament manufacturers seeking profits (both through lobbying and donations, especially in the USA) are driving NATO and the EU’s Eastern expansion in Europe. Ukraine is a big prize. Despite being the politically ruined, most corrupt and poorest country in Europe (GNI of only $3,540 per head) it is rich in iron ore, manganese, coal reserves, titanium, rock salt, mercury. It is one of the world’s leading steel producers. Fertiliser, chemicals, pesticides, sugar and vegetable oil are significant and it is one of the world’s leading grain exporters  – although nowhere near as big as Russia, the USA and Australia.

The potential for multi national corporate investment and profit is great while the war itself (with tens of billions of US, UK and EU aid used to buy western arms) has proved extremely profitable for those armament corporations. The five largest companies in the world that manufacture weapons are all American: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics. While the US Stock market has slumped these corporations’ shares have risen between 12 and 20%. What incentive is there for corporate American and its “military industrial complex” (or Congressmen and women funded by defence corporations?) to promote peace in Ukraine?

The profitability of the Ukraine war for US Defence contractors is seen in the invitation to President Zelensky to chair their defence industry conference!

Zelensky to head US Defense Industry Conference

Even more profits will result from EU countries and the UK committing to raise defence spending.

Climate

Trillions of Dollars have been committed world wide to “fighting climate change”, funded by extortionate taxes on energy consumers and flowing into the coffers of big business and academic institutions (provided they provide the right kind of climate propaganda). If they dare question that agenda the corporatist fascist media censor and “cancel” them.

Housing and Farms

The giant American investment fund, Blackrock and Lloyds Bank in the UK are buying up homes (in competition with individuals and families, driving up prices) and then letting them to individuals and families. Of course as the beneficiaries of “other people’s money” they are using the people’s own capital (as savers and pensioners) against them and doing so behind the wall of corporate tax privileges not available to individuals, families and small businesses.

The multi billionaire Bill Gates is buying up farms to lease to farmers

The Netherlands government is threatening to reduce farmers by 30%

“Angel Cushing found her way into a meeting of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, a tool of the World Economic Forum to convince farmers to produce less, accept global dictates on how and what to produce, and be happy about it — for the Climate. The meeting was held in the headquarters of Cargil, one of the four packing companies that control the American beef industry. And here’s a shocker – Cargil is experimenting with producing fake meat from plants!” From Catching Fire news

Democracy

In recent years there have been no shortage of elections. In the UK for instance we have mayoral elections, parish elections, district elections, county elections, national elections and (until recently) European elections. The only trouble is since the major parties all support the same corporatist statist policies votes mean nothing – because the ideological corporatist lockstep of the major parties means there is no real choice.

The dominance in parliament of the professional politician, with no professional background outside parliament, is a denial of democracy. Elections are supposed to send MPs to parliament to represent the people against the power of the State but when they get there those MPs are paid , expense accounted and pensioned by the State with candidate selection tightly controlled by the corporate party apparatus! Those who pay the MP call the tune.

Even that other form of vote – the “money vote” whereby we spend our own money freely in a competitive market means less and less because of corporate market dominance, State interventions, monopolistic markets and corporate tax privileges.

Elections

Whether or not it was Joseph Stalin who said “I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how” it has never been clearer that this is the case today.

In the USA – and increasingly around the world we don’t have public spirited citizens counting votes but counting machines controlled by corporations! And we know from executives of the USA’s Dominion Voting Systems corporation that many of those responsible have clear and pernicious political agendas. Dominion’s Eric Coomer said he had “f….ed Trump”. The full extent of the vote rigging/vote count rigging in that 2020 election is yet to be acknowledged by the corporatist US media. See this.

Health

There is no greater source of anti democratic corporatist corruption than in supranational organisations who are unelected but claim to represent the “people of the world”. One such organisation is of course the “World Health Organisation” whose first Director General from 1948 to 1953 Dr George Brock Chisholm said:

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.”

The typical world government megalomaniac has of course utter contempt for individuals, families and nations because they are barriers to his world hegemony – and there is no greater source of that well managed fear which allows the accretion of power than infectious disease.

The head of the WHO Dr Tedros Adhanom Gebreyesus, was an Ethiopian communist who as Health Minister was complicit in denying treatment, food and medicines to the Somali people of the Ogaden. At the outset of the COVID 19 crisis he refused to listen to  warnings by Taiwan but went along with the initial cover up by Chinese communists. China is now the biggest donor to the WHO.

The WHO went along with the Pfizer lies about vaccine safety despite trial figures which showed a massive increase in failed pregnancies while WHO tetanus vaccines in Africa covertly contained a sterilisation shot.

That is typical well funded, politically manipulating, unaccountable CORPORATISM

Charities

At both the national and international level “charities”, funded with blithe ignorance by politicians, given costly tax allowances, exploiting cheap or unpaid workers and subsidised retail shops are a big source of corruption, tax avoidance and money laundering – and arrogant and exploitative behaviour in the third world as we know from OXFAM’s disgusting behaviour in Haiti (see this). In Britain there are over 160,000 “charities”.

Leading politicians set up charitable “Foundations” (Blair, Clintons** etc) which are a source of gross corruption as donations during and after holding political office are used (after extortionate “expenses”) to “aid” groups and countries where many of the same corporations who donated are employed to carry out the work.

In corporatism, the elitists control the many:

Elitists are not the true elite, they are the self appointed “elites” working in or for big business, big government and the corporate media who control the definition of “elites”. And this will be the subject of the third post in this series on Corporatism where we will consider the rise of the unelected in national and world politics.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Freenations.

Sources

https://www.americanlibertyreport.com/articles/clinton-honoree-jailed-for-biggest-clean-energy-scam-in-history/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clinton-foundation-whistleblowers-have-come-forward-with-hundreds-of-pages-of-evidence-meadows-says

https://russia-insider.com/en/former-cia-officer-exposes-clinton-charity-fraud-biggest-scandal-us-history/ri22753?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=60feda4280&mc_eid=072b05302a

http://theduran.com/clinton-foundation-and-its-networks-are-the-largest-set-of-unprosecuted-charitable-frauds-in-american-history/

Featured image is from Freenations

---

And Into The Fire

Fascist elements in post war Europe and the development of the European Union

By Rodney Atkinson

With contributions from William Dorich and Edward Spalton

Publisher: ‎ GM Books; 1st edition (July 25, 2013)
Publication date: ‎ July 25, 2013
Print length: ‎ 164 pages

Click here to view this and other titles by Rodney Atkinson.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

For several months, unions and students in France have engaged in periodic general strikes and mass demonstrations in protest against a pension reform plan advanced by President Emmanuel Macron.

The new scheme being debated in the National Assembly and Senate would not only raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 these new regulations require 43 consecutive years of employment to receive full benefits.

On March 7 and 8, over one million people stayed away from work and school impacting the public services, transport and energy supplies. Workers prevented trucks carrying oil shipments from leaving their production facilities. Oil shipments on March 7 were halted when they were exiting the refineries of TotalEnergies, Esso-ExxonMobil and Petroineos groups.

In addition, truck drivers sporadically clogged major highway arteries and interchanges in successful efforts to slow down traffic. Approximately 20% of flights could not take off at Paris’s Charles de Gaulle Airport while 33% were cancelled at Orly Airport. Transport rail lines to Germany and Spain came to a halt, and those to and from the United Kingdom and Belgium were reduced by one-third, according to the SNCF rail authority. Others were left without adequate electricity and heating services due to striking employees.

The General Confederation of Trade Unions (CGT) had called for the country to be paralyzed until the demands of the workers were met. Rising energy prices have contributed to the level of inflation aggravating an already decline in real wages.

French President Emmanuel Macron has refused to listen to the broad criticism of his pension reform policies. The president rebuffed two offers during the week of March 6-10 for urgent discussions with the trade union movement and students.

After winning reelection during 2022, Macron has rapidly moved to engineer the cuts in the retirement system. The official response from his office to the more than one million workers and youth who have staged rolling strike actions is that the issue is now under consideration in the Senate after already being discussed in the lower house of the National Assembly.

The government’s position is that the reforms are necessary in order to prevent the pension funds from becoming insolvent. Macron and his allies supporting the bill, which includes the neo-fascist National Front led by Marine Le Pen, are claiming that if the changes are not implemented it would jeopardize younger generations from ever receiving retirement benefits.

A report published on March 10 by the leading French newspaper Le Monde noted that:

“Macron told the unions he understood ‘the anguish of the many French people worried they may never get a pension.’ But he said the government had already made concessions, such as raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 years, instead of the 65 initially planned. Unions across the board have demanded that the government drop its plan to hike the retirement age altogether. An official in Macron’s office told Agence France-Presse that the government ‘will be open to anything so long as there is a willingness for dialogue and compromise.’ Unions have vowed to keep up the pressure on the government, with another day of mass protests planned for Saturday (March 11), and some have even said they would keep up rolling indefinite strikes. On Tuesday (March 7), more than a million people marched across France and strikes disrupted transport and schools.”

The work stoppages and mass demonstrations were largely peaceful on March 7-8. However, there were clashes between strikers and the police in several locations throughout France.

These policies are part and parcel of the neo-liberal framework under which many capitalist states operate in the present century. Macron was supported by some workers because they perceived the National Front as a far greater threat to their interests.

However, in the existing capitalist governments, the influence of finance capital remains paramount. Defined pensions and the enhancement of social spending measures are largely discounted as long-term policies. The ruling class in these states advance the notions that larger payments to retirees, those unable to work and the poor are wasteful and unsustainable. Nonetheless, resources are routinely gathered for spending on war and subsidies for the large corporations.

The Broader Significance of the French Struggle for Pensions

Although these strikes and mass demonstrations have continued since the beginning of the year, they are taking place during a period of rising uncertainty within the western industrialized capitalist states. Since the shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and the subsequent economic decline, the world financial system is clearly responded to the cumulative effects of rising interest rates ostensibly to reduce inflation, the closing of small and medium-sized businesses, substantial layoffs within the tech service sector and the economic impact of the United States proxy war against the Russian Federation in Ukraine.

Energy prices have risen sharply while the salaries of workers have witnessed precipitous declines over the last year. The administrations in London, Washington, Brussels and Berlin are largely preoccupied with the NATO arming of the U.S. and European Union-backed regime in Ukraine.

Workers in the U.S., Britain and other capitalist states are facing the same attacks against their living standards. The French trade unions and student organizations are setting an example for their counterparts internationally. It will be the overall political balance of forces that will determine the outcome of the campaign to end the Macron pension reform program.

Interestingly enough, one financial publication in the U.S. did at least partially understand the plight of retired workers both domestically and around the world. In an opinion article in Forbes magazine, Teresa Ghilarducci, a former professor at Notre Dam University who now teaches at the New School for Social Research, shared some of her findings on the developing crisis of retirement in the U.S.

In the piece published on March 9, Ghilarducci emphasizes:

“While the French take to the streets, Americans worry about outliving their money and tell stories of kind strangers raising money on GoFundMe Accounts so they can retire. Until American voters and workers show the kind of unity and outrage the French workers show when their government aims to cut pensions, American politicians will continue to push for Social Security retirement ages to be raised to age 70 or older. Until American workers unite to improve pensions, it will be normal that millions of Americans approaching retirement age do so with no savings. If we do nothing, the U.S. will be in the awkward and embarrassing position of being a world power with sky-high senior poverty rates and small periods of retirement.”

One key element missing from Ghilarducci’s assessment is the role of the Pentagon budget in draining the U.S. national economy in light of millions facing evictions, food deficits due to inflationary pressures and the deterioration of the medical, educational and environmental infrastructure throughout the country in urban, suburban and rural areas. By initiating a proxy war against Moscow and raising tensions with the People’s Republic of China to heightened levels, can only ensure that military spending will increase.

The White House and Pentagon are once again attempting to convince people in the U.S. to accept yet another “permanent war”, this time in Eastern Europe. Despite the failures in Vietnam, Southern Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Haiti, Libya, Palestine, Colombia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., the administration of President Joe Biden has prioritized conventional warfare against Russia as the first priority leading into the 2024 national elections.

Nonetheless, in Western Europe opposition to the arming of Ukraine is being manifested in rallies and protest demonstrations involving thousands of people. These demonstrations have not been replicated as of now in the U.S. although a recent poll taken by the Associated Press indicated that support for sending weapons to Ukraine among the electorate was down to 48%. Everyone must keep in mind that these responses by voters are occurring while all news being transmitted across major corporate and government-controlled networks is heavily biased against Russia which is consistently portrayed as the aggressor in the war. See this.

The only response to the escalating crisis in the U.S. is the raising of interest rates by the Federal Reserve Bank and the ignoring by government officials of the thousands of layoffs taking place in important sectors of the economy. During the week of March 6, two large banks which are intertwined with the tech sector collapsed. In addition, the four largest banks based in the U.S. lost $52 billion in value on March 7-8 while Fed Chairman Jerome Powell addressed the Senate and House of Representatives. Stocks markets plummeted during this same week with almost no acknowledgement from the White House. See this.

What these events illustrate from France to the U.S. is that workers and youth throughout the capitalist states must recognize that the existing system cannot deliver the necessities of life in the 21st century. There should be a renewal of socialist thought and programmatic direction which views the current problems as an opportunity to advance militant solutions aimed at ending all forms of exploitation and oppression.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Euronews

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

WHO VigiAccess Database

As of March 9, 2023, WHO’s VigiAccess database recorded 158,649 Adverse Events involving “Eye disorders” following COVID-19 vaccination: (click here)

Most notable are:

• Vision blurred: 32,935
• Visual impairment: 25,413
• Blindness 3,982
• Blindness, unilateral 1,370

VAERS

In 2021, a total of 717,577 COVID-19 vaccine adverse events were reported to VAERS (click here), and 55,313 of those involved ocular side effects.

One study examined 6688 of these VAERS ocular side effects (Nyankerh et al.)

• 74% of adverse event reports were women
• age group 40 to 59 years old had most frequent adverse events
• age group 18 to 29 had a fairly very high frequency of adverse events
• Moderna and J&J vaccines had higher proportion of adverse ocular events

Top 3 ocular adverse events out of the 6688 cases examined:

1. eyelid swelling, ocular hyperemia, conjunctivitis (33.3%) – 2229 cases
2. blurred vision (26.7%) – 1785 cases
3. Visual impairment (19.8%) – 1322 cases

Recent Research – Spain

A Spanish study looked at 70 cases of ocular side effects post COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca) (click here)

• 57% were women
• average age was 51
• 50/70 (71%) had uveitis, 10% scleritis, 19% other
• Most concerning were 5 out of 65 patients (7.2%) who had reduced visual acuity

Recent Research – Iraq

A study from Iraq, published Feb.2023, examined 60 cases with ocular side effects post COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca). (click here).

• 53% were women
• 36/60 (60%) had uveitis, 15% scleritis, 10% VKH, 7% Neuroretinopathy, 8% other
• Most concerning were 4 out of 60 patients (6.7%) who had loss of visual acuity

Government of Canada on ocular adverse events:

Government of Canada lists more types of ocular adverse events and eye injuries following COVID-19 vaccination, than for COVID-19 infection (click here):

How COVID-19 vaccines can damage the eyes: 

1. Autoimmune reactions (eg. uveitis, optic neuritis, Graves) (click here)(click here)
2. Viral Reactivation of herpes, varicella zoster virus (click here)
3. Parasite reactivation (toxoplasma) (click here)(click here)
4. Blood clots (eg. retinal artery/vein occlusion) (click here)(click here)
5. Blood vessel inflammation (eg. retinal vasculitis, Behcet’s) (click here)(here)
6. Bleeding or hemorrhage (eg. retinal hemorrhage) (click here)
7. Demyelination (eg. multiple sclerosis lesions in the brain (click here)(click here)
8. Reaction to Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-2000 lipid in mRNA vaccines (click here)
9. Corneal graft rejection (click here)

Post vaccine visual disturbances that can’t be explained 

Epoch Times ran an excellent article on Dec.16, 2022 called: “Eye Problems? You may have been blinded by your trust of COVID-19 vaccines” (click here):

Dr. Lynnell Lowry is an ophthalmologist in private practice in San Antonio, Texas. She said that she has seen more unusual eye problems since the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccines than she ever has in 25 years of practicing medicine.

“A lot of folks are coming in with a visual disturbance that we can’t explain”

My take… 

COVID-19 vaccines have adversely affected the eyes of 100,000s of people and 10,000s have suffered permanent visual impairment up to and including blindness.

These are often very serious side effects and unfortunately, they are common.

Women suffer eye injuries more often than men, and age group 40-59 is most impacted. Autoimmune reaction seems to be the most common mechanism of COVID-19 vaccine injury.

As with all other adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, the side effects involving eyes have been downplayed by health authorities and doctors.

A thorough discussion of the risks of eye injury should be conducted as part of informed consent, with any doctor who recommends COVID-19 vaccination.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

All images are from the author

---

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

How coincidental. USAID boss Samantha Power visited Tbilisi, Georgia the other day, and now there are violent protests in the streets outside parliament.

Meanwhile a Western-led regime change effort is happening in Georgia.

Once again a fake EU revolution.

Same script as Maidan 2014…..
🥴🥴 pic.twitter.com/lD0til5v5y

— Richard (@ricwe123) March 9, 2023

The announced adoption of a “foreign influence” bill provided an excuse for the usual suspects to begin a coordinated effort to overthrow the ruling Georgian Dream party and install a new government (or, more specifically, a pro-USG client state, similar to that in Ukraine).

Of course, it does not matter the Georgian government withdrew the legislation. The proposed law was merely an excuse to get yet another color revolution going on Russia’s border.

Don’t expect a Russophobic, nuclear war-taunting corporate media to point out the obvious fact this entire episode is the next phase in an effort to surround Russia and dismember it.

The USAID wrecking crew doesn’t care about the people of Georgia, “democracy,” or the fact the Georgian Dream party won 48.22 percent of the vote in 2020. The Strength Is in Unity party, led by former president Mikheil Saakashvili, came in at 27.18 percent.

Saakashvili was convicted in absentia of corruption and abuse of power.

“Mr Saakashvili was arrested in 2021 after making a surprise return to Georgia by smuggling himself into the country on a ferry from Ukraine. He called for mass anti-government demonstrations, but was quickly arrested by Georgian authorities,” the BBC reported. “Among the world leaders calling for his release were Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.”

Mr Saakashvili was granted Ukrainian citizenship in 2015, and spoke only in Ukrainian at his court appearance, wearing a t-shirt with “I am Ukrainian” printed on it. He also served as the governor of the western province of Odesa between 2015 and 2016.

In 2018, Georgia was tight with NATO. “Georgia is one of the Alliance’s closest operational partners, and an Enhanced Opportunities Partner,” the Voltaire Network reported from Brussels.

It should be noted both “Georgian Dream and United National Movement [founded by Saakashvili] are pro-Western, with goals of establishing better relations and possible eventual membership of NATO and the European Union,” the AP reported in October 2020.

Salome Zourabichvili, the current president of Georgia, made it known last year that she supports Zelenskyy and the ultranationalists in Ukraine, despite her party demanding neutrality on the issue. Zourabichvili went so far as to travel to Paris and Brussels to signal her support for the prospect of a thermonuclear war. She is a politician, of course, and most politicians are primarily concerned with staying in office.

Despite this affinity for the EU (and hopeful of NATO membership), billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder of the Georgian Dream party, made the critical mistake of advocating a full restoration of relations with Russia following the 2008 conflict in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two “breakaway” republics in the strategically important South Caucasus region on the Russian border.

For the USG, the EU, and NATO, red flags went up last March when Anatoly Bibilov, the leader of South Ossetia, declared “I believe that unification with Russia is our strategic goal, our path, the aspiration of the people,” according to the press service of the United Russia party. “The republic of South Ossetia will be part of its historical homeland—Russia.”

Thus, almost a year later, we are witnessing Maidan-style protests in Georgia, supposedly in opposition to legislation that would ban “NGOs” (USAID and USG State Department subversion units) from undermining an elected government.

For the USG and its criminal neocons, neutrality is not an option—you are, to paraphrase Bush Junior,  either with the USG-EU-NATO combine, or you’re with the terrorists, in this instance Russia.

USAid at work in Georgia. Another country soon to be plunged into chaos. Hungary and Austria should take note. Being neutral is not something America takes lightly… pic.twitter.com/JfKNvRkgts

— Ursula Bank Account (@ukrofigaro) March 7, 2023

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Friday’s announcement that Iran and Saudi Arabia had restored bilateral ties for the first time in seven years marks a major geopolitical development in the Persian Gulf.

As the region’s two main powerhouses, Tehran and Riyadh had found themselves supporting opposing sides in conflicts in both Syria and Yemen over the past decade, resulting in tensions that would culminate in the ending of diplomatic relations in January 2016, following the execution of Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr by Saudi Arabia; seen as the dominant Sunni power in the Islamic world, with Iran regarded as the Shia equivalent.

Thus, the restoring of diplomatic relations between both nations should lead to increased stability in a region beset by conflict over the past two decades.

Reaching beyond west Asia, Friday’s announcement also signifies the establishment of a new multipolar world order, with China having brokered the deal between both countries. With Saudi Arabia being a key US-ally and trading partner in the region, this may also indicate that should Washington now feel that Riyadh is moving into Beijing’s sphere of influence, it may vie for regime-change in Saudi Arabia in a bid to maintain hegemony in west Asia.

Indeed such an occurrence has a historical precedent.

In July 1979, the-then US administration of Jimmy Carter would launch Operation Cyclone, a covert CIA programme which would see the arming, funding and training of Wahhabi militants known as the Mujahideen, who would then go on to wage war on the Socialist government of previously Western-friendly Afghanistan, which had come under Soviet influence following the 1978 Saur Revolution.

Five months prior to the commencement of Operation Cyclone, Iran – also a former Western ally in the region – would come under the leadership of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, following the Islamic Revolution which saw the overthrow of the US and UK-backed Shah Pahlavi. A major threat to US hegemony in the region, the Iranian Revolution was a key factor in the White House’s decision to arm the Afghan Mujahideen, lest its influence be weakened even further in west Asia, as well as drawing the Soviet Union into a costly military misadventure.

Should the United States now feel that Saudi Arabia is slipping away from its sphere of influence into China’s instead, and decides to pursue regime-change in response, one of the first steps it may take is a significant overhaul in corporate media coverage of Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on neighbouring Yemen.

In March 2015, following the seizure of the capital Sana’a by the Ansar Allah movement, Riyadh would begin an air campaign in a bid to restore the government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi to power.

Using US and British-supplied bombs, and with military advisors on hand from both countries to assist in the selection of targets, Saudi Arabia has laid waste to the agricultural, medical and water infrastructure of Yemen over the past eight years, resulting in widespread starvation and the largest recorded Cholera outbreak in history in what is already the most impoverished country on the Arabian Peninsula. A situation exacerbated even further by a Saudi blockade preventing food and medical supplies from entering the country.

Despite the brutality of the Saudi campaign, it has received scant coverage from the corporate media over the past eight years, owing to the lucrative arms trade between Riyadh and the West, as well as the use of Saudi Arabia as a bulwark against Iran in the region, with Tehran long being accused of providing military aid to Ansar Allah.

Should the Chinese-brokered détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran now result in tensions between Washington and Riyadh however, and especially in a scenario where the Gulf Kingdom may decide to purchase weapons from China rather than the United States, a newfound concern for the situation in Yemen may arise amongst the western media, in a manner not dissimilar to their sudden coverage of the war in Ukraine following the Russian intervention last February, in spite of their miniscule coverage of the conflict during the previous eight years it had actually been taking place.

Such coverage of Saudi war crimes in Yemen may pave the way for a colour revolution attempt in Riyadh with the intention of bringing a more US-aligned leadership to power.

Indeed such an attempt is currently taking place in Iran, where the US has been supplying arms to the ‘Iranian opposition’ in a bid to install a client regime, and with officials from US-ally Israel already expressing their opposition to the Iran-Saudi deal, it may only be a matter of time before something similar occurs on the other side of the Persian Gulf.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Gavin O’Reilly is an activist from Dublin, Ireland, with a strong interest in the effects of British and US Imperialism. Secretary of the Dublin Anti-Internment Committee, a campaign group set up to raise awareness of Irish Republican political prisoners in British and 26 County jails. His work has previously appeared on American Herald Tribune, The Duran, Al-Masdar and MintPress News. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Support him on Patreon.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Why is much modern food of inferior quality? Why is health suffering and smallholder farmers who feed most of the world being forced out of agriculture?

Mainly because of the mindset of the likes of Larry Fink of BlackRock – the world’s biggest asset management firm – and the economic system they profit from and promote.

In 2011, Fink said agricultural and water investments would be the best performers over the next 10 years.

Fink Stated:

“Go long agriculture and water and go to the beach.”

Unsurprisingly then, just three years later, in 2014, the Oakland Institute found that institutional investors, including hedge funds, private equity and pension funds, were capitalising on global farmland as a new and highly desirable asset class.

Funds tend to invest for a 10-15-year period, resulting in good returns for investors but often cause long-term environmental and social devastation. They undermine local and regional food security through buying up land and entrenching an industrial, export-oriented model of agriculture.

In September 2020, Grain.org showed that private equity funds – pools of money that use pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, endowment funds and investments from governments, banks, insurance companies and high net worth individuals – were being injected into the agriculture sector throughout the world.

This money was being used to lease or buy up farms on the cheap and aggregate them into large-scale, US-style grain and soybean concerns. Offshore tax havens and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development had targeted Ukraine in particular.

Western agribusiness had been coveting Ukraine’s agriculture sector for quite some time. That country contains one third of all arable land in Europe. A 2015 article by Oriental Review noted that, since the mid-90s, Ukrainian-Americans at the helm of the US-Ukraine Business Council have been instrumental in encouraging the foreign control of Ukrainian agriculture.

In November 2013, the Ukrainian Agrarian Confederation drafted a legal amendment that would benefit global agribusiness producers by allowing the widespread use of genetically modified seeds.

In June 2020, the IMF approved an 18-month, strings-attached $5 billion loan programme with Ukraine.

Even before the conflict, the World Bank incorporated measures relating to the sale of public agricultural land as conditions in a $350 million Development Policy Loan (COVID ‘relief package’) to Ukraine. This included a required ‘prior action’ to “enable the sale of agricultural land and the use of land as collateral.”

It is interesting to note that Larry Fink and BlackRock are to ‘coordinate’ investment in ‘rebuilding’ Ukraine.

An official statement released in late December 2022 said the agreement with BlackRock would:

“… focus in the near term on coordinating the efforts of all potential investors and participants in the reconstruction of our country, channelling investment into the most relevant and impactful sectors of the Ukrainian economy.”

With more than $813.5 billion invested in arms manufacturing companies, BlackRock is in a win-win situation – profiting from both destruction and reconstruction.

BlackRock is a publicly owned investment manager that primarily provides its services to institutional, intermediary and individual investors. The firm exists to put its assets to work to make money for its clients. And it must ensure the financial system functions to secure this goal. And this is exactly what it does.

Back in 2010, the farmlandgrab.org website reported that BlackRock’s global agriculture fund would  target (invest in) companies involved with agriculture-related chemical products, equipment and infrastructure, as well as soft commodities and food, biofuels, forestry, agricultural sciences and arable land.

According to research by Global Witness, it has since indirectly profited from human rights and environmental abuses through investing in banks notorious for financing harmful palm oil firms (see the article The true price of palm oil, 2021).

Blackrock’s Global Consumer Staples exchange rated fund (ETF), which was launched in 2006 and, according to the article The rise of financial investment and common ownership in global agrifood firms (Review of International Political Economy, 2019), has:

“US$560 million in assets under management, holds shares in a number of the world’s largest food companies, with agrifood stocks making up around 75% of the fund. Nestlé is the funds’s largest holding, and other agrifood firms that make up the fund include Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Walmart, Anheuser Busch InBev, Mondelez, Danone, and Kraft Heinz.”

The article also states that BlackRock’s iShares Core S&P 500 Index ETF has $150 billion in assets under management. Most of the top publicly traded food and agriculture firms are part of the S&P 500 index and BlackRock holds significant shares in those firms.

The author of the article, Professor Jennifer Clapp, also notes BlackRock’s COW Global Agriculture ETF, has $231 million in assets and focuses on firms that provide inputs (seeds, chemicals and fertilizers) and farm equipment and agricultural trading companies. Among its top holdings are Deere & Co, Bunge, ADM and Tyson. This is based on BlackRock’s own data from 2018.

Jennifer Clapp states:

“Collectively, the asset management giants – BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity, and Capital Group – own significant proportions of the firms that dominate at various points along agrifood supply chains. When considered together, these five asset management firms own around 10%–30% of the shares of the top firms within the agrifood sector.”

BlackRock et al are heavily invested in the success of the prevailing globalised system of food and agriculture.

They profit from an inherently predatory system that – focusing on the agrifood sector alone – has been responsible for, among other things, the displacement of indigenous systems of production, the impoverishment of many farmers worldwide, the destruction of rural communities and cultures, poor-quality food and illness, less diverse diets, ecological destruction and the proletarianization of independent producers.

Due to their size, according to journalist Ernst Wolff, BlackRock and its counterpart Vanguard exert control over governments and important institutions like the European Central Bank (ECB) and the US Federal Reserve. BlackRock and Vanguard have more financial assets than the ECB and the Fed combined.

BlackRock currently has $10 trillion in assets under its management and to underline the influence of the firm, Fink himself is a billionaire who sits on the board of the World Economic Forum and the powerful and highly influential Council for Foreign Relations, often referred to as the shadow government of the US – the real power behind the throne.

Researcher William Engdahl says that since 1988 the company has put itself in a position to de facto control the Federal Reserve, most Wall Street mega-banks, including Goldman Sachs, the Davos World Economic Forum Great Reset and now the Biden Administration.

Engdahl describes how former top people at BlackRock are now in key government positions, running economic policy for the Biden administration, and that the firm is steering the ‘great reset’ and the global ‘green’ agenda.

Fink recently eulogised about the future of food and ‘coded’ seeds that would produce their own fertiliser. He says this is “amazing technology”. This technology is years away and whether it can deliver on what he says is another thing.

More likely, it will be a great investment opportunity that is par for the course as far as genetically modified organisms in agriculture are concerned: a failure to deliver on its inflated false promises. And even if it does eventually deliver, a whole host of ‘hidden costs’ (health, social, ecological, etc) will probably emerge.

And that’s not idle speculation. We need look no further than previous ‘interventions’ in food/farming under the guise of Green Revolution technologies, which did little if anything to boost overall food production (in India at least) but brought with it tremendous ecological, environment and social costs and adverse impacts on human health, highlighted by many researchers and writers, not least in Bhaskar Save’s open letter to Indian officials and the work of Vandana Shiva.

However, the Green Revolution entrenched seed and agrichemical giants in global agriculture and ensured farmers became dependent on their proprietary inputs and global supply chains. After all, value capture that was a key aim of the project.

But why should Fink care about these ‘hidden costs’, not least the health impacts?

Well, actually, he probably does – with his eye on investments in ‘healthcare’ and Big Pharma. BlackRock’s investments support and profit from industrial agriculture as well as the hidden costs.

Poor health is good for business (for example, see on the BlackRock website BlackRock on healthcare investment opportunities amid Covid-19). Scroll through BlackRock’s website and it soon becomes clear that it sees the healthcare sector as a strong long-term bet.

And for good reason. For instance, increased consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) was associated with more than 10% of all-cause premature, preventable deaths in Brazil in 2019 according to a recent peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The findings are significant not only for Brazil but more so for high income countries such as the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia, where UPFs account for more than half of total calorific intake. Brazilians consume far less of these products than countries with high incomes. This means the estimated impact would be even higher in richer nations.

Due to corporate influence over trade deals, governments and the WTO, transnational food retail and food processing companies continue to colonise markets around the world and push UPFs.

In Mexico, global agrifood companies have taken over food distribution channels, replacing local foods with cheap processed items. In Europe, more than half the population of the European Union is overweight or obese, with the poor especially reliant on high-calorie, poor nutrient quality food items.

Larry Fink is good at what he does – securing returns for the assets his company holds. He needs to keep expanding into or creating new markets to ensure the accumulation of capital to offset the tendency for the general rate of profit to fall. He needs to accumulate capital (wealth) to be able to reinvest it and make further profits.

When capital struggles to make sufficient profit, productive wealth (capital) over accumulates, devalues and the system goes into crisis. To avoid crisis, capitalism requires constant growth, expanding markets and sufficient demand.

And that means laying the political and legislative groundwork to facilitate this. In India, for example, the now-repealed three farm laws of 2020 would have provided huge investment opportunities for the likes of BlackRock. These three laws – imperialism in all but name – represented a capitulation to the needs of foreign agribusiness and asset managers who require access to India’s farmland.

The laws would have sounded a neoliberal death knell for India’s food sovereignty, jeopardized its food security and destroyed tens of millions of livelihoods. But what matters to global agricapital and investment firms is facilitating profit and maximising returns on investment.

This has been a key driving force behind the modern food system that sees around a billion people experiencing malnutrition in a world of food abundance. That is not by accident but by design – inherent to a system that privileges corporate profit ahead of human need.

The modern agritech/agribusiness sector uses notions of it and its products being essential to ‘feed the world’ by employing ‘amazing technology’ in an attempt to seek legitimacy. But the reality is an inherently unjust globalised food system, farmers forced out of farming or trapped on proprietary product treadmills working for corporate supply chains and the public fed GMOs, more ultra-processed products and lab-engineered food.

A system that facilitates ‘going long and going to the beach’ serves elite interests well. For vast swathes of humanity, however, economic warfare is waged on them every day courtesy of a hard-edged rock.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.

---

Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also involved (documented in ‘Gates to a Global Empire‘ by Navdanya International), whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, promoting a much-heralded (but failed) ‘green revolution’ for Africa, pushing biosynthetic food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.

Click here to read.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Ever so rarely, the human species can reach accord and agreement on some topic seemingly contentious and divergent.  Such occasions tend to be rarer than hen’s teeth, but the UN High Seas Treaty was one of them.  It took over two decades of agonising, stuttering negotiations to draft an agreement and went someway to suggest that the “common heritage of mankind”, a concept pioneered in the 1960s, has retained some force.

Debates about the sea have rarely lost their sting.  The Dutch legal scholar Hugo Grotius, in his 1609 work Mare Liberum (The Free Sea), laboured over such concepts as freedom of navigation and trade (commeandi commercandique libertas), terms that have come to mean as much assertions of power as affirmations of international legal relations.

The thrust of his argument was directed against the Portuguese claim of exclusive access to the East Indies, but along the way, statements abound about the nature of the sea itself, including its resources.  While land could be possessed and transformed by human labour and private use, the transient, ever-changing sea could not.  It is a view echoed in the work of John Locke, who called the ocean “that great and still remaining Common of Mankind”.

With empires and states tumbling over each other in those historical challenges posed by trade and navigation, thoughts turned to a relevant treaty that would govern the seas.  While there was a general acceptance by the end of the 18^th century that states had sovereignty over their territorial sea to the limit of three miles, interest in codifying the laws on oceans was sufficient for the UN International Law Commission to begin work on the subject in 1949.

It was a project that occupied the minds, time and resources of nation states and their officials for decades, eventually yielding the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.  Brought into existence in 1982, it came into effect in 1995.  UNCLOS served to define maritime zones, including such concepts as the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf, the high sea, the international seabed area and archipelagic waters.

What was missing from the document was a deeper focus on the high sea itself, lying beyond the “exclusive economic zones” of states (200 nautical miles from shore) and, by virtue of that, a regulatory framework regarding protection and use.  Over the years, environmental concerns including climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution became paramount.  Then came those areas of exploration, exploitation and plunder: marine genetic resources and deep-sea mining.

The High Seas Treaty, in its agreed form reached by delegates of the Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity and Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, retains the object of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.  The goal is in line with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) which was adopted at the conclusion of Biodiversity COP15 in December last year.  This, it is at least hoped, will partially address what has been laboriously described as a “biodiversity governance gap”, especially as applicable to the high seas.  (To date, only 1.2% of the waters in the high seas is the subject of protection.)

The Treaty promises to limit the extent of a number of rapacious activities: fishing, busy shipping lane routes and exploration activities that include that perennially contentious practice of deep-sea mining.  As the Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority explained to the BBC, “any future activity in the deep seabed will be subject to strict environmental regulations and oversight to ensure that they are carried out sustainably and responsibly.”

Laura Meller of Greenpeace Nordic glowed with optimism at the outcome.  “We praise countries for seeking compromises, putting aside differences and delivering a Treaty that will let us protect the oceans, build our resilience to climate change and safeguard the lives and livelihoods of billions of people.”  There were also cheery statements from the UN Secretary General António Guterres about the triumph of multilateralism, and the confident assertion from the Singaporean Conference president Ambassador Rena Lee, that the ship had “reached the shore.”

The text, however, leaves lingering tensions to simmer.  The language, by its insistence on the high seas, suggests the principle of “Freedom of the High Seas” having more truck than the “Common Heritage of Humankind”.  (The ghost of Grotius lingers.)  How the larger powers seek to negotiate this in the context of gains and profits arising out of marine genetic resources, including any mechanism of sharing, will be telling.

The text also lacks a clear definition of fish, fishing and fishing-related activities, very much the outcome of intense lobbying by fishing interests.  Given the treaty’s link to other instruments, such as the Agreement on Port State Measures, which defines fish as “all species of living marine resources, whether processed or not”, the risk of excluding living marine resources from the regulatory mechanism is genuine enough.

Then comes the issue of ratification and implementation.  Signatures may be penned, and commitments made, but nation states can be famously lethargic in implementing what they promise and stubborn on points of interpretation.  Lethargy and disputatiousness will do little to stem the threat to marine species, complex systems of aquatic ecology, and disappearing island states.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image: International waters are the areas shown in dark blue in this map, i.e. outside exclusive economic zones, which are in light blue. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 cl)

Defense ministers of the 27 EU countries, meeting in Stockholm, approved the plan – presented by Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy – for “joint procurement of large caliber munitions.”

The meeting was attended by the Ukrainian Defense Minister (despite the fact that Ukraine is not part of the EU), who “explained what Ukraine’s military needs are.” Borrell stated “We are in times of war and we have to have a war mentality.” He then outlined the Plan, which includes three steps:

1) Draw from the stockpiles of EU member states artillery shells, particularly 155 mm, and supply them immediately to Ukraine. The money comes from the European Peace Fund (EPF), which has already earmarked 3.6 billion euros (paid for by EU citizens) for this purpose.

 2) Realize an Agreement among the 27 EU member states for the joint purchase of 155 mm projectiles from the side, signing the first seven-year contracts as early as next month. This is a “massive order” both to restore and increase national stockpiles and to secure supplies to Ukraine

 3) Ensuring the long-term increase of ammunition production in Europe by supporting Defense industries to secure supplies to Ukraine in the long run. (The EU plans to supply it with about one million artillery shells).

 Borrell also reported that

“by the end of March, our Military Assistance Mission will have trained more than 11,000 Ukrainian soldiers. By the end of the year, we expect to have trained 30,000 soldiers.”

For support to Ukraine, the EU has allocated 18 billion euros (again paid for by European citizens).

 Josep Borrell summed up the purpose of the Plan in these words,

“To win the peace, Ukraine must win the war. And that is why we must continue to support Ukraine to win the peace.”

The European Union thus openly descends into war with Russia as part of the increasingly dangerous U.S.-NATO strategy.

 The assassination of Konstantin Malofeev, CEO of the Tsargrad Group, was foiled in Moscow.

This is the same type of bomb attack with a bomb placed under the car as the one by which journalist Daria Dugina was killed in August 2022. It is part of a series of terrorist attacks against Russian journalists and media managers carried out by Ukrainian intelligence services under U.S.-NATO direction.

Click here or screen below to View The Pangeo TV program with Manlio Dinucci

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu below the author’s name or on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

a

***

“The politics of the destruction of the gas-line – whether it’s an act of war or what – but it was a slap in the face of Europe, saying, you know, “if you’re not going to play ball with me in Ukraine,” said the president… “I don’t care if it’s going to be harder for you to keep your people wealthy and warm.” Basically, that’s what he’s done. And that’s the real input of the story.”

– Seymour Hersh, from this week’s interview

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

When politicians right across the political spectrum, in support of NATO’s role in supplying military support for Ukraine, when major media support this position with extremely one-sided, context-free coverage, and when recent demonstrations in support of peace pale in comparison with the “Stand With Ukraine” rallies, people with a dissenting opinion can feel extremely lonely.

Early in the Vietnam War, people could totally relate. When the war was in its first year, one tenth of Americans said they felt the need to organize a protest and of those individuals one in ten said they would protest the Vietnam War. One in six by contrast said they were more inclined to protest the antiwar demonstrators! [1]

But it was actual journalism doing incisive work that arguably helped turn the tide and contributed to the Vietnam War finally coming to an end. One of many critical pieces of work in this regard was the reporting of a cover-up of the My Lai massacre, in which as many as 500 civilians in South Vietnam were murdered by several members of the 11th Infantry Brigade. The deaths included women and children and infants.[2]

This story helped massively shift attitudes about the promise of a military effort bravely “freeing the people from communism.” Despite bipartisan support, the U.S. was defeated in large part by massive domestic popular opposition.[3]

The author who wrote this report was Seymour Hersh. The story earned him a Pulitzer prize for International Reporting in 1970. He has since done more reporting on other major issues, including Watergate, the detention and abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and the dispute of the Syrian government’s attacking citizens with chemical gas in a Damascus rebel-held suburb in 2013. [4]

In February, just a month ago, the investigative journalist now at 85 has now written another bombshell of a story, this time in relation to the sabotage of pipelines responsible for supplying Germany with copious amounts of natural gas. He claims, based on an anonymous source, that the action was orchestrated by the United States government! [5]

The consequence is that the cost of heating and electricity across Europe is rising and will get even worse by next year. If any independent non-partisan investigation could confirm that the U.S. was indeed to blame, what could this mean for the future of the war? How does it make sense that members of a hostile organization like NATO can be attacked by a fellow member and then be expected to help cover it up?

The future of the “unity of NATO” is questioned in the streets, if not in Parliaments everywhere. The future of NATO, like the future of the Vietnam War may be in jeopardy…

Thanks in large part to Seymour Hersh!

On this episode of the Global Research News Hour, we spend a great deal of time speaking to Sy Hersh about details of the pipeline story not addressed in his report, about the positions of the various individuals at the UN not supporting a non-partisan investigation of the Nord Stream Explosions, the differences between the way investigative journalism of his caliber has changed from the 60s and 70s to the present, and his attitude toward the My Lai massacre nearly 55 years later.

Filling out the show, Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst once focusing on Soviet foreign policy, disagrees with mainstream appraisals of Putin suddenly becoming a sick, irrational, war-mongering despot. He speaks about how he makes sense of the Russian intervention in Ukraine.

Seymour Myron “Sy” Hersh is an investigative journalist and a political writer. He won a Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting in 1970 for exposing the My Lai massacre and the cover-up. At the New York Times he covered the Watergate scandal, the secret U.S. bombing of Cambodia and the CIA’s program on Domestic spying. He has written eleven books and has also won a record five George Polk awards, and two National Magazine Awards. He lives in Washington DC.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year C.I.A. career he supervised intelligence analysis as Chief of Soviet Foreign Policy Branch, as editor/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief, as a member of the Production Review Staff, and as chair of National Intelligence Estimates. In retirement he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

(Global Research News Hour Episode 383)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Edited Transcript of Seymour Herst interview (March 6, 2023)

Global Research: The founder of SpaceKnow, Jerry Javornicky, reported that there were two dark ships in the vicinity just a few days previous to when these attacks happened. And Otto Tabuns, director of the Baltic Security Foundation said it would not – “It would not be common practice to have AIS turned off, unless the vessels have a declassified military mission or they would have some clandestine objectives, because the Baltic Sea is one of the busiest seas in the world in terms of commercial traffic.” I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with your facts or anything like that, but I’m saying that, you know, is this a part of the bigger picture, you know? Or is it just a red herring? What are your thoughts about that?

Seymour Hersh: I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking that – are you asking that because there are others who work in open-source intelligence have a different understanding? Well, people in open-source, they’ve sort of quieted down in the last couple of weeks.

GR: Yeah.

SH: But basically they said, for example I describe an airplane, an American surveillance airplane that was flown out of a base in Norway, was to trigger the bombs. And the bombing took place on September the 26th. They were – about sometime in the morning they dropped the sonar beam which was going to go through – you know, you have to use very low frequency in low water. If you go to a high frequency, the water just absorbs it. Low frequency hits a receiver down below, that’s 260 feet where the pipeline’s end and they trigger device that triggers the explosion. And all it takes is 20, 30, 40, I don’t know how long. Usually about two minutes for the divers to get out – two hours, rather, for the divers to get out to safety. So, they usually set for 48 hours, but I have no idea how long they set them for in this case.

And so, the open source guys, they said there’s no such claim there. And they also described the ship I use, it was Alta-class minesweeper – or minelayer, there are two different designs, I don’t remember which it was. One lays the mine, and one finds it – hunts it. There’s a mine hunter and a mine sweeper, and they’re slightly different. And one couldn’t find that at any time that’s compatible with the time that I said the explosion took place.

And I will tell you about open-source intelligence. I can just tell you about what happened a couple – about 10 days ago, more than that: our president, President Biden, flew to see Zelensky, if you remember. They had a visit – he went to Kyiv, he showed up in Kyiv and took a walk with him. I don’t know if you remember reading that but it was in the newspapers. And the account – it was either the Washington Post or the New York Times account, a very detailed account of this security risk that he took.

And it describes as the plane got into Poland, at some point it turned off their transponder. If you don’t know what a transponder is, it’s an IFF signal, IFF signal that all commercial – all planes have to use, so everybody knows where they are in case of a problem. They turned it off. Why did they turn it off? Because they didn’t want to be seen. So, maybe just the American plane that dropped the buoy on a very highly classified mission, maybe they did tune off their transponder rather than be – you know, open-source intelligence doesn’t see anything. When they’re talking about two dark ships, they’re talking about images, electronic pulses. And I can tell you that, on a mission like this – I’ve actually asked that question – open-source becomes a great asset, because you can make up anything.

People in the intelligence community, that I know of, this is – the NSA, the National Security Agency was involved in this too, the mission to build – to give the President an option to bomb the pipelines. They could have recreated a major Japanese task force scheming towards Hawaii, you know, for Pearl Harbor, you know. They could have created anything they wanted in the water. So, when you start talking about, ‘They couldn’t track this and they couldn’t track that,’ they’re just ignoring the possibility that there are people that know exactly what an open-source intelligence does. And rather than ignore it, you use it as part of a cover. Of course he didn’t have his transponder on, of course he wasn’t seen, of course the ship, the Norwegian Alta-class minesweeper, whatever it was – it could have been squawking on a different frequency. It turns out, when you’re given a code, detonating code, you have to punch in the code. But you can punch in any code in an emergency, you don’t have to punch in your own. You could fake it up, it’s that simple. But you know, you can’t fight people who are… And you know, the whole source issue…

I left some string in there that people in the White House – there were a couple of phrases I used that they knew I had something going, you know. So they just denied the story, they’re going to deny it, they’re never going to admit it, I don’t think, the White House, how could they? Even if somebody came out and acknowledged that they did it,

GR: Yeah.

SH: I’ve been in this business for 50 or 60 years and I’ve never had anybody that – who talked to me ever get in trouble.

GR: Right, yeah.

SH: That’s because I take the heat, being opaque about sources. I say a source who accessed the information. I don’t indicate that there’s no sign that anybody I knew was actually in a meeting, none whatsoever. And that’s all purposeful. It makes it – if you really don’t what the story, it makes it easier just to pretend that it’s not a good story.

You know, the President, when he went to Kyiv he took a walk in mid-day. And you know what happened? The bombing alarm signal, the sirens that indicated a Russian bombing was coming, a Russian attack – their warning signal, I guess, I forget. In World War II – I don’t know what they called it – you know, the sirens would ring. And it hadn’t rung in 10 days before, and it – I know for a few days afterwards it hadn’t rung. But when they were taking the walk, the warning signals came on of an imminent air attack. And you know what I say? I say, if I’d been a reporter I would have said to the White House, ‘Did you guys set it up so it rang when he was walking in mid-day in the middle of Kyiv so he could look more heroic?’ But that’s what I basically – that’s the only explanation I have for it. Because there was no air raid. So, here comes all these air raid sirens and the press all writes about it. It’s amazing.

It’s just like there’s no skepticism about anything anymore in the media. I worked at the New York Times for seven or eight years, and I republished story after story about important stuff: the CIA and Allende and the CIA spying on American citizens without naming a source.

GR:Yeah.

SH: There was no trouble then. You could do it, that’s part of the business. To get explicit about a source, puts you in jail.

GR: Logic suggests that if anything else, given your reputation for protecting whistle-blowers and accepting it and being vindicated you would think that this justifies a further expansion of an objective investigation. And I recall during February 22nd-24th, I mean there was Jeremy Sachs and Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, who were presenting a deposition to the UN Security Council, you know, talking about the need for a further investigation. You know, it seems that Russia wanted to have the UN Security Council bring about a more objective investigation, because you know, the people there from Denmark and Germany and Sweden are saying, ‘Well, no, then we’re doing our own investigation.’ But, I mean, Russia was saying, ‘Well, we don’t necessarily trust these people who are kind of compromised belonging to NATO.’ And yet, the British representative was saying, ‘Well, actually, the Russians are just trying to stir up – create a platform for spreading disinformation, they don’t want objectivity.’ I’m not going to ask you which of those views you believe, but I think it does seem to suggest that, you know, it’s not just the United States. Like all of the NATO allies seem to be willing to collaborate with this. What are your thoughts?

SH: Well —

GR: Are they being blackmailed, or what?

SH: You know, what difference does it make what I think? Come on. What you’re missing is that one of the most strident objections to an investigation came from the United States. Absolutely. And it came from the US. And so, that, to me, would be the most salient point, that the Americans don’t want an investigation. Why doesn’t anybody ask the White House, since the President of the United States – we don’t know what the President thinks. Well, he just had his spokesperson say, “No,” and his spokesperson for the CIA say, “No, it’s a lie.” I guess if I were – if I had a chance to ask a question of Mr. Biden, but he seems to be in a controlled environment most of the time – which President’s are, that’s legitimate – I would just say: “Well, you’re President, and you didn’t do it, you say. You worry about Russia. But you know, you’re President, why don’t you ask your intelligence community?” There’s something called the ONI, Office of National Intelligence which is the top dog among all of the dogs in the intelligence world. Why doesn’t – the term of artist called “Teske” – why doesn’t the President – why don’t you just test the American intelligence community to do a deep study and tell you who did it? Because we monitor everything, we could find out who did it. You could ask the guy who runs the intelligence – for the Director of National Intelligence – has access to everything. Everything: covert, non-covert, signals. The CIA has a branch called the Directorate of Intelligence that does great work. And another lower level if you have a group in the field like there was in Norway, at that time there/s a special unit in the CIA that – and an agency that monitors even local phone calls to make sure they’re still covert, they’re not being exposed. Or somebody’s neighbour is saying there’s something funny going down, you know, across the street. Of course they’re on an island, but still. Why didn’t they ask that question?

Why does nobody want to ask that question? I don’t know why somebody in the White House Press Corps doesn’t. When I was at the New York Times, I was given the honour of being asked to be the White House corespondent, this was in the ‘70s, and I was an investigative reporter. I didn’t want to have a beat, even at the White House. And I was under pressure to do it on grounds that this is the way you could become a columnist and become an editor, you know, that kind of stuff. They wanted me to do it. 1973-1974 during Watergate. And I went for one day, and I saw the press record, yell, and scream at Ron Ziegler – who was Richard Nixon’s press secretary – yell and scream at him and call that reporting. And after one day, I told Abe Rosenthal, the editor of the paper, that I don’t want the job. I won’t cover the White House, that’s not being a reporter, it’s being a yahoo. They were very angry at me about it, and I eventually threatened to quit. And I got my way, I got taken off the beat. And got back to being a reporter.

There’s something about the White House beat that’s very insidious, because if you make trouble, you don’t get access. That’s what it’s all about. Apparently, a secret source now is the press secretary calling you into her office or his office with a senior official and gives you a private briefing about something. And in you go with it, no questions asked. That’s what’s passed for intelligence these days – or good reporting. It’s very sad, it makes me sad. I was there in a different world. We need to be much more skeptical of everything.

GR: Okay, so if you look at Germany, okay? This is an area where, I mean, they were directly affected by this attack on the pipeline. And yet, in the parliament, nobody is talking about this report seriously of you —

SH: It’s not so,

GR: — they’re discrediting —

SH: — it’s just not so. I’ve been in the Bundestag, there’s been a lot of debate. I mean, it’s not an —

GR: Well, there’s the AfD and the Die Linke that were saying that but most of the other people, like the government is saying that they want to downplay it, you know, for security reasons.

SH: Well, of course they’re going to want to downplay it because they obviously know what happened and can’t admit they know. The whole purpose of – you have to know historically, since the Kennedy days there’s been an enormous amount of worry of America in the Cold War in our days of containment – that was the big theory, containment – containing the evil spread of communism or the spread of evil communism. And so, they’ve always been worried about the enormous reserves of Russian gas and oil that they were selling to Western Europe even back then. And pipelines were just beginning to go into Europe and there was a lot of stuff coming through Ukraine. And there was a lot of worry – constantly phrased, again and again – about Russia weaponizing its gas, cheap gas, and oil for sale to Germany and Europe in order to get some leverage with them. And maybe it diminished the power of NATO, diminished the cohesiveness. Western Europe has no gas or oil, they get raw materials from elsewhere.

And so, a fair question would be: why did Joe Biden choose the – it was the second pipeline, Nord Stream 2. The first pipeline, we’re talking about producing billions of cubic whatever it is measurements of gas hourly, daily. It just an incredible amount of gas. The first pipeline went online in 2011 and over the next 10 years, Germany became just wealthy, so much cheap, very good gas. Clean gas, methane gas. This industry is, you know, they have the largest chemical plant in the world, chemical company in the world, BASF, 100,000 employees. They were going full bore. You had the automobile dealers there, Mercedes, you know, all those wonderful cars they make. Expensive BMWs. They are there, big industrial powerhouse. And there was so much gas that the German government bought that gas at a fixed price from Russia, and was able to resell some of the gas Russia was selling at a fixed price for more money downstream to other distributors in Western Europe and make a profit from the gas that Russia was making and Russia let them do it. Putin – if you want to say Putin – but this all began very early in his career, 2009.

The second pipeline, Nordstream 2, was completed at the end of 2021. At that point, the war was – it seems clear Russia was talking about going to war. For whatever reason, it was sanctioned. The government of Chancellor Scholz, who was just here in a mysterious visit to Washington in which he never was at a public appearance, except for a few minutes with the President, no big deal, no dinner for him, nothing. It was just sort of a secret visit, I don’t know what the purpose was. Maybe they have Scholz show his face and not be asking any questions about anybody. Nobody even had a chance to ask him about the pipeline. But if you’re coming to the White House, you don’t want to ask those questions because you might not get called on again. If you ask a nagging bit of questions. I know it sounds stupid, but I’ve been there and I can tell you that’s the way it is. You want to make nice, you want to be a good guy. Well, you got the drift of what I’m saying.

GR: Yeah.

SH: The Germans have had a lot of debate about this.

GR: Yeah.

SH: And it’s not done. When he takes out the pipelines in late September —

GR: — it’s an act of war.

SH: — a winter is coming.

GR: Hm.

SH: Well —

GR: An act of terrorism—

SH: I just don’t know. I did a lot of – I did a lot of law review reading to find out. There’s actually no fixed law that says yet, that a pipeline, destroying it is a criminal offence. It clearly is but it hasn’t been adjudicated because nobody’s done it. There is a law dating back to 1884 about a telegraph line going across the ocean, and if you interfere with that, advertently or inadvertently, you’re guilty of the damages. So, we’re talking about something that produces X-number of billions. And maybe that’s the White House issue, they don’t want to be in the court of – you know.

It just – I mean, America – you know, you can do all the UN investigations you want. We basically control a lot of institutions. You know, exceptionalism. America’s exceptionalism is a big deal. Anyway, I’m just saying that in Germany, there is more conservation. Because what Biden did, by knocking off the pipeline, the war by then was going to be a stalemate, at best. Certainly not going to be a – you’re not going to beat Russia.

GR: This —

SH: In Stalingrad, the last Stalingrad, the Russians lost 2,400 dead and wounded every four hours and they beat Germany, the Nazis then. They’re not going to lose that war, they’re not going to win that war. And so, I think by Fall that was clear to everybody and I think Biden and his zeal to keep the war going because it was politically useful to him. Americans, we love our Presidents at war. I think at that point he chose to destroy the pipeline so that Chancellor Scholz, who controls – and that’s the second pipeline called Nord Stream 2 – he controlled – he had shut it down at the request from us, he sanctioned it. It was full of gas, 750 miles of methane gas, that’s why there was such a big outpouring of gas. It hadn’t started delivering yet, it was just frozen. He had the – or the chance to unfreeze it. I think Biden decided to take that away from him. And I think, ultimately, that’s going to be the big problem for Biden, particularly maybe next winter if it’s a bad winter.

GR: I mean, you’re seeing the people rising up on the outside, and tens of thousands recently in Berlin. I mean, is this going to lead to the end of this war, but the end of – dismantling NATO? Or are they going to perhaps to do something else to, maybe you know,push up the pressure to maybe even a – I don’t know – heaven forbid a nuclear false flag or something like that? What’s…

SH: There’s no question that we haven’t heard the end of the destroying of the pipeline. What Biden did is he basically told Europe, Germany and Western Europe: ‘we’ve had the backs of Western and Germany since World War II, we helped rebuild it, we turned it into model democracies, which is – they were, European countries are fun to visit. They are open, friendly. I mean, things are tenser now because of immigration, et cetera, and crime. But basically, they are – Western Europe is, if there was a success story for us after the War, that was in Western Europe in places like Greece – particularly Greece and Italy – we were so crazed about the extent of communism, we actually sided with some of the people who fought for the Nazis, in Greece in particular because they were anti-communist. I mean, after the War, we made a lot of horrible, really awful things we did in terms of anti-communism.

But not in Western Europe. It was left. And it became, ‘We’ve always had their back.’ America has been the bulwark of NATO of making sure Europe was – we spent a lot of money on tourism, we helped build things. Deeply avowed. And all that may be unraveled, because Biden showed that, when push came to shove, if he thought that the Germans would start taking Russian gas again by opening up the pipeline and thus maybe have less incentive to help him in the war in Ukraine, with money and tanks and planes which they were reluctant to do, particularly after what they did in World War II – they spent a decade burning, raping and destroying Western Europe. And so, there we are. That’s what it ultimately – and your question, you know, who knows what’s going to happen? It can’t be good for the cohesion of Western Europe in terms of supporting NATO. It can’t be good for NATO, even. You know, will some countries want to withdraw from NATO? Who knows.

GR: Hm.

SH: I just don’t know. It doesn’t matter what I think. I just know that it’s going to get much tougher. Germany survived this winter, it was a mild winter, and they also subsidize 20 percent, sometimes even more, of gas prices. But even so, it’s hurt the German economy quite a bit. BASF, for example, has been talking to China about moving some stuff there. And someone, I was just reading the other day, something with the largest bakers with 12 ovens produce wonderful, whatever it is the Germans like – they like a lot of schnecken, goodies – shut down eight of the ovens because they didn’t have enough gas or couldn’t afford to buy the gas. Gas has just jumped 19 percent there. But in Spain and France, people are paying as much as five times as much for electricity, which is fueled by turbines. Power turbines are fueled by gas. It’s three to four times as much for natural gas in Italy. That’s going to happen too throughout Western Europe this winter. And that’s when you’re going to see some serious dislocation.

The politics of the destruction of the gas line, whether it’s an act of war or what, but it was a slap in the face of Europe. Saying, you know, ‘If you’re not going to play ball with me and Ukraine –’ says the President, ‘–I don’t care what happens there.’ ‘I don’t care if it’s going to be harder to keep your people wealthy and warm,’ basically that’s what he’s done. And that’s the real input of the story.

GR: Your work was lauded in the ‘60s and in the ‘70s and beyond. But now, it seems suddenly unwelcome around a time when you criticized, I believe, Barack Obama over the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the deceptive way his conclusions about the Syrian government was using chemical weapons in Ghouta, when Syrian opposition was also a likely target. I mean, what, in your view, has changed to the degree that your brand of journalism is not as welcome at the New York Times or the Washington Post was in the past?

SH: What do I know about it? I mean, I don’t – I don’t know if the numbers of people who’ve read the papers haven’t run the story. But you know, I will tell you the response that Substack – I don’t even know much about Substack. But a friend of mine, Matt Taibbi, told me that, ‘Don’t underestimate it.’ And it’s quite powerful, the story is out there, it’s really out there everywhere. They had 1,000,000 hits on that story within a day and it’s been going on and on and on. And I’ve written three or four more and I’m writing another one. I’m going to be writing more about it.

It’s as if what I hear from people who write me, who read stuff from the Substack and other places, is that they understood that this kind of journalism did exist and has existed before. They just weren’t seeing enough of it. I mean, we actually had a story that the New York Times ran on Page 1 for two days about two or three years ago when the Afghan War was still going on. And there were occasions where the Aghans would shoot an American, because they were very angry at what happened there. The Afghan army wasn’t happy with our total control of most things there. And so, one of the stories said that Afghan soldiers – quoting anonymous sources, speaking of anonymous sources – that the Kremlin was paying bounties to Afghan soldiers that killed an American GI on duty in Afghanistan. And that story disappeared because it was a complete fraud. But when you run that kind of stuff, you really lose credibility, you know, that kind of madness.

The xenophobia about Putin is, I guess, inevitable. We’ve always liked that. There’s a long list of Hitlers we’ve had since Hitler, you know? We’ve just got a list of about 30, you name them. Gaddafi was a Hitler at one time. Bashar Assad is, Saddam was. Mao was, Zhou Enlai was. Gorbachev was. And whoever – you know, we just go through it. We have this great penchant for hating. And Putin right now. And by the way, let me say, anybody that starts the most deadly war, bloody war, in Western Europe since 1945 as Putin has done, you can’t – you know, you can just marvel at what made him commit this incredibly stupid act, no matter how much provocation he had. It wasn’t unjust. We lied about expanding NATO to the East, among other things. And we put missiles 800 miles capable of taking out downtown – most of Moscow, because the warheads we have are so powerful now. One hundred times more powerful than – vastly more powerful than the bombs we dropped over Hiroshima and Tokyo – Hiroshima and Tokyo, yeah too, God damnit. I’m thinking, we’re the only country in the world that worries when others have the bomb, we’re the only country that actually used one. Actually, we did it twice.

So anyway, we can talk all week about it. The media today, as you just said earlier, isn’t the media it was when I was around. It’s a lot different. You either have – you either like Fox, or like CNN, or MSNBC, and none of them come close to giving you news. You know?

GR: Yeah.

SH: MSNBC, if they’re not talking about January 6th, they’re talking about this guy who was elected a Republican to the House who’s sort of a – he’s not only just a liar, he’s probably very sick, too. He enjoys being called out. I think he’s very delusional. He’s not interesting to me, he’s so crazy. What’s his name? Sandoval? The one that’s in trouble. Remember he was elected from a House district that had some in West Chester. Or I think it was some in Brooklyn, and some in the New York Counties farther East. But anyway, I don’t know whatever his name is. He’s more of a crazy man than anything else.

GR: Yeah. Well, I’ll just ask one more question, I guess just to kind of tack it off, because we are 10 days away from the 55th anniversary of My Lai. I know that I heard that you went back to My Lai decades later to actually, you know, check it out and at the response – at the invitation by the Vietnamese government. And it turns out that you actually met a survivor of the massacre. So, I was just wondering how that experience may have resolved or capped off this really historic story that basically set you as a force to be reckoned with in the journalistic world.

SH: You could never cap it off. It’s always there. I didn’t know the anniversary is coming up. I don’t take pleasure in that story. Obviously, it was a big story for me, I was a freelance writer. And I was writing about a massacre that took place a year and a half earlier. And it did change the course of the war, I think.

But still, you know, I was in the Army as a grunt, with a rifle M1. And I went through basic training with a bunch of kids. And I remember distinctly that there was some alert that there was a dispute between North and South Korea. We were put on alert, which was crazy. We were – you know 1961/1962. We couldn’t care less about the Army. We did our thing but we just waited to get out. I remember I probably would’ve gotten on the plane to Korea and fight the North Koreans or maybe the Chinese, who knows, and be murdered like we were in 1950. Not because of the flag but because of my colleagues, I had my buddies and friends. And so, you wonder, the kids that did what they did, you know, what their motives were. Look, it’s just – the truth of the matter is, anybody who starts a war is – you know, like Putin did. Although, I must say the provocation was acute and we had to know what we were doing. I think this administration has lost its mind about communism, the way they talk to the Chinese and the way they talk to the Russians, it’s just not credible. It’s just crazy, it just doesn’t make sense, it’s just being totally provocative.

I guess they think it doesn’t – you know, Tony Blinken, Secretary of State, wouldn’t go to a meeting with his peers in China because of a balloon. Remember that?

GR: Yeah.

SH: A couple of weeks ago because of a balloon.

GR: Sure.

SH: Weather balloon or whatever it was. I mean, a balloon? He cancelled a meeting because he was – they’re just, you know… They’re just children. And this is a really serious business. And I’m sorry, about the President’s leadership isn’t there on this issue.

GR: Mm-hmm.

SH: And so, let me leave it at that. No, I don’t take pleasure in – no, I – you know. And by the way, I was a ghetto kid. And by that I mean, even though I went to the New York Times in the heyday of, you know, people there were the editor of the Harvard Crimson and the Yale Daily News and stuff like that. I grew up in Chicago, my first language wasn’t even English, even in the house. You know, my father ran a small laundry cleaning shop in Chicago’s black ghetto, on 45th Street in the area. I worked there since 13, and when he got cancer I was just 15 when he died two years later after a long and horrible evolving cancer that went from everywhere to his brain. And I was the least afraid of him in my house, so I could take care of him.

Then I got a scholarship – or got – I don’t think – a no-fee, $800 a quarter to the University of Chicago. And I got an education there in the middle-late 1950s, in which you did read textbooks, you just read the original material. So, you learned to think for yourself. Critical thinking was the whole idea.

And so, I come to My Lai 10 years later as a police reporter and I worked for the United Press covering a State House in South Dakota which was fun. I’d never been there. I spent the winter in South Dakota. And then I worked for the AP in Chicago where I had a great time. And then, in Washington where I had covered the War. Covered the Pentagon. And then, a couple years later I do My Lai. And I’m 11 years out of college. I know no rich people. And I do this story sticking two fingers to the My Lai story about a massacre that was covered up by everybody: Kissinger, Nixon, you name ‘em. And Westmoreland, who ran the War. I’m sticking two fingers in the eye of a sitting president, Richard Nixon. And in many countries in the world, I would’ve been in a gulag for doing that. Not here. Fame, fortune, and glory, right?

GR: Yeah.

SH: Changed my life, I became a player then.

There’s no way I’m going to ever underestimate America and the freedom it has. Even though we have all of these problems with guns, of awful legislature, I mean, give me a break. When I was doing stuff on the War in the ‘70s for the New York Times, my friends were in the Senate, in the House, in the Democrats. And also there were many moderate Republicans. The famous War Powers bill of 1973 barred Nixon from using forces again in Vietnam, was written by a Republican. A Republican senator of many years. I mean, then we had a different Congress. Can you imagine now Chuck Schumer, who’s now the head of the Senate, calling for an investigation into whether or not the White House was involved in the hitting of a pipeline? Not a chance. So, it’s a bad time.

---

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

1. https://news.gallup.com/vault/190886/gallup-vault-urge-demonstrate.aspx
2. https://www.britannica.com/event/My-Lai-Massacre/Cover-up-investigation-and-legacy
3. https://blogs.dickinson.edu/hist-118pinsker/2017/04/19/2895/
4. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/prize-winning-reporter-seymour-hersh-no-stranger-controversy-2023-02-09/
5. https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

 

 

I ministri della Difesa dei 27 paesi della UE, riuniti a Stoccolma, hanno approvato il piano – presentato da Josep Borrell, Alto Rappresentante della UE per gli Affari Esteri e la Politica di Sicurezza – per “l’acquisto congiunto di munizioni di grosso calibro”. Ha partecipato alla riunione il ministro della Difesa ucraino (nonostante che l’Ucraina non faccia parte della UE), che ha “spiegato quali sono le esigenze militari dell’Ucraina”. Borrell ha dichiarato: “Siamo in tempi di guerra e dobbiamo avere una mentalità di guerra”.

Ha quindi illustrato il Piano, che prevede tre fasi:

1) Trarre dalle scorte degli Stati membri della UE proiettili d’artiglieria, in particolare da 155 mm, e fornirli immediatamente all’Ucraina. Il denaro proviene dal Fondo Europeo per la Pace (EPF), che ha già destinato a tale scopo 3,6 miliardi di euro (pagati dai cittadini europei).
2) Realizzare un Accordo tra i 27 Stati membri della UE per l’acquisto congiunto di proiettili da 155 mm da parte, firmando già il mese prossimo i primi contratti della durata di sette anni. Si tratta di un “ordine massiccio” sia per ripristinare e accrescere le scorte nazionali sia per garantire le forniture all’Ucraina
3) Assicurare l’aumento a lungo termine della produzione di munizioni in Europa, sostenendo le industrie della Difesa per garantire le forniture all’Ucraina nel lungo periodo. (La UE prevede di fornirle circa un milione di proiettili da artiglieria).

Borrell ha inoltre comunicato che “entro la fine di marzo, la nostra Missione di Assistenza Militare avrà addestrato più di 11.000 soldati ucraini. Entro la fine dell’anno, prevediamo di aver addestrato 30.000 soldati”. Per il sostegno all’Ucraina la UE ha stanziato 18 miliardi di euro (sempre pagati dai cittadini europei. Ha anche riassunto lo scopo del Piano con queste parole: “Per vincere la pace, l’Ucraina deve vincere la guerra. Ed è per questo che dobbiamo continuare a sostenere l’Ucraina per vincere la pace”. L’Unione Europea scende così apertamente in guerra contro la Russia nel quadro della sempre più pericolosa strategia USA-NATO.

A Mosca è stato sventato l’assassinio di Konstantin Malofeev, amministratore delegato del gruppo Tsargrad. Si tratta dello stesso tipo di attentato con una bomba posta sotto l’auto come quello con cui nell’agosto 2022, è stata uccisa la giornalista Daria Dugina. Esso fa parte di una serie di attentati terroristici contro giornalisti e responsabili di media russi, effettuati dai servizi segreti ucraini sotto regia USA-NATO.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on August 30 2022

***

 

Excess mortality in Germany 2020–2022 is a preprint by Christof Kuhbandner (a psychologist at Regensburg) and Matthias Reitzner (a statistician at Osnabrück) that applies sophisticated actuarial analysis to the publicly available all-cause mortality data provided by the German government. It turns out that when you account for historical mortality trends, the virus no longer looks so dangerous, and the vaccines no longer look so great.

From the abstract:

In 2020, the observed number of deaths was close to the expected number with respect to the empirical standard deviation. By contrast, in 2021, the observed number of deaths was two empirical standard deviations above the expected number. The high excess mortality in 2021 was almost entirely due to an increase in deaths in the age groups between 15 and 79 and started to accumulate only from April 2021 onwards. A similar mortality pattern was observed for stillbirths with an increase of about 11 percent in the second quarter of the year 2021.

Something must have happened in April 2021 that led to a sudden and sustained increase in mortality in the age groups below 80 years, although no such effects on mortality had been observed during the COVID-19 pandemic so far.

What happened in April 2021 was the beginning of mass vaccination across Germany.

Here’s an overview of mortality deficit or excess by age bracket:

As I’ve said many times, the first year of the German pandemic was a total nothingburger. There was no heightened mortality trend save for among the oldest groups, briefly, in December. In 2021, however, the Year of Maximum Vaccination, the authors estimate almost 32,000 excess deaths. Mortality rose across the board, especially among youngs, with those in their 40s seeing 9% more deaths than expected by their model.

Here are the same figures visualised:

Just looking at that 2021 graph, you can tell there’s something really wrong here. If it’s virus doing all this killing, why is it hardest on people aged 15 to 79? How is it leaving the oldest Germans almost entirely unscathed?

The authors also provide a month-by-month breakdown for the 15-59 age-group:

They note that “The significant excess mortality in December 2020 continues slightly in January 2021, and then is mostly compensated until March 2021. That is, by the end of March, the cumulative excess mortality was close to zero.” These are what the funeral industry would call “pull-forward” deaths. In Germany, the virus mainly kills people who are about to die anyway, such that mortality spikes are followed by counterbalancing mortality deficits.

The authors continue:

In April and May 2021, a significant increase in excess mortality is observed, followed by a decrease up to August. However … the increase in excess mortality in April and May is not compensated for. In September there is again a significant excess mortality, which increases in November and is more than doubled in December 2021.

The April increase obviously coincides with the vaccine rollout, while the Fall increase aligns fairly well with the booster campaign. It’s noteworthy that dose 2 doesn’t seem as dangerous as dose 1 or 3; and that the mortality signal is very tightly correlated with the date of vaccination. As soon as you stop vaccinating, excess deaths recede.

As for people 60 and older, there are two distinct trends: Rising mortality coinciding, again, with the mass administration of doses 1 and 3 in the 60-79 bracket, and nothing special in the 80+ bracket:

The vaccines obviously do most of their harm by inducing adverse immune reactions, and thus they’re relatively safe in the very elderly, who have weaker immune systems. This makes the oldest Germans a useful control, as they are the most sensitive to virus-associated mortality, and the least sensitive to vaccine-associated mortality. Thus, to anyone who objects that it’s really the April case spike that’s making the vaccines look bad here, or that it’s Delta causing those problems in the Fall, the reply is simple: The olds aren’t dying in April or September 2021, just the youngs. What kills mainly the youngs and spares mainly the olds? The answer is not SARS-2.

As the authors note:

The maybe most surprising fact is that [2021] produces in all age groups a significant mortality increase, which is in sharp contrast to the expectation that the vaccination should decrease the number of COVID-19 deaths. The only exception is the last age group [80+] … However, when interpreting this finding, it has to be taken into account that there wa sa huge mortality deficit in 2019 and until October 2020 which was compensated in November [and] December 2020 and January 2021.

It becomes very hard to doubt that the excess mortality of 2021 is vaccine related, when you compare the relative chronology of deaths and mass vaccination:

There are also more specific mortality correlations by age bracket. Thus the authors note the “further hint” that the vaccines are implicated in these deaths, “is the fact that the age group 0–29 has a peak in the excess mortality in June 2021 instead of April 2021,” precisely when these younger cohorts were lining up for their first dose.

A final intriguing finding relates to the relationship between official Corona death numbers and excess mortality. Nobody will be surprised to learn that the SARS-2 death toll is egregiously inflated, but the age-cohort patterns are worth a look:

The official figures are most accurate for those in their 60s and 70s. For those over 80 years old, they are almost entirely meaningless. This group saw less than 20,000 excess deaths in two-and-a-half years of Corona, while their official death count is approaching 100,000.

It’s no wonder that nothing—not lockdowns, not vaccines, not masks, not all the tests in the world—can drive down all-cause mortality in Germany. Most of the people the virus kills are on the verge of dying anyway, and if you spare them a death from SARS-2, they’ll just die of something else next month.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

---

Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store!

 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

Since the 1878 League of Prizren onward, any Albanian program on the creation of a Greater Albania was supported by unproven claims that the Albanians are direct descendants of the ancient Balkan Illyrians.

What was Illyrian?

While the Serbs who lived on the territory of present-day Serbia had already achieved the national consensus of their identity, other South Slavic ethnicities were still striving for this end. In particular, Slavic-speaking people living in then Austria-Hungary undertook steps to identify themselves and thus gain some kind of autonomy or even independence.[i] These efforts were partly in concordance with the aims of the Serbs, both from Serbia and not, but at many points in the clash with them. In particular, the Croats were very eager to contrive their own nationality, for which they sometimes used a number of extreme arguments and means. Renowned Serbian linguist, ethnologist, and historian, Vuk Stefanović-Karadžić used to say ironically, within the context, that the Croats had everything, except land, people, and language.[ii] 

Present-day Croatia was under Austro-Hungarian rule, with land consisting of Croatia proper, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, with a vague determination of the nationality of people living in these regions. The language was also poorly determined, and among several dialect options, the Croat cultural leaders chose the so-called Štokavian dialect, the variant of the Slavic language spoken in Serbia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Montenegro, and Bosnia-Herzegovina.[iii] That nationalism often has nothing to do with anthropology and race shows the case of the most prominent leader of the Croat cultural renewal, the so-called Illyrian Movement.[iv] This leader, Ljudevit Gaj (Ludwig Gay) was of German origin (both parents were purely ethnic Germans). The term Illyrian deserves, however, our particular attention.[v]

In attempting to define, or determine their national identities, the principal aim of nationalistic leaders is usually to display the presumed antiquity of their presumed nation. The political-cultural leaders of the Illyrian (in fact, the Croat) movement have been no exception. It is known, in passing, that this passionate striving for antiquity was not the romantic era invention. For instance, around the New Era, disputes between the Jewish community in Alexandria and the Greeks and the Egyptians over “cultural supremacy” took the form of the Jewish claims of their supreme antiquity. A Jewish writer Joseph Flavius wrote the book entitled Jewish Antiquity (a kind of remake of the Old Testament)[vi] and dedicated another treatise specifically devoted to the disputed “Jewish supremacy” regarding the antiquity of the nations in the region.[vii] These claims appear as conspicuous attempts to substitute present (feelings of) inferiority by alleged “past superiority” (like, for instance, in the Croat and Albanian cases since the 19^th century up to today).

Now, what was “Illyrian” in this Croat claim? It is generally believed that the coinage was aimed at disguising a genuine political ambition (as a part of a general nationalistic movement) in cultural clothing.

But a more thorough analysis reveals that the matter is far from tactical moves. The temptations of the “call of remote past” were so appealing, that some historians took the “Illyrian hypothesis” seriously, claiming that all Slavs are of Illyrian descent.[viii] These claims were particularly popular among the South Slavs from the 16^th to early 19^th centuries, and even some authors from Poland and Russia accepted them for genuine historical truth, but, however, those claims have been, in fact, founded in several authentic historical sources.[ix] According to these claims and sources, the South Slavs were descendants of the Balkan Illyrians and are thus autochthonous populations in the region. These Slavs were recognized by the surrounding nations, like the Greeks, as the Illyrians. In the early Middle Ages, one group of these Slavs migrated to Central Europe (West Slavs), whereas one group moved to East Europe (East Slavs).

According to some medieval authors, South Slavs descend from the Illyrians, Thracians, and Macedonians. Hence, Alexander the Great, Constantine the Great, Diocletian, and St. Hieronymus were nobody else but Illyrian Slavs. This line of thought was particularly popular among Renaissance, Reformation, and Counter-Reformation South Slavs. Vinko Pribojević from Hvar  (the island in the Adriatic Sea) wrote that all Slavs speak one common “our”, “Illyrian”, or “Slavic” language.[x] Mavro Orbini from Dubrovnik (Ragusa), a renowned author of his time (De Regno Sclavorum, 1601), and Bartol Kašić from Dalmatia (Institutionem Linguae Illyricae, 1604) also championed the thesis of the Illyrian origin of all South Slavs.[xi]

Count Đorđe Branković (1645−1711), a Serb nobleman from Transylvania,[xii] was first accepted by Austria as the hair of Serbia’s Despots Brankovićs, but when he tried to found an independent Serbian state on Austrian territory he was dismissed as an imposter.[xiii] Đ. Branković wrote 1688 a political program for the South Slavic unification into a semi-independent state which he called the Illyrian Kingdom.[xiv] It is interesting to note that M. Orbini’s treatise was translated into Russian in 1722. Finally, as we mentioned above, the Croatian national renewal movement in the mid-19^thcentury was launched under the name of the Illyrian Movement.[xv]

Before we go on with “Illyrization of the Balkans” a few words on some features of the “Illyrian” hypothesis are in order. What is the common characteristic of the claims just mentioned? First, the efforts to establish the South Slavs not only as an autochthonous Balkan population but also as the progenitor of all Slavs.[xvi] Another important point is to be noticed. All authors mentioned did not belong to the core of the Slavic territories at the time but came from its margins. All of them, in fact, have been part of the surrounding, more culturally advanced regions, some of them at least partially foreign to the proper Slavic populations. As we shall see immediately, this pattern of “Illyrization” will be followed closely by ethnic Albanians, in their endeavor to establish an Albanian nation and endow it with the territory and language.

The Illyrians, Dinariods, guns, and banks

The Indo-European Illyrian population inhabited the West Balkans and some regions to the northwest of the Balkan Peninsula.[xvii] They never developed the letter and thus did not enter history by their own means. Almost all we know about them came from the Greek and Roman testimonies – names of tribes, rulers, kings, and queens.[xviii] They were regarded as hardy and violent people, engaged mainly in plundering lowlands and Adriatic Sea piracy. The Romans raised several times massive offensives in order to suppress piracy.[xix] When they conquered the Illyrians, the Roman emperors used to make use of them as a military barrier against other barbarians. Henceforth, the entire Illyricum (Roman Prefecture in the Balkans) served as a bulwark against attacks from Central and East European peoples. Because they played a prominent role in the military sector of the Roman Empire (they were employed as a praetorian guard, for instance),[xx] during turmoil times, when military leaders used to seize power, a number of these emperors, like Diocletian, were of Illyrian origin.[xxi]

When in the 6^th and the 7^th centuries AD, according to the mainly forged official historiography of the Slavs, they invaded Balkan Peninsula from the north, and they pushed the local population into mountainous regions, which we call today the Dinaric area. Present-day Dinariods (Yugoslav and West Balkan highlanders), Slavophone and Albanophone alike, are supposed to be of Illyrian origin, although it comes mainly by implication rather than by direct evidence.[xxii] In the absence of material artifacts that may be attributed to Illyrians with certainty, what remains in making links with this ancient tribal population appears inevitably of conjectural nature. In particular, the mental structure of modern Dinariods matches closely the anthropic features one attributes to Illyrians. Language and religious differences among Balkan Dinariods are of minor importance, compared with the principal common attributes just mentioned. One of these features is their notorious stubbornness and inflexibility. As many psychiatrists testify, in particular those dealing with convicts, it appears practically impossible to “reach their mind”, unlike other patients.

Mixing of reality as it is and as they want to be (as they fancy). One of the ensuing effects have been numerous demands in politics and otherwise, based on false images of history or actual political situation. The lack of appreciation of the state as an institution. This has come as a consequence of their millennia of living at the margins of existing states, foreign or not. They never experienced states as their own and always tried to take advantage of their marginal position and profit maximally, without feeling any responsibility for the common welfare. There is an extreme impulse for striving for power among all Balkan Dinariods including Albanians as well. Since the male population of Dinariods, as the dominant familiar and social factor, was never engaged in production and used to be engaged in plundering and stealing, they feel strong repulsion towards manual work and always try to rule the surroundings instead.

Weaponry cult is strongly present among Dinariods and appears particularly prominent with ethnic Albanians. This cult of guns deserves particular attention, for it will play a decisive role in the coming historical events. It can be quoted a few examples as an illustration of the point. For instance, when the Serbian soldiers, in their retreat from Serbia in the autumn of 1915,[xxiii] before the powerful German, Austro-Hungarian, and Bulgarian armies, were crossing Albania,[xxiv] many of them lost their lives because they carried guns. Not only they were killed by Albanians while the exhausted soldiers were crossing Albanian mountains, but some of them were assassinated while sleeping in Albanian houses. The latter instance bears particular weight to the point, bearing in mind the Albanian traditional hospitality, in particular, their cult of protecting guests.[xxv] When receiving guns at the beginning of their military service in the Yugoslav People’s Army (the YPA), many ethnic Albanian conscripts used to kiss the rifle.[xxvi] The rifle is considered by the ethnic Albanians as a precious tool and almost the best friend. The same tradition was present among the Montenegrins too, as the many instances in the dramatic mid-19^th-century poem Mountainous Wreath (Gorski vijenac) by the Montenegrin ruler Petar II Petrović Njegoš testify.[xxvii]

When the scandal of the so-called pyramidal bank affair took place in Albania in 1997, it caused such a revolt of the deceived Albanians that the Government of Sali Berisha was on the brink to collapse. The latter then decided to resort to the ultimate means in the attempt to save the Government (and life, for that matter). The Government decided to have the army magazines open and the crowd rushed in and took all the weaponry out. The regime was saved, and the majority of the weaponry found its way to KosMet where it was used against Serbia’s authorities by a notorious terrorist organization – the Kosovo Liberation Army.[xxviii]

During these riots, Albania was practically deprived of the state as an institution for several days. After the riots were over, the state was reinstituted formally, but practically it has never recovered again. In principle, a society with armed civilians cannot have a real state, as is the case with the USA,[xxix] for instance, for the very reason that the Government in such cases possesses no real control over its (armed) citizens. As for the revolt of the gamblers towards their authorities, it was partly justified. What concerns the authorities, they not only knew what was going on with those quasi-banks but in all probability, the authorities have been directly involved in the organized robbery of their naïve citizens. This was certainly the case with S. Milošević’s regime in Serbia, which played the role of the partner both to Dafina Milanović’s Dafiment Bank and Jezdimir Vasiljević’s Yugoscandic Bank. The gray eminence behind Dafina Milanović turned out to be certain Clara Mandić, an obscure figure,[xxx] with close relationships with the Milošević’s family. She made the company to Marko Milošević, son of Slobodan Milošević, when he was visiting Israel. It was surely part of the whole scheme, for both Dafina Milanović and Jezdimir Vasiljević fled from Serbia to Israel, with the money, of course.[xxxi]

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] On this issue, see more in [R. A. Kann, A History of the Habsburg Empire 1526−1918, Berkeley, US−Los Angeles, US−London, UK: University of California Press, 1980].

[ii] About the 19^th-century ideas of the Serbian nationhood and statehood developed by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić and Ilija Garašanin see in [V. B. Sotirović, “Nineteenth-century Ideas of Serbian ‘Linguistic’ Nationhood and Statehood”, Slavistica Vilnensis, Kalbotyra 49 (2), 2000, 7–24].

[iii] I will not dwell on this issue here, but direct interesting readers to my comprehensive article [V. B.  Sotirović, “National Identity: Who are the Albanians? The Illyrian Anthroponomy and the Ethnogenesis of the Albanians”, Liaudies Kultūra, Vol. 3, № 84, Vilnius, 2002, 31–43].

[iv] See [V. B. Sotirović, “The Croatian National Revival Movement (The “Illyrian Movement”) and the Question of Language in the Phase from 1830 to 1841”, Наслеђе, year III, № 4, Kragujevac, 2006, 101–116.

[v] On the ethnic identity from the anthropological perspective, see in [M. Banks, Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions, London, UK: Routledge, 1996]. In this book, the author outlines the major anthropological and sociological approaches to ethnicity, focusing on traditional paradigms of British and American anthropologists, the notion of “ethnos” developed by the Soviet anthropologists, and UK’s and US’ case studies.

[vi] J. Flavius, The Antiquities of the Jews, J. Flavius, Complete Works, London: Nelson & Sons, 1859, 27.

[vii] J. Flavius, Against Apion, J. Flavius, Complete Works, London: Nelson & Sons, 1859, 784. On Jewish history, see in [Д. Џ. Голдберг, Џ. Д. Рејнер, Јевреји: Историја и религија, Београд: Clio, 2003]. On the history of Greece and Hellenism, see in [Џ. Бордман, Џ. Грифин, О. Мари (eds.), Оксфордска историја Грчке и хеленистичког света, Београд: Clio, 1999].

[viii] The Illyrians were the ancient inhabitants of the Balkans well-known to the Greek and Roman historians and geographers. See in more detail on them in [A. Stipčević, The Illyrians: History and Culture, Noyes Press, 1977]. About Illyrian-Roman relations, see in [J. R. Abdale, The Great Illyrian Revolt: Rome’s Forgotten War in the Balkans, AD 6−9, Barnsley, UK−Pen and Sword Military, 2019].

[ix] One of them is a chronicle by monk Nestor: Povest’ vremennyh let. The chronicle was written in the final form in 1113 based on previous writings. It is the most important source of ancient Russian history [J. Anisimov, Rusijos Istorija nuo Riuriko iki Putino. Žmonės. Įvykiai. Datos, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 2014, 46].

[x] V. Pribojević, On Origin and History of the Slavs, 1532, Venice.

[xi] About more details, see for instance in [Ј. И. Деретић, Д. П. Антић, С. М. Јарчевић, Измишљено досељавање Срба, Београд: Сардонија, 2009; М. Милановић, Историјско порекло Срба, Друго допуњено и проширено издање, Београд: Вандалија, 2011].

[xii] He claimed to be the heir of the Brankovićs dynasty, the last Serbian (vassal) ruling family, before the final fall of the Serbian state to the Ottoman Empire in 1459. The last Branković in power ruling Serbia before the Ottoman occupation was Lazar (1456−1458) [С. Станојевић, Сви српски владари, Београд: Отворена књига, 2015, 75−76].

[xiii] It was at this time that Austria launched the false thesis that Vuk Branković, the progenitor of Branković dynasty, betrayed duke Lazar during the 1389 Kosovo Battle.

[xiv] About Count Đorđe Branković and his time see in [J. Radonjić, Grof Đorđe Branković i njegovo vreme, Beograd, 1911].

[xv] Vladislav B. Sotirović, “National Identity: Who are the Albanians? The Illyrian Anthroponomy and the Ethnogenesis of the Albanians”, Liaudies Kultūra, Vol. 3, № 84, Vilnius, 2002, 31–43.

[xvi] Today, many historians claim that the “Illyrian” hypothesis of the Slavic origin is based on relevant historical sources of the time. See, for instance [Ј. И. Деретић, Д. П. Антић, С. М. Јарчевић, Измишљено досељавање Срба, Београд: Сардонија, 2009].

[xvii] An Illyrian tribe occupied territory close to the present-day Vienna.

[xviii] A. Stipčević, Iliri: Povijest, život, kultura, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1989, 7−14.

[xix] М. Ростовцев, Историја Старога света. Грчка и Рим, Нови Сад: Матица српска, 1990, 268. There were two “Illyrian Wars” launched by the Romans: The First (229−228 B.C.) and the Second (219 B.C.)

[xx] On one of the Albanian websites it is proudly (and out of context) stated that Albania provides military support to Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[xxi] This situation will repeat many times during the Balkan history, in particular during WWII and civil wars in Yugoslavia (1991−1995).

[xxii] However, there is no single evidence in historical sources that present-day Balkan Albanians are of any Illyrian origin as they came to the Balkans only in 1043 from Sicily. Originally, they are from the Caucasus where in ancient times they had their state – Caucasus Albania. On this issue see the book [Кавкаски Албанци лажни Илири, Београд: Пешић и синови, 2007].

[xxiii] The estimate is that around 350.000 Serbians, soldiers, and civilians alike, lost their lives during this retreat through Albania. The crossing is known as the Serbian Golgotha [P. R. Magocsi, Historical Atlas of Central Europe, Revised and Expanded Edition, Seattle, US: University of Washington Press, 2002, 123].

[xxiv] With permission of the Albanian local Muslim leader Essad-pasha, a great friend of Serbs, whom the latter had helped in his political activities in Albania [Д. Т. Батаковић, Косово и Метохија у српско-арбанашким односима, Друго допуњено издање, Београд: Чигоја штампа, 2006, 201; M. Radojević, Lj. Dimić, Serbia in the Great War 1914−1918, Belgrade: Srpska književna zadruga−Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals, 2014, 194−204].

[xxv] In some cases, the Serbian soldiers retaliated for these murders, like setting houses to fire.

[xxvi] When a captain asked such a conscript why he kissed the gun, he obtained this remarkable answer: “I will need it some-day”.

[xxvii] The last chapter of the poem, which concerns the broken gun of Vuk Mandušić, is a true apotheosis of weapons. About Petar II Petrović Njegoš and his works, see in [Проф. Др Лазо М. Костић, Сабрана дела. Четврти том:Његош и Српство, Београд: ЗИПС СРС, 2000 ].

[xxviii] It has been estimated that about 700.000 weaponry was “taken over” by “revolting civilians”, with the majority of them sold to Kosovo “civilians”. About the Kosovo Liberation Army from the Western political perspective, see in [J. Pettifer, The Kosova Liberation Army: Underground War to Balkan Insurgency, 1948−2001, London: UK: C. Hurst & Co (Publishers), Ltd, 2012].

[xxix] On this issue, see more in [T. Diaz, Making A Killing: The Business of Guns in America, New Press, 2000; L. A. Eargle, A. Esmail (eds.), Gun Violence in American Society, Lanham, USA: University Press of America, 2016; D. J. Campbell, America’s Gun Wars: A Cultural History of Gun Control in the United States, Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2019].

[xxx] She turned out to be nymphomaniac.

[xxxi] They both returned to Serbia and were arrested. D. Milanović died of cancer in 2008.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on January 12, 2023

***

Thursday, January 26, 2023. 

Professor Tremblay’s Important Statement

Under these circumstances, with the escalation of the war in Ukraine, it would be useful and desirable for the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. António Guterres, to convene the United Nations General Assembly, in order to discuss the question of peace in the world, considering the great risk that the deterioration of the war in Ukraine currently poses to humanity.

***

Since the end of the Second World War (1939-1945), there have been many civil wars and several important regional military conflicts between two or more countries, but none has evolved into a general world war involving all the most heavily armed countries. The most serious regional wars were the Korean War (1950-1953), the Vietnam War (1955-1975), the Iraq War (2003-2011), the Syria War (2011- ), and the Ukraine War (2022- ).

Indeed, with no sign yet of peace in Ukraine, nine years after the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government, in February 2014, and nearly one year after the Russian military invasion, last February 24—and with a real danger that such a prolonged proxy conflict between great powers could escalate into a nuclear world war—it may be appropriate to search for reasons why, in this 21st Century, the world is still threatened with murderous and destructive wars.

There are basic tendencies in human nature, structural institutional failures and geopolitical factors for why this is the case.

Let us identify the most important causes, which can explain why wars of aggression and proxy wars are still taking place today.

• Human nature: Warlike instincts as the basis for wars

Basic human instincts of control, conquest, domination, and exploitation have often been the very background to conflicts and wars between states.

That may be because some countries are, over time, ruled by men who are bent on using violence to gain and expand their power: they may be kings, emperors, dictators, autocrats or hardliners, even in so-called advanced societies.

If war belongs to the very nature of man, in order to escape this atavism, civilization would need to be more commonly based on humanistic principles, and democratic rules and laws, in order to curb the tendency of autocratic governments of oligarchies to dominate other peoples.

• Attempts to prevent wars, with ethical principles or through international cooperation

The Just War Theory

Ever since the philosophical works of Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the most well known religious thinkers about the Just war theory (jus ad bellum), there have been several attempts to introduce some morality and some fairness, if not more justice, into the practice of organized military violence between nations.

According to thinkers of the ‘just war theory’, a war must not be pre-emptive but be defensive. It must rest on self-defense. Its purpose must be to defend a nations’ peace against serious injury, and be a lesser evil than the alternatives, after all diplomatic options have been exhausted. For that, a war must meet some criteria, such as being based on a just cause (ex: protect innocent life), seeking a just long-term peace, being under the control of a legitimate authority, being proportional in the means used and being waged as a last resort.

Needless to say, with no practical means to prevent wars of aggression, the Just war theory has not prevented wars of aggression, or wars of conquest, from taking place since its inception.

Indeed, when unscrupulous and arrogant leaders subscribe only to the law of the jungle in international relations, it leads to the application of the dictatorial rule that “might makes right”.

The League of Nations (1920-1946)

The League to Enforce Peace published this full-page promotion in The New York Times on Christmas Day 1918. It resolved that the League “should ensure peace by eliminating causes of dissension, by deciding controversies by peaceable means, and by uniting the potential force of all the members as a standing menace against any nation that seeks to upset the peace of the world”. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

The League of Nations was created in the first part of the 20th Century, in Geneva, Switzerland, on January 10, 1920, by 41 member states, representing 70 percent of the world population. It was a multilateral attempt to prevent a repetition of World War I (1914-1918) and to “achieve international peace and security”.

Before WWI, the international system for keeping peace and stability was very primitive. It was based on a few military alliances regrouping several countries. They were supposedly designed to protect smaller states, and their objective was to be a deterrent to war through a so-called “Balance of Power”.

Nevertheless, the alliance system was very unstable, because any serious localized military incident could easily escalate and trigger a wider war. Indeed, member nations of any given military alliance were expected to join in the mêlée, when a single country declared a war.

Before World War I, there were two rival military alliances: the Central Powers, which included Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, joined later by Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire; and the Allies, which included France, the United Kingdom and Russia, joined later by Japan and the United States.

The spark that ignited WWI happened in Bosnia, in the city of Sarajevo, on June 28, 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand—heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire—was shot to death along with his wife, Sophie, by the Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip. With that, military alliances came into play.

Without the military alliances, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand would have only caused a regional war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. However, because of alliances, Russia came to assist Serbia, which in turn led Germany to declare war on Russia.

A question needs to be asked: Are military alliances powder kegs for creating large wars?

Even though, after WWI, the League of Nations was designed to prevent wars, it was too weak to prevent arms races between countries and to enforce disarmament agreements. It was also too weak to impose solutions to conflicts through negotiation or arbitration in cases of international conflicts.

The United Nations (1945)

The Second World War (1939-1946) is considered to have been a legacy of WWI. And, just like WWI, it involved two opposing military alliances. On one side was the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) and on the other, the Allied Powers (France, Britain, Canada, the U.S., the Soviet Union and China).

1943 sketch by Franklin Roosevelt of the UN original three branches: The Four Policemen, an executive branch, and an international assembly of forty UN member states (Licensed under the Public Domain)

The immediate cause of WWI was the German military invasion of neighboring Poland, on September 1, 1939. Britain and France then both declared war against Germany, on September 3, 1939, in accordance with the defense treaties that they had signed with Poland.

However, historians have placed a lot of the blame for WWI on the failure of the League of Nations to prevent regional wars. They single out the Treaty of Versailles of June 1919, which imposed the payment of severe war reparations on Germany (the Weimar Republic) and on its economy, besides depriving Germany of several territories along with other exactions. Such a a severe humiliation of an entire nation, in turn, promoted the rise of the Nazi movement and of militarism in Germany, but also in Italy and in Japan.

The creation of the United Nations on June 26, 1945, in San Francisco, represents an attempt to ban wars of aggression, after the failure of the League of Nations. Indeed, the United Nations Charter states that its main purpose is to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”.

Even though the U.N. Charter makes wars of aggression illegal, powerful states nevertheless continue to engage in wars of aggression against other less powerful nations, under different pretexts, claiming that their violent aggression is ‘necessary’, while resorting to an abusive interpretation of the Self-defense article 51.

That is why it can be said that the post-Second World War era has not left the world in a better position today for avoiding wars of aggression, than during the pre-World War I period. “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

• Geopolitical factors and the danger of military alliances

The Cold War I (1945-1991)

During WWII, the United States and the Soviet Union were allies. However, once the war ended, they engaged in building two powerful opposing ‘defensive’ military alliances.

On the one hand, in 1949, the U.S. government was instrumental in creating The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a ‘defensive’ military alliance initially regrouping 12 countries (the United States and Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom). Presently, it has 30 members, with a number of countries waiting to join (Sweden, Finland and Ukraine).

Its official objective was to provide a counterweight to Soviet armies stationed in central and Eastern Europe after World War II.

NATO’s Article 5 stipulates that:

“an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.“

On the other hand, the Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact military alliance in 1955, in order to counterbalance the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It had 8 Eastern European member states: the Soviet Union (USSR), Albania, Poland, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria.

The founding treaty of the ‘defensive’ Warsaw Pact called on the member states to come to the defense of any member attacked by an outside force, and it set up a unified military command.

During more than three decades, these two opposing ‘defensive’ military alliances, a Western bloc and an Eastern bloc, served as counterweight to one another through the establishment of a balance of power in Europe.

However, the East European Warsaw Pact was officially disbanded in 1991, when the Soviet Union went through a severe political crisis and disintegrated, on December 25, 1991, being replaced by the Russian federation and 15 new states. That ended the thirty-six year Cold War.

Such an event left the Western bloc alliance, NATO, without a potential enemy to counterbalance.

The U.S. government, under President George H.W. Bush (1924-2018), as the promoter of NATO, then had two choices: either to dismantle the Western military alliance or to reorient its purpose and develop new missions.

The choice was made not to dismantle NATO, in order to maintain American influence in Europe.

Such a decision was not exempt from raising many misgivings on the part of the Russian government, which feared to be placed in the position of facing a potentially belligerent NATO. In order to allay such fears, the U.S. administration of George H.W. Bush gave assurances, through the Secretary of State James Baker (and representatives of other Western governments did the same) that NATO “would not expand into Eastern Europe” and therefore, would not pose a military threat to Russia.

As a counterpart, the Russian government was expected to go along with the reunification of East Germany (the German Democratic Republic) and West Germany (the German Federal Republic) into a single sovereign state, within the NATO alliance.

However, things changed in 1994 and even more so in 1999.

Cold War II (1999- )

Indeed, during the 1994-1996 period, under pressure from the Republican Party, but also influenced by neoconservatives in favor of a unilateral neo-imperialist foreign policy, President Bill Clinton made speeches indicating that his administration would not respect anymore the assurances given to Russia by the H.W. Bush administration, i.e. that NATO would not expand “one inch Eastward”.

His administration had been convinced by neoconservative advisors that the U.S. government should take advantage of the extreme economic weakness of Russia to encircle the latter militarily.

In October 1996, President Clinton made it official that NATO enlargement was part of his foreign policy when he openly called for former Warsaw Pact countries and post-Soviet republics to join NATO. This was implemented, beginning in March 1999, when three East European countries (Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic) officially joined NATO.

In March 1999, the Clinton administration went one step further. It sidestepped the United Nations Charter, which forbids acts of aggression, and instead relied on the cover of NATO to initiate an aerial bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, against Serbian military targets. On that date, the U.S. government rendered the United Nations de facto impotent to prevent or stop wars of aggression. Since then, the U.S. government has relied on the NATO substitute to justify its military interventions abroad.

• Pretexts, provocations, lies and other deceptive tactics are commonly used to initiate war

There are panoply of indirect possibilities and treacherous strategies to initiate interstate warfare, besides directly bombing a country or sending armies to invade a foreign country.

For instance, a nation with warlike intentions can use provocations and threats as a prelude to war, or to incite an enemy to retaliate; an aggressor may also try to disrupt and destabilize a country by simulating a military attack through war games and covert operations. The recourse to a false flag operation (when a country commits an act of war and blames another country for it) has often been employed.

Another trick to hurt an unfriendly country is to resort to a proxy war (i.e. a war waged by a client-state against a targeted enemy, but being financed and armed by a major third party instigator). A mixture of a proxy war and a false flag operation can then be part of a plan to enlarge a conflict into an open war.

A war plan on the part of an aggressor can go as far as sabotaging the installations of a foreign country for military or political motives, through covert operations. An aggressor can also impose a siege on a victimized nation without any formal declaration of war.

One tactic commonly used to start a war is to denigrate and demonize an adversary, through lies and deceptive propaganda about that country’s armaments or real intention.

Another way to push a targeted country to war is to impose trade embargoes of some essential commodity that it must import, such as oil. Indeed, the unilateral imposition of economic and financial sanctions against a country, in order to hurt its economy, is another hostile act that could result in a war.

That is why it is so arduous to prevent a war only through legal and diplomatic means, or through mediation, when a powerful nation is bent on going to war against another country.

Neither the League of Nations nor the United Nations made it illegal for a warlike nation to provoke a war through indirect means.

This is an indication of how complex and difficult it remains to make the curse of wars of aggression a truly obsolete event. Nevertheless, wars of aggression, now with the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons, must be prevented, if humanity is to survive on this planet.

Finally, a not too cheery fact: A recent study has concluded that democracies are more likely to start wars than autocratic regimes.

Conclusion

Currently, the international political and legal framework to prevent or to end war is in shambles. The United Nations has been sidelined and its authority as an arbiter of military conflicts, as stipulated in the U.N. Charter, has been undermined and replaced with a comeback of more or less arbitrary raw power politics.

Like in a not so glorious past, military alliances have been reconstituted and the reliance on a new “Balance of Power” is again the only bulwark against a worldwide military conflagration.

A more civilized world would free itself of the trap of atavistic military alliances, a proven historical recipe for permanent wars, high public indebtedness and persistent inflation. Wars of aggression and proxy wars should be eliminated as a barbarous human institution, once and for all.

 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book about morals “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book about geopolitics “The New American Empire“, and the recent book, in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image: A U.S. Navy Lockheed SP-2H Neptune (BuNo 140986) of patrol squadron VP-18 Flying Phantoms flying over a Soviet freighter. The freighter is most probably the Okhotsk, which left the port at Nuevita carrying 12 IL-28 airplanes on 5 December 1962 (Licensed under the Public Domain)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Important article first published on October 11 2022

***

“We are not threatening anyone.… We have made it clear that any further NATO movement to the east is unacceptable. There’s nothing unclear about this. We aren’t deploying our missiles to the border of the United States, but the United States IS deploying their missiles to the porch of our house. Are we asking too much? We’re just asking that they not deploy their attack-systems to our home…. What is so hard to understand about that?” Russian President Vladimir Putin,

YouTube, Start at :48 seconds

Imagine if the Mexican army started bombarding American ex-pats living in Mexico with heavy artillery-rounds killing thousands and leaving thousands more wounded. What do you think Joe Biden would do?

Would he brush it off like a big nothing-burger and move on or would he threaten the Mexican government with a military invasion that would obliterate the Mexican Army, level their biggest cities, and send the government running for cover?

Which of these two options do you think Biden would choose?

There’s no doubt what Biden would do nor is there any question what the 45 presidents who preceded him would do. No US leader would ever stand by and do nothing while thousands of Americans were savagely slaughtered by a foreign government. That just wouldn’t happen. They’d all respond quickly and forcefully.

But if that’s true, then why isn’t the same standard applied to Russia? Isn’t the situation in Ukraine nearly identical?

It is nearly identical, only the situation in Ukraine is worse, much worse. And if we stretch our analogy a bit, you’ll see why:

Let’s say, the US Intelligence agencies discovered that the Mexican government was not acting alone, but was being directed to kill and maim American ex-pats on orders from the Chinese Communist government in Beijing. Can you imagine that?

And the reason the Chinese government wants to kill Americans in Mexico is because they want to lure the US into a long and costly war that will “weaken” the US and pave way for its ultimate splintering into many pieces that China can control and exploit. Does any of this sound familiar? (Check out the Rand Strategy for weakening Russia here)

So, let’s say, the Chinese are actually the driving force behind the war in Mexico. Let’s say, they toppled the Mexican government years earlier and installed their own puppet regime to do their bidding. Then they armed and trained vast numbers of troops to fight the Americans. They supplied these warriors with cutting-edge weapons and technology, logistical support, satellite and communications assistance, tanks, armored vehicles, anti-ship missiles, and state-of-the-art artillery units all of which were provided with one goal in mind; to crush America in a proxy war that was concocted, controlled and micro-managed from the Chinese Capital of Beijing

Is such a scenario possible?

It is possible, in fact, this very same scenario is playing out right now in the Ukraine, only the perpetrator of the hostilities is the United States not China, and the target of this malign strategy is Russia not the US. Surprisingly, the Biden administration isn’t even trying to hide what they’re up-to anymore. They’re openly arming, training, funding, and directing Ukrainian troops to prosecute a war aimed at killing Russian soldiers and removing Putin from power. That’s the objective and everyone knows it.

And the whole campaign is based on the sketchy claim that Russia is guilty of “unprovoked aggression”. That’s the whole deal in a nutshell. The moral justification for the war rests on the unverified assumption that Russia committed a criminal offense and broke international law by invading Ukraine. But, did they?

Let’s see if that assumption is correct or if it’s just another fake claim by a dissembling media that never stops tweaking the narrative to build the case for war.

First of all, answer this one question related to the analogy above: If the US deployed troops to Mexico to protect American expats from being bombarded by the Mexican army, would you regard that deployment as an ‘unprovoked aggression’ or a rescue mission?

Rescue mission, right? Because the primary intention was to save lives not seize the territory of another sovereign country.

Well, that’s what Putin was doing when he sent his tanks into Ukraine. He was trying stop the killing of civilians living in the Donbas whose only fault was that they were ethnic Russians committed to their own culture and traditions. Is that a crime?

Take a look at this map.

This map is the key to understanding how the war in Ukraine started. It tells us who did the provoking and who was being provoked. It tells us who was dropping the bombs and who was getting bombed. It tells us who was causing the trouble and who was being blamed for the trouble-making. The map tells us everything we need to know.

Can you see the yellow dots? Those dots represent the artillery strikes that were documented in daily summaries by “observers of the Organization for Security and Co-operation (OSCE), positioned at the frontlines.” The vast majority of the strikes were in the area inhabited by Russian-speaking people who have been under military siege for the last 8 years. (14,000 ethnic Russians have been killed in the fighting since 2014.) The Minsk Agreements were drawn up to resolve the issues between the warring parties and end the hostilities, but the government in Kiev refused to implement the agreement. In fact, the former President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, even admitted that the treaty was just a vehicle for buying time until another full-scale offensive on the Donbas could be launched.

In short, the Ukrainian government never had any intention of reaching a peaceful settlement with leaders of the Donbas. Their goal was to intensify the conflict in order to provoke Russia and draw them into a protracted war that would exhaust their resources and collapse their economy. The long-range objective was to remove Putin from office and replace him with a Washington-backed stooge that would do as he was told. US officials– including Joe Biden- have even admitted that their plan involved regime change in Moscow. We should take them at their word.

The map provides a visual account of the events leading up the Russian invasion. It cuts through the lies and identifies the true origins of the war which can be traced back to the heavy artillery strikes launched by the Ukrainian Army more than a week before the Russian invasion. (February 24) The massive shelling was aimed at the Russian-speaking people living in an area in east Ukraine. These are the people who were being bombarded by their fellow Ukrainians.

What Really Happened?

On February 16—a full 8 days before the Russian invasion—the shelling of the Donbas increased dramatically and steadily intensified for the next week “to over 2,000 per day on February 22.” As we said, these blasts were logged in daily summaries by observers of the OSCE who were on the frontlines. Think about that for a minute. In other words, these are eyewitness accounts by trained professionals who collected documented evidence of the Ukrainian Army’s massive bombardment of areas inhabited by their own people.

Would this evidence hold up in a court of law if a case against the Ukrainian government was ever presented before an international tribunal trying to assign accountability for the hostilities?

We think it would. We think the evidence is rock-solid. In fact, we have not read or heard of even one analyst who has challenged this vast catalogue of documented evidence. Instead, the media simply pretends the proof doesn’t exist. They have simply swept the evidence under the rug or vanished it from their coverage altogether in order to shape a Washington-centric version of events that completely ignores the historical record. But facts are facts. And the facts don’t change because the media fails to report them. And what the facts suggest is that the war in Ukraine is a Washington-concocted war no different than Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. Once again, Uncle Sam’s bloody fingerprints are all over this sorry affair.

Check out this summary of ceasefire violations posted on podcast host Martyr Made’s twitter account:

Martyr Made @martyrmade

On Feb 15, the OSCE recorded 41 ceasefire violations as Kiev’s forces began shelling Donbas.
Feb 16: 76 violations
Feb 17: 316
Feb 18: 654
Feb 19: 1,413
Feb 20-21: 2,026
Feb 22: 1,484
…virtually all by the Kiev side. Feb 24: Russian forces intervene

Notice how the shelling of the Donbas increased every day before the invasion?

I’d call that a thoroughly-calculated provocation, wouldn’t you?

Why does this matter?

It matters because the vast majority of people have been hoodwinked into supporting a war for which there is no moral justification. This is not a case of “unprovoked aggression”. Not even close. And Putin is not an out-of-control tyrant bent on reconstituting the Soviet Empire by terrorizing his neighbors and seizing their territory. That is a complete fabrication based on nothing but speculation. In Putin’s own words, he invaded Ukraine because he had no choice. His own people were being ruthlessly exterminated by an army that acts on Washington’s orders alone. He had to invade, there was no other option. Putin felt a moral obligation to defend the ethnic Russians in Ukraine who could not defend themselves. Is that aggression? Here’s a bit more background from an article at The Intercept by James Risen:

Despite staging a massive military buildup on his country’s border with Ukraine for nearly a year, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not make a final decision to invade until just before he launched the attack in February, according to senior current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

In December, the CIA issued classified reports concluding that Putin hadn’t yet committed to an invasion, according to the current and former officials. In January, even as the Russian military was starting to take the logistical steps necessary to move its troops into Ukraine, U.S. intelligence again issued classified reporting maintaining that Putin had still not resolved to actually launch an attack, the officials said.

It wasn’t until February that the agency and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community became convinced that Putin would invade, the senior official added. With few other options available at the last minute to try to stop Putin, President Joe Biden took the unusual step of making the intelligence public, in what amounted to a form of information warfare against the Russian leader. He also warned that Putin was planning to try to fabricate a pretext for invasion, including by making false claims that Ukrainian forces had attacked civilians in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, which is controlled by pro-Russian separatists. The preemptive use of intelligence by Biden revealed “a new understanding … that the information space may be among the most consequential terrain Putin is contesting,” observed Jessica Brandt of the Brookings Institution.”

Biden’s warning on February 18 that the invasion would happen within the week turned out to be accurate. In the early hours of February 24, Russian troops moved south into Ukraine from Belarus and across Russia’s borders into Kharkiv, the Donbas region, and Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.” (“U.S. Intelligence Says Putin Made a Last-Minute Decision to Invade Ukraine”,James Risen, The Intercept)

There’s so much baloney in this excerpt, it’s hard to know where to begin. But just review the timeline we provided earlier; a timeline that has been verified by officials from the OSCE. Can you see the discrepancy?

Biden issued his warning on February 18; that’s two days after monitors from the OSCE reported an intensification of the bombing in the Donbas. In other words, Biden already knew that his buddies in the Ukrainian army were bombing the shit out of east Ukraine when he tried to make it look like he was privy to some sensitive, insider information about the upcoming invasion.

Of course, he knew Putin was going to invade! They created the provocation that forced him to invade! They were bombing the hell out of the people Putin is obliged to protect. What else could he do? Any leader worth his salt would have done same thing.

What bothers me is that people continue support the war in Ukraine because they have no idea of what actually happened in the lead-up to the invasion.They know nothing about the relentless bombing of civilians, or the defiant rejection of Minsk or the repeated military attacks on the Donbas,or the or the plan to retake Crimea through force of arms. or the laws directed against ethnic Russians, or the rise of Nazi fascism in Kiev. They know nothing about any of these things. Their views on Ukraine are entirely shaped by the rubbish they read in the western media or hear on the cable news channels where the deluge of propaganda issues like a mighty river pulling the population inexorably towards another vicious neocon bloodbath.

People must know the truth or this war will escalate into something far worse.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from The Unz Review

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on March 7, 2023

***

It is generally observed that imperial powers like the United States frequently interfere in foreign governments in support of economic or hard political reasons. To be sure, Washington has refined the process so it can plausibly deny that it is interfering at all, that the change is spontaneous and comes from the people and institutions in the country that is being targeted for change. One recalls how handing out cookies in Maidan Square in Kiev served as an incentive wrapped around a publicity stunt to bring about regime change in Ukraine in 2014 when Senator John McCain and the State Department’s Victoria Nuland were featured performers in a $5 billion investment by the US government to topple the friendly-to-Russia regime of President Viktor Yanukovych. Of course, change for the sake of a short-term objective might not always be the best way to go and one might suggest that the success in bringing in a new government acceptable to Nuland has not really turned out that well for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, nor for those Americans who understand that the Biden Administration’s pledge to arm Ukraine and stay in the fight against Russia “as long as it takes” just might not be very good for the United States either.

And the United States continues to be at it, meddling in what was once regarded as something like a war crime, though it now prefers to conceal what it is up to by preaching “democracy” and wrapping the message in “woke-ish progressivism” at every opportunity. An interesting recent trip by a senior government official that was not reported in the mainstream media suggests that the game is still afoot in Eastern Europe. The early February visitor was Samantha Power, currently head of USAID, and a familiar figure from the Barack Obama Administration, where she served as Ambassador to the United Nations and was a dedicated liberal interventionist involved in the Libya debacle as well as various other wars started by that estimable Nobel Peace Prize recipient after he had received his award. The Obama attack on Syria has been sustained until this day, with several American military bases continuing to function on Syrian territory, stealing the country’s oil and agricultural produce.

USAID was founded in 1961 and it was intended to serve as a vehicle for nurturing democratic government and associated civic institutions among nations that had little or no experience in popular government. That role has become less relevant as nation states have evolved and the organization itself has responded by becoming more assertive in its role, pushing policies that have coincided with US foreign policy objectives. This has led some host nations to close down USAID offices. Within the US government itself, participants in foreign policy formulation often observe that USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) now are largely in the business of doing what the CIA used to do, i.e. interfering in local politics by supporting opposition parties and other dissident or even terrorist groups. Both organizations were very active in Ukraine in 2014 and served as conduits for money transfers to the opposition parties and those who were hostile to Russia’s influence for “democracy building.”

Samantha Power, who is married to another Democratic Party affiliated power broker, lawyer Cass Sunstein, traveled to Hungary on her diplomatic passport but took pains to cover her travel as a routine bureaucratic visit to an overseas post. Hungary is undeniably a democracy, is a member of the European Union, and also of NATO, but Power reportedly did not clear the travel with the Hungarian government and apparently did not meet with any government officials, even as a courtesy. She tweeted that her visit was to reestablish USAID in the Hungarian capital, “Great to be here in Budapest with @USAmbHungary where @USAID just relaunched new, locally-driven initiatives to help independent media thrive and reach new audiences, take on corruption and increase civic engagement.”

By “independent media” Power clearly meant that the US will be directly supporting opposition press that is anti-government and which embraces the globalist-progressive view currently favored by the White House. A US Embassy press release on the visit revealed that Power was in town as part of a project to relaunch seven USAID programs throughout Eastern Europe. It did not elaborate on the “corruption” that Power intended to address, which, of course, would have been a direct insult to the local governments wherever she intended to visit, nor did the document reveal that many of the groups that will be supported are likely to be affiliated with “globalist” George Soros.

In Budapest, Samantha Power did indeed meet with opposition political figures and civil organizations and groups, with particular emphasis on the homosexual community including “Joined @divaDgiV, @andraslederer, and @viki radvanyi for lunch in Budapest where we spoke about their work to advocate for LGBTQI+ rights and dignity in Hungary and around the world @budapestpride” as described in one of her tweeted messages after arrival. Power was also accompanied throughout by the highly controversial US Ambassador David Pressman, who is openly homosexual, of course, married to a man, and who has been highly critical of the conservative Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government, which was reelected in 2022 by a landslide margin in a vote that was considered free and fair. Orban is disliked by Joe Biden’s Washington because he is conservative and a nationalist, not because he is incompetent or dishonest while Pressman was and is a perfect example of the Biden State Department sending a terrible fit as ambassador to an extremely conservative country just to make points with the gay community in the US. Pressman has persisted in telling Hungarians how to behave not only on foreign policy but also on sexual diversity and cultural issues and, for his efforts, was finally told to “shut up” by Hungary’s Foreign Minister.

To be sure, Hungary’s undeniably democratic government, which is politically and economically tied to Washington, does not support the United States-led strategy to prolong and even escalate the Russia-Ukraine war and will not contribute to arming Ukraine. It does not accept “globalist” open immigration that seeks to challenge the established national culture, and also opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds. It does not allow LGBTQ material to be presented to minors in state schools, which it considers to be morally correct anti-pedophilia legislation. For that reason, the time was clearly right, in the “woke” view of the Biden Administration, for Samantha Power to show up with a little dose of regime change in her portfolio. Hungarian officials had already expressed their concern over what they consider extreme pressure coming from the United States, largely because Hungary is a conservative country that values its culture and political independence. The visit by Power sent a signal to the Hungarian government and people that the pressure will likely increase and that Washington will not hesitate to use its embassies and overseas military bases to actively support groups that promote views that are not generally embraced by the local populations.

The Samantha Power story is of interest, to be sure, because it demonstrates that since the United States is the self-appointed enforcer of the “rules based international order” nothing in the world is off limits. Far too many US politicians and media pundits think that other states are not really sovereign and have to submit to US dictates in everything, and if they dare to step out of line they can be punished. If a conservative Christian country or leader – by which one might include Hungary, Russia or Brazil – believes that homosexuality or even abortion on demand are morally objectionable the US now believes that it has a mandate to use federal government resources to change that perception including by actively engaging with a foreign nation and its government on its own soil. To put it bluntly, the United States must certainly be considered the world leader in compelling all nations to conform to the political and moral values that it insists be adhered to.

So if one wants to learn why US Foreign Policy is so inept in terms of actually serving the interests of the American people, look no farther than was has happened and continues to roil in Ukraine as well as the implications of the Samantha Power visit to Hungary. For Foreign Service Posts, providing support for the agendas of the collection of freak shows that make up the Democratic Party has become manifestly as or even more important than promoting genuine national interests overseas or assisting American businesses and travelers.

What is perhaps most interesting is the way the “woke” foreign policy is being largely concealed from the American public and is being run as some kind of stealth operation. One initiative run by USAID in Macedonia in 2016 under President Obama included a $300,000 grant for “suitable” Macedonian applicants to “fund” a program entitled “LGBTI Inclusion” to counter how “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons continue to suffer discrimination and homophobic media content, both online and offline… Considerable efforts are still needed to raise awareness of and respect for diversity within society and to counter intolerance.” How many American taxpayers would be happy to learn that their hard-earned money has been going to support programs run in nonconsenting foreign democracies to make them more “woke?” Of course, no one in the Biden Administration is telling the public about it, nor is the story likely to appear in the mainstream media, so presumably no one will know!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Did the US Department of Defense, NATO, and the EU coordinate a military response, employing tactics like 5th Generation Warfare and military-grade tools to hide the truth behind the release of a US DoD synthetic bioweapon into the European member states under the banner of “COVID-19 vaccines”?

Operation Warp Speed was a centralized military-controlled response to the COVID-19 pandemic, so why think for one moment that the EU response to this very questionable public health emergency wasn’t treated as a trans-border CBRN defense/security threat to the EU?

By looking into the regulatory processes that have applied for the Conditional Marketing Approval (CMA) which was necessary for the deployment of the so-called COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ on European soil, we hope to detect anomalies and perhaps even wilful misconduct carried out by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the European Commission (EC).

The aim of this two parts series is to identify patterns within the EU COVID-19 pandemic response that match those observed during Operation Warp Speed in the US. 

We will establish if the European Commission (EC) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European regulator had pre-knowledge of the US DOD plan to unleash an experimental biodefense countermeasure, with the help of NATO, into the European population with perhaps as researcher Sasha Latypova would have said, “an intent to harm“.

Was the EU and NATO’s answer to the COVID-19 pandemic a military response, and if so, what does it look like? We need to ask:

• What was France’s military response to COVID-19?
• What was Germany’s military response to COVID-19?
• What was Italy’s military response to COVID-19?
• What was Spain’s military response to COVID-19?
• What was NATO military response to the COVID-19
• What was The EU Military response to the COVID-19

The technology known as Synthetic Biology has been at the forefront of the US Department of Defense R&D’s investment with agencies such as DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office and InQTel at the helm amongst many other actors from the academic world.

We have already identified Moderna and Pfizer as the US government’s (USG) biodefense (biowarfare) top partners, so the question is: what were they working on since 2013, and is it possible these so-called mRNA COVID-19 vaccines came out of the same program?

Following our investigation and the disturbing information we were able to gather regarding the development of unsafe medical countermeasures by the US Department of Defense (thanks to Sasha Latypova’s work), we decided in 2022 to launch an investigation in Europe to see how much the European Commission and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) actually knew about the history behind the development and manufacturing of the COVID-19 vaccines.

With the help of Big Pharma, military biodefense countermeasures were developed, marketed, and deployed around the world under the pretext of a highly debatable ‘public health emergency of international concern’ declared by the WHO at the end of Jan 2020.

After more than two and half years of tracking this operation, we began to see a much clearer picture emerge from behind the fog of 5^th Generation Warfare (5GW) and the domination of the global information space and public perception (previously falling under the heading of propaganda operations). What has emerged is a joint government-media-military effort that has relentlessly censured scientists and true journalists around the world, whilst shielding the public from the truth. The recent revelations from the Twitter Files by journalist Matt Taibbi and others, clearly show the US government-led component of controlling speech and information across major social media platforms. But there is more.

What do we know so far in a nutshell?

Read the document here.

What has been reported so far about the Covid-19 injections?

• mRNA ‘vaccine’ material does not stay at the injection site, but instead can travel throughout the body and accumulate in various organs,
• If the Pharma industry’s claims about the mRNA technology are correct, then the COVID vaccines may induce long-lasting expression of the “SARS-CoV-2 spike protein” in many organs,
• mRNA vaccine-induced expression of the toxic ‘spike protein’ could induce autoimmune-like inflammation,
• and vaccine-induced inflammation triggered by injection contents, including Lipid Nanoparticles (LNP), cause grave organ damage, especially in vessels, sometimes with deadly outcomes.

Vascular and organ damage are clearly induced by mRNA vaccines, and here is additional scientific proof of causality.

Why were studies such as immuno-histochemistry never conducted nor requested by government regulators to detect either the widespread expression of ‘spike protein’ or reactions to LNPs in animal trials during preclinical development?

This question burdens the minds of people like Prof. Arne Burkhardt, a very experienced pathologist from Reutlingen, Germany, who heavily contributed to this August 2022 article published on the Doctors for COVID Ethics website.  With the help of his colleague Prof. Walter Lang, Prof. Burkhardt has studied numerous cases of death which occurred within days to several months after vaccination. In each of these cases, the cause of death had been certified as “natural” or “unknown.” Burkhardt became involved only because the bereaved families doubted these verdicts and sought a second opinion.

It is remarkable, therefore, that Burkhardt found not just a few, but the majority of these deaths to be due to vaccination. Clearly, something has gone terribly wrong here, and so it forces us to reflect on the central question:

“If these mRNA Covid-19 vaccines were not safe, not efficacious, not prophylactic, and were harming people (which is what a Bioweapon does) why would regulators such as FDA, MHRA, EMA, Health Canada, etc….would  grant vaccine companies marketing approval?”

Burkhardt Group Conclusions can be found here.

With this basic knowledge in hand, it has become clear that the people of Europe need to start questioning the true nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and also investigate the biodefense programs that have flourished over the years in countries like US, Georgia, Germany, Ukraine, and China just to name  a few.

The need to increase the debate regarding the safety and efficacy of these Biodefense COVID-19 ‘countermeasures’ (pandemic policy measures and ‘vaccines’) is being felt more than ever, and so part of our recent discussions with various parties was to establish the level of awareness regarding the European Commission and its regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the control they actually had over these US military bio-defense countermeasures which were granted “Conditional Marketing Approval” (CMA) characterised as “mRNA COVID-19 vaccines” by these two institutions.

Research in Genome Editing

While the Soviet Union stumbled and lesser nations mixed radical ideology with a commitment to counterbalance the West’s conventional advantage, the revolution in biotechnology accelerated.

The human genome project, genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and recombinant technologies were carrying the promise of a better life, but at the same time reminded us all that, historically, beneficial technological advancements are sometimes exploited by unscrupulous people, often driven by profits ( like big pharma). Non-biological terrorist incidents close to home have raised our awareness and concern that a new generation of corporate biological terrorists might use bacteria, viruses, toxins, or even designer agents against populations to justify the deployment of expensive covered countermeasures known to us as vaccines.

Throughout the cold war, proliferators had independently selected nearly the same list of weapons agents for tactical use on the battlefield or strategic use to be delivered by intercontinental ballistic missiles. It was a relatively small group (10-20) of agents drawn from hundreds available in nature that had physical and biological characteristics such as pathogenicity, toxicity, ease of production and stability qualifying them for aerosol dissemination.

The following quote comes from a book written by Dr. David R. Franz titled Medical Countermeasures to Biological Warfare Agents. This book is part of NATO Sciences Book series (ASDT, volume 34). Dr. Franz is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and a former Commander United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and this is what he wrote:

“To produce a true mass casualty attack the terrorist will likely have to use agents from that threat list developed and tested for biological warfare application. However, because a small non-lethal attack, or even a biological hoax, is adequate to cause panic and lead to coveted national television coverage, the modern bioterrorist probably has a much wider spectrum of agents from which to choose. However, the terrorist spectrum, while much broader, is not necessarily more lethal.”

 

Although the concept and stories surrounding the use of biological weapons are as old as King Herod, modern technology brings many new possibilities, especially with the field of synthetic biology, recent advances in gene editing technology, and so much more – it seems that the sky is no longer the limit. A US Intelligence Community report published in 2016 provided a Worldwide Threat Assessment. It was written by James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence, and technologies such as “Genome Editing” were listed in the “weapons of mass destruction” and proliferation section:

“Research in genome editing conducted by countries with different regulatory or ethical standards than those of Western countries probably increases the risk of the creation of potentially harmful biological agents or products. Given the broad distribution, low cost, and accelerated pace of development of this dual-use technology, its deliberate or unintentional misuse might lead to far-reaching economic and national security implications”.

Article by 21st Century Wire: Click here to continue reading…

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from 21CW

---

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Blue Nile, the primary contributor of water in the Nile basin, directly influences life in Sudan, Egypt, and Ethiopia, which have a combined population of more than 260 million (World Bank, 2021). This number does not include the people inhabiting the White Nile areas of South Sudan and the Central and East African Great Lakes states.

The population in eastern African countries, which includes almost all riparian countries except the DRC, will constitute almost half of Africa’s total.

With this population bulge, it is expected that consumption of water, food, energy, and other essential commodities will surge.

Trans-boundary river basins are under increasing pressure due to population growth, agricultural and industrial developments, climate change, and river pollution. Water scarcity is on the rise due to the increasing gap between demand and supply.

The Nile Water Agreements and the upstream-downstream polemics express clearly that the downstream actors are firm in their positions and political-military maneuvers that the upstream nations should stay away from any substantive use of the water resources (Yacob, 2007: 198). Scholars like Yakob and Nowrath (1920: 32-41) boldly state about the Egyptian historical attempt to control the source of the Nile waters. And they wanted to do it through war. The Egyptian leader Khedive Ismail Pasha had an extremist vision of unifying the Nile Valley countries under his leadership.

According to Yakob (2007) and Kinfe (2004), the relations among the countries of the Nile Basin have been unequal, which has been exacerbated by the actions of Britain since the late 19th century. For such reasons, an equitable share of Nile waters could not be acceptable to Egypt.

Ethiopia, which is 86% of the Nile’s water source, has indicated its interest in utilizing the Nile’s water since the 1930s (Kinfe, 2004). In the late 1920s, the Ethiopian government discussed with the American diplomatic mission the possibility of conducting a physical survey on the Blue Nile River. Upon the agreement, the US government sent a company called White Engineering, and a feasibility study was conducted. But Ethiopia lags behind by years before it can undertake any project on the Blue Nile River.

Map of the Nile River (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

Comparison of Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt 

Annual freshwater consumption (2000 est.) Ethiopia (5.56 BCM, 72 CM/capita),  Sudan (37.5 BCM, 807 CM/capita), and Egypt (68.3 BCM, 923 CM/capita).

Alternative water resources (other than the Nile): Ethiopia (some rivers, but they only account for 30% of the total), Sudan (the White Nile, huge groundwater reserves), Egypt (the White Nile, huge groundwater reserves, and sea water).

Contribution to the Nile:

Ethiopia (86%); Sudan (0%); Egypt (0%). Population 2020: Ethiopia (114,963,588), Sudan (43,849,260),Egypt(102,335,000).

Access to electricity (% in 2017):

Ethiopia (44.3), Sudan (56.5), Egypt (100).

Access to potable water (% in 2017):

Ethiopia (41), Sudan (60), and Egypt (99).

Egypt and Sudan have huge reserves of groundwater in the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS). They should learn from Libya’s great man-made river instead of sticking to their historical rights on the Nile. The NSAS is estimated to have 150,000 BCM; Libya currently uses 2.4 BCM (70% of its total consumption). If Egypt uses 10% of the reserve, they can have sufficient water for 220 years.

Water Resource Development in Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan

Egypt

Aswan Dam on the Nile in Egypt (1898–1902), the High Aswan Dam (also known as Nassir Dam) on the Nile in Egypt (1960–1970/76), El Salam diversion to the Sinai, Toshqa to the Western Valley, Hamam Canal diversion, Komombo Canal diversion in upper Egypt

Sudan

Sennar Dam on the Blue Nile in Sudan (1925), Jabal Awliya Dam on the White Nile in Sudan (1937), Khsham El Girba Dam on Atbara in Sudan (1964), Rossaries Dam on the Blue Nile in Sudan (1966, 2013), and Merowe Dam on the Blue Nile in Sudan (2009).

Ethiopia

Fincha Dam on the Abbay/Blue Nile tributary in Ethiopia (1970), Abobo Dam on the Baro-Akobo/Sobat in Ethiopia (1980s), Tekeze Dam on the Tekeze in Ethiopia (2009), Tana-Beles Diversion (2010), Chara-Chara in the 1990s, GERD on the Abbay/Blue Nile (under construction 2011–), and 33 projects anticipated (1958–64).

Egypt’s Illogical Arguments and Colonial Period Agreements on the Nile River

The 1891 Treaty of Rome (April 15, 1891) was signed in 1891 between Italy and Britain. Based on such a protocol, Italy pledged to not conduct irrigation projects on the Tekeze River.

By signing this treaty, Italy acceded to British demands and agreed to sign an article referring to the river. At the time of this pact, the Italians had already established themselves in Eritrea but not in Ethiopia. According to Tesfaye (2001), the vague phrase “sensibly modify” limits neither the utilization of the river nor the fair share of the Nile’s waters. Had the treaty even excluded the usage of the Nile water by Ethiopia, which was not the case then as it is now, it should have ceased to have any relevance after the demise of the British and Italian colonial rules in the region. The Treaty, however, exemplified the British motive in safeguarding their colonial subjects, the Egyptians, as early as this period.

The 1902 treaty was signed between Britain and Ethiopia during Emperor Menelik’s regime in Ethiopia. It was basically an agreement that states the need for British consultation on any water projects Ethiopia wants to undertake, especially on Lake Tana. The above agreement was instigated as part of a grandiose British stratagem to fully control the Nile waters.

To do this, Anglo-Egyptian forces first conquered the Sudan in 1898 and then resorted to striking a deal with independent Ethiopia by way of a treaty.

According to the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs report from September 1997, the pact, which is said to have an Amharic version that is different from the original English text, has never been ratified by both the Ethiopian and British parliaments to this date. The debatable phrase is “not to arrest the flow of Nile water.” The Egyptian negotiator at the GERD negotiation table always raised this issue. But on the ground, the real definition of the debatable phrase in that treaty means Ethiopia cannot stop the river from flowing downstream to riparian nations.

The 1906 tripartite treaty was signed among Great Britain, France, and Italy. This treaty acknowledges Ethiopian territory in the Nile basin and, in return, marks the French and Italian spheres of influence within the Ethiopian boundary (Knife, 2004; 85).

The 1929 agreement was signed between Great Britain and its former colony Egypt. By this agreement, Egypt has been given the right to take all the water, supervise the river basin, and have the British recognize its “historical” and “natural” right to the Nile’s water. The agreement went further by giving Egypt the right to veto any project on the Nile that could adversely affect its interests. But this agreement could not have any binding effect on Ethiopia for two reasons: it was a bilateral agreement and did not include Ethiopia, and it was struck by a colonial power, which makes it null and void as stipulated in the Nyerere Doctrine that was stipulated in 1961.

In the 1959 agreement, Sudan and Egypt agreed to the full utilization of the waters of the Nile. Based on the yearly runoff of the water, which is 84 BCM, they allocated 55 BCM of water for Egypt, 18.5 BCM for Sudan, and they left the remaining 10 BCM for losses due to evaporation (Nebiyu, 2013: 3-4). The 1959 Agreement created a watershed in the hydrological and environmental history of the Nile Valley in the sense that it invigorated a monopoly on the waters of the Nile by Egypt and Sudan. By implication, the agreement has literally set up a zero-sum game in the Nile Basin by ignoring the natural and legal rights of Ethiopia to the bounty of the Nile’s water resources. Ethiopia never participated in that agreement and cannot be punished by any legal means.

Is Ethiopia considered the “water tower” of the region?

It is a water-stressed country with a per capita renewable freshwater resource of about 1200 m3 per year.

Annual rainfall in Ethiopia is estimated at 848 mm (936 BCM). But because of its high spatial and temporal variability, accessible freshwater is only about 13% (124 BCM).

There are 12 major lakes in Ethiopia, which collectively store about 87 BCM of water. This amount is a little more than what the GERD will retain (74 BCM).

Groundwater potential at the national level is estimated to be in the range of 12 and 30 BCM. But more study is needed!

Groundwater is mainly used for domestic and industrial purposes. Egypt argues that Ethiopia is full of rivers and water supplies and thus should not touch the Nile.

This argument doesn’t hold water due to the following reasons: To begin with, it is not the business of any country, including Egypt, to enlist the natural resources that Ethiopia within its own territory possesses, as that will entail a breach of national territorial integrity. Ethiopia may have adequate water supplies in certain parts of the country.

However, Ethiopia has been hit by repetitive and severe droughts in the past and currently is also one of the drought-affected Horn of Africa nations if this argument is true. But the fact of the matter is that Ethiopia has been struggling to free itself from the cycle of drought, poverty, and backwardness for the last decades. This is why Ethiopia, and for that matter, the other riparian countries, are determined to exploit their natural resources, including the Nile, in order to produce adequate food for their growing populations, to light millions of their households both in urban and rural areas, to power their emerging factories and industries, and in general to enhance their economies and improve the livelihoods of their poor people. The total hydropower potential of Ethiopian rivers is only about one-sixth of Japan’s current (2014) electricity production (1,061,000 GWh/yr), but Ethiopia is only using less than 10% of it.

Importance of Building Dams in Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt 

Many scholars wrote about the values and importance of dams in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt. In 1945, a British hydro-geologist in the service of the Egyptian Ministry of Public Works, Harold Hurst, published “The Future Conservation of the Nile,” proposing dams at the outlets of the great lakes and Lake Tana in Ethiopia, which would provide reservoirs of minimal evaporation for every year, or “Century Storage.” (Erlich, 2009,  The Cross and the River, pp. 2–3). In 1958, H.A. Morrice and W.N. Allen, British experts representing the government of Sudan, proposed dams and hydro-electric stations on the Blue Nile and the Baro in their “Report on the Nile Valley Plan.” In 1964, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation published the results of a five-year study ordered by the Ethiopians, “Land and Water Resources of the Blue Nile Basin: Ethiopia,” which envisioned twenty-six projects in Ethiopia, including four dams designed to turn Lake Tana and the Abbaye gorge into the primary all-Nile reservoir and to supply electricity and irrigation for Ethiopia while significantly enlarging and regulating the amount of water flowing to Sudan and Egypt. Founded on all the above suggestions of scholars, Haggai Erlich commented, “But for such all-Nile solutions to materialize, a unified action was needed.” In other corners of the globe, around other trans-boundary rivers, such unity and cooperation have been occasionally achieved. But the mysterious Nile, since its beginning, has never experienced such human unity. Behind the failure to reach equitably shared use of the Nile River is Egypt’s sticking to historic rights and colonial period agreements. But, in reality, there is no such thing as historical right but only historical facts.

The Masks of Egypt’s Water Security Policy

Egypt’s “water security” policy is based on the Nile River obsession, an attempt to block all venues that can lead to a fair and equitable distribution of the Nile’s waters.

Whenever any basin country lays out a plan to use the Nile water in its own territory, the Egyptians have often reacted by making threats of war and conflict-laden statements.

Conversely, when they are asked to renegotiate the distribution of water in the basin, they put up conditions by saying colonial and postcolonial treaties are non-negotiable and we can discuss anything outside of these limitations. “As Egyptians, we think that the other riparian’s have real plans to utilize the waters of the Nile.”  Ethiopia already did this by launching and constructing the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD).

The current geopolitical reality in the Nile Basin cannot carry over colonial-period agreements. The Egyptian Hegemony in the Nile River Basin was time frozen.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Silabat Manaye is international relations professional based in Addis Ababa. His research interests include water politics, Horn of Africa geopolitics, and war journalism. He wrote two books focused on Nile geopolitics.

Featured image: The Blue Nile Falls fed by Lake Tana near the city of Bahir Dar, Ethiopia (Licensed under FAL)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In its response to the EU/US pressuring Serbia to accelerate, step-by-step, her recognition of unilateral and illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija, the Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals hereby recalls the following:

Priština’s unilateral secession is the outcome of NATO aggression carried out 24 years ago.

The purpose of this armed aggression was to assert dominance in the Balkans, as a part of NATO’s strategy of expanding eastwards and setting the grounds for confrontation with Russia.

 

U.S Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, 

Regional Command-East of the U.S. Army, troops from Greece, Italy, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Switzerland and Turkey.

The goal of the extended aggression, articulated as the ultimatum for Serbia to recognize Kosovo, remains the same – to formalize the wresting the Province out of Serbia by force, to pit Serbia against both Russia and China, and to get ready for the global face-off.

The armed part of the aggression ended with negotiations, and negotiations ended with the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 that, inter alia, guarantees the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) whereas for the Province of Kosovo and Metohija is foreseen substantial autonomy within Serbia (the FRY).

UN SC Resolution 1244 is a document of the highest legal authority and force within the existing global legal order, one that binds each of 193 members of the United Nations, without exceptions and without any time constraints. This legal act is still in force and no other than the UN Security Council is entitled to cancel or alter it, nor violate it by imposing any kind of a different solution. Serbia’s vital interest is that this Resolution be duly observed and fully implemented.

From its opening recital to its closing Article 11, the “EU Proposal-Agreement on the path to normalisation between Kosovo and Serbia” published on the European Union website on February 27, 2023, is but a gross violation of UN SC Resolution 1244, the principles of international law, and the Constitution of Serbia. EU’s endeavors vis-à-vis Serbia, as an old European country and a member of the United Nations and other international organizations, employing threats and extortion to compel Serbia to concede to becoming an equal in terms of rights and obligations with her own Autonomous Province, now entrusted to an interim UN mandate, makes a one-of-a-kind episode in recent history that embodies arrogant and arbitrary behaving, violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity, abuse of a UN General Assembly mandate, and setting of a precedent with a hard-to-predict consequences for peace and security in the Balkans and in Europe.

Serbia is requested to reduce own constitutionally established and internationally recognized state territory with which she became member to the United Nations, OSCE, and all other international organizations, by ceding it to a criminally superimposed creation (Articles 2 and 4).

The ‘Proposal-Agreement’ is teeming with contradictory provisions and formal symmetries, each detrimental to Serbia’s vital interests. The authors made sure to leave room for ‘Parties’ to sell victory to their respective public, each in its own way. If the ‘Proposal-Agreement’ were accepted, it is beyond any doubt that disputes would be decided by the EU/US, just as is clear that their ruling, as always before, would be to Serbia’s detriment.

The official narrative is that ‘Proposal-Agreement’ was not signed, without stating whether it was verbally endorsed or not; differing information and interpretations swirling around only cause confusion among the public. In given backdrop, the consent of all participants to negotiate the implementation of this ‘Proposal-Agreement’— one that has not been signed or confirmed as endorsed, that has not been published in any institution or official medium in Serbia — is nothing short of amazing. Such an attitude is incompatible with the fateful significance of the matter at hand.

Serbia and the Serbian people are faced with EU/US attempt of a historic hoax. The solution is not in acceptance of this hoax while citing the preserving of peace and prospects for progress and a better life as an excuse.

Any solution that is inherently unjust and imposed under threats and fraud and that serves the global confrontation, can be anything except a contributing factor to peace, development, and a better life. We must diverge from any plans or forecasts still based on theses invoking ‘end of history’ and any inducements to permanently renounce our enduring life interests for the sake of small shiny offers and benefits.

The EU has shown its true colors also back in 2013, by compelling Serbia to withdraw state institutions in the north of the Province, the police and judiciary including, for the promise of an established Community of Serbian Municipalities (the CSM). We all know what followed there, and in particular the outcome of NATO’s broken promise not to allow deployment of anyone’s long-barreled arms to the north: not only did we get long-barreled guns but also erected military camps, land grab, and full militarization in the north! Ten years on, the EU/US once again offer promises of the CSM, only this time as a package – “both implementation of the ‘EU Proposal- Agreement’ and a CSM compliant with the Constitution of the so-called Kosovo”. Suffice to say of respecting the document signed. And we may as well have a déjà vu – implementation of the ‘EU Proposal-Agreement’ only! But – we are soothed – there will be guarantees! Whose?! Of  those same ones who have previously been granting but never honoring them?!

The promises of investments and donations should Serbia renounced her state rights to a part of her state territory, at the expense of her dignity and identity, is an example of aggressiveness exerted by the revived neo-colonial and neo-racist mentality and utter hypocrisy, which we have mistakenly believed had been long ago consigned to history.

The time we live in is of historical significance. It requires Serbia to be inspired and invigorated by her greatest feats in the most grueling historical turning points, to get back to self-respecting, and to generally endorsed principles, the Constitution and UN SC Resolution 1244 as the only reliable supports. To not put up with the deviously planted mentality of subservience, dependance and powerlessness. To respect to a greater degree her own human, scientific, cultural, spiritual,

economic, geopolitical, and natural potentials. And to not negotiate the issues that restrict her sovereignty and territorial integrity in the same package with the foreign-granted benefits, and especially not for fear of losing someone’s mercy. Whatever the volume of such benefits, it will never come close to the amount of damage sustained by the criminal ‘Merciful Angel’.

In our relationship with the EU, as well, we should be guided by the principle that Serbia needs others as much as they need Serbia, instead of being guided by ‘realism’ into accepting of our own free will to succumb the inferiority complex. It is high time we took more into account and in a more responsible way, all that Serbia and the Serbian people have experienced and survived throughout history and who from, while keeping in mind that neocolonial appetites are insatiable.

In our relations with the EU and the West in general we must embed, once and forever, the feeling of what Serbia gave to Europe while sacrificing millions of human lives, whom no one has yet acknowledged and for whom no one has yet apologized. If they belittle us, if they blackmail us, this is because we belittle ourselves.

We must not rely on promises and guarantees offered by those who most often betrayed us.

BELGRADE FORUM FOR THE WORLD OF EQUALS

Belgrade, March 7, 2023

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Živadin Jovanović is President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

You can’t be neutral” in NATO’s proxy war with Russia, foreign ministers of the U.S., Germany and Ukraine told leaders of Global South countries at the Munich Security Conference on February 18. “Neutrality is not an option,” said Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, “because then you are standing on the side of the aggressor.” In January Baerbock told the Council of Europe “We are fighting a war against Russia.”

U.S. Secretary of State Blinken echoed his German counterpart, stressing “You really can’t be neutral.”

Why not? What motivates this Mafia style pressure?

“Nearly 90 percent of the World Isn’t Following Us on Ukraine,” blared a Newsweek opinion piece last September 15. “While the United States and its closest allies in Europe and Asia have imposed tough economic sanctions on Moscow, 87 percent of the world’s population has declined to follow us. Economic sanctions have united our adversaries in shared resistance. Less predictably, the outbreak of Cold War II has also led countries that were once partners or non-aligned to become increasingly multi-aligned.”

In 2002, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, George Bush Junior told western European leaders “You are either with us, or against us,” even if they didn’t believe Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction.”

“My Way or No Highway” is the title of a section of the Munich Security Report. Some Non-Aligned members felt this was a warning not to participate in China’s Belt and Road Initiative—their preferred “highway.” The section cites Chinese President Xi Jinping that “Mechanisms for countering foreign sanctions, interference, and long-arm jurisdiction will be strengthened.”

Immediately after the Munich conference, at a summit in Bengaluru, India (aka Bangalore), U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said G20 countries must condemn Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and they must adhere to U.S. sanctions against Russia. But India, the chair of the G20, demurred. Indian officials said “India is not keen to discuss or back any additional sanctions on Russia during the G20… The existing sanctions on Russia have had a negative impact on the world.”

Instead of isolating Russia, the U.S./NATO sanctions are isolating the west against the rest of the world.

‘Losing the trust of the Global South’

French President Macron said at Munich “I am struck by how much we are losing the trust of the Global South.” Macron’s “we” refers to the NATO countries, especially the G7. He added that “The west has been losing the Global South and hasn’t done enough to respond to the charge of double standards, including by not helping poor countries fast enough with Covid vaccines.” U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris observed glumly that “many countries sit on the fence.”

Colombia’s new Vice President Francia Márquez, speaking at a Munich panel on “defending the UN Charter and the Rules-Based International Order,” said “We don’t want to go on discussing who will be the winner or the loser of a war. We are all losers, and, in the end, it is humankind that loses everything.”

Namibian Prime Minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila. [Source: twitter.com]

“Our focus is on resolving the problem… not on shifting blame,” said Namibia’s Prime Minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila. “We are promoting a peaceful resolution of that conflict” in Ukraine. “The money used to buy weapons could be better utilized to promote development in Ukraine, in Africa, in Asia, in other places, in Europe itself, where many people are experiencing hardships.”

China’s Top Diplomat Weighs In

China’s top diplomat, State Counselor Wang Yi, stole the show at Munich. He told the delegates “it is imperative to return to the Minsk II agreement… as quickly as possible.” That means a ceasefire and autonomy for the Donbas, and getting NATO out of Ukraine. Wang said Minsk II “is a binding instrument negotiated by the parties concerned and endorsed by the UN Security Council.” He said “Russia and the EU both support Minsk II,” and claimed U.S. Secretary of State Blinken had expressed U.S. support “in a recent phone call.” He called for “the relevant parties [to] sit down together” to work out a roadmap and timetable for implementation of the agreement.

Wang announced China’s 12-point plan for peace in Ukraine. It calls for “abandoning the Cold War mentality, saying “All parties should… prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability” by promoting talks for peace, and “help parties to the conflict open the door to a political settlement as soon as possible.” It says “Nuclear proliferation must be prevented and nuclear crisis avoided” and concludes that “China opposes unilateral sanctions unauthorized by the UN Security Council.”

Blinken responded by changing the subject, saying China “is considering providing lethal support” to Russia, “and we’ve made very clear to them that that would cause a serious problem for us and in our relationship.” Joe Biden dismissed China’s plan: “I’ve seen nothing in the plan that would indicate there is something that would be beneficial to anyone other than Russia if the Chinese plan were followed.”

Ukraine’s President Zelensky indicated he was willing to consider aspects of the Chinese proposal, according to a February 24 Guardian report. He said he planned to meet President Xi Jinping and said it would be “useful” to both countries and global security.

Following the Munich conference Wang Yi flew to Moscow. He told Russian President Putin “our relations are always not directed at third countries and, of course, they are not subject to pressure from third parties, since we have a very strong foundation – from the economy, politics, and culture.”

On February 21, China issued its “Global Security Initiative” Concept Paper—a broad statement of principles “calling on countries to adapt to the profoundly changing international landscape in the spirit of solidarity, and address the complex and intertwined security challenges with a win-win mindset.” At its center the document says “War and sanctions are no fundamental solution to disputes; only dialogue and consultation are effective in resolving differences… Major countries must uphold justice, fulfill their due responsibilities, support consultation on an equal footing, and facilitate talks for peace.”

China’s former ambassador to the US, Qin Gang, who is now Foreign Minister, introduced the Concept Paper saying “we urge relevant countries to immediately stop adding fuel to the fire, stop blaming China and stop provoking the situation by using references like ‘Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow’.” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning, said “China issued its position paper on the political settlement of the crisis, whereas the U.S. imposed sanctions on Chinese and other foreign companies. Who is promoting peace and de-escalation, and who is fueling the tension and making the world more unstable? The answer is fairly obvious.”

‘US Hegemony and Its Perils’—China takes the gloves off

As if to clarify it doesn’t always have to be polite and diplomatic, China’s foreign ministry issued a frank and forceful document which is a detailed indictment that “the United States has acted… to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, pursue, maintain and abuse hegemony, advance subversion and infiltration, and willfully wage wars, bringing harm to the international community.”

The document traces U.S. interference in other countries from the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, including the 61-year blockade of Cuba, and a succession of “color revolutions” over the past two decades, the plot to intervene in Venezuela, attacks on UN agencies for their support of Palestine, forcing an “Indo-Pacific Strategy” with “exclusive clubs like the Five Eyes, the Quad and AUKUS, and forcing regional countries to take sides.”

“The U.S. arbitrarily passes judgment on democracy in other countries, and fabricates a false narrative of ‘democracy versus authoritarianism,’ the document says. It mentions the failed 2021 “Summit for Democracy” in Washington which “drew criticism and opposition from many countries for making a mockery of the spirit of democracy and dividing the world.” Another such summit planned for this March, “remains unwelcome and will again find no support.”

The document quotes former U.S. President Jimmy Carter that “the United States is undoubtedly the most warlike nation in the history of the world.” It cites a Tufts University report, “The Military Intervention Project: A new Dataset on U.S. Military Interventions, 1776-2019,” which says the United States undertook nearly 400 military interventions globally in those years.

Source: lewrockwell.com

“Since 2001, the wars and military operations launched by the United States in the name of fighting terrorism have claimed over 900,000 lives with some 335,000 of them civilians, injured millions, and displaced tens of millions… So far, the United States… has imposed economic sanctions on nearly 40 countries across the world, including Cuba, China, Russia, the DPRK, Iran and Venezuela, affecting nearly half of the world’s population. See partial list and map of countries and/or officials [in specific countries] sanctioned.

Source: sanctionkill.org

Source: wikipedia.org

‘The United States of America’ has turned itself into ‘the United States of Sanctions.’ And ‘long-arm jurisdiction’ has been reduced to nothing but a tool for the United States to use its means of state power to suppress economic competitors.”

Source: unitelive.org

The document concludes that “The United States must… critically examine what it has done, let go of its arrogance and prejudice, and quit its hegemonic, domineering and bullying practices.”

Anniversary Speeches: Brave Talk & Grim Realities

After a dramatic February 20 visit to Kiev, U.S. President Biden flew to Warsaw for his February 21 speech on the first anniversary of the Ukraine Conflict. He warned of “hard and bitter days ahead” as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine nears the one-year mark, but vowed that no matter what, the United States and allies “will not waver” in supporting Ukraine. “NATO will not be divided, and we will not tire,” Biden declared bravely.

However, the Washington Post’s “Today’s WorldView” reporter Ishaan Tharoor says “An Awkward tension lies beneath the West’s support for Ukraine.” He writes that “for all of the bravura on show last week, with Biden journeying to Kyiv and Warsaw, it’s still uncertain that a united West won’t blink first.”

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz privately told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky earlier… that Ukraine cannot win the war against Russia and it should begin peace talks with Moscow this year, the Wall Street Journal reported. “The public rhetoric masks deepening private doubts among politicians in the U.K., France and Germany that Ukraine will be able to expel the Russians from eastern Ukraine and Crimea…, and a belief that the West can only help sustain the war effort for so long.”

Former senior British diplomat Alastair Crooke asks ominously: “Can we imagine the U.S. throwing up its hands and conceding Russian victory?  ‘No’. NATO might disintegrate in the face of such spectacular failure. Will Biden become desperate? And, as many suspect, gamble by doubling-down into a worsening situation?” Crooke asks “Can Biden be trusted (again) to not be reckless in the wake of his erratic decision to blow up the gas lifeline of close NATO ally, Germany?  No, it’s not just one instance of recklessness (Nord Stream) at issue, but that of multiple misjudgments, giving rise to mounting Deep State anger directed at Biden, and more particularly at his close team of neocons with their immature political judgments.”

Speaking to a February 21 UN Security Council special session on Seymour Hersh’s exposé of the U.S. destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines last September, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern said “no one wants to go back 20 years to [former U.S. Secretary of State] Colin Powell’s speech before this Security Council. We all know about that.” [Powell embarrassed himself by officially lying to the UN.] McGovern commented that those U.S. government spokespeople who are smearing Hersh, “don’t have a good record for credibility.”

Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs also spoke at the Security Council session: “As the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines on 26 September 2022 constitutes an act of international terrorism and represents a threat to peace, it is the Council’s responsibility to take up the question of who might have carried out the act, help bring the perpetrator to justice, pursue compensation for the damaged parties and prevent such actions from recurring in the future.”

China’s UN Ambassador Zhang Jun testified that “Recently, we have come across a lot of… relevant information concerning the Nord Stream incident, which is alarming… Faced with such detailed materials and comprehensive evidence, a simple statement of ‘utterly false and complete fiction’ is obviously not enough to answer the many questions and concerns raised around the world. Finding a way to dodge today’s meeting does not mean that truth can be concealed. We expect convincing explanations from relevant parties. Such a request is entirely legitimate and reasonable.”

Putin: NATO’s Goal is Strategic Defeat of Russia

In Moscow, Russian President Putin delivered a remarkably philosophical—and upbeat—February 22 speech. He said “This is a time of radical, irreversible change in the entire world, of crucial historical events that will determine the future…”

Analyst Pepe Escobar, writing in The Cradle, paraphrases Putin that “Ukraine, part of Russian civilization, now happens to be occupied by western civilization, which Putin said ‘became hostile to us.’ So the acute phase of what is essentially a war by proxy of the west against Russia takes place over the body of Russian civilization.”

Escobar says Putin emphasized that “Ukraine is being used as a tool and testing ground by the west against Russia… The more long-range weapons are sent to Ukraine, the longer we have to push the threat away from our borders.”

So this war will be long—and painful, Escobar concludes. “Putin remarked on how ‘our relations with the west have degraded, and this is entirely the fault of the United States;’ how NATO’s goal is to inflict a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia.”

Escobar reports that the U.S. ambassador was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs right after Putin’s address. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov demanded a detailed explanation of the destruction of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, a halt to U.S. interference, and an independent inquiry to identify the responsible parties. He added that Washington must remove all U.S. and NATO military forces and equipment from Ukraine.

Antiwar Forces Mobilize

On February 19, thousands of people crowded the Lincoln Memorial to protest the war in Ukraine.

Photo Courtesy of Jeremy Kuzmarov

Another major anti-war mobilization is planned in Washington, DC, and other cities for March 18, on the 20th anniversary weekend of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, demanding “Peace in Ukraine—Say NO to Endless U.S. Wars” and “Fund People’s Needs, Not the War Machine.”

The call says “since 2003, the U.S. has engaged in sanctions (economic war) on more than 40 countries. These targets of U.S. economic warfare include the people of Cuba, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iran and many other nations. “Even in the wake of the worst disasters, like the recent deadly earthquake, Washington keeps its cruel sanctions in place against Syria.”

The call says the Biden administration is “determined to escalate the Ukraine war. The real goal of the massive arming and training of Ukrainian forces has nothing to do with the interests of Ukrainian, Russian or American people. The aim instead is to ‘weaken Russia’ as stated by the U.S. Secretary of Defense himself, even at the risk of a catastrophic nuclear war that could end life on Earth. It adds that “A U.S. General commanding 50,000 troops in the Pacific also issued a letter to his sub-commanders in recent days informing them that he believes that the United States will be at war with China within two years.”

Key demands include:

• Peace in Ukraine – No weapons, no money for the Ukraine War
• Abolish NATO – End U.S. militarism & sanctions!
• Fund people’s needs, not the war machine!
• No war with China!
• End U.S. aid to racist apartheid Israel!
• Fight racism & bigotry not war!
• U.S. hands off Haiti!
• End AFRICOM!

In Europe, massive protests were held during February in Berlin, Germany, over providing weapons to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Thousands took to the streets holding banners and posters saying ‘negotiate and not escalate’ and ‘not our war.’ Demonstrations also took place in London, Warsaw, Paris and other French cities such as Bordeaux, Rennes and Montpellier, and in Brussels, Belgium.

Anti-NATO protesters in Warsaw. [Source: sputniknews.com]

This is a sign of growing antiwar sentiment and disdain for U.S. policy and NATO that may soon have a significant political ripple effect.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dee Knight is a member of the DSA International Committee’s Anti-War Subcommittee. He is the author of My Whirlwind Lives: Navigating Decades of Storms, soon to be published by Guernica World Editions. Dee can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image is from popularresistence.org

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Americans should stop believing propaganda and reconsider their idea of ​​​​Washington’s world leadership, writes George D. O’Neill Jr., a member of the board of directors of the American Ideas Institute, which publishes The American Conservative.

“We are experiencing the death throes of the United States’ unipolar hegemony over large parts of the world. Until citizens begin to realise the magnitude of their government’s policy deceptions, it will become increasingly difficult to understand the United States’ changing global position and adjust to the effects of the growing negative perception of our country held by many people around the world,” wrote O’Neill Jr in his article “Death of a Myth”.

The author stressed that although the US emerged as the “dominant and unrivalled world power” after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the country became “a destabilising bully” instead of “a peacekeeper and honest ‘world’s policeman’.”

Writing about the situation in Ukraine, O’Neill Jr mocks the idea

“that the Russians would collapse from the shock and awe of the ‘sanctions from Hell’,” or how “the ruble has not turned into rubble as Joe Biden predicted.”

He adds that “the US and its NATO clients are running out of ammunition and arms to send to Ukraine, which is being bled white at their behest. It appears that Russia will steadily grind down the Ukrainian military.”

In effect, the author is providing a bleak but realistic situation in Ukraine and the global system. In fact, he is so frank with his analysis that he calls out slogans like the “exceptional nation,” a “nation that sets aside its interests for the benefit of the world,” and an “important source of good” as examples of the propaganda that American citizens are constantly exposed to.

American citizens are led to believe in the idea that US leadership on the global stage, backed by its military might, are a categorical imperative needed so its own values ​​and self-interests can be imposed all around the world. Successive military failures over the last two decades should have functioned as a self-reflective moment for not only US citizens, but especially foreign policymakers in Washington.

This did not occur because Washington continues to cling to the myth that the world needs more US military might, despite many failures. Rather than learn lessons from the humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, the US encouraged renewed conflict in Ukraine, clearly indicating that the Biden administration is just continuing Washington’s long held policy of global war and destruction.

US President Joe Biden and his administration routinely describe the Ukraine crisis in ways that suggest an old-fashioned, self-righteous, and a grandiose view of American power. Biden’s portrayal of Ukraine as a crucible for a new era of military-backed American dominance could lead to an entirely different and more disastrous reckoning.

The conflict with Ukraine has led the US to believe that it must once again take the helm of history, despite the fact that Russia does not pose a threat to the well-being of its citizens. This is precisely the kind of arrogance that has led the US astray and it is the same arrogance that their Anglo brethren had before the collapse of the British Empire in the early 20th century.

It is for this reason that O’Neill Jr stresses that “as US stature and power declines, large parts of the world have been seeking arrangements to protect themselves from US predation.”

He explains that we are entering a period, without giving it a title (such as Multipolar), where countries no longer ignore the US’ destructive behaviour and “may decide that being subject to American hegemony is not in their interests.” The author directly lists the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS as “alternative alliances outside US influence” that are seeing an “increasing numbers of countries” wanting to become members as they “believe their interests are better protected by these non-US affiliated alliances.”

O’Neill Jr highlights that the “tragic and unnecessary Ukraine war has accelerated this movement to seek other cooperative associations. As America’s European allies are learning, there can be huge political and economic costs to being associated with the US. The populations of Europe have watched their own economies suffer and paid dearly for energy because of the ten rounds of self-destructive sanctions imposed on Russia.”

For now, though, most of Europe has fallen in line with Washington’s demands. However, many experts are sceptical that Europe will want to experience another brutal winter with high energy costs that are directly attributed to their own self-destructive sanctions policy against Russia.

None-the-less, what O’Neill Jr does highlight is that regardless of Europe falling deeper into US control, there are many non-Western countries that are moving towards greater sovereignty and autonomy without fear when taking into consideration the interests of Washington, which are nothing more than self-serving. He essentially calls on American citizens to wake up from their inertia and realise that they are being fed a lie that the US is a force for good and the sole superpower in the world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A London hospital removes Palestinian children’s art because it upset some patients. Meanwhile, seemingly unassociated, far away in The West Bank and Gaza, Palestinians men, women and children are being ‘removed’ from their homes through a daily sustained process of genocidal cleansing.

So abundant are the grievances of Palestinians, so relentless the attacks on their bodies, their voices, their land and the very idea of Palestine, that any record or explanation of these erasures becomes buried behind the latest onslaught.

Crippling economic sanctions on Gazans have been underway for years. Life there is simple endurance.

Military occupation of the entire West Bank never eases; Israeli forces enter at will to raid, threaten, arrest, maraud, plunder, wound and kill. The killing of 64 Palestinians by Israeli soldiers in the first two months of this year were so ‘routine’ that outside agencies–neither politicians, nor human rights officials, nor news outlets– barely noted them.

It matters not if those targeted are children, stone throwers, armed fighters or bystanders. The February 6^th murder of five is one episode among many. Only when 11 Palestinians died on February 22^nd were the events reported in some international media outlets. Or perhaps it was the deaths of two Israelis that day which warranted outside attention? Daily incursions onto Palestinian property by settlers, the destruction of their crops, the theft of their water is as common and inexorable as assaults against individual Palestinians. The same for Israel’s demolition of Arab homes—the extrajudicial response to suspicions that a member of that household had assaulted an Israeli Jew.

Image: Soldering West Bank town of Huwara, torched by Israeli settlers

Uninhibited,—indeed they’re often protected by Israeli soldiers – Jewish settlers residing across the West Bank who now number more than five hundred thousand, attack Palestinians residing in nearby villages. With their numbers purposefully set to increase. Without a viable leadership, Palestinians have only one way to answer the encroachments, losses and killings—they protest. Whether with stones, shouts, or weapons, their actions seem as irrepressible as the expanding settlements. The death of any Israeli leads to revenge terror either by its military or by armed settlers. Until an inevitable atrocity results. Last month’s cycle of violence peaked with an hours-long massive attack by settlers against an entire Arab community, Huwara, near Nablus. That assault was nothing less than a ‘cleansing’ operation. Images of the smoldering Palestinian town evoke The Tulsa Race Massacre in Oklahoma 102 years ago.

The shocking footage of the blazing town provided barely a momentary distraction from the battles in Ukraine. Then, Palestinian losses are eclipsed with this week’s massive protests in Tel Aviv by Israelis fearing their democracy will be undermined if announced judicial reforms are carried out.

Meanwhile assaults on Palestinian identity at the intellectual and cultural level proceed unabated. To note a few recent examples, we had the rejection of human rights scholar Kenneth Roth’s appointment at Harvard’s Carr Center for his comments regarding Israel. The decision was only rescinded after a vigorous campaign supporting Roth. Not so fortunate was law professor James Cavallaro; his appointment to serve on the Biden administration’s human rights commission was cancelled last month. This in the same month that Sarah Margon, Washington Director of Human Rights Watch, who’d voiced support for boycott of Airbnb in the Occupied Territories, resigned after repeated delays to her state department appointment. Filling out the month comes an unsuccessful challenge to the anti-BDS movement in the U.S. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an Arkansas appeal means that this egregious anti-boycott law stands. Arkansas, along with 34 other states, can legally withhold government funds or appointments to any American company or institution that supports boycotting Israeli goods.

These are among the grossest denials of Palestinian rights, only a few of which come to the attention of American citizens. So what can we expect of a vibrant Gaza Children’s art exhibit in a London hospital? Last month, The Chelsea and Westminster Hospital announced it would remove a display by Palestinian children in the hospital lobby. The UK lawyers for Israel group, representing offended Jewish patients, were delighted by the hospital’s decision.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Barbara Nimri Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon. 

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

---

“Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”

By Barbara Nimri Aziz

A century ago Yogmaya and Durga Devi, two women champions of justice, emerged from a remote corner of rural Nepal to offer solutions to their nation’s social and political ills. Then they were forgotten.

Years after their demise, in 1980 veteran anthropologist Barbara Nimri Aziz first uncovered their suppressed histories in her comprehensive and accessible biographies. Revelations from her decade of research led to the resurrection of these women and their entry into contemporary Nepali consciousness.

This book captures the daring political campaigns of these rebel women; at the same time it asks us to acknowledge their impact on contemporary feminist thinking. Like many revolutionaries who were vilified in their lifetimes, we learn about the true nature of these leaders’ intelligence, sacrifices, and vision during an era of social and economic oppression in this part of Asia.

After Nepal moved from absolute monarchy to a fledgling democracy and history re-evaluated these pioneers, Dr. Aziz explores their legacies in this book.

Psychologically provocative and astonishingly moving, “Yogmaya and Durga Devi” is a seminal contribution to women’s history.

Click here to order.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Predictions are a notoriously painful exercise. In the world of geopolitics, especially during a time of seismic global transformation, they are nigh near impossible to make.

In West Asia, a depressed and neglected region that acts as a punching bag for Great Power competition elsewhere, much relies on the settlement of major power battles in the realms of economy, politics, and (proxy) war.

Rather than outright predictions, it might be more useful to characterize the trends likely to develop further in 2023. I’ve asked some of my fellow writers at The Cradle to weigh in with their own takes. But let’s first jump in with a few of my own observations for the year ahead:

The Ukraine war was the defining event of 2022, and if the conflict hadn’t unfolded there, it would have done so elsewhere. It is essentially a war to stop a multipolar future from fully unseating the unipolar past. It could have unfolded in Taiwan, Iran, the Koreas, or even Venezuela, for that matter.

In 2023, we will see clear signs of disruption in the Atlantic alliance. As things stand, Europe can no longer afford to take instruction from Washington when their fortunes and fates are so clearly at odds. Ukraine made this clear, but Europe does have a choice that its Atlanticists have frantically buried for years.

The fact is that Europe’s extreme wealth and privilege has been historically derived from Asian resources, and that will become manifestly clear in 2023. Germany wasn’t wrong to launch its Nordstream pipelines with Russia – Berlin was merely securing its future until the Americans sabotaged it.

2023 will remind Europe that its desire to remain prosperous – and continue to grow economically – is intricately linked with the east and the promise of “Eurasia.” Asia and Europe are connected by land, after all, as opposed to the vast Atlantic Ocean that separates current allies.

So expect this year to reveal the splits between various European stakeholders, and prepare for the battle of Eurasianism versus Atlanticism to play across the continent’s power corridors. You will find, at its core, that the world of commerce will be at odds with government for the first time in decades.

In and around West Asia, I have my eye on two developments that could have major repercussions on both regional and international affairs.

First is the rapidly-evolving India-Russia relationship that sprung out of nowhere last year. This new dynamic has single-handedly revitalized the BRICS and inserted itself onto the global chessboard. In Moscow, New Delhi now has a reliable and useful partner to resolve disputes with Beijing, which makes things infinitely smoother for Asian integration projects.

It also left Washington in the dust, something the US experienced in a variety of theaters in 2022, including with regional heavyweight Saudi Arabia. But India is a big catch, and this lining up of Indo-Russian interests in multiples theaters cannot be sitting well with Atlanticists anywhere.

Second, the re-emergence of Turkiye as a critical player in West and Central Asia. After nearly a decade of relative isolation stemming from myriad differences with Europe and Arab states – coupled with a collapsing economy – Turkiye is now on the rise. Russia recently offered Ankara its long-coveted ambition of becoming a major oil and gas hub to Europe, and China seeks to build a key section of its New Silk Road through Turkiye.

Facing his toughest elections to date in June 2023, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan looked like a sure loser until the Ukraine war flipped his fortunes. Overnight, the NATO state became a desired intermediary for both sides, and Erdogan didn’t miss a beat.

He is playing the game of his life right now, positioning Turkiye as a key Eurasian fuel hub for Europe, and trying to milk this regionally in Syria, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and other Turkic states of the South Caucasus. While offering resolution of conflict on one hand, Erdogan is also dangerously fueling conflict on the other.

Nowhere is this more noticeable that on the Armenia-Azerbaijani-Iran borders, where the Turkish president is aggressively advancing Ankara’s ambitions to steer Central Asia’s new transportation routes and reshape its borders.

Turkiye and Syria

Turkiye featured heavily in 2023 predictions by The Cradle writers. Yeghia Tashjian goes so far as to predict a new major war in the South Caucasus this year:

“The Azerbaijani land blockade on Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh has entered its 30th day. Russian peacekeepers are unable to lift the blockade out of concern about the Turkish reaction. Meanwhile, Baku is forcing Armenia to provide a corridor connecting Azerbaijan to Turkiye and thus cutting the Armenia-Iran border.”

While Turkiye fuels conflict in one region, it also appears to be winding down strife elsewhere. A number of writers predict a resolution of the Syria-Turkish conflict in 2023, with different degrees of confidence.

Ceyda Karan believes Erdogan to be opportunistic in his Syria plans: “It all depends on the Turkish elections,” she says, reflecting the view of several Cradle authors who also believe that all may not be smooth in the run-up to the polls.

Erdogan is working every angle to win the elections, says Mohammad Salami:

“In the international arena, he mediated between Ukraine and Russia, with no result. In the energy scene, he plans to turn Turkiye into an energy hub, but it won’t be easy. Erdogan then attempted to rebuild relations with the UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, and now, in a last ditch effort, has announced his retirement after the upcoming election.”

On a more positive note, Washington-based Ziad Hafez believes that rapprochement between Syria and Turkiye will move much faster than people expect.

“Erdogan has to provide a major political success before the elections. Whether the Syrians will give him that is hard to know. But it will be beneficial for both, and at the same time completely isolate the US position in Syria. I don’t think either NATO or regional states are in a position to derail the talks. What the Russians and Iranians have offered Turkiye cannot be matched by either the US or Europe,” Hafez writes promisingly.

But Lebanese journalist Hasan Illaik offers a reality check on the hazards of rapprochement talks, where many regional and international stakeholders have vested interests.

He predicts “the US will make every effort to prevent any improvement in Turkish-Syrian relations, even going so far as to forge ties between Turkiye and the US-backed Kurds.”

“The Syrian economic situation will worsen in 2023 because neither Russia and China are helping, Iran has already done its maximum, and the US is still occupying the resource rich areas in Syria’s northeast and slapping more sanctions on the state.”

On the highly-anticipated meeting between Erdogan and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Illaik warns that even this poses serious difficulties: “Turkiye needs to pay a price for this meeting because it has done a lot of damage to Syria and occupies its lands, but Russia is pushing for a meeting ‘for free’ – to suit its own strategic goals with Ankara.”

Palestine, the Levant, and the Persian Gulf

Regionwide, Illaik predicts that 2023 will not see much change, because “the whole Levant will be subject to continuing US hostility – sanctions, military occupation of Syria, threats, blackmail, and pressure in Lebanon and Iraq.”

Other Arab states will rush in to secure their own interests primarily. The UAE, for instance, has offered to participate in Turkish-Syrian talks “to gain some influence in post-war Syria and  balance Iran’s influence there.”

Ceyda Karan weighs in on how the global power stand-off is affecting regional behaviors: “Gulf states, even the Saudis, are sensing US weakness, so they are now establishing direct beneficial relations with China, Russia. I don’t see them continuing to remain staunch partners of the US in the region, and we will see more signs of this in 2023.”

A fairly unanimous view is that this year will see the ratcheting up of tensions in Palestine.

“Netanyahu’s rightwing government has placed Israel in a precarious position,” argues Ziad Hafez. “It can’t launch a major military offensive inside Palestine, or against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, nor is it in a position to undertake any political settlement, domestically as well as regionally. Tensions are rapidly rising in the West Bank, US Jews are no longer providing unconditional support, and the balance of power on the ground is not to Israel’s advantage.”

Hafez warns that “the far-right racism of cabinet members like (National Security Minister) Itamar Ben Gvir, will make it impossible for Israel to claim self-defense over anything. Some of these elements will try to force a major confrontation or conflict, but this will be Israel’s undoing.”

They’re ‘damned if they do and damned if they don’t’ is Israel’s predicament in a nutshell.”

Illaik says the Israelis can’t afford to look beyond their borders, as in the past:

“Inside Palestine, the atmosphere is readying for a Third Intifada, in the WestBank and Jerusalem – and perhaps even inside 1948 lands, as we witnessed in May 2021. The reason for this is that Israelis have and are continuing to weaken the Palestinian Authority (PA), are slapping on more arbitrary measures and punishments on the Palestinian people, and are trying to alter the status quo of Jerusalem’s Al Aqsa.”

He also believes that Israel will intensify its targeting of Iran, but that Hezbollah will remain its biggest actual security threat. Illaik predicts stronger Resistance Axis deterrence measures in 2023: “Iran may retaliate for Israeli sabotage and assassination operations – inside Israel – while Hezbollah will continue its project of securing more precision-guided missiles, UAVs, and maybe even Cruise missiles.”

Journalist Zafar Mehdi predicts that the current stalemate in Iran nuclear talks with world powers will continue in 2023, following a slew of fresh recent sanctions by western states linked to Iranian riots in the country and accusations of drone shipments to Russia – all basically designed to gain leverage in Vienna talks.

“Despite Iran’s readiness to restore the deal, it’s clear other parties are not interested, which will obviously prompt Tehran to further ramp up its uranium enrichment this year. Brace for more baseless claims against Iran in the coming months, and expect the UN nuclear watchdog to increase its pressure campaign against Tehran at the behest of Americans, Europeans and Israelis,” writes Mehdi.

He also expects Saudi Arabia to “come out in the open about its dalliance with Israel” this year, “especially with Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman’s friend (Netanyahu) back in power in Tel Aviv.” But Mehdi warns that this “won’t help Riyadh in Yemen, as Ansarallah continue to pummel the Saudi-led coalition forces and the US is now batting for truce between the warring sides.”

The often stalled Iran-Saudi talks, “are now reportedly set to advance to the political and diplomatic level, which may provide the breakthrough needed to wind down the Yemeni war in 2023,” particularly in the context of Riyadh’s closer ties to Moscow and Beijing, both keen to restore and maintain Persian Gulf security, but within a new regional paradigm.

The Ukraine war and multipolarism

If one solely considers outlooks on the Ukraine war, Cradle writers appear to be immune to the western narrative. For them, a Russian victory is inevitable for various reasons, but at what cost?

Ziad Hafez predicts an end to the devastating conflict by the end of Spring, largely because Ukraine’s fighting forces have been severely depleted and its western allies do not have the means to provide uninterrupted qualitative and quantitative military support. “The US industrial base is simply not equipped and ready to meet that demand,” he states blankly. That, and “Russian pressure on Putin to wrap it up and not this to become a war of attrition.”

One alternative for NATO, of course, noted by several writers, is to expand the conflict once Ukraine is clearly losing: “Drag in the Poles and the former Warsaw Pact armies.”

Karin Kneissl, Austria’s foreign minister until 2019, has her eye firmly on the energy ramifications of this war and how Europe’s institutions will be impacted:

“In the EU, further tests of strength are to be expected, which go beyond freezing of funds for (Hungarian Prime Minister) Viktor Orban. Corruption is widespread inside the EU and its institutions.”

“A massive weakening of the common currency, the euro, is to be expected. This will make the already scarce energy imports even more expensive, especially as they are still settled in US dollars. The burdens on societies will lead not only to a loss of purchasing power and recession but also to social unrest that will go beyond strikes for higher salaries and climate protests throughout Europe,” Kneissl warns.

As the global recession weighs on commodity markets and drives prices down, she believes “producers, such as those 23 producing countries of the OPEC+ format, will further reduce their production.” But because of “the lack of investment in fossil energies, now intensified in the face of recession fears, prices could also swing upwards at any time.” Which basically translates into increased volatility in the energy markets in 2023.

In the end though, Kneissl believes “we will see new banks, new lending, new currency baskets, and, no doubt, new insurance companies” emerge in the place of existing ones.

Note: This is essentially what the end of world wars looks like: the rejigging of the old order, and the creation of new global institutions and networks – with new rules and helmsmen.

The Cradle columnist Pepe Escobar, who has long forseen the global handover to multipolarism, may see every item on his predictions list ticked off in 2023. He keeps it short and sweet:

“The expansion of BRICS to BRICS+, with Algeria, Iran and Argentina in the first wave, and dozens following. They will prioritize trade in their own currencies leading to an alternative currency, that will be shared by BRICS+, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).”

Escobar further predicts the corrosion of key European institutions, including the transatlantic military alliance:  “Mirroring the internal polarization taking place in the west today, both the EU and NATO will be getting closer and closer to completely breaking up.”

The Ukraine war, he says, is a major trigger for this collapse because of the “complete humiliation of NATO,” and anticipates that “if the war continues – which it will, in hybrid war terms,” we will likely see “terror attacks against the Russian Federation.”

The problem with 2023

This isn’t going to be an easy year, anywhere. The constellation of events in the recent past – wars in Syria, Yemen, Libya; the targeting of Iran, China, Russia; the global pandemic and the securitization that ensued; the re-emergence of Salafi terrorism; widespread economic recession; failure of globalization; replacement of international law with the self-serving ‘rules-based order’ – these have all contributed to a collapse of existing systems.

Yet, if efficient actors with design are present within times of chaos, collapse needn’t be a frightening thing. It is clear the old ways were not working; here is a chance then to fix things from the ground up. But the journey will be painful.

The BRICS, SCO, BRI, EAEU are forging ahead with their programs. Relationships are strengthening (Russia-China, India-Russia, Iran-China, Saudi Arabia-China, Russia-Iran, etc). Atlanticism is being replaced not only because Atlanticists have failed, but because they’ve been treading water for decades while others have been taking quantum leaps forward.

In West Asia, the balls for 2023 are still up in the air. Turkiye, Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, India, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Brazil, Venezuela, and many other states, institutions, and decision-makers will all take significant action this year. Many moves will be made, some succeeding, others failing. Everything is hard to predict other than nothing will remain the same as we enter 2024.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from The Cradle

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“Safe and Effective”? Every parent who is fighting to protect their children from Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines should have cases like this saved in their records and ready to give to their lawyers, to health authorities, or to the Courts.

Below are 16 cases of serious adverse events in children following Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, as recorded in the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting system (VAERS).

VAERS 1406268: 13 yo boy (Nebraska)

One day after 1st dose of Pfizer he developed headaches, extreme fatigue, disconnect with reality. He stopped communicating, developed paranoia, began to have self-neglect, not caring for self or doing normal hygiene. Within days had visual and tactile hallucinations, flat affect. Began cutting himself.

VAERS 1507168: 13 yo boy (New Mexico) 

8-10 hours after 2nd Pfizer dose he became disengaged in social activity. Following days major loss of appetite and further withdrawal. Complaints of delusions, voices giving him “bad thoughts” and “bad visions”. Voices come as either “monsters” or “a little boy”. When he seems to be battling with these thoughts his eyes tend to go absent and twitches his mouth as if wanting to speak.

VAERS 1513678: 12 yo girl (New Mexico)

Patient reported having suicidal thoughts, hearing voices. Patient started self-harming after 1st dose of Pfizer. After 2nd dose of Pfizer, the self-harm got worse and she became very depressed.

VAERS 1526191: 13 yo girl (Indiana) 

Healthy 13 yo girl, headache 11 days after 2nd dose of Pfizer, fainted, had altered mental status and hallucinations. Developed orofacial dyskinesias and choreoathetoid movements (uncontrollable movements).

Couldn’t recognize family members, was intubated with autonomic instability. Was diagnosed with autoimmune encephalitis. Permanently disabled.

VAERS 1673304: 13 yo girl (Virginia) 

13 yo girl received 1st Pfizer dose. 3 days later experienced complete personality change. She began having panic attacks, couldn’t leave the house, wouldn’t go outside. She had horrible headaches every day. Overcome by scary thoughts and images. Felt like bugs are everywhere. Anxious and scared of everything that used to be easy for her. Permanently disabled.

VAERS 1826794: 12 yo boy (Foreign)

Day after 2nd dose of Pfizer, developed fever, state of unrest and suddenly acted violently. Taken to hospital in ambulance. Had memory impairment, could not remember his father’s and brother’s names, abnormal behavior and speech, was hospitalized for 3 days.

VAERS 1857960: 13 yo boy (Virginia) 

Same day after 1st Pfizer dose, had high fever, extremely elevated anxiety, nonstop worries and fears, irrational thoughts OCD thoughts and behaviours, separation anxiety, lying on couch under a blanket for hours and scared of the entire world, requiring nonstop reassurance, unable to function with virtual school or focus and had to be removed from school for the remainder of the school year, restricted eating and fears to eat , psychosis, inability to complete daily functions, severe sleep disruption and lack of sleep, challenges showering, dressing and bathing self, repetitive speech, blank stares, dilated pupils,

electric like jolts of pain sensation in his brain and head, crying and emotional, anger outbursts and aggression, tingling in all of his limbs, tics and other neurological symptoms, need for significant medical treatment from three specialists/ doctors including neurology/ immunology/ pediatrician and ER visit and many labs for the last five months plus. Needed to have significant special education support and IEP in place upon return from school and 1:1 case manager and much assistance from staff to function daily.

VAERS 1909455: 7 yo girl (Minnesota) 

8 hours after 1st dose of Pfizer, she developed fever, chills, headache. Developed auditory hallucinations which have persisted intermittently since then. Persistent, tension type headaches also persisting.

VAERS 1980939: 11 yo boy (Florida) 

On same day after 2nd dose of Pfizer, he developed severe headache, fever, sleepwalked. At one point he believed he was possessed, was hallucinating and wanted to jump out the window.

VAERS 1995385: 9 yo girl (California) 

One day after 2nd Pfizer dose, she awoke with auditory hallucinations that repeated multiple times, extreme abdominal pains, threw up 3 times. Dry heaving for 12 hours nonstop.

VAERS 2018697: 9 yo boy (New Jersey) 

One day after 1st Pfizer dose, he had a severe headache for 2 days. Could barely speak, not really talking and not really responding. Had hallucinations and Alice in Wonderland Syndrome. Everything looked small. Has not fully recovered.

VAERS 2035795: 7 yo boy (Georgia)

One day after 1st dose of Pfizer, he had fever, started to hallucinate at night, thought his dad wanted to kill him, was screaming, started to vomit. Had more hallucinations following days, saw everything very big and that he could touch the ceiling.

Mood swings from excited and talking fast to talking really slow, slurred speech, photophobia. Mother will not allow another vaccine dose.

VAERS 2043532: 12 yo boy (Washington)

Got 3rd dose of Pfizer, next day he had 5 min episodes of hallucinations in which he says and does things that do not make sense. At 1am woke up, extremely agitated, yelling, screaming, crying, heart racing, started saying he was going to die or needed to die. He is not lucid.

When asked questions he does not make sense or does not know basic information such as his age or birthdate. He walked to the banister from his room on the 2nd story and began climbing over the edge. My husband grabbed him and took him to his bed holding him down and asking him to count to 10. He slowly begins to calm and all of a sudden becomes lucid again and starts making sense. He has no memory if his actions during the hallucinations.

He began having a 2nd hallucination. He enters he hallways and began yelling at his brother as if he was there, but his brother was in his room sleeping. He ran downstairs to my bedroom and started yelling he was going to die. I walked him back upstairs and he told my husband to kill him. When we asked him what he did that day he said he jumped over the edge and jumped off a cliff. He then began answering questions correctly and became lucid again. He had no memory of the episode.

VAERS 2105455: 13 yo boy (Maryland)

After 3rd dose of Pfizer, he developed strong night terrors, hallucinations, sleep walking – started the night of vaccination and has continued every few nights since the shot. Usually lasts about 20 minutes.

VAERS 2163473: 8 yo girl (Virginia) 

40 days after 1st Pfizer dose, girl changed mentally. Appears to have seizure but it’s not a seizure. She cannot respond during these episodes and began to see and hear things that aren’t there. Happens over and over, has 5 emergency visits.

A month later she is still undiagnosed and having memory loss, regression, delirium in waves. Unaware of age, year of birth, season, counting 1 to 10. Before 1st Pfizer dose, she had no neurological troubles, she was a straight A student who was bright and happy. She has lost memory and regressed. Woke up a different person who became unable to be touched or consoled. Permanently disabled.

VAERS 2187799: 10 yo boy (New Jersey) 

44 days after 1st dose of Pfizer, he starts having what has become an almost daily “episode” that would be described as a panic attack with hallucinations. He becomes very disoriented, stating that images appear and words sound very fast to him. After episode is over, he is able to articulate what he experienced. This is completely out of character for him, he is very social, good student and athlete.

My take… 

It is important to remember that only a very small fraction of events like these make it to the VAERS database, so this is only a small sampling of what is happening in the real world. This is not a pharmaceutical product I would call “safe”.

If parents were aware of these kinds of side-effects, and I have not included any cases of “sudden deaths” of children following COVID-19 vaccination in this article, they would probably think twice about proceeding with vaccinating their child with these mRNA products which clearly affect the brain.

Pharmaceutical products with this type of safety profile cannot be put on the childhood vaccination schedule, or be mandated in any form. That is a crime.

The health authorities, doctors and politicians are all fully aware of these harms that are being inflicted on children. They just don’t care.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from the author

---

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) has sent a letter to Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Mélanie Joly urging the imposition of sanctions against Israeli officials in response to their attempted annexation of the occupied West Bank. In recent weeks, Israel has intensified its illegal colonization of the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT), dramatically expanding illegal settlements and moving to restructure its governance over the West Bank in a way that experts say amounts to de jure annexation. CJPME argues that these Israeli actions have crossed a red line, and urges Canada to impose sanctions on the Israeli officials who are responsible, including Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Minister Smotrich.

Click here to download the full letter as a PDF.

“Israel’s actions in the occupied West Bank amount to annexation, one of the gravest violations of international law,” said Michael Bueckert, Vice President of CJPME. “Canada must assert that a red line has been crossed and act accordingly to hold Israeli authorities for these crimes,” added Bueckert. CJPME notes that Canada can model its response on its existing sanctions on individuals and entities related to Russia’s occupation and attempted annexation of parts of Ukraine, and encourages Canada to impose similar restrictions on those involved in Israel’s occupation and attempted annexation of Palestinian territory.

CJPME’s letter warns that Israel’s far right-government has made a significant change to its governance structure over the occupied West Bank, transferring sweeping powers out of military control and into civilian hands. This move is widely understood to amount to the de jure annexation of the territory, according to experts including prominent Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard, Palestinian NGO Al-Haq, Israeli human rights NGOs, the editorial board of Haaretz, and more. Additionally, CJPME’s letter notes that within the past month, Israel has advanced more than 15 new illegal settlements and more than 7,000 illegal settlement units in the OPT, and is preparing to approve major new settlements, including the so-called “doomsday” E-1 project which would connect Jerusalem with the Ma’ale Adumim settlement and sever the West Bank in half.

In response to Israeli actions in the occupied West Bank, CJPME is urging Canada to:

1. Condemn Israel’s recent change of governance in the West Bank as an act of de jureannexation;
2. Prohibit trade and all dealings with businesses and entities related to Israeli settlements and annexation in the OPT, including a ban on the import of goods from settlements and an asset freeze on individuals involved in settlement activity and acts of annexation;
3. Support the International Criminal Court (ICC) in its investigation of alleged war crimes in the OPT, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its inquiry into the legal consequences of Israel’s prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the OPT.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The antiviral drug remdesivir, brand name Veklury, is approved for use against COVID-19 despite research showing it lacks effectiveness and can cause high rates of organ failure

John Beaudoin is calling for a criminal investigation into remdesivir, citing data that it may have killed 100,000 people in the U.S.

Beaudoin received all the death certificates in Massachusetts from 2015 to 2022, finding 1,840 excess deaths from acute renal failure from January 1, 2021, to November 30, 2022, which he believes may be due to remdesivir

A study published in The Lancet found “no clinical benefit” from the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients

The U.S. government pays hospitals a 20% upcharge on the entire hospital bill when remdesivir is used

*

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the experimental antiviral drug remdesivir, brand name Veklury, for emergency use against COVID-19 in May 2020.¹ By October 2020, it had received full approval.² It remains a primary treatment for COVID-19 in hospitals, despite research showing it lacks effectiveness³ and can cause high rates of organ failure.⁴

On Twitter, John Beaudoin is calling for a criminal investigation into the drug, citing data that it may have killed 100,000 people in the U.S. “They know,” he says, “or they willfully refuse to know. Either way, it’s homicide.”⁵

Using drugs that cause organ failure, like remdesivir, isn’t in the best interest of public health. The fact that U.S. health authorities have focused on this and similarly harmful drugs to the exclusion of all others, including older drugs with high rates of effectiveness and superior safety profiles, sends a very disturbing message.

Did Remdesivir Kill Thousands in Massachusetts?

Beaudoin has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court and believes a spike in deaths from acute renal failure (ARF) in Massachusetts is due to remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences. Using a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Beaudoin received all the death certificates in Massachusetts from 2015 to 2022.

He then graphed the FOIA data, finding 1,840 excess deaths from acute renal failure from January 1, 2021 to November 30, 2022. Beaudoin also revealed an increase in deaths from acute rental failure in every age group over 15 years old, from 2015 to 2022.⁶ “Thousands dead in Massachusetts ARF likely due to Remdesivir. This requires CRIMINAL investigation,” he tweeted.⁷

Deaths, Kidney Injury Common With Remdesivir

Remdesivir use didn’t become widespread until 2020. From that time until October 2021, at least 7,491 adverse drug reactions were reported to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) VigiAccess, including 560 deaths, 550 serious cardiac disorders and 475 acute kidney injuries.⁸

For comparison, only 5,674 adverse drug reactions were reported for ivermectin from 1992 to October 13, 2021.⁹ Despite its strong safety profile and efficacy, ivermectin was widely vilified during the pandemic. Not to mention, remdesivir costs between $2,340 and $3,120,¹⁰ while the average treatment cost for ivermectin is $58.¹¹ Do you think this has anything to do with remdesivir’s promotion and ivermectin’s vilification?

While WHO updated its guidance in April 2022 to recommend the use of remdesivir in “mild or moderate COVID-19 patients who are at high risk of hospitalization,”¹² a study published in The Lancet found “no clinical benefit” from the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients.¹³ Further, the investigators believed three deaths during the study were related to remdesivir.¹⁴

Gilead’s Political Ties Questioned as Remdesivir Use Persists

Still, the question remains why remdesivir continues to be used at all. In November 2020, WHO issued a bulletin recommending against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients, stating, “There is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients.”¹⁵

Is it possible that Gilead’s strong political connections have influenced the government’s approvals and recommendations? It’s worth noting that Donald Rumsfeld was the chairman of Gilead from 1997 until he joined the Bush administration in 2001. Rumsfeld had previously served as secretary of defense under President Gerald Ford from 1975 to 1977, and again under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2006.

FDA Even Approved Remdesivir for Children

In late April 2022, the FDA even approved remdesivir as the first and only COVID-19 treatment for children under 12, including babies as young as 28 days,¹⁶ an approval that boggles the mind, considering COVID-19 is rarely serious in children while remdesivir is ineffective and carries a risk of serious, and deadly, side effects.

What’s worse, the drug is also approved for outpatient use in children, which is a first. Dr. Meryl Nass expressed her concerns about the FDA’s approval of remdesivir for outpatient use in babies, stating:¹⁷

“The FDA just licensed Remdesivir for children as young as one month old. Both hospitalized children and outpatients may receive it. The drug might work in outpatients, but the vast majority of children have a very low risk of dying from COVID. If 7 deaths per 1,000 result from the drug, as … European investigators thought¹⁸ … it is possible it will harm or kill more children than it saves.

Shouldn’t the FDA have waited longer to see what early outpatient treatment did for older ages? Or studied a much larger group of children? Very little has been published on children and remdesivir …

When we look at the press release issued by Gilead,¹⁹ we learn the approval was based on an open label, single arm trial in 53 children, 3 of whom died (6% of these children died); 72% had an adverse event, and 21% had a serious adverse event.”

More Lawsuits Filed Against Remdesivir

Two women are suing Kaiser Permanente and Redlands Community Hospital in California for giving remdesivir to their husbands without consent. Both men died from kidney and organ failure after being administered remdesivir. “The day he was admitted on August 12 they started the remdesivir and on [August 17] is when they were done,” Christina Briones told CBS News. “Five doses. [On] the 17th his kidneys started to fail.”²⁰

In California, lawsuits have been filed on behalf of at least 14 families against medical providers for prescribing remdesivir without providing necessary information about it, leading to the patients’ deaths.²¹ Another wrongful death suit was filed in Nevada, after a patient died of kidney failure and respiratory failure a week after being given remdesivir.²²

Safety Signal Revealed for Remdesivir and Kidney Failure

Meanwhile, a study published in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics in April 2021 detected a potential safety signal for remdesivir and acute renal failure:²³

“The combination of the terms ‘acute renal failure’ and ‘remdesivir’ yielded a statistically significant disproportionality signal with 138 observed cases instead of the nine expected. ROR [reporting odds ratio] of ARF with remdesivir was 20-fold that of comparative drugs.

Based on ARF cases reported in VigiBase, and despite the caveats inherent to COVID-19 circumstances, we detected a statistically significant pharmacovigilance signal of nephrotoxicity associated with remdesivir, deserving a thorough qualitative assessment of all available data.”

In May 2021, another pharmacovigilance analysis revealed red flags against remdesivir. “Compared with the use of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, sarilumab, or tocilizumab, the use of remdesivir was associated with an increased reporting of kidney disorders,” the study found.²⁴ It concluded:²⁵

“Our findings, based on postmarketing real-life data from >5000 COVID-19 patients, support that kidney disorders, almost exclusively AKI [acute kidney injury], represent a serious, early, and potentially fatal adverse drug reaction of remdesivir. These results are consistent with findings from another group. Physicians should be aware of this potential risk and perform close kidney monitoring when prescribing remdesivir.”

In March 2022, yet another pharmacovigilance analysis warned of a significant association between remdesivir and acute kidney injury, especially in male patients and those over the age of 65 years. “Although causality was not confirmed,” they noted, “the association between remdesivir and AKI should not be ignored, especially in the older, male COVID-19 inpatients.”²⁶

US Government Pays Hospitals to Use Remdesivir

Remdesivir was developed as an antiviral drug and tested during the Ebola breakout in 2014. The drug was found to have a very high death rate and was not pursued further. In the early months of 2020, however, the drug was entered into COVID trials.²⁷ Those trials were also beyond disappointing.^28,29,30

Not only was the drug ineffective against the infection but it also had significant and life-threatening side effects, including kidney failure and liver damage.³¹ Dr. Paul Marik, a pulmonary and critical care specialist and founding member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), explained that during the pandemic the only drug he was allowed to prescribe was remdesivir.

When he refused to follow the remdesivir protocol, he was subjected to a “sham review,” an unofficial but well-known process in which a “troublesome” doctor is accused of wrongdoing and basically railroaded out of practice. In the end, he was fired and reported to the National Practitioner Databank and the Board of Medicine.

The financial motivations to report doctors going against the grain run deep. According to Marik, the U.S. government pays hospitals a 20% upcharge on the entire hospital bill when remdesivir is used.³² Citizens Journal also reported that the U.S. government pays hospitals a “bonus” on the entire hospital bill if they use remdesivir.³³ It described this practice as a bounty placed on your life, with payouts tied to declining health instead of recovery:³⁴

“For remdesivir, studies show that 71% to 75% of patients suffer an adverse effect, and the drug often had to be stopped after five to 10 days because of these effects, such as kidney and liver damage, and death.

Remdesivir trials during the 2018 West African Ebola outbreak had to be discontinued because death rate exceeded 50%. Yet, in 2020, Anthony Fauci directed that remdesivir was to be the drug hospitals use to treat COVID-19, even when the COVID clinical trials of remdesivir showed similar adverse effects.

… We now see government-dictated medical care at its worst in our history since the federal government mandated these ineffective and dangerous treatments for COVID-19, and then created financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to use only those ‘approved’ (and paid for) approaches. Our formerly trusted medical community of hospitals and hospital-employed medical staff have effectively become ‘bounty hunters’ for your life.”

Officials Push Expensive, Risky Treatments

In addition to remdesivir, Pfizer’s Paxlovid was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021.³⁵ The drug consists of nirmatrelvir tablets — the antiviral component — and ritonavir tablets, which are intended to slow the breakdown of nirmatrelvir.³⁶

But like remdesivir, there are many problems with Paxlovid. In this case, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a warning to health care providers and public health departments about the potential for COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment.³⁷ Further, Pfizer stopped a large trial of Paxlovid in standard-risk patients because it didn’t show significant protection against hospitalization or death in this group.³⁸

Paxlovid costs $529 per five-day treatment³⁹ and has cost U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion,⁴⁰ while safe and less expensive options exist. An investigation by Cornell University, posted on the University’s preprint server January 20, 2022, found ivermectin outperformed 10 other drugs against COVID-19.⁴¹

Since the FDA and CDC cannot be trusted, and even physicians’ hands are often tied by regulatory red tape, it’s imperative to take responsibility for your own health. In the case of COVID-19, seek early treatment using an effective and safe protocol — not one that puts profits over patients.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Notes

¹ FDA, May 1, 2020

² FDA, October 22, 2020

³ The New England Journal of Medicine February 11, 2021

^4, 23 Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Apr;109(4):1021-1024

⁵ Twitter, John Beaudoin, Sr. February 12, 2023

⁶ Twitter, John Beaudoin, Sr. February 12, 2023, 4

⁷ Twitter, John Beaudoin, Sr. February 12, 2023, Graph

^8, 9 Nebraska AG Opinion October 14, 2021, page 11

¹⁰ AJMC June 29, 2020

¹¹ JAMA 2022;327(6):584-587

^12, 15 WHO November 20, 2020

¹³ The Lancet September 14, 2021, Interpretation

¹⁴ The Lancet September 14, 2021, Findings

¹⁶ FDA April 25, 2022

¹⁷ MerylnassMD.com April 30, 2022

¹⁸ The Lancet September 14, 2021

¹⁹ Gilead Press Release April 25, 2022

²⁰ CBS News October 24, 2022

²¹ Ehline Law Firm November 8, 2022

²² The Nevada Globe November 25, 2022

^24, 25 Kidney Int. 2021 May; 99(5): 1235–1236

²⁶ Front. Pharmacol., 25 March 2022

²⁷ BMJ, 2020;371:m4457

²⁸ New England Journal of Medicine, 2021;384:497

²⁹ Scientific Freedom, June 1, 2020

³⁰ The Lancet, 2020;395(10236):P1569

³¹ International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2020; doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.093

³² JDsupra.com November 6, 2020

^33, 34 Citizens Journal December 20, 2021

³⁵ U.S. FDA December 22, 2021

^36, 38 Science June 29, 2022

³⁷ U.S. CDC May 24, 2022

³⁹ Precision Vaccinations, November 19, 2021

⁴⁰ Reuters November 18, 2021

⁴¹ Cornell University, January 20, 2022

---

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Israel attacked the Aleppo International Airport in northwest Syria on March 7 and caused the international humanitarian aid for the earthquake victims to be canceled due to the damages of the airstrike.

While the world is watching the suffering of Turkey and Syria following the massive 7.8 magnitude earthquake on February 6, Israel was targeting the place in Syria which was hardest hit by the natural disaster with the man-made destruction of a civilian airport that connects Syria to Europe and the world.

Foreign donors including the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria have flown aid into Aleppo airport following almost 5,000 deaths reported in Aleppo, Idlib, Latakia, and Jeblah.  Hundreds were injured and hundreds of thousands have been made homeless after the quake. The Syrian government has said the resources needed to meet the needs of the affected areas are more than they have on hand after over a decade of the US-NATO attack on Syria for regime change.

This was the second attack by Israel on Aleppo airport in six months and was Israel’s third air strike in Syria this year. In January, Israel attacked the Damascus International Airport. Last year, Israel carried out more than 30 air strikes in Syria.

Last month, Israel attacked a civilian neighborhood in Damascus, Kafr Sousa, killing 15 sleeping in their beds.

Yankee Go Home

Republican Representative from Florida, Matt Gaetz, introduced a bill in the House to withdraw all US troops illegally occupying Syria.

“Congress has never authorized the use of military force in Syria,” Gaetz said. He added, “The United States is currently not in a war with or against Syria, so why are we conducting dangerous military operations there?”

There are about 1,000 US troops in Syria. They are partnered with the separatist militias, SDF and YPG, who have set up a communist semi-autonomous government in the northeast. This has angered Turkey, a fellow NATO member with the US because the YPG is aligned with the PKK, a terrorist group responsible for over 30,000 deaths in Turkey over decades.

On March 4, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, arrived in Syria, where he met with US troops there and said Washington’s military presence there was critical to the security of both the US and its allies. The ally he referred to was not Turkey, which has the largest army in Europe, but rather the SDF and YPG who are a stateless militia following communist political ideology, and in open armed conflict with Turkey, a US ally that hosts a US airbase at Inderlik.

The US troops occupying Syria illegally are there for two purposes. Firstly, they protect the SDF and YPG from serious attack, or dismantlement by Turkey, which views them as the enemy. Secondly, the US troops stationed at Al Tanf, on the Baghdad-Damascus highway, serve to prevent goods from being trucked from Iraq to Syria.

The US troops at Al-Tanf are partnered with a militia Maghawir al-Thawra, who are Radical Islamic terrorists not far different than Al Qaeda. There is an ethical question surrounding the US occupation in Syria: is it ethical for a western democracy like the US to partner with a communist militia, or a militia following Radical Islam?

The answer to that question came from an unnamed former US military member,

“The US uses any asset they have access to, regardless of ideology.”

In response to Milley’s visit to Syria, Gaetz said,

“America has no discernible interest in continuing to fund a fight where alliances shift faster than the desert sands. … If General Milley wants this war so bad, he should explain what we are fighting for and why it is worth American treasure and blood.”

Gaetz, legislators, and activists are seeking to return war-making power to Congress. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war.  This resolution would have removed the US troops from Syria, but it did not pass.

On March 7, Gaetz tweeted,

“Obama got us into a civil war in Syria. President Trump did everything to get us out of Syria. The Deep State is doing everything to keep us in Syria. My War Powers Resolution puts AMERICA FIRST and brings our troops home!”

Milley’s visit to occupied Syria explains Biden’s Syria policy. Biden is dead-set on continuing the occupation of Syria, maintaining Idlib as an Al Qaeda safe-haven, maintaining the SDF and YPG as a semi-autonomous communist enclave opposing both Damascus and Ankara, and preventing the reconstruction of Syria following a decade of armed conflict by terrorists aligned with the US, and the recent earthquake.

Some have said that the US, SDF, and YPG are fighting to keep ISIS from a comeback. However, with less than 1,000 US troops, and their lightly-armed partners, this cannot be considered an effective military force against terrorists. The Iraqi Army, the Syrian Arab Army, and their Russian military partners are effective military forces capable of keeping ISIS on the run. This proves that the US occupation serves no military purpose, but is strictly a political ploy.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged in 2021 that it was US policy to “oppose the reconstruction of Syria,” and the policy hasn’t changed. Buildings, homes, businesses, and hospitals have been destroyed and need to be rebuilt. These are civilian properties deserving to be rebuilt, and yet the US policy is to keep the Syrian people suffering, homeless, unemployed, and lacking medical facilities.

Blinken’s representative for the Middle East, Barbara Leaf, has toured her area of responsibility but has never visited Damascus. The Biden administration views the small province of Idlib, under the occupation of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, as the only legitimate government in Syria.  Muhammed al-Julani is the leader in charge of his Salvation government there. He is the man to whom all international aid is delivered. He has ordered his men to raid aid warehouses, held aid workers for $60,000 ransom, distributed aid only to his Radical Islamic ideology supporters, denied aid to civilians who oppose the Islamic Law interpretations imposed on Idlib, and denied women from aid programs.

Julani fought against the US troops in Iraq while with Al Qaeda, became personally associated with the ISIS leader Baghdadi while in Iraq, and then came to Syria and formed Jibhat al-Nusra, a terrorist group that was reported to be even more vicious than ISIS, and now is the supreme leader of the US-EU protected enclave of Idlib. All UN aid, and that of every international humanitarian aid organization, passes through his hands alone.

An ethical question arises from Idlib: how do international aid organizations balance the need to help about 3 million civilians in Idlib, with the fact that they are enabling a terrorist leader and his fighters to hold the basic needs of unarmed civilians hostage?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

According to information recently published by local authorities in Transnistria, a terrorist attack was planned by Ukrainian saboteurs in Tiraspol, the aim of which was to kill the current president of the autonomous republic, Vadim Krasnoselsky. The case reveals that in fact Kiev maintains regular terrorist activities abroad, using sabotage tactics to eliminate civilians considered “enemies” of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime.

The plan was discovered by the intelligence services of the secessionist republic. According to Tiraspol’s officials, the Ukrainian scheme was discovered in time to avoid the tragedy. It is believed that not only President Krasnoselsky would be targeted by the saboteurs, but also some other top Transnistrian officials would be assassinated. The agents behind the maneuver were linked to the Ukrainian Secret Service.

In a statement published on March 9, the Ministry of State Security says that “criminal cases have been opened and are being investigated with regard to the crimes”, despite the threats have already been neutralized. With this, it is possible to say that there is evidence of other plots within the republic aiming at damaging the local political system. Certainly, more information about these criminal cases will be revealed in the course of the next few days.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Transnistria Vitaly Ignatiev also commented on the case. He stated that the situation is under control and that the president is working normally in his office, with assured security. Ignatiev also said that the republic will formally ask Ukraine to cooperate in the investigation of the sabotage attempt, providing all the necessary information to identify and capture those responsible for the failed attempt at terrorist attack.

Tiraspol’s authorities believe that Ukraine’s possible willingness to cooperate in punishing the saboteurs is the only way to prevent tensions from escalating. If Kiev refuses to cooperate, it will be making clear that in fact there was a deliberate operation by the regime to destabilize Transnistria, and not a unilateral action by some Ukrainian spies. More than that: by denying cooperation Kiev will also be saying that it does not regret having planned the attack and suggesting that it will continue to plot against Transnistria, thus becoming an existential threat to the Republic.

In this sense, Foreign Minister Ignatiev also stated that if nothing is done by Kiev to help with the investigations, the Transnistrian government will request that the issue be discussed at the UN Security Council – a measure that would certainly be supported by the Russian Federation, which is greatest responsible for peace in the republic, keeping troops in the region to prevent illegal advances by the Moldovan government or foreign invasions.

Ukraine is unlikely to cooperate as Kiev has long practiced a policy of open terrorism against its opponents, carrying out illegal operations abroad. The assassination of Daria Dugina, the Bryansk attack, repeated drone incursions into undisputed Russian territory, and the recent assassination attempt on businessman Konstantin Malofeev make Ukrainian terrorism evident. However, to better understand the motives for sabotaging Transnistria, it is necessary to go beyond Ukraine and investigate the interests of the sponsors of the neo-Nazi regime: the Western governments.

It is necessary to take into account that the West has recently implemented a strategy of multiplying fronts. Faced with NATO’s imminent defeat in its war against Russia using Ukraine as a proxy, the objective now is to generate as many combat fronts as possible to distract Russian forces, forcing Moscow to keep soldiers in several conflict zones simultaneously.

This explains the Western pressure for Georgia to invade Abkhazia and South Ossetia – as well as the ongoing color revolution against the pro-peace government. It is also possible to understand the Azerbaijani sabotage against Artsakh and Armenia. And even the recent tensions between Kosovar terrorists and Serbian authorities can be analyzed from this perspective. All these are conflicts in which Russia would intervene supporting one of the sides, so it is in the West’s interest to intensify tensions so that Moscow maintains several combat fronts and increases its losses.

As it is possible to see, NATO tries to open these new combat fronts only in countries that are not part of the alliance, thus guaranteeing that new confrontations are fought without the need to involve the regular troops of the western countries – which are preserved for an eventual situation of direct war against Russia or China.

Indeed, Moscow has been actively working with local Transnistrian authorities to ensure that law and order is respected in the autonomous republic. The Western attempt to open new combat fronts has already been understood by Russian strategists, who work precisely trying to prevent tensions from escalating to open confrontation. It is possible that new eruptions of military frictions will arise in the coming months, but first the Russian government will do everything possible for these cases to be resolved through intelligence and diplomacy.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is by Sergei Supinsky/EPA/Shutterstock

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

This is an abridged version of an address by John Pilger in Sydney on 10 March to mark the launch in Australia of Davide Dormino’s sculpture of Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, ‘figures of courage’.

***

I have known Julian Assange since I first interviewed him in London in 2010. I immediately liked his dry, dark sense of humour, often dispensed with an infectious giggle. He is a proud outsider: sharp and thoughtful. We have become friends, and I have sat in many courtrooms listening to the tribunes of the state try to silence him and his moral revolution in journalism.

My own high point was when a judge in the Royal Courts of Justice leaned across his bench and growled at me: ‘You are just a peripatetic Australian like Assange.’ My name was on a list of volunteers to stand bail for Julian, and this judge spotted me as the one who had reported his role in the notorious case of the expelled Chagos Islanders. Unintentionally, he delivered me a compliment.

I saw Julian in Belmarsh not long ago. We talked about books and the oppressive idiocy of the prison: the happy-clappy slogans on the walls, the petty punishments; they still won’t let him use the gym. He must exercise alone in a cage-like area where there is sign that warns about keeping off the grass. But there is no grass. We laughed; for a brief moment, some things didn’t seem too bad.

The laughter is a shield, of course. When the prison guards began to jangle their keys, as they like to do, indicating our time was up, he fell quiet. As I left the room he held his fist high and clenched as he always does. He is the embodiment of courage.

Those who are the antithesis of Julian: in whom courage is unheard of, along with principle and honour, stand between him and freedom. I am not referring to the Mafia regime in Washington whose pursuit of a good man is meant as a warning to us all, but rather to those who still claim to run a just democracy in Australia.

Anthony Albanese was mouthing his favourite platitude, ‘enough is enough’ long before he was elected prime minister of Australia last year. He gave many of us precious hope, including Julian’s family. As prime minister he added weasel words about ‘not sympathising’ with what Julian had done. Apparently we had to understand his need to cover his appropriated posteria in case Washington called him to order.

We knew it would take exceptional political if not moral courage for Albanese to stand up in the Australian Parliament — the same Parliament that will disport itself before Joe Biden in May — and say:

‘As prime minister, it is my government’s responsibility to bring home an Australian citizen who is clearly the victim of a great, vindictive injustice: a man who has been persecuted for the kind of journalism that is a true public service, a man who has not lied, or deceived — like so many of his counterfeit in the media, but has told people the truth about how the world is run.’

‘I call on the United States,’ a courageous and moral Prime Minister Albanese might say, ‘to withdraw its extradition application: to end the malign farce that has stained Britain’s once admired courts of justice and to allow the release of Julian Assange unconditionally to his family. For Julian to remain in his cell at Belmarsh is an act of torture, as the United Nations Raporteur has called it. It is how a dictatorship behaves.’

Alas, my daydream about Australia doing right by Julian has reached its limits. The teasing of hope by Albanese is now close to a betrayal for which the historical memory will not forget him, and many will not forgive him. What, then, is he waiting for?

Remember that Julian was granted political asylum by the Ecuadorean government in 2013 largely because his own government had abandoned him. That alone ought to bring shame on those responsible: namely the Labor government of Julia Gillard.

So eager was Gillard to collude with the Americans in shutting down WikiLeaks for its truth telling that she wanted the Australian Federal Police to arrest Assange and take away his passport for what she called his ‘illegal’ publishing. The AFP pointed out that they had no such powers: Assange had committed no crime.

It is as if you can measure Australia’s extraordinary surrender of sovereignty by the way it treats Julian Assange. Gillard’s pantomime grovelling to both houses of the US Congress is  cringing theatre on YouTube. Australia, she repeated, was America’s ‘great mate’. Or was it ‘little mate’?

Her foreign minister was Bob Carr, another Labor machine politician whom WikiLeaks exposed as an American informant, one of Washington’s useful boys in Australia. In his published diaries, Carr boasted knowing Henry Kissinger; indeed the Great Warmonger invited the foreign minister to go camping in the California woods, we learn.

Australian governments have repeatedly claimed that Julian has received full consular support, which is his right. When his lawyer Gareth Peirce and I met the Australian consul general in London, Ken Pascoe, I asked him, ‘What do you know of the Assange case.’

‘Just what I read in the papers,’ he replied with a laugh.

Today, Prime Minister Albanese is preparing this country for a ridiculous American-led war with China. Billions of dollars are to be spent on a war machine of submarines, fighter jets and missiles that can reach China. Salivating war mongering by ‘experts’ on the country’s oldest newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Melbourne Age is a national embarrassment, or ought to be. Australia is a country with no enemies and China is its biggest trading partner.

This deranged servility to aggression is laid out in an extraordinary document called the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement. This states that American troops have ‘exclusive control over the access to [and] use of’ armaments and material that can be used in Australia in an aggressive war.

This almost certainly includes nuclear weapons. Albanese’s foreign minister, Penny Wong, ‘respects’ America on this, but clearly has no respect for Australians’ right to know.

Such obsequiousness was always there — not untypical of a settler nation that still has not made peace with the Indigenous origins and owners of where they live — but now it is dangerous.

China as the Yellow Peril fits Australia’s history of racism like a glove.  However, there is another enemy they don’t talk about. It is us, the public. It is our right to know. And our right to say no.

Since 2001, some 82 laws have been enacted in Australia to take away tenuous rights of expression and dissent and protect the cold war paranoia of an increasingly secret state, in which the head of the main intelligence agency, ASIO, lectures on the disciplines of ‘Australian values’. There are secret courts and secret evidence, and secret miscarriages of justice. Australia is said to be an inspiration for the master across the Pacific.

Bernard Collaery, David McBride and Julian Assange — deeply moral men who told the truth – are the enemies and victims of this paranoia. They, not Edwardian soldiers who marched for the King, are our true national heroes.

On Julian Assange, the Prime Minister has two faces. One face teases us with hope of his intervention with Biden that will lead to Julian’s freedom. The other face ingratiates itself with ‘POTUS’ and allows the Americans to do what they want with its vassal: to lay down targets that could result in catastrophe for all of us.

Will Albanese back Australia or Washington on Julian Assange? If he is ‘sincere’, as the more do-eyed Labor Party supporters say, what is he waiting for? If he fails to secure Julian’s release, Australia will cease to be sovereign. We will be little Americans. Official.

This is not about the survival of a free press. There is no longer a free press. There are refuges in the samizdat, such as this site. The paramount issue is justice and our most precious human right: to be free.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

John Pilger is an Australian-British journalist and filmmaker based in London. Pilger’s Web site is: www.johnpilger.com. In 2017, the British Library announced a John Pilger Archive of all his written and filmed work. The British Film Institute includes his 1979 film, “Year Zero: the Silent Death of Cambodia,” among the 10 most important documentaries of the 20^th century. Some of his previous contributions to Consortium News can be found here.  

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The US can’t seem to understand that the rest of the world, including Africa, doesn’t like to be pushed around. African nations’ refusal to reinforce US foreign policy in the UN General Assembly is a case in point.  During the Assembly’s February 16 vote on a resolution “deploring” Russia’s action in Ukraine, nearly half the nations who abstained were African, 15 of the 32, although only 54 of the UN’s 193 member nations are African. Those abstaining were Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

No African nations were on the list of nations introducing the resolution, and two of the seven who voted no—Eritrea and Mali—were African.

In 2022, South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Naledi Pandor deplored Congressman Gregory Meeks’s Countering Malign Russian Activities Act as “a totally unwarranted” intrusion that goes against international law, and the South African Development Corporation joined South Africa in that sentiment. The House had passed the Act on a voice vote, but the Senate at least seems to have realized that it was counterproductive, and not brought it up.

Nevertheless, on February 21, Republican legislators in the House introduced “H.Res.145 – Opposing the Republic of South Africa’s hosting of military exercises with the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, and calling on the Biden administration to conduct a thorough review of the United States-South Africa relationship.”

The joint military exercises proceeded as planned, and security analysts rightly described the proposed US legislation as an act of desperation.

US uses trade preference to bully Ethiopia, China steps up

On January 1, 2022, the US canceled Ethiopia’s eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) because of alleged human rights violations during Ethiopia’s Tigray War, a civil conflict waged from November 2020 to December 2022. The act had granted tariff free access to the US market to firms manufacturing in Ethiopia.

At the outset of the war, Ethiopia had the fastest growing economy on the African continent and the tariff free access had been stimulating the growth of its industrial capacity and generating foreign exchange. Two international firms, Hela Indochine Apparel PLC and Submarine Garment, left Ethiopia’s industrial park in Addis Ababa after the tariff free access was suspended, costing 5,000 Ethiopians, mostly poor women, their jobs.

The war ended in December, when federal forces defeated the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), a longtime US proxy,  but the US is refusing to restore Ethiopia’s tariff free access unless the country agrees to cooperate with a UN investigation of war crimes.

International criminal investigations and prosecutions are typically a form of judicial imperialism designed to advance the foreign policy objectives of the US and its Western allies. Ethiopia has established its own process for investigating and prosecuting war crimes and moved to have the UN investigation terminated.

Meanwhile, as the US attempts to use AGOA as a carrot and stick to impose its will on Ethiopia, China has stepped up to offer Ethiopia tariff free access to its own, much larger market. In early March, Chinese Global Television Network host Zhong Shi spoke with Ethiopian Finance Minister Ahmed Shide.

“Chinese Global Television Network host Zhong Shi: China will grant zero tariff treatment to 98% of taxable items originating from Ethiopia starting March 1. How important is that for Ethiopia? And what are your expectations when that kicks off?

“Ethiopian Finance Minister Ahmed Shide: First of all, we would like to commend the leadership of China under President Xi Jinping for offering this zero tariff treatment for Ethiopia’s taxable export items, and also other countries. This shows very timely, and the proper decision from the People’s Republic of China to advance our cooperation. This will also facilitate export from Ethiopia to China, which is very, very important and the investment we made in the past, the fundamental objective was to enhance our production capacity. And this new decision is fully welcomed by our prime minister and the government and the companies, Ethiopian companies and international companies who are in Ethiopia, will benefit from this.

“And as a result of this, the production capacity in Ethiopia will be enhanced, and particularly at this point, where there is multiple challenges of COVID, International price increase due to conflict in Ukraine, climate related problems we have of drought, this will support a Ethiopia’s growth and development and as a solidarity, the purpose of political China has shown for the spirit is very useful and we are very thankful of this.”

China is already Ethiopia’s largest trading partner, source of investment, and project contractor. It is constructing the railroad between Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa and Djibouti’s ports on the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean, at the interface of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

With its economy ravaged by the US’s two-year proxy war, Ethiopia has also turned to China for debt relief, which it hasn’t received from the IMF, where the US has veto power, or from the G20.

Imagining that it is still in an age of economic dominance rather than competition with the world’s other great powers, the US is shooting itself in the foot in Africa again.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ann Garrison is a Black Agenda Report Contributing Editor based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize  for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at ann(at)anngarrison.com.

Featured image is from BAR

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right, demagogic administration which includes Zionist bigots, setter colonizers, anti-multiculturalism preachers, and hate mongers have received an appropriate blowback over its monstrous and barbaric raids in the West Bank. The ruthless shedding of Palestinian blood has been followed by a societal implosion which is coming from within Israeli society as protestors attacked Netanyahu’s wife Sara and chanted slogans of ‘shame, shame’ while besieging the beauty parlor she attended. The ensuing chaos is symptomatic of how countries built as settler colonial projects will eventually meet an unenviable fate of self-destruction as authoritarianism is agitated against by the very polity it seeks to subjugate. The protests which rallied around calls to reverse sweeping reforms to the Israeli Supreme Court are now targeting the very foundations of the apartheid regime. 

As emblematic of countries that combine hard-line nationalist ideologies based on religious exclusion with crass capitalism that fills the coffers of one religious group at the expense of the other, “Israel” is witnessing glaring internal fissures. India is another country that comes to mind where Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party’s hardline Hindutva ideology has not only isolated the Muslim minority but resulted in farmer protests and a movement to establish an independent Sikh state called ‘Khalistan’. Ironically, with no counterarguments or proposals to pacify angry protestors, the Netanyahu government has conveniently labeled the protestors as ‘anarchists.’ Ironically, a government that has touted “Israel’s” façade of a Jewish democracy to legitimize Palestinian oppression is now facing ‘anarchy’ from the very society it seeks to govern through a social contract. This is a quintessential case of internal implosion.

Enabling factors of the crisis point at how the entire Israeli system is infested with corruption. Critics have argued that Sarah Netanyahu’s opulent life style and flaunting of wealth marks a stark contrast to the economic affairs of the Israeli entity or the plight of the common Israeli citizen. The Zionist regime has one of the highest rates of income inequality in the world with a corporate Jewish elite benefitting from profits through military-industrial complexes at the expense of the well-being for the common man. From 2017 onwards, “Israel’s” youth unemployment rates have witnessed persistent increases which includes a 0.84% increase to 8.79% in 2021.

Astronomical corruption reaches the very top. Sara Netanyahu has misappropriated public funds, overspent on household expenses, and sealed gifts from world leaders in the absence of accountability. In 2019, she accepted a plea bargain to settle the misusage of $100,000 in public funds for lavish meals from celebrity chefs at Netanyahu’s residence. Alongside cooks on the government’s payroll, she was also enmeshed in Netanyahu’s corruption trial which brought about “Israel’s” worst political crisis. The ugly nature of the Israeli political system and its culture of impunity for corruption is made worse as Netanyahu accepted gifts from billionaire friends which included extravagant jewelry for Sara. Through his influence, the Zionist Prime Minister tried to muzzle out voices by striking backroom deals for more favorable coverage of his wife in the press. Furthermore, the Knesset committee unabashedly approved new spending for the Netanyahu family which included thousands of expenses on trivial items such as makeup kits. These measures are deplorable and have backfired on the Netanyahu regime.

As a testament to the very nature of the Israeli regime and the bigoted society that it governs, internal political fissures have also accompanied the corrupt profile of Netanyahu’s wife. Scenes of occupation police forces, secret services, and helicopters calling to extract Netanyahu from her appointment demonstrate how “Israel” lacks the democratic maturity to apprehend, convict and put controversial political figures on trial. The truth is that many of the pseudo-pro-democracy protestors would never push for holding Israeli war crimes and the proliferation of settlements on occupied Palestinian territories, accountable. Even the media with so-called pseudo-liberal news outlets are bypassing state-sponsored apartheid and refraining from discussions while debating on corruption scandals in a society that remains polarized and divided yet ironically united on the subject of Palestine.

From the top echelons of power down to the common Israeli who resides on occupied land, the problem lies within. On the 4th of January, 2023 Yariv Levin announced plans to reform the judiciary which granted the governing coalition, a majority on a committee that appoints judges. Such unconstitutional moves do not represent democratic norms, customs, or principles which clearly means that “Israel” is not a civilized country. The supremacy of the law, constitution, and writ of the state should ideally reign supreme. That is not the case with “Israel”. According to a new report by The Conversation, Israeli politicians remain strongly motivated to strengthen ‘Haganah-minded politics’ with Haganah being one of the main Zionist paramilitary organizations till 1948.

The militarized orientation of the regime, the societal chaos, the corruption scandals, and the hollow ground on which this Netanyahu administration stands clearly show that Israeli society is imploding. There is little end in sight as protests continue to remain defiant with even members of the occupier security services joining the unrest. According to the New York Times, democracy cannot be saved in “Israel” when it never existed in the first place. The shaky foundations also serve as a wake-up call for the international community to call out the repression of the Netanyahu cabinet. Only then, can peace truly prevail in the Middle East and beyond.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Hamzah Rifaat is a broadcast journalist, analyst, and visiting fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington D.C., 2016.

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky admitted on Thursday that he had previously told German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron that the Minsk agreements were “impossible”, and he did not plan on implementing them.

Weeks before the Ukraine war broke out, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Russia was yet to hear Ukraine’s words about readiness to swiftly start the implementation of the Minsk agreements during the meeting between French President Emmanuel Macron and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky.

The Kremlin had previously said Russia did not expect any decisive breakthrough from the talks between President Putin and Macron.

“From what was said at the press conference [after Macron and Zelensky meeting], there were positive signals that a solution in Ukraine could only be based on the implementation of the Minsk agreements, which is true,” Peskov said.

“Economic risks that everyone faces. Because this tension is projected onto the situation both in the markets and on the stock exchanges of our country and others,” the spokesperson told reporters.

“As for Minsk as a whole, I told Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel: we will not be able to implement it like that,” Zelenskyy said in an interview with Spiegel published on Thursday.

According to Zelensky, he said the same thing to Russian President Vladimir Putin at the first and last meeting with him in the Normandy format in 2019.

“I told him the same thing as the other two. They were surprised and replied: ‘If we knew in advance that you would change the meaning of our meeting, then there would be problems even before the summit,'” Zelenskyy added.

The Ukrainian president said Kiev used the agreement only for the exchange of prisoners of war.

Ex-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was in office from 2005 to 2021 said in an interview published in early December that the Minsk accords were signed to “give Ukraine time” to strengthen itself.

Merkel said

“The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the modern Ukraine.”

According to her,

“it was clear to everyone” that the conflict had been put on hold, noting that the issue had not been settled, “yet this was what gave Ukraine invaluable time.”

Merkel was the German chancellor when Ukraine’s state coup happened in 2014, and the Minsk accords on resolving the Donbass war were signed with her contribution.

Previously, in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, Merkel discussed her final encounters with Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that during the ex-chancellor’s farewell visit to Moscow in August 2021 she felt “in terms of power politics, you’re done,” adding that “for Putin, only power counts.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from The Libertarian Institute

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador slammed on Thursday US lawmakers who called for military action in Mexico to assist with government efforts in countering drug cartels.

President López Obrador stated that the proposal threatened Mexican sovereignty, noting that the country will not “permit any foreign government to intervene in our territory, much less than a government’s armed forces intervene.”

The plea to send US troops was issued after four Americans got kidnapped in a Northern border state.

Two of the hostages were reportedly killed, while the remaining two are still kept as hostages. They were reportedly traveling from South Carolina to Mexico due to cheaper healthcare options, but sources state that they had a long history of possessing and distributing illegal substances.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, published a Tweet in Spanish on Wednesday asking López Obrador why he opposes a proposal the congressman introduced in January to permit US troops to assist efforts in targeting drug cartels in Mexico.

“In addition to being irresponsible, it is an offense to the people of Mexico,” López Obrador said during the news conference, adding that Mexico “does not take orders from anyone.”

Guns made in the U.S. are being sent to Mexican cartels that use those American weapons to terrorize their communities and export fentanyl back into the U.S.

Yet another way that the unchecked proliferation of guns in this country is jeopardizing the safety of our communities. pic.twitter.com/wqvCt1NQNU

— Rep. Dan Goldman (@RepDanGoldman) March 8, 2023

During a Fox News interview aired on Monday, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that it was time to “put Mexico on notice” and called for introducing legislation that would classify some Mexican drug cartels as “foreign terrorist groups.”

On another note, the head of State further slammed statements issued by US Ambassador Ken Salazarthe for saying that the country was responsible for flooding the US with fentanyl.

“Here, we do not produce fentanyl, and we do not have consumption of fentanyl,” López Obrador said. “Why don’t they (the United States) take care of their problem of social decay?”

López Obrador said he would launch a public information campaign aimed at informing Mexicans in the US about the true nature of the Republican-led proposal.

He warned that if Republican lawmakers try to “use Mexico for their propagandist, electoral and political purposes, we will make a call to not vote for that party.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Screen shot of Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador from MILENIO broadcast of press conference on July 4, 2022 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Monday that he was prepared to introduce legislation to “set the stage” for US military intervention in Mexico.

Graham’s comments came after four Americans were kidnapped in the Mexican border city of Matamoros, an area said to be dominated by cartels, and two were found dead. He was asked how he would deal with kidnappings or the cartels in general, and said he would get “tough.”

“I would put Mexico on notice,” the hawkish senator told Fox News host Jesse Waters. “If you continue to give safe haven to drug dealers, then you are an enemy of the United States.”

Graham said he agreed with former Attorney General Bill Barr, who wants to declare the cartels “foreign terrorist organizations.” Barr wrote in The Wall Street Journal last week that the US should take military action against cartels.

Barr expressed support for a joint resolution proposed by Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) and Michael Waltz (R-FL) that would authorize the president to use military force against “those responsible for trafficking fentanyl or a fentanyl-related substance into the United States or carrying out other related activities that cause regional destabilization in the Western Hemisphere.” So far, the resolution has 16 Republican cosponsors.

Graham said he wants to put forward a bill that would designate cartels as terror organizations. “I’m going to introduce legislation, Jesse, to make certain Mexican drug cartels foreign terrorist organizations under US law and set the stage to use military force if necessary to protect America from being poisoned by things coming out of Mexico,” he said.

Other Republicans have called for military intervention in Mexico, which would be a dramatic escalation of America’s decades-old war on drugs. “We should strategically strike and take out the Mexican Cartels, not the Mexican government or their people, but the Mexican Cartels which control them all,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) wrote on Twitter on Monday.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on Tuesday warned the US against military intervention in his country. He said his government was “working and cooperating” with US authorities against cartels but wouldn’t allow “foreign countries” to intervene.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image: Mexican Army raids a Gulf Cartel’s house in Matamoros, Tamaulipas in 2012 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The attempts by Washington and its NATO allies to secure regime change in Syria earlier this century, was concerned with the strategic importance of the Syrian nation. Part of Syria’s western frontier rests along the Mediterranean Sea, a body of water which since Roman times has held significance as a link between East and West. 

Up until World War II, the Mediterranean region was a vital cog in the machinery of the British empire, assisting in control over her colonies. The Mediterranean allowed the English access to lucrative maritime and aerial routes. Its importance to London was primarily the reason they had announced in December 1914 complete command over Egypt as a protectorate, with that country sharing a long coastline with the Mediterranean.

In more recent times, the United States expressed its intention to control the Mediterranean area, when on 5 October 2011 Washington signed an extensive naval agreement with its NATO ally Spain (1). This enabled the Americans to station warships equipped with missile defence systems, operated by hundreds of NATO troops, at the US-controlled base (Naval Station Rota) at Cádiz, in the far south of Spain on the Mediterranean. The pretext that NATO used for the military expansion was to prevent ballistic missile attacks from Iran and North Korea. It was a bad excuse and one which might well have amused the Iranians and North Koreans.

Already in the spring of 2011 NATO had launched a military attack on Libya, a large oil-rich Mediterranean state, in order to oust the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The West’s desire was to install someone in Libya who would be more obedient to their demands, and thereby strengthen Washington’s authority over the Mediterranean. The NATO powers – America, France, Britain and Germany – disingenuously cited humanitarian concerns as a core reason for NATO’s assault against Libya, where under Gaddafi the Libyan people enjoyed the best living conditions in Africa.

With the outbreak of unrest during early 2011 in another Mediterranean state, Syria, the protests were not in fact directed against Bashar al-Assad‘s government. A Middle East specialist Neil Quilliam said, “The rebellion [in Syria] as it started was very localized”. He noted the demonstrations were “much more to do with local grievances against local security chiefs” and related to “corruption at the local level”. (2)

This was being exploited by Western politicians who, as in the case of Libya, made incorrect claims about Syria and depicted the unrest as aimed solely at president Assad. On 18 August 2011 the American leader Barack Obama said, “For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside”. (3)

At the same time, a statement was issued together by Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, the then leaders respectively of Germany, France and Britain. They stated that Assad faced “the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people” and they wanted him “to step aside in the best interests of Syria and the unity of its people”.

In reality, Assad has commanded considerable respect and popularity among the Syrian public. A report published for example in mid-January 2012 in the Guardian, a mainstream British paper which is hardly pro-Assad, outlined that a majority (55%) of Syrians wanted Assad to remain as the country’s leader. (4)

Among the goals of the US and its NATO allies, in their desire to remove the Syrian president, was to increase their control over the Mediterranean and to isolate Iran, a Western foe and Syrian ally. By trying to install a US-friendly regime in the capital city Damascus, the Americans hoped most of all it would help to contain Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East and Mediterranean.

The Obama administration wanted to stifle the presence of Russian military facilities in Syria that rest on the Mediterranean, at Tartus and Latakia (5); while cutting supply routes for weapons to Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based militant organisation which has hindered Israeli incursions into Lebanon. Furthermore, in the Mediterranean basin beside Syria there is estimated to be very large quantities of natural resources, amounting to 107 billion barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. (6)

The plans in Washington to dislodge president Assad dated to the George W. Bush years. Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks outlined that the US State Department had, since at least 2005, been providing millions of dollars to anti-Assad groups in Syria and based elsewhere such as in London. The State Department was sponsoring subversive activities and courses in Damascus. According to a cable from the US embassy in Damascus, the Americans had furnished $12 million or more to the opposition in Syria alone between 2005 and 2010. (7)

Another reason that the Western powers wanted to replace Assad, is because the Syrian leader refused to sign (in 2009) an agreement allowing the construction through Syrian land of the Western-backed South Pars/North Dome pipeline. Assad made this decision in part because he was defending the interests of his ally Russia (8). The gas pipeline had been earmarked to pass through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. The gas was meant to be supplied to the NATO states in Europe.

The CIA Director in the early 1990s, Robert Gates, wrote that Syria had been a problem for Washington over the course of many years, and that Syria was “a high-priority intelligence target for the United States” (9). Shortly after the ousting of Saddam Hussein in Iraq during April 2003, the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, developed contingency plans to extend the US war to nearby Syria; but the Americans had yet to subdue Iraq and could not attack Syria until then. As it turned out, the US military and other occupation forces were unable to conquer Iraq.

On 4 October 2011 the US, France and Britain, with the backing of NATO allies Germany and Portugal, tried to repeat the same deception they had used 7 months before regarding Libya – as the Western powers proposed to the UN Security Council a resolution on Syria, based on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, which if passed would be used by NATO to bomb Syria, and increase support to the opposition with the aim of overthrowing Assad’s government. Russia and China were well aware of NATO’s intentions and vetoed the resolution.

The Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, said the situation in Syria was similar to that in Libya, and he warned about how NATO would proceed should the resolution be passed (10). Irritated by the Russian and Chinese vetoes, Obama’s government, supported by London and Paris, instead proceeded to covertly wage war against Syria. The CIA, in collaboration with the Persian Gulf autocracies, was dropping military aid from the air to jihadists in Syria. Washington knew that most Western weaponry, sent through the Persian Gulf, ended up in the hands of Islamic terrorists and fundamentalists who had infiltrated Syria. (11)

The jihadists wanted to restore the Great Caliphate in Greater Syria, Bilad al-Sham, between the Euphrates river and the Mediterranean. In November 2011, it was reported in French and Turkish media that present in Syria were personnel from France’s foreign intelligence agency (DGSE) and the French Special Operations Command (COS). They were training deserters from the Syrian Army in urban guerrilla tactics, and creating the so-called Free Syrian Army. This military force consisted moreover of Sunni extremists and mercenaries recruited from Libya, many of whom had just partaken in the toppling of Gaddafi.

Present in Syria too in 2011, according to Israel’s military intelligence website Debkafile, were British special operatives from organisations like MI6, the Special Air Service (SAS) and the Special Boat Service (SBS). These British units were training anti-Assad militants, and were furnishing them with arms and intelligence details. British special forces were operating from early 2012 in Syria’s third largest city, Homs, less than 100 miles from Damascus. (12)

Sources in the Pentagon revealed that the CIA was operating drones over Syrian territory. The CIA was monitoring the movements of Syrian Army soldiers and their battles with the insurgents. Among the latter were growing numbers of terrorists from organisations like Al Qaeda. The new Al Qaeda boss, Ayman al-Zawahiri, publicly stated on 27 July 2011 his aim to assist in eliminating Assad’s government, and he said there “are enough and more mujahideen and garrisoned ones” already in Syria (13). The CIA and France’s DGSE privately estimated there to be thousands of Al Qaeda fighters in Syria.

American journalist Rod Nordland had acknowledged in July 2012, “The evidence is mounting that Syria has become a magnet for Sunni extremists, including those operating under the banner of Al Qaeda” (14). Without material aid, including from NATO countries, the insurgents did not possess enough firepower to defeat the Syrian Army. Assad said that “a new style of war” was being waged against his country, which he described as “terrorism through proxies” and that Syria is “the last stronghold of secularism and stability in the region”.

At the start of 2012, Obama personally ordered the establishment of what the CIA called a “rat line” (15). It was a channel enabling the dispatchment of weapons from post-Gaddafi Libya eastwards to Syria. The “rat line” was to run along the edge of southern Turkey, in order to supply the anti-Assad forces with arms.

The US State Department, since 2012 or even earlier, was formulating a program to provide military training to jihadists in Jordan, a country which shares a northern border with Syria. Historian Moniz Bandeira wrote, “A large part of the jihadists from Da’ish [Islamic State], perhaps even most of them, received combat and terrorism instructions there”. The cost of this program was $60 million, and those providing the training to the jihadists in Jordan were American personnel including from the CIA, the Special Operations Forces (SOF) and Navy SEALs.

US assistance to the insurgents involved training them with high-tech military hardware, such as anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons (16). In early March 2013, about 300 freshly-trained jihadists entered Syria from Jordan. Bandeira wrote that the men trained by the above US special forces “clearly weren’t ‘Syrian rebels’ or ‘moderates’ but Sunni Jihadists and foreign terrorists from various countries, including from Europe”. (17)

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes 

1 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer; 1st edition, 23 June 2017) p. 242 

2 “How Syria’s ‘geeky’ president went from doctor to ‘dictator’”, NBC, 30 October 2015 

3 “Western leaders call for Syria’s Assad to step aside”, France 24, 18 August 2011 

4 “Most Syrians back president Assad, but you’d never know from Western media”, The Guardian, 17 January 2012 

5 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 241 

6 “Allaw: Syria’s oil production fell between 20 and 25% because of the sanctions… No company withdraw”, 1 November 2011 

7 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st edition, 4 February 2019) p. 117 

8 Ibid. 

9 Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War (WH Allen, 6 August 2015) p. 171 

10 Bandeira, The World Disorder, p. 119 

11 Ibid., p. 345 

12 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 264 

13 “Zawahiri asserts common cause with Syrians”, Washington Post, 27 July 2011 

14 “Al Qaeda’s hand now detected in Syria conflict”, NBC, 25 July 2012 

15 Bandeira, The World Disorder, p. 130 

16 “Opposition source: Syrian rebels get U.S.-organized training in Jordan”, CNN, 15 March 2013 

17 Bandeira, The World Disorder, p. 131

Featured image is from SANA

---

History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, the Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests

By Shane Quinn

The first two chapters focus on German preparations as they geared up to launch their 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, called Operation Barbarossa, which began eight decades ago. It was named after King Frederick Barbarossa, a Prussian emperor who in the 12th century had waged war against the Slavic peoples. Analysed also in the opening two chapters are the Soviet Union’s preparations for a conflict with Nazi Germany.

The remaining chapters focus for the large part on the fighting itself, as the Nazis and their Axis allies, the Romanians and Finns at first, swarmed across Soviet frontiers in the early hours of 22 June 1941. The German-led invasion of the USSR was the largest military offensive in history, consisting of almost four million invading troops. Its outcome would decide whether the post-World War II landscape comprised of an American-German dominated globe, or an American-Soviet dominated globe. The Nazi-Soviet war was, as a consequence, a crucial event in modern history and its result was felt for decades afterward and, indeed, to the present day.

Click here to read the e-book.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

I figured it would go this way.

On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives voted 321-103 against a resolution calling for the US to end its illegal occupation of Syria. pic.twitter.com/M1hybsZ2Yv

— MintPress News (@MintPressNews) March 9, 2023

My hunch was more than mere cynicism. The fact of the matter is, the ruling elite is heavily invested in war, mass murder, environmental degradation as a consequence of war, unparalleled trauma, starvation, misery, etc. It is an aggressive and psychopathic effort to remain top dog, call the “rules-based” shots, and continue to steal natural resources, “privatize” public services, and enforce austerity, while killing off the holdouts.

Congress works for the elite. They “vote” for whatever insane, anti-human policies an oligarchic, monopolistic, corporate-fascistic, and psychopathic elite demand be imposed on the rest of us.

Referring to ISIS, @RepRyanZinke (R-MT) says we can't withdraw from Syria because "either we fight 'em in Syria, or we'll fight 'em here… in the streets of our nation."

Did he borrow this line from what Adam Schiff said about Russia? (https://t.co/kZxjDLlpm6) pic.twitter.com/7Zx9LDvmxH

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) March 9, 2023

What a load of BS. I am more concerned about the FBI, DHS, CIA, and DOD terrorizing and victimizing the American people than the highly remote prospect of a gaggle of Wahhabi-inculcated serial murderers invading Telluride, Colorado.

The USG claims it still has work to do in eastern Syria fighting ISIS, never mind it is responsible for the creation of this terror group, the same as it was responsible for the creation of a previous boogieman, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. The USG, by way of comparison, makes the average Muslim head chopper look like a grade school kid weilding a paring knife.

Naturally, the war propaganda media routinely misinforms the people about what the USG is doing in Syria, often through omission.

General enters Syria without a visa to visit an illegal US base, and not a single mention of the word “illegal”, “invasion”, or plundering of Syria’s oil. pic.twitter.com/R4WZOaFIJ7

— Richard Medhurst (@richimedhurst) March 6, 2023

Hypocrisy abounds, not that many Americans notice, or if they did, would they care or give it a second thought. Meanwhile, the hoi polloi are told, day after day, the problem is Russia and China. War propaganda lies are cobbled together. The fiction spun on poor, noble Ukraine is increasingly (and desperately) fantastical, defying belief and distorting reality. The lies and exaggerations are really quite astounding.

Helping Ukraine defeat Russia, ruins Russia's imperialism. Which Moscow propagandists admitted openly. If Ukraine falls, Russia WILL attack Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and America. Triggering NATO article 5.

Either arm Ukraine now to defeat Russia or fight Russia layer. pic.twitter.com/x9frVX1t1Y

— Jason Semerko Семерко (@Semerko1) March 5, 2023

It is really unfortunate so many Americans believe this nonsense about Russia. The “invasion” is about Russia finally pushing back against NATO’s decades-long effort to threaten the country on its border, in addition to disarming and eradicating neo-nazi paramilitaries and terrorists dedicated to ethnically cleansing and killing Russians in the Donbas and elsewhere in Ukraine.

Ronald Reagan did the same in Grenada, ostensibly to save a couple of American students from Cuba-inspired commies. No comparison is forthcoming. Reagan’s illegal invasion has been wiped away by amnesia. Americans loved the B-actor. They put him in office twice.

This truth is strictly verboten. You are instructed to believe lies and ridiculous fairy tales about Putin’s supposed mad dash to roll over Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and maybe the rest of Europe. It’s all a pack of vile and murderous lies.

It really is seriously unfortunate so many people are brainwashed and lobotomized by war propaganda that stands a chance of fomenting a final thermonuclear act.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TruePublica

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Mike Whitney: The Biden administration is determined to provoke China on the issue of Taiwan. The White House now believes that they must take a more aggressive approach to China in order to contain their development and preserve America’s role as regional hegemon. The irony of Washington’s approach, however, is the fact that tens of thousands of US corporations have fled the US over the last 3 decades to take advantage of China’s low-paid work force. In fact—according to Registration China—there are now more than 1 million foreign-owned companies registered on Mainland China, many of which are owned by Americans. These corporations are largely responsible for China’s meteoric economic rise over the same period of time. So my question to you is this: Why is China being blamed and targeted for the explosive growth for which US corporations are mainly responsible? Or do you disagree with my analysis?

Paul Craig Roberts: Your question is really several. Your question itself identifies the main or over-riding reason for Washington’s back-tracking on the one-China policy that has been in effect since 1972—China’s threat to US hegemony. The neoconservatives who dominate US foreign policy, the principal purpose of which, in their words, is to prevent the rise of other countries with sufficient power to constrain US unilateralism, now face both China and Russia as threats to US hegemony. Russia’s punishment is conflict in Ukraine, sanctions, missiles on their border, and blown up Nord Stream pipelines. The goal is to isolate Russia from Europe and to present the Kremlin with sufficient problems to keep Moscow out of Washington’s way.

Just as the US broke its agreement with Russia not to expand NATO and has withdrawn from the agreements made during the Cold War that served to reduce tensions, Washington is now moving toward repudiating the one-China policy as it no longer serves Washington’s interest.

In 1972 with the Cold War and Vietnam war, easing tensions with China made strategic sense. The Soviet Union’s existence precluded any notion of US hegemony. The neoconservatives got their idea of US hegemony two decades later when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. At that time the opinion was that Yeltsin’s Russia was no problem for US dominance and it would be decades before China would be strong enough to get in Washington’s way. But, as you point out in your question, the offshoring of US manufacturing to China quickly turned China into an economic powerhouse, while greatly diminishing the economic prowess of the US. It wasn’t so much that US corporations left on their own seeking higher profits from lower labor costs as it was that they were pushed by Wall Street, which threatened to finance takeovers in order to take advantage of the lower cost opportunity. In short, China’s rapid rise was the result of Wall Street and corporate greed, for which China does not bear responsibility.

American neoliberal economists explained the offshoring of US manufacturing jobs as the workings of free trade from which America would benefit. It was two billionaire businessmen, one American and one English, US textile magnate Roger Milliken and British financier Sir James Goldsmith, who challenged the neoliberal justification for giving away manufacturing. They certainly got me thinking about it, and once I did it was obvious that offshoring of manufacturing jobs had nothing to do with free trade. Economists are as difficult to dislodge from their brainwashing as believers in the 9/11 narrative, the mRNA “vaccine,” and Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I debated the leading proponents of offshoring who claimed it was a free trade bonanza, with the Wall Street Journal prominently featuring my debate with Jagdish Bhagwati, University Professor of Economics, Law, and International Relations at Columbia University. A decade ago my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, proved conclusively that the relocation of US manufacturing abroad was hugely detrimental to the US economy, but it was all to no effect. I concluded that US economists were all bought by Wall Street as “advisors” or were living on research grants from offshoring corporations and producing justifications for the offshoring policy. In short, America lost manufacturing, because of Wall Street and neoliberal economists.

President Donald Trump understood that America was hurt by the loss of manufacturing. It was Trump who began blaming China. Having no competent advisors, Trump associated America’s large Chinese trade deficit with unfair Chinese practices, and not with the fact that half of the US trade deficit (last time I looked) was accounted for by offshore production of US corporations marketed in the US. The goods enter the US as imports. Trump’s inclination to blame China instead of Wall Street and American economists was reinforced by Russiagate charges portraying Trump as working in Russia’s interest. Being tough on China was a way of showing Trump was defending America’s interest.

To summarize, China’s punishment for displacing the US as Asian hegemon is trouble with Taiwan. Trump opened the door for his neoconservative enemies by blaming China for what Wall Street and neoliberal economists are responsible.

I regard Washington’s threat to the one-China fact as insane–even more insane than the provocations of Russia. The Chinese mainland and Taiwan are undergoing economic integration. There is no way the US can stop this. Moreover, there is no prospect whatsoever of China allowing Taiwan to become a US military base any more than Russia would give up Crimea.

Mike Whitney: Journalist Ben Norton suggests that the big US banks and Wall Street might be the cause of Washington making Taiwan an issue. The Chinese financial system is largely socialized and is used to finance the real economy instead of speculation in financial assets. American banks want to bring the gambling casino to China and can’t. Do you think Washington could be using Taiwan to pressure China to let in Wall Street?

Paul Craig Roberts: Without any doubt the main cause of dangerously rising tensions between Washington and Russia and China and also Iran is the success the neoconservatives have had in imposing hegemony as the over-riding goal of US foreign policy. Of course, for the neoconservative ideology to have traction, it must serve powerful economic interests. Tensions with Russia and China clearly serve the material interests of the military/security complex. Hegemony along with the dollar’s reserve currency role also serve the dominance of American banks. But US foreign policy would not raise tensions with China solely for US banks. Indeed, tensions with China are dangerous for the many US corporations whose production is based in China. These firms could easily be nationalized or refused export licenses. If the US can disobey international law, so can China. Tensions with China are also dangerous to the Treasury bond market and to the exchange value of the US dollar. If China were to dump its holdings of US debt on the bond market, the Federal Reserve would have to print money with which to redeem the bonds so that the price doesn’t collapse. But if China then dumped the dollars from bond redemptions in the currency market, the Federal Reserve cannot print foreign currencies with which to purchase the dollars, and the dollar’s exchange value would fall, raising the price of imports made necessary by the offshoring of US manufacturing and food imports, thus worsening US inflation and lowering US living standards.

The neoconservatives’ hostility toward Russia and China is definitely not in America’s interest. In the Chinese case, it is American corporations and the US dollar that this hostility makes vulnerable, not China. In the Russian case, it is Europe that is suffering from the hostility, not Russia. What the neoconservatives are achieving is the opposite of their aims. Their policy is imposing costs on Europeans, not on Russia, and the Europeans are going to resent the suffering imposed on them. Although all European governments along with European journalists receive, as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs told me years ago, bags full of money for representing Washington’s interests (which seldom in my experience have anything to do with Americans’ interests), sooner or later European peoples will come to the realization that “their” governments represent Washington, not them. People will suffer a lot before hardship becomes intolerable. At that point, unless people have been killed off with “vaccines” and released pathogens or in nuclear war, the guillotine arrives and governments fall.

Mike Whitney: America’s critical infrastructure is going to the dogs. The roads are full of potholes, the airports are a disgrace and over a thousand trains derail every year. Meanwhile, a bigger and bigger share of the nation’s net income continues to go to billionaires who already have more yachts and vacation homes than they can count. Would you be opposed to the Biden administration extending an olive branch to Beijing by joining China’s multi trillion-dollar infrastructure plan, the Belt and Road Initiative, so we can work collaboratively with a foreign government to do major overhaul of the county’s roads, bridges, ports and especially high-speed rail? Clearly, the Chinese know what they’re doing and—I would imagine—the project would represent tens of thousands of jobs for American construction workers. Would you support a joint-collaboration like that or do you think we should go-it-alone?

Paul Craig Roberts: Mike, as you know, I regard you as one of the most perceptive persons of our age, but this question is naive beyond belief. First of all, it makes no difference whatsoever what I would support, or you would support, or the American people would support. We neither control nor influence the decisions. This is why in the end it comes to enserfment or revolution. The American people elected Trump twice. The first time the elite would not permit him to govern. The second time they stole the election from him and prevented any examination of the theft. Because of the power of money in campaign contributions from vested interests, now legitimized by the US Supreme Court, it is impossible in the US to elect a government that serves the people’s interest and if happens the elite disposes of the people’s choice using the media it owns.

Second, any American who proposes to cooperate with China in any way will be labeled a “Chinese Dupe/Agent.” We have already experienced this with Russia. The President of the United States was harassed by his own Department of Justice (sic) as a Russian agent simply because he wanted to “normalize relations with Russia.” I was branded a Putin Agent/Dupe by a website given prominence by the Washington Post, funded by we don’t know who, because I provided a truthful, correct account of the neoconservatives’ responsibility for the conflict in Ukraine.

Thirdly, according to Modern Monetary Theory, the creation of money by governments to finance infrastructure projects that lead to greater productivity or reduce costs to business is non-inflationary. Instead it drops production costs and makes a country’s businesses more productive and more successful in international competition. Refurbishing US infrastructure is a goal we can easily accomplish ourselves.

There is no need whatsoever for the US to participate in infrastructure projects such as Belt and Road. What Washington should be doing is removing gratuitous tensions with the two rising powers. Accept them and integrate with their success. This would benefit all and remove the danger of nuclear war.

But where are any American or Western leaders of vision?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

All images in this article are from TUR

U.S Secretary of State Blinken Concedes War Is Lost?

John Helmer, March 7, 2023

Washington Is Out to Topple India’s Modi

F. William Engdahl, February 20, 2023

Young People Who Suffered Blood Clots and Amputations After COVID-19 Vaccination Are Being Lied to, and Media Uses Them to Lie to Us

Dr. William Makis, March 7, 2023

Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) and the Turkey-Syria Earthquake: An Expert Investigation is Required

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 9, 2023

Showdown in Ukraine. Hobbled US Turns to War to Preserve Its Waning Primacy

Mike Whitney, March 1, 2023

Italy 2020: Inside COVID’s ‘Ground Zero’ in Europe

Michael Bryant, March 8, 2023

Was the Earthquake in Turkey and Syria Man-made?

Prof. Claudia von Werlhof, March 6, 2023

First Child Death Due to Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Compensated. Taiwanese Girl 5-11 Years Old Died After Second Pfizer Jab. Government Awarded $115,000 to Family

Dr. William Makis, March 5, 2023

The US Meat Supply May Soon be Widely Contaminated with mRNA Proteins From Biotech “Vaccines”

Mike Adams, March 4, 2023

Imagine a World Without Smartphones

Emanuel Pastreich, March 7, 2023

Turkey-Syria Earthquake: Is This An Act of Terror?

Peter Koenig, March 5, 2023

Mike Whitney’s Antivax Grab-Bag: Memes, Blurbs and Links

Mike Whitney, March 6, 2023

Why America Needs War, The Project for The New American Century (PNAC)

Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, March 8, 2023

Who is Volodymyr Zelensky?

Nauman Sadiq, March 4, 2023

Wars: The Cancelled History

Manlio Dinucci, March 5, 2023

Neo-Nazi Terrorists Invade Russia, Kill Civilians

Kurt Nimmo, March 5, 2023

Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing.’

Robert J. Burrowes, March 5, 2023

COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Psychosis – 13 Cases of Post-Vaccine Psychosis, Mania & Suicide Attempts That Will Shock You.

Dr. William Makis, March 9, 2023

Russian Aerospace Forces Failing in Ukraine? Moscow’s “State of the Art” Su-57 Aircraft

Drago Bosnic, March 7, 2023

Why the Body Attacks Itself After COVID-19 Vaccination

Dr. Peter McCullough, March 8, 2023

Pathetic: New York Times “Twisted Fairy Tale”: Ukraine Bombed the North Stream Pipeline

By Karsten Riise, March 09, 2023

The New York Times is so pathetic. US President Biden is in deep sh*t because of Seymour Hersh’s detailed revelation of how Joe Biden ordered the bombing of the Nord Stream, how it was done, and who did it.

Biden Officials Claim Rogue Ukrainian Navy Seals Pulled Off Deep Sea Nord Stream Sabotage, Despite Ukraine Not Having a Functioning Navy

By Jordan Schachtel, March 09, 2023

The people in charge have become comically deficient at spinning tales of ruling class heroism and international intrigue, as evidenced by their latest story about the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.

Video: January 6, 2021 Capitol Hill Event, See the Footage. Police Let Them In

By Tucker Carlson and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, March 09, 2023

Joe Biden was not duly elected, he was selected. He is a groomed and “reliable” politician. He is a political instrument of the global capitalist establishment. The January 6, 2021 was not a Coup d’Etat as claimed by the mainstream media, it was a protest movement.

Huwwara: Israeli Settlers Release Song Celebrating the Burning of Palestinian Town

By Middle East Eye, March 09, 2023

The song was initially shared on the WhatsApp groups of the Hilltop Youth, an extremist religious-nationalist settler group active in attacks against Palestinians and the establishing of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

In a Multipolar World, the Idea of a New World Order Dies

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, March 09, 2023

When former US President  George W. Bush and his neocon regime launched their anti-terrorism campaign after the September 11^th attacks, he declared that “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

U.S. Occupation of Syria Will Continue

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, March 09, 2023

According to eyewitness accounts, as recently as last week, on 27 February, US troops transported at least 34 tankers filled with stolen Syrian oil through the illegal Al-Mahmoudiya border crossing to their bases in Iraq.

How Pfizer’s Trials Were Fraudulent

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, March 09, 2023

Details continue to emerge about coverups and fraud that took place during Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot trials. Die Welt, a mainstream media outlet in Germany, revealed that numerous subjects who suffered adverse events, including deaths, were removed from the trial data.

Secret COINTELPRO Plot to Infiltrate and Destroy the American Indian Movement: “We Wanted Them to Kill Each Other”—FBI Agent Admits After Five Decades of Silence

By Jeremy Kuzmarov, March 09, 2023

February 27 through May 8 marks the 50^th anniversary of the occupation by the American Indian Movement (AIM) of Wounded Knee on the Oglala Lakota Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota, the site of the last great massacre of the Indian Wars in December 1890.

Dubai Superlatives: The Power of Excessive Wealth

By Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin, March 09, 2023

Maybe the closest we can get to Elon Musk’s vision of Mars is a visit to Dubai. Imagine an alien planet where you can only live in the base settlement with a breathable atmosphere: a comfortable place and a comfortable temperature.

Things to Learn from Daniel Ellsberg

By David Swanson, March 09, 2023

Dan Ellsberg risked life in prison. And then he went on risking punishments again and again. He took part in countless — I think he may actually have a count, but the word is appropriate — nonviolent protest actions that involved his arrest. He knew that information was not enough, that nonviolent action was needed as well, and that it could succeed.

This was originally published in October 2015.

People these days look at you like a weirdo if you talk about the healing properties of plants or any other holistic practices. Much like anything else, there is a lot of politics and money behind our modern medical system.

It all starts with John D. Rockefeller (1839 – 1937) who was an oil magnate, a robber baron, America’s first billionaire, and a natural-born monopolist.

By the turn of the 20th century, he controlled 90% of all oil refineries in the U.S. through his oil company, Standard Oil, which was later on broken up to become Chevron, Exxon, Mobil etc.

At the same time, around 1900, scientists discovered “petrochemicals” and the ability to create all kinds of chemicals from oil. For example, the first plastic — called Bakelite — was made from oil in 1907. Scientists were also discovering various vitamins and guessed that many pharmaceutical drugs could be made from oil.

This was a wonderful opportunity for Rockefeller who saw the ability to monopolize the oil, chemical and the medical industries at the same time!

The best thing about petrochemicals was that everything could be patented and sold for high profits.

But there was one problem with Rockefeller’s plan for the medical industry: natural/herbal medicines were very popular in America at that time. Almost half the doctors and medical colleges in the U.S. were practicing holistic medicine, using knowledge from Europe and Native Americans.

Rockefeller, the monopolist, had to figure out a way to get rid of his biggest competition. So he used the classic strategy of “problem-reaction-solution.” That is, create a problem and scare people, and then offer a (pre-planned) solution. (Similar to terrorism scare, followed by the “Patriot Act”).

He went to his buddy Andrew Carnegie – another plutocrat who made his money from monopolizing the steel industry – who devised a scheme. From the prestigious Carnegie Foundation, they sent a man named Abraham Flexner to travel around the country and report on the status of medical colleges and hospitals around the country.

This led to the Flexner Report, which gave birth to the modern medicine as we know it.

Needless to say, the report talked about the need for revamping and centralizing our medical institutions. Based on this report, more than half of all medical colleges were soon closed.

Homeopathy and natural medicines were mocked and demonized; and doctors were even jailed.

To help with the transition and to change the minds of other doctors and scientists, Rockefeller gave more than $100 million to colleges and hospitals, and founded a philanthropic front group called “General Education Board” (GEB). This is the classic carrot and stick approach.

In a very short time, medical colleges were all streamlined and homogenized. All the students were learning the same thing, and medicine was all about using patented drugs.

Scientists received huge grants to study how plants cured diseases, but their goal was to first identify which chemicals in the plant were effective, and then recreate a similar chemical –but not identical — in the lab that could be patented.

A pill for an ill became the mantra for modern medicine.

And you thought Koch brothers were evil?

So, now we are, 100 years later, churning out doctors who know nothing about the benefits of nutrition or herbs or any holistic practices. We have an entire society that is enslaved to corporations for its well-being.

America spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare, which should be really called “sick care.” It is focused not on cure, but only on symptoms, thus creating repeat customers. There is no cure for cancer, diabetes, autism, asthma, or even flu.

Why would there be real cures? This is a system founded by oligarchs and plutocrats, not by doctors.

As for cancer, oh yeah, the American Cancer Society was founded by none other than Rockefeller in 1913.

In this month of breast cancer awareness, it is sad to see people being brainwashed about chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.  That’s for another blog post … but here is a quote from John D. Rockefeller that summarizes his vision for America…

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All images in this article are from World Affairs unless otherwise stated

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The people in charge have become comically deficient at spinning tales of ruling class heroism and international intrigue, as evidenced by their latest story about the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.

From scripts declaring that bat (or pangolin) soup led to a “global pandemic,” to declaring that humanity had achieved a “miracle cure” vaccine (100% effective, said Pfizer) for the coronavirus, and now, distorted, source-free chronicles meant to boost support for the Slava Slush Fund, the lies continue to reach new heights of implausibility.

The New York Times dropped the latest spoon-fed script on Tuesday, with three of its intelligence community stenographers writing that an unnamed “pro-Ukrainian group” is said to be responsible for the September sabotage of Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines.

Speaking truth to power? No no no. Forget about that! The New York Times uses power as an instrument to peddle distortions, completely detached from the truth. It is Soviet Pravda, except that the direct Uniparty affiliation remains an unspoken truth.

The sources for their information on the Nord Stream operation are anonymous intelligence agents. Notably, the reporters on the byline have a reputation for peddling stories for three letter agencies, regardless of the veracity behind their claims. These churnalists are very loyal media assets, as proven by their shameless, routine publishing of unsourced declarations from non-identified, anonymous “intelligence” agents. In exchange, they are awarded with journalism awards.

Making matters more absurd, this “pro-Ukrainian” group acted without the knowledge of the man in charge, President Volodomyr Zelensky, or any of his top deputies, the intelligence agents tell the stenographers.

Now, it’s worth noticing that the New York Times article describes these actors as “pro-Ukrainian.” However, the unnamed intelligence agents also told them it was a “proxy force with connections to the Ukrainian government or its security services,” adding that “officials who have reviewed the intelligence said they believed the saboteurs were most likely Ukrainian or Russian nationals.”

There are several reasons to dismiss the idea that some rogue Ukrainian Spetsnaz special forces divers carried out these operations on their own.

For one, the incidents took place close just outside the territorial waters of Denmark in the Baltic Sea, nowhere near Ukraine itself. Ukrainian forces have no naval access to those waters, and would have travel by land or air over Poland to get there.

Even more importantly, the Ukrainian special forces likely do not have the naval capacity to pull off such an operation, whether or not it was approved by Kiev. Only a handful of world powers have the resources to execute a sophisticated deep sea, multi pronged sabotage operation, the United States and Russia being two of these states.

The concrete is blown off, the reinforcing steel lies scattered across the floor like confetti, the steel tube of tha vertically sicking piece is shredded like the cardboard tube of a Chinese firecracker on New Year's Eve.

Well, that's just NS1. pic.twitter.com/QghfLXDYrw

— Michael Kobs (@MichaKobs) March 7, 2023

Get an idea of the size: pic.twitter.com/wZqE4em8JX

— Michael Kobs (@MichaKobs) March 7, 2023

Ukraine, on the other hand, had a barely functioning Navy before the recent flare up with Russia. Moscow has since eliminated much of what was left of Ukraine’s naval capacity, through the capturing of Mariupol and other successful coastal campaigns. Ukraine has a grand total of zero aircraft carriers, zero submarines, and zero destroyers. The rest of its vessels are either decades old or have been damaged or eliminated by Russian forces.

Following The New York Times report, Kiev denied any involvement in the Nord Stream explosions.

The new narrative comes just one month (fast turnaround time on government bureaucrat time) after journalist Sy Hersh reported in great detail on the alleged Biden Administration-directed sabotage of the Nord Stream systems.

The Hersh piece — albeit also anonymously sourced — created lots of new media inquiry in the direction of the White House, which has denied having anything to do with the bombings.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Freenations

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

You will forgive me if from time to time I find myself silent and stymied in the doldrums.  The past three years, in our Corona Epoch, weigh heavily on us all, but there is more: these past three years have revealed to those with eyes to see and ears to hear the rank depths of corruption within virtually every institute of government and within virtually every formerly honorable profession.

To have witnessed Medicine undermine itself in such a way as to make itself unrecognizable – in, for example, its sudden enthusiasm for masks, its sudden forgetfulness about early treatment and natural immunity, its sudden acceptance of a novel therapeutic agent that had been inadequately tested, its mania to subject children to this agent, its sudden scorn for informed consent and its equally sudden disregard of the founding principle of the Hippocratic Oath, at first not to harm – is to recognize outright self-destruction.

That so many so-called medical practitioners abandoned their fundamental duties to their patients and themselves is a disgrace for which I can find no adequate word except prostitution – bearing in mind that in using this word I am doing sex workers a disservice because their form of prostitution represents an honest exchange.

There is more to the weight of these three years of deception because these three years have carried the culminating weight of ages of hypocrisy, oppression and falsehood from the Powers that have ruled over the common man and woman.

A friend recently opined to me that he has begun to question the veracity of State utterances or, as is fashionable now to say, its ‘narratives’, and I responded by saying that I believed one should adopt the attitude that everything we are told by governmental authorities is a lie until proved otherwise.

They lied about the murders of JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcom X.

They lied about the war in Vietnam.

They lied about 911.

They lied about the Middle East invasions, the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, the various coups instigated by ‘intelligence’ agencies around the world and, naturally, they lied about covid in a way that would make Satan proud for the comprehensiveness and cleverness of the ruse. They are lying about the Ukraine and Russia at the moment too.

The effect of these relentless and blatant falsehoods is to corrode the very tissue of legality and fairness that keeps societies together under an aegis of justice, and consequently to fashion a world whose only law is Power.

I’ve written about Power and its role and the sober expectations we must possess regarding those who wield it, yet the scale of sadistic and murderous campaigns throughout history pales in comparison to the war within which we find ourselves now: global, savage, ingeniously devious and, to date, fairly successful.

The ways and means of killing have assumed a sophistication that makes Nazi concentration camps appear cumbersome and inefficient.  Is it not ‘cleaner’ and far more effective to render populations infertile, to accelerate cancers, to foster strokes and cardiomyopathy and autoimmune conditions in age groups hitherto unaccustomed to suffer such phenomena, and to create, even in these early years post-jab, what is euphemistically called ‘excess mortality’ – a term that sanitizes and obscures the calculated enfeeblement and killing that is unique and unprecedented?

And is it not a macabre form of genius to have persuaded so many many people to accept it all, to refute the evidence of their senses, and to attack those of us who challenge their perceptions with frightful vehemence, vehemence that overrides the bonds of friendship?

In a recent exchange with a friend of nearly five decades, I was told that he scorned my ‘alternative’ sources and that he was through with me.  For the past year we had maintained our friendship – a friendship that included wonderful times together and frankly beautiful shared experiences – on condition that I not dare to speak about anything that contradicted his MSM conception of all things covid or Ukraine.

It was like sitting across from someone while the proverbial elephant in the room had placed its bulk right between us. We could exchange pleasantries and reminisce about anything and everything except the large creature with its imposing trunk and tusks and head and limbs that stood in our way, the immense pachyderm that was the bloated embodiment of historically accumulated falsehood.

Can friendships survive with such strictures?

Can friendships survive the chasm between those who have swallowed the propaganda of mainstream news outlets hook, line and sinker, and those who seek for truth from ordinary citizens not beholden to advertising revenue or governmental coercion?

Should friendships survive a chasm that separates those who condone mandates, lethal universal inoculations, outright kinetic war when it suits their purposes, climate change fanaticism, the suppression of debate, and a centralized global governing ‘order’ – from those who cherish free speech, individual responsibility, and human choice?

Well, however difficult and painful it may be to accept, there is a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is by fernando zhiminaicela from Pixabay

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A Baltic monitoring media outlet has published footage of an enormous amount of American military equipment being prepared to move from the Port of Gdynia in Poland. 

The expanse of military hardware is being described as equipment belonging to the US Army’s 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division. Some Eastern European media reports are claiming that at least a portion of the equipment, which looks multiple football fields in length, are bound for Kiev.

Equipment belonging to the @USArmy 🇺🇸 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division staged at the Port of Gdynia, Poland 🇵🇱 in preparation for redeployment to the continental United States after serving in the Operation #AtlanticResolve, Feb. 22, 2023. #StrongerTogether pic.twitter.com/sqK5U3UbWZ

— Baltic Security (@balt_security) March 4, 2023

Hundreds of heavy military vehicles can be seen in the footage, including armored personnel carriers, tanks and armored trucks.

Despite claims that the equipment is bound for Ukraine, a source which widely circulated the footage, “Baltic Security”, wrote that it’s at the Polish port “in preparation for redeployment to the continental United States after serving in the Operation Atlantic Resolve.”

Russia’s Sputnik noted that “Some Polish and Ukrainian media outlets, however, did not think twice about claiming that part of the military hardware seen in the video would be redeployed to Ukraine, where Russia continues its special military operation.”

But it remains that “Neither the White House not the Pentagon have commented on the matter yet.”

“The footage comes as the US had already committed more than $100 billion worth of security and military assistance to Kiev since the beginning of the Russian special operation,” the state publication continued. Given how desperate that Ukrainian front lines, particularly in Bakhmut, are right now for more ammo and equipment – it would be surprising if these rows upon rows of hardware aren’t in the end headed for Ukraine.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from ZH

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Joe Biden was not duly elected, he was selected. He is a groomed and “reliable” politician. He is a political instrument of the global capitalist establishment.

The January 6, 2021 was not a Coup d’Etat as claimed by the mainstream media, it was a protest movement.

Some analysts contend that it was a False Flag. The photographic evidence presented below confirms that the demonstrators were allowed into the Capitol by the police and security guards.

According to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

“The Democrat & Republican Establishment, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, NYTimes, Washington Post, have committed the equivalent of the Reichstag Fire used by Hitler to seize total power.  The Democrats, Republicans, Media, Security agencies all intend the total and complete overthrow of the American people.

Tucker Carlson is the ONLY voice for truth in the entirety of the legacy media.”

US Senate & Minority Leaders Call for Suppression of Evidence That They Perpetrated an Insurrection Hoax

Source: Fox News

Global Research has compiled several videos which confirm unequivocally that the Police facilitated the entry of demonstrators into the Capitol.

Capitol police open doors for the protestors. They stand aside and invite them inside. pic.twitter.com/OnSd3KGzz5

— Christina Bobb (@christina_bobb) January 8, 2021

Original Video by @marcusdipaola
Police Officer opening barrier for protestors.
Over the last few days there were efforts to tag this clip as inconclusive. However, slow-down and zoom-in show clearly that policeman DID open the barrier without being attacked. pic.twitter.com/xhhFJu7QVP

— Barbara Zuber (@ZuberBa) January 9, 2021

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

Featured image is from Future of Freedom Foundation

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Planes go up. Planes go down. What planes don’t do is just vanish off the face of the Earth.” These are the words of aviation journalist Jeff Wise, who features in Netflix’s chilling new docuseries, MH370: The Plane that Disappeared. But on 8 March 2014, that’s precisely what happened. A Malaysia Airlines flight with 227 passengers and 12 crew on board departed its home capital of Kuala Lumpur and never landed at its planned destination of Beijing. What occurred after the aircraft last communicated with air traffic control 38 minutes after take-off has been the subject of innumerable theories in the years since – some plausible, some risible – many of which are explored in this three-parter. “It’s important that people still talk about MH370 and don’t just forget about it,” director Louise Malkinson tells me over Zoom. “It’s a mystery that hasn’t been solved and I think it’s really important that there’s a push for a resumed search for the plane.”

In January 2017, the three-year search for MH370 was called off, leaving the most baffling case in aviation history unsolved. Using what little satellite data there was, scientists had identified a vast search area in the Southern Indian Ocean. While various bits of debris – some alleged, some confirmed – have been recovered over the years, the main underwater wreckage and its crucial black box data recorders have remained elusive. For the next of kin of the passengers on board, this lack of evidence represents a lack of closure, which has defined their lives for the past nine years. In one piece of archival footage, Jiang Hui – a Chinese man whose mother was on the flight – is handed what is believed to be a small chunk of the plane. The pain is writ large upon his face as he recalls, “When I had the debris in my hand, I thought, ‘This was probably the thing that was closest to my mother in her last moments.’” This may be the nearest thing to a resolution that Jiang ever gets. “Ambiguous loss is a trauma like no other,” Malkinson says. “To be nine years on and having no answers… you just can’t imagine it.”

Click here to read the full article on The Independent.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Israeli settlers have been sharing on their WhatsApp groups a song celebrating the burning of the Palestinian town of Huwwara and its anticipated erasure. 

The song was initially shared on the WhatsApp groups of the Hilltop Youth, an extremist religious-nationalist settler group active in attacks against Palestinians and the establishing of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Overlaid with the melody of Hanania by popular religious Zionist singer Hanan Ben-Ari, the song starts with “What is burning down…Huwwara/Houses and cars…Huwwara/ Evicting from [Huwwara] old women, the young and girls too.”

Huwwara, a Palestinian town in the West Bank, was at the centre of an unprecedented Israeli settler rampage on 26 February.

At least one Palestinian was killed and nearly 400 wounded in the attacks on Huwwara and other West Bank towns and villages, Palestinian health officials said.

The song also includes lyrics such as “They burn their trucks, roads and cars, ambulances and fire engines, you will no longer recognise Huwwara.”

Commenting on Hilltop Youth’s rendition of his song, Ben-Ari, called it an “unfunny and inappropriate joke“.

While there is no indication that Ben-Ari condoned the use of his song, his music, which reflects his religious worldview, resonates with some Israeli settlers.

Raised in Karnei Shomron in the occupied West Bank, Ben-Ari is the nephew of Michael Ben-Ari, who co-founded the political party Jewish Power, now led by far-right Israeli minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

‘Wipe out Huwwara’

On Monday evening, settlers once again stormed Huwwara, hurling stones at Palestinians, their cars and properties. Palestine’s Red Crescent said that 31 people, including six children, were wounded, and five of them were rushed to the emergency department of Ibn Sina hospital.

On social media, settlers threatened to “destroy” the town, much of which has been set ablaze.

Israeli soldiers were also present when settlers rampaged through Huwwara and the Palestinian village of Zatara, and during the fatal shooting of a Palestinian man on the night of 26 February.

Sameh al-Aqtash, a 37-year-old Palestinian resident of Zatara, was shot when around 40 to 50 settlers attacked his village. Video footage taken by Palestinians shows at least two Israeli army jeeps and a police car at the scene, not intervening to stop the rampage.

Israeli settlers are not the first to call for Huwwara to be demolished.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who is also responsible for Israel’s civil administration in the occupied West Bank, on Wednesday said Israel should “wipe out” the village in the wake of the attack.

“The state needs to do it and not private citizens,” he said.

The US condemned the comments as  “repugnant, irresponsible and disgusting“, with US State Department spokesman Ned Price calling on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other top officials to “publicly and clearly” disavow the minister’s comments.

Smotrich, who is due in the US at an investment conference in Washington DC next week, later claimed his remarks were “a slip of the tongue”.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Israeli settler song cover calling for the destruction of Huwwara (Social Media/Twitter via MEE)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Members of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) committee at their latest meeting agreed to provide compensation of NT$3.5 million (US$114,829) to the family of a child who died of fulminant myocarditis after receiving her second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

Ten of the 118 cases reviewed during the meeting were awarded compensation, including one case of adverse reaction after receiving a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine and nine cases of adverse reactions after a COVID-19 vaccine.

One of the cases is a Taoyuan girl aged five to 11, who died of fulminant myocarditis after receiving her second shot of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Ahead of a Wednesday vote on his resolution to force congressional oversight on the continuation of U.S. military operations in Syria, Rep. Matt Gaetz Fla. was feeling bullish. “Hope springs eternal,” he told The Intercept when asked whether the measure would pass. The resolution was ultimately voted down on Wednesday night with 47 Republicans joining 56 Democrats in support of the bill. Despite the revolution’s defeat, it was just the beginning in a string of efforts to end U.S. military operations abroad, according to its sponsor.

“Syria is my lead-off hitter. We’re going to take a trip around the globe. We may go to Yemen, we may have stops in Niger, we may have stops in Sudan, maybe ultimately, we’ll end in Ukraine,” Gaetz said.

The Obama administration’s ambassador to Syria, a leading voice in favor of aggressively confronting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the time, also backed the effort by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., to force U.S. withdrawal from the country within 180 days.

Robert Ford argued in a letter to Congress in support of Gaetz’s legislation that the U.S. mission has no clear objective. “After more than eight years of military operations in Syria there is no definition of what the ‘enduring’ defeat of ISIS would look like,” Ford writes in the letter, which was obtained by The Intercept and confirmed as authentic by Ford. “We owe our soldiers serving there in harm’s way a serious debate about whether their mission is, in fact, achievable.”

The resolution also has the support of former Obama ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, at the time an advocate of expansive support for the Syrian opposition. He now says it's time to go. From a letter her wrote: pic.twitter.com/UW2G7YMsZw

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) March 7, 2023

On Tuesday evening, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, or CPC, circulated a message to its membership urging a yes vote, producing a serious bipartisan coalition.

“This measure to remove unauthorized deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in Syria unless a specific statutory authorization is enacted within six months is largely consistent with previous bipartisan efforts led by CPC Members to terminate such unauthorized military presence within one year, for which 130 House Democrats voted yes last year,” read the message to members.

At the same time that Gaetz’s resolution was being debated on the House floor, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took up the question of whether to end the military force authorizations that provided the legal basis for decades of war in Iraq.

“I am encouraged that the kerfuffle my Syria legislation has brought to the Republican conference may lead us to a broader discussion about the 2001 AUMF, the 2002 AUMF, and it’s obviously well past time for us to reconsider those authorizations in light of the world we live in in 2023.”

CPC member Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who voted for the resolution said that attitudes towards U.S. involvement in foreign conflict were shifting on both sides of the aisle.

“There is a new generation of thinking on two central issues. A concern about wars and entanglements over the last 20 years that have not made us safer, and a concern over the offshoring of our domestic production over bad trade deals that have left the working class and middle class poorer,” Khanna said. “I believe that this new generation of political leaders can help fix those two mistakes that the country has made and that there is an emerging consensus that we should not have our troops fighting overseas without congressional authorization.”

An original version of Gaetz’s measure offered just 15 days for troops to leave Syria, but he amended it to six months in the hope of drawing real support. The new measure, a war powers resolution that is privileged on the House floor, would allow troops to stay longer if Congress debated on and authorized the intervention.

Gaetz’s introduction of the resolution, particularly with such a short timetable that would doom it to lopsided defeat, kicked off a flurry of lobbying to try to turn it into a bipartisan coalition, involving progressive groups like Just Foreign Policy and Demand Progress and conservative ones such as FreedomWorks, Concerned Veterans for America, and Citizens for Renewing America. But the speed with which it came to the floor left little time for grassroots mobilization.

“The CPC has been leading on this front and nothing has changed. I wish Gaetz worked more closely with the coalition of groups that have been working on this and the CPC,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., deputy chair of the CPC, who worked with Gaetz to get the legislation to a place where Democrats could back it. “Nonetheless, I am a yes on the resolution.”

Gaetz did not respond to a request for comment.

Ford had previously supported a 2021 legislative push by New York Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman, whose amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act would have given the U.S. one year to exit Syria. Bowman’s measure won the support of 21 Republicans and roughly half of the Democratic caucus. Despite the rise of an anti-interventionist wing of the GOP, the votes to oppose American adventures overseas continue to come largely from Democrats. In July 2022, Bowman pushed for another floor vote, this time picking up 25 Republicans and winning the Democratic caucus 130-88.

In 2019, Gaetz and a handful of other Republicans backed President Donald Trump’s push for an end to the U.S. presence there and were joined by Omar and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who bucked their party to back Trump’s proposed withdrawal. But like Trump’s Afghanistan withdrawal, he never actually did it, losing the internal power struggle to supporters of a continued occupation.

Opposition to US intervention in Syria has been bipartisan since the earliest days of the crisis. In 2013, Daily Kos and HuffPost ran whip counts ahead of a vote called for by Obama to authorize the use of force, pressuring progressives to vote no. HuffPost tallied 243 members of Congress planning to vote no or leaning no before Obama pulled the legislation from the floor.

In 2014, Ford resigned his position, frustrated that the Obama administration was not providing enough support to the opposition to, at minimum, force al-Assad to the negotiating table. The need to minimize U.S. involvement undermined the purpose of that involvement, he argued. In other words, go big or go home — and Ford is now arguing that U.S. troops ought to go home and that the Gaetz measure is a vehicle to help make that happen. “And remember that ‘go big’ offers no guarantee of success,” he said when I asked if the idiom appropriately summed up his argument. “We went big in Iraq and had mixed results.”

Ford noted in his letter that leftist Kurdish forces in Syria, with U.S. support, had claimed the last piece of ISIS territory in March 2019 and the Pentagon has assessed that ISIS now lacks the capacity to strike the U.S. at home. Militias aligned with Iran have taken the opportunity of U.S. presence in the region to launch attacks on American troops, who number roughly 900, not counting contractors.

The legal rationale for U.S. occupation is dubious at best. With ISIS suppressed, the administration has suggested the purpose of the occupation is to act as a bulwark against Iran. The Washington Post previously reported:

The balance of power in Syria’s multisided conflict depends on the American presence. Where U.S. troops retreat, American officials see an opening for the Syrian military or forces from Russia or Turkey to advance. Some U.S. officials have stressed that the American deployment precludes Iranian forces from establishing a “land bridge” that would allow them to more easily supply weapons to their Hezbollah allies in Lebanon.

“It’s about keeping a balance,” said one senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the media.

In fact, Iran already has a direct “land bridge” through eastern Syria to Lebanon; the U.S. occupation merely adds some time to the Iranian truckers’ journey. More to the point, said Ford, there is no authorization to deploy troops overseas to counter Iran. “The 2001 authorization of the use of military force was all about Al Qaeda and, to a secondary extent, the Taliban and Afghanistan,” he said. “It wasn’t about Iranian or pro-Iranian militias in eastern Syria.”

Vermont’s newly elected Democrat, Rep. Becca Balint, who also voted yes on the resolution, said it is critical to restore congressional oversight of foreign wars. But she also raised concern over the plight of Syrian Kurds who have long fought alongside U.S. forces, and could suffer increased attacks from Turkey which claims their autonomous enclave as an existential threat.

“For me, it’s important to plant a stake around tightening things up on the war power act but also  making sure there is long term support in place for the Syrian Kurds,” Balint said. “A lot of people are talking about the Kurds and it’s a concern so many of us have. I have a 15-year-old son and I was talking to him about this last night. One of the things that we talked about is that there are always people involved in conflict between two sides and we can lose sight of those people in the long term. It’s critical we make sure those people are protected.”

Ford argued that U.S. withdrawal would facilitate the kind of negotiations needed to bring a measure of stability to the region. The Kurdish separatists, while enjoying significant amounts of autonomy, would be pushed into direct talks with the Syrian government over a power-sharing agreement. The Turks have resisted talks with the U.S. over security at the Syrian border, angered at the U.S. alliance with the Kurdish separatists.

“We have enough leverage in my view with Turkey to help protect the Kurds,” Khanna said when asked whether he shared Balint’s concern. “We could provide the Kurds with aid and support like we have in Ukraine, and if the president wants to make the case for a certain presence that is required for America to protect the Kurds, then he should come to Congress and work with us to make that case.”

Trump, while urging a withdrawal, also said he’d leave behind a force to “keep the oil.” He suggested a major American firm like Exxon Mobil would come in to exploit Syria’s oil, but so far, no big American company has been involved, and the Kurds are exporting oil largely in collaboration with al-Assad’s government.

Asked about the ongoing sanctions of the al-Assad regime, Ford said it was time to take a hard look at whether they were working and at what cost. “That’s a very separate issue from our troop presence,” he said. “I would just say two things. First, the sanctions are not delivering political concessions from Bashar al-Assad. And then the second thing I would say is, it’s disingenuous for those who justify the sanctions to say that they don’t harm ordinary Syrians living in government-controlled territories. They obviously do.

“All I can say is we’re inflicting pain without getting much for it.”

Update: Wednesday, March 8, 2023

This article and headline have been updated to include the results of a House vote, as well as quotes from Gaetz, Khanna, and Balint.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: U.S. Battalion in eastern Syria in 2019 Photo: Creative Commons / U.S. Army Reserve

---

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The collapse Friday night of a makeshift dam designed to hold back wastewater and new concerns by local groups and residents about the nearby incineration of contaminated soil from last month’s train derailment are the latest anxiety-producing woes to beset the community of East Palestine, Ohio.

Watchdogs on the ground reported that the dam broke after heavy rains in the area on Friday.

According to local Channel 19 News:

Residents tell 19 News heavy rain has caused Leslie Run Creek to rise, and spill over the makeshift dam, near the derailment sight. 19 News was able to obtain several photos of water from that manmade dam covering the Main Street area of town.

Residents fear the contaminated water may seep into homes or businesses—causing another level of fear for those who live in the area.

Local resident Eric Cozza told the news outlet he was scared of what the released waters could do to the community. “I fear that now the chemical is in the ground, it’s going to leech towards the water ducts, our aquifer for drinking water,” Cozza said. “I’m concerned that the park is now contaminated. Kids won’t be able to play there or walk through there on their way to school.”

Status Coup News, which has been reporting from East Palestine and speaking with residents since the disaster occurred, reported Friday night that flooding from the breached dam was going “into The Original Roadhouse restaurant parking lot where a lot of locals eat and drink.”

The outlet also reported that the pictures of the broken dam posted to social media were taken by local resident Neko Figley, who was told by contractors to leave the area because it was “super dangerous to be here right now.”

From our organizer in East Palestine: the dam constructed to hold back toxic waste has broken after today’s heavy rain and the area is flooding.

Safe homes and independent testing NOW. pic.twitter.com/H5fBJTZMvl

— River Valley Organizing (@RiverValleyOrg) March 4, 2023

River Valley Organizing, a multi-racial, working-class group active in the Ohio River Valley region, said in a statement Friday that residents of East Palestine are still being ignored a month after 38 rail cars of a Norfolk Southern train went off the tracks on February 3.

“It’s been one month since our lives were turned upside down,” the group said, “but we still aren’t getting what we need from the government or Norfolk Southern. We heard the people of this community loud and clear: they want safe homes, and independent environmental and health testing—now.”

On Saturday, The Guardian reported on fresh fears over the incineration of contaminated soil that was taken from the crash site, not least because one of the nearby facilities where the material is being taken has a history of EPA violations. According to the Guardian:

The new plan is “horrifying,” said Kyla Bennett, a former [EPA] official now with the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility non-profit. She is one among a number of public health advocates and local residents who have slammed Norfolk Southern and state and federal officials over the decision. […]

Incinerating the soil is especially risky because some of the contaminants that residents and independent chemical experts fear is in the waste, like dioxins and PFAS, haven’t been tested for by the EPA, and they do not incinerate easily, or cannot be incinerated.

“Why on earth would you take this already dramatically overburdened community and ship this stuff a few miles away only to have it deposited right back where it came from?” Bennett asked.

She further told the Guardian that the “most important thing in my mind is the human health and health of the environment” and that burning this toxic material under such conditions flies “in the face of basic human decency and science.”

Penn Future, a watchdog for air and water quality in neighboring Pennsylvania, said the incineration plans are very worrying.

“The plan to incinerate dioxin and PFAS contaminated soil from Norfolk Southern’s toxic spill deeply troubles us and will continue to build distrust and anxiety,” the group said. “It’s not clear the plan will work and puts communities down wind at risk of contamination.”

According to an update from the office of Ohio’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, the Ohio EPA has reported that approximately 1,700 tons of solid waste have been removed from the disaster site in East Palestine as of Friday.

Of that waste, reportsThe Chronicle-Telegram, 660 tons has gone to Heritage Thermal Services—the company with a litany of past violations—in East Liverpool, Ohio, which is in Columbiana County not far from East Palestine. Another 190 tons was hauled to the Giles incinerator for in-state burning and 880 tons of the solid waste was shipped out of state to landfills in Michigan and Indiana.

Meanwhile, 3.2 million gallons of liquid wastewater have been collected in the area with the large majority going out of state, to facilities in Michigan and Texas, for deep-well injection.

Amanda Kiger, director of River Valley Organizing, said one of her concerns was the incineration of toxin-laden materials so close to the residents still reeling in East Palestine.

EPA and other government officials, she told the Guardian, “are just dumping more shit on Columbiana county,” Kiger said.”They say, ‘We already poisoned them so it doesn’t matter if we poison them more.'”

As for Cozza, who spoke with 19 News about the dam breach and whose family has already been diagnosed with skin irritations, he said the odor of chemicals is now back in the area.

“I have fear,” he said. “I’ve had fear and now this just put the anxiety over the top.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: An organizer with River Valley Organizing in East Palestine reported that “the dam constructed to hold back toxic waste has broken after [Friday’s] heavy rain” in the area. (Photo: via River Valley Organizing / Credit Neko Figley)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

When former US President  George W. Bush and his neocon regime launched their anti-terrorism campaign after the September 11^th attacks, he declared that “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”  

Western threats against the Global South continue today. 

In the recent Munich Security Conference 2023, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said that

“Neutrality is not an option, because then you are standing on the side of the aggressor,” she continued “and this is a plea we are also giving next week to the world again:  Please take a side, a side for peace, a side for Ukraine, a side for the humanitarian international law, and these times this means also delivering ammunition so Ukraine can defend itself.”

Most of the world does not agree with Western leaders that Russia is the aggressor in this conflict.  Ukraine’s goal is to become a member of NATO which would be a threat to Russia’s security concerns right on its borders.

As history shows, it was Ukraine who has bombed the Donbas region for more than 8 years which includes the areas of Donetsk and Luhansk killing more than 8,000 people with the help of US-NATO forces whose sole purpose is to destroy Russia.  This is the work of the Western powers who want nothing more than to contain Russia’s rise as a major player on the world stage.

Not only Russia has been a victim of Western aggression, many countries in the Global South has also witnessed endless wars, coups and regime change operations with western-backed color revolutions since the end of World War II.  Since the war started in Ukraine, it is only now that the mainstream media is starting to take notice that the Global South is starting to rebel against Western powers on many levels at least according to France24.com, ‘Ukraine war exposes splits between Global North and South’ reflects on the current situation that

“a tectonic chasm appears to have split the Global North from the Global South. Confronted with the sort of aggression and territorial expansionism that the postwar world order was designed to avert, the Western alliance, also called the Global North, has overcome competition and rivalries to maintain unity.”

The West defeated their “competition and rivalries” by bombing countries back to the stone age like they did to Iraq and Libya.  It is well known that Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi wanted to change course in how their countries conducted business with the rest of the world by abandoning the use of US dollars in favor of other currencies.  In the case of Iraq, the US and its allied partners were also doing Israel a favor in destroying an adversary.  So, a shift has taken place with “more than 70 years after the end of World War II, several countries of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and South America that were “emerging” for decades have essentially emerged on the world stage” forming what is now known as the ‘Global South.’

The war in Ukraine has changed everything for the globalists insane vision for humanity, now they accuse Russia of being the aggressor for expanding its footprint in Ukraine but ignoring the 8-year bombing campaign in the Donbas region by the Ukrainian forces with NATO’s assistance.  Did the US and in most cases their NATO allies “avert” their own “aggressive” wars against Vietnam, Iraq, or Libya?  As for “territorial expansion” doesn’t the US, France, and other Western powers still have colonies around the world?  The US also illegally occupies northern Syria and Iraq with military bases, and that is a form of territorial expansion.

Newsweek published an interesting opinion piece by Michael Gfoeller and David H. Rundell, ‘Nearly 90 Percent of the World Isn’t Following Us on Ukraine | Opinion’ says that there is a growing anti-Western sentiment in the Global South:

Alliances that were created in part to counter Western economic and political influence are expanding. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have announced their interest in joining the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). The Shanghai Cooperative Organization currently links China, Russia, India, and Pakistan, among others. Iran plans to join this month while Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are likely to become “dialogue partners,” or candidate members.

Additionally, China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative is tying many African nations to Beijing with cords of trade and debt. Russia is also reaching out in the form of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who recently addressed his 22 Arab League counterparts in Cairo before touring a number of African countries.

If that’s not enough to give the West pause, Moscow is again on the offensive in Latin America, strengthening its military relationships with Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba. The two powerhouses of that region, Brazil, and Mexico, have pointedly refused to back Western sanctions against Russia

Gfoeller and Rundell admit on a mainstream media news magazine that dollarsare tools of economic warfare from imposing crippling sanctions to asset seizures on countries who don’t follow Washington’s orders, but it is only an opinion piece, obviously not an article that will make the front-page news:

The dollar’s reserve currency status remains a pillar of the global economic order, but trust in that order has been damaged. Economic sanctions have weaponized parts of the international banking and insurance sectors including the SWIFT fund transfer system. Assets have been seized and commodity contracts canceled. Calls for de-dollarization have become louder. When Russia demanded energy payments in rubles, yuan or UAE Dirhams, China and India complied.

These concerns are generating considerable anti-Western sentiment across much of the Global South. While a nuclear-armed Russia shows no willingness to end a war its leaders cannot afford to lose; the West is rapidly losing the rest and thus undermining the very rules-based international order it has sought to create. Our most promising solution to this dilemma is likely to be some sort of diplomatic compromise

Yes, it’s true the dynamics of the world order has changed dramatically since the day US President George H.W. Bush (whose father Prescott Bush, a founder of the Union Banking Corporation, an investment bank that had ties to a German businessman, Fritz Thyssen who supported the Nazis) gave a speech on the invasion of Iraq on January 16th, 1991.  Here is part of what he said:

This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order—a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful—and we will be—we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders

They had passed the test then, today, it’s a different story, the world is tired of Western hypocrisy, of its continuous wars and CIA-backed coups against their governments who don’t always agree with their prescriptions for democracy.  However, the idea of a new world order did not begin with Bush Sr, it began after the creation of the League of Nations after World War I when US President Woodrow Wilson called for a new world order to enhance global security and democracy.  But the idea of forming a new world order or globalist empire to impose a rules-based order should be a forgone conclusion, they don’t work, and they are destructive.  Globalist power structures or empires eventually destroy themselves from within, so, is it worth it for the regime in power?  Some people would also say that Russia and China want to rule the world.  They don’t, they know managing an empire is immoral, extremely costly, and incredibly ridicules to rule a world full of different ideas, cultures, ethnicities, and languages.  They know that diplomacy, respect, and trade is a better option for the sake of humanity.  Now, does it mean that in a multipolar world, future wars will be prevented? Not necessarily, but at least it’s worth a try given the fact that the US and its Western allies have created nothing but wars and chaos since the end of World War II and now we are at a point that this world order-based system is about to unleash a devastating war involving nuclear weapons.

Since World War II, it has been the US at the forefront who has been building a world order based on its hegemonic projections to control every nation on earth.  China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided to take the gloves off and publish, ‘US Hegemony and Its Perils’ which exposes how the US has used its superpower status including its economic, financial, political, and military machine to create their ‘hegemonic playbook:

The United States has developed a hegemonic playbook to stage “color revolutions,” instigate regional disputes, and even directly launch wars under the guise of promoting democracy, freedom and human rights. Clinging to the Cold War mentality, the United States has ramped up bloc politics and stoked conflict and confrontation. It has overstretched the concept of national security, abused export controls and forced unilateral sanctions upon others. It has taken a selective approach to international law and rules, utilizing or discarding them as it sees fit, and has sought to impose rules that serve its own interests in the name of upholding a “rules-based international order.”

This report, by presenting the relevant facts, seeks to expose the U.S. abuse of hegemony in the political, military, economic, financial, technological, and cultural fields, and to draw greater international attention to the perils of the U.S. practices to world peace and stability and the well-being of all peoples

China is not seeking to become the next empire as the mainstream media is warning about especially FOX news and others.  In 2018, Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, a Malaysian political scientist and activist wrote ‘China, A New Imperial Power?‘ asked in his introduction “Is China a new imperial power threatening some of the developing economies in Asia and Africa?”  He said that “this is a perception that is being promoted through the media by certain China watchers in universities and think-tanks mainly in the West, various politicians and by a segment of the global NGO community.”  One of the red flags for US and European media networks was that China was offering unpayable loans to poor countries in what was and still is considered a “debt trap” at least to the China war hawks in Washington.  Dr. Muzaffar explains why the West is wrong about China’s debt trap concerning one of the countries who accepted a loan and that is Pakistan:

Pakistan has taken loans from China for projects under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The US 50 billion CPEC is a network of infrastructure projects that are currently under construction throughout Pakistan that will connect China’s Xinjiang province with Gwadar port in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. A number of these projects will strengthen Pakistan’s energy sector which is vital for its economic growth. They will help to reduce its severe trade deficit. Debt servicing of CPEC loans which will only start this year amounts to less than 80 million.

Pakistan’s largest creditors are not China, but Western countries and multilateral lenders led by the IMF and international commercial banks. Its foreign debt “is expected to surpass 95 billion this year and debt servicing is projected to reach 31 billion by 2022-2023.” There is evidence to show that its creditors “have been actively meddling in Pakistan’s fiscal policies and its sovereignty through debt rescheduling programs and the conditionalities attached to IMF loans”

He also says that the majority of Africa’s long-term debt has been managed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank but says that “many African states have Chinese debt. This in itself is not a problem — provided loans are utilized for the public good. In this regard, infrastructure financing under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — building ports, railways and fiber-optic cables — appears to be a major component of China’s involvement in Africa.”

Djibouti had excepted 1.4 billion from China that allowed China to build its first military base.  Western bureaucrats and military officials claimed that China is expanding its empire in Africa according to a report by the US Naval Institute (USNI) on what U.S. Africa Commander Army Gen. Stephen Townsend told the House Armed Services Committee back in April 2021 “that the People’s Liberation Army was expanding its existing naval installation adjacent to a Chinese-owned commercial deep-water port and also seeking other military basing options elsewhere on the continent” and that “Their first overseas military base, their only one, is in Africa, and they have just expanded that by adding a significant pier that can even support their aircraft carriers in the future. Around the continent they are looking for other basing opportunities.” Dr. Muzaffar reminds us that “It should be noted at the same time that Djibouti also hosts the largest US military base in Africa” However, he also makes the case that China’s rise is economic in nature while the West continues its neocolonial agenda:

Djibouti aside, Chinese ventures in Africa have been almost totally economic. The quid pro quo for the Chinese it is true has been access to the continent’s rich natural resources. But it is always access, never control. Control over the natural resources of the nations they colonised was the driving force behind 19^th century Western colonialism. Control through pliant governments and, in extreme cases, via regime change continues to be a key factor in the West’s — especially the US’s — quest for hegemony over Africa and the rest of the contemporary world.

It is because China’s peaceful rise as a global player challenges that hegemony that the centres of power in the West are going all out to denigrate and demonise China. Labelling China as a new imperial or colonial power is part of that vicious propaganda against a nation, indeed a civilisation that has already begun to change the global power balance. It is a change — towards a more equitable distribution of power — that is in the larger interest of humanity. For that reason, the people of the world should commit themselves wholeheartedly to the change that is embracing all of us

China understands what invading empires are capable of since they were invaded themselves by Japan’s Imperial forces during World War II which was a horrible occupation that led to the countless deaths and the destruction of Chinese society.  The Soviets also lived through the horrors of Hitler’s invading forces.  Maintaining an empire is immoral and costly, so rising powers such as China, Russia or India are not interested in controlling and occupying any sovereign countries for their political or economic gain.

A Multipolar World is Inevitable as the UN Vote to Condemn Russia Invasion Fails  

Western nations and their allies including the US, European Union, Canada, Australia, UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and other puppet governments represent more than 1 billion people which has been held together under a rules-based unipolar world order, as for the Global South, it accounts for more than 6 billion people.  Regarding the war in Ukraine, many countries who are part of the Global South abstained from voting for a UN General Assembly on March 2^nd, 2022, to condemn Russia’s invasion including 17 African countries.  The East African ‘17 African countries abstain from UN vote to condemn Russia invasion’ said that more than 35 countries had decided to abstain from voting to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “Some 35 countries abstained from the vote, including Russia and China, and African states – Burundi, Senegal, South Sudan, South Africa, Uganda, Mali and Mozambique.”  Algeria, Bolivia, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Laos, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, South Africa, and Vietnam also Abstained shows that the tide is turning against the West.  Those who voted against the resolution was Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, and Syria.  Times are changing indeed.

The European branch of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace or Carnegieeurope.eu published an article by Senior fellow Stefan Lehne ‘After Russia’s War Against Ukraine: What Kind of World Order?’ began his piece with the European Union’s foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell and his comments on the difference between Europe and the rest of the world or as Borrell called the “jungle” earned protests and was criticized for it.  Borrel said that “the best combination of political freedom, economic prosperity and social cohesion that humankind has been able to build” as he compared Europe to the Global South by saying that “most of the world is a jungle and the jungle could invade the garden.”

Lehne tried to justify Borrell’s comments by saying that “this was likely a reference to Robert Kagan’s 2018 book, The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World.” Lehne said that Kagan’s book “amounts to a stark warning about the consequences of a U.S. retreat from its global responsibilities. Kagan writes that without determined American leadership, nations would revert to traditional patterns of behavior and the world would relapse into disorder, darkness, and chaos.”

So according to the European establishment and evidently, Robert Kagan who is the husband of Victoria Nuland who supported the coup in Ukraine back in 2014, only Europe and the US can lead the global population into a just, prosperous future even though they are responsible for many of the problems the world faces today.  The fact is that Western powers support and sometimes participate in continues wars, maintain colonial possessions, impose economic and political sanctions against those who did not follow orders to offering poor nations loans from globalist institutions such as the World Bank or the IMF that can never be repaid to organizing regime change and coups against governments they don’t like.  This is not to say that there are a handful of countries in the Global South who will betray their people for political or economic gain who will join the West if the opportunity arises such as the Brazilian president, Lula Da Silva.  Overall, it is the West who has created most of the disorder, darkness, and chaos around the world in the first place.

As for Russia, Lehne says that “Russia turned into an aggressive revisionist power.”  But he fails to mention that the actions by US-NATO forces politically and militarily caused Russia to become aggressive.  “As demonstrated by Russia’s war in Georgia in 2008, its annexation of Crimea and intervention in the Donbas in 2014, and its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the leadership in Moscow is determined to reverse some of the losses of the 1990s, increase Russia’s territory, and establish robust zones of influence.”  So now Russia wants to expand its territory?  So after, Ukraine the Russians will invade Poland, Finland, perhaps Italy, maybe Spain?

I disagree with Lehne’s conclusion that “Globalization has slowed but will not be completely reversed.”  The Global South is already reversing the stranglehold of Western powers on many levels.  One good example is what is happening in the African country of Burkina Faso as the government demanded that French troops withdraw from the country during rising tensions between both governments according to an africanews.com in a recent article ‘Burkina Faso confirms demanding France to withdraw troops’ reported that “The Burkina Faso government clarified on Monday that it has asked ex-colonial ruler France to pull its troops out of the insurgency-hit country within a month.”  France has more than 400 special forces troops in what is called the junta-ruled nation.  Spokesman Jean-Emmanuel Ouedraogo told Radio-Television du Burkina that“We are terminating the agreement which allows French forces to be in Burkina Faso,” government.”  He said that diplomatic relations will not end despite increasing tensions between both governments, but that is just one example.  Stepan Lehne believes that economic interdependence and international communications will need Western institutions and that is why he believes that the “the current multilateral system inherited from the postwar period will therefore survive.”  Lehne does see the reality that the world order is becoming irrelevant in the years to come “But the commitment to its rules will continue to diminish, and power politics and transactional dealmaking will often prevail.”

The US-NATO Agenda: Balkanize Russia and Then Go to War Against China

As we all know, the US-NATO alliance is waging a proxy war in Ukraine to destabilize Russia. The ultimate goal is to balkanize Russia as they did to the former Yugoslavia.  Washington’s war hawks both Democrat and Republican, long dreamed of breaking up Russia to prevent it from becoming a rising political and economic power on the world stage.  Russia hater Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former US national security advisor to President, Jimmy Carter, a professor at Columbia University and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Bilderberg group wrote ‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives’ which was published in 1998 clearly stated that “It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America.”

As for the rise of China, the US is in the stages of planning for a war.   On January 28^th, 2023, Reuters published ‘U.S. four-star general warns of war with China in 2025’ that “A four-star U.S. Air Force general said in a memo that his gut told him the United States would fight China in the next two years” General Mike Minihan, who heads the Air Mobility Command said, “I hope I am wrong,” he continued “My gut tells me will fight in 2025.”  The bottom line is that the US and European bureaucrats, international bankers, corporations, intelligence agencies and their Military-Industrial Complex known as the MIC all fear a multipolar world and that’s why the talk of war with Russia and China is a major part of their agenda.

A joint statement between Russia and China was released on February 4^th, here is part of the statement:

The sides support the deepened strategic partnership within BRICS, promote the expanded cooperation in three main areas: politics and security, economy and finance, and humanitarian exchanges. In particular, Russia and China intend to encourage interaction in the fields of public health, digital economy, science, innovation and technology, including artificial intelligence technologies, as well as the increased coordination between BRICS countries on international platforms. The sides strive to further strengthen the BRICS Plus/Outreach format as an effective mechanism of dialogue with regional integration associations and organizations of developing countries and States with emerging markets

The West fears the BRICS coalition and their potential to draw in the rest of the Global South.  Speaking of the Global South, an interesting analysis by the Bennet Institute for Public Policy’ sponsored by the University of Cambridge called the ‘War in Ukraine widens global divide in public attitudes to US, China and Russia – report’ suggests that the Global South and their support for China, Russia or both has increased significantly: 

However the report also identifies a zone of illiberal and undemocratic societies, stretching from East Asia through the Middle East and out towards West Africa, characterised by the exact opposite trend: populations that have steadily increased support for China, Russia, or both, in recent years.

Among the 1.2 billion people who inhabit the world’s liberal democracies, three-quarters (75%) now hold a negative view of China, and 87% a negative view of Russia, according to the report, published today by the University’s Centre for the Future of Democracy (CFD).

Yet among the 6.3 billion who live in the world’s remaining 136 countries, the opposite is the case – with 70% of people feeling positively towards China and 66% towards Russia.  The analysis includes significant public opinion data from emerging economies and the Global South, and suggests this divide is not just economic or strategic but based in personal and political ideology

Is the Idea of a New World Order Dead?  

The Multipolar world is becoming a reality for Washington, Brussels, and the rest of their allies as their relevance is starting to diminish in the coming years, but Washington and its NATO lapdogs are willing to launch World War III against Russia and China and whoever they consider an enemy even if it means starting a nuclear war so that their world order remains relevant.  Is the West willing to risk a nuclear war for the sake of their world order even if it kills them in the process?  In the case of a nuclear war, where will the Western bureaucrats, bankers, corporate leaders, and their families run to?  Patagonia, Argentina? perhaps to one of the small islands in the pacific, maybe Fiji?  These Western leaders do not care about their citizens, they are psychopaths who are power hungry, and they will do anything they can to remain in power even if it means that their own lives will be at risk in the event of a nuclear war between the east and the west.

Hopefully, the West will come to its senses and try to make peace with the rest of the world and abandon its idea of globalism, but from what we see in the war in Ukraine and their saber-rattling with China over Taiwan, they won’t.  Globalist David Rockefeller once said that “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the Nations will accept the New World Order!”well, Rockefeller must be rolling in his grave because the world is experiencing a different kind of crisis that is challenging the economic, political, and military landscape that has been in place for centuries.

Will there be problems and conflicts in a Multipolar world? maybe, anything is possible, but it is fair to say that the world needs something different because from what has happened in the last 500 years with Britain, France, Spain, and the Netherlands and centuries later, the US as global rulers, they only led the world to endless wars and bloodshed, so it’s time for a change.  What the world needs a new system where diplomacy, respect, and trade is the rule of law rather than wars, regime change, economic sanctions, interfering in foreign elections, biological warfare, and political assassinations.  A Multipolar world has the chance to establish a balanced landscape where no Western power can dictate its rules-based order to its former colonies and to the rest of the planet, a new landscape where even the thought of a nuclear war becomes unthinkable, and that’s the kind of world we all want.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from SCN

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

There is a cardinal difference between the Washington Post report of June 18, 1972 by Alfred Lewis breaking the news of the Watergate burglary and the sensational claim by the New York Times on Tuesday — per a CNN report — that “intelligence suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group” sabotaged the Nord Stream gas pipelines. 

The WaPo reported on Watergate several months after Richard Nixon’s thumping victory for a second term as president, while the Times’ claim has been advanced even before Joe Biden has announced his candidacy for the November 2024 election. 

A common thread, though, could be that while the Lewis story was followed up a day later by two young Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Times report also hopes to be a developing story but with a contrarian purpose. 

If Watergate wiretapping forced Nixon to resign eventually, the big question is whether the Nord Stream sabotage will also be the undoing of the Biden presidency? 

These are early days. But the reverberations of the Times’ claim are already being felt in Europe — Ukraine and Germany — although the report was carefully worded to keep out Ukrainian leaders outside its purview.  

But the bottom line is the caveat that the Times report was not made with high confidence and is apparently not the predominant view of the US intelligence community, and that the Biden Administration has not yet identified a culprit for the attack — succinctly put, this isn’t necessarily the last word on the subject!

That’s smart thinking — with an eye on Seymour Hersh, perhaps?  Meanwhile, Ukraine has flatly denied involvement and German media reports stressed that there’s no proof that Ukrainian authorities ordered the attack or were involved in it. Evidently, Kiev and Berlin (and Washington) prioritise that the business of war must continue as before. And neither is in a position to hit back in defence. 

But Moscow is plainly derisive. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told RIA Novosti,

“Clearly, the authors of the terrorist attack want to distract attention. Obviously, this is a coordinated stuffing in the media.” 

Indeed, when asked about the Times report, the highly opinionated US National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications, John Kirby referred questions to investigating European authorities and excused himself saying he was “not going to get ahead of that investigative work.” Kirby played it safe.  

So, as Lenin would have asked: ‘Who stands to gain?’ To be sure, what we have here is a high level leak planted in the Times by the US intelligence, which is non-attributable but probably serves as kite flying to see how far it will travel, especially in Europe, or, equally, it could just be, as Peskov put it, the stuff of “obvious misinformation campaign coordinated by the media.”

Either way, someone high up in the Biden Administration is playing for high stakes. This is taking place at a time when Biden himself has been implicated by Seymour Hersh for ordering the destruction of Nord Stream   — an act of international terrorism  —- and of course Biden is yet to announce his candidacy for the 2024 election. 

As things stand, candidate Biden will not want the Nord Stream scandal to be another Albatross around his neck. The point is, if he stands for election, which he likely intends to, Biden can be sure that the scandalous Ukraine stories concerning him and his son Hunter Biden, dating back to his time as vice-president, will roar back to the centrestage. 

The questioning that the US ambassador to Estonia Senator George Kent was subjected to by Senator Tom Cruz at the hearings on his appointment in Tallinn in December suggested that the Republicans have a lot of dope on Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine and are waiting for the right moment to strike.

Kent, a career diplomat and former deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs with three stints in Kiev — the second time as DCM from 2015 to 2018 and the third as Charge d’Affaires a.i, in 2021 during Biden presidency— is in Senator Cruz’s crosshairs. 

Last week, again, Sen. Cruz returned to the topic. This time around, he tore into attorney general Merrick Garland accusing the Justice Department of leaking uncontrollably in a calibrated bid to save Biden’s reputation.

Conceivably, the implication by the Times report that a “pro-Ukrainian group” may have been behind the Nord Stream attack can be seen as a veiled threat to the powers that be in Kiev to understand which side of their bread is buttered if push comes to the shove.

So far, Zelensky has played ball. Biden is bending over backward to appease Zelensky, if the manner in which the move to sack the Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksiy Reznikov, a close ally of the president, was summarily shelved is any indication.

The western media was copiously reporting on a purge under way in Kiev but when the trail came to Reznikov and Zelensky dug in, the US inspectors deputed from Washington to investigate the corruption scandal in the defence ministry simply disappeared.  

Indeed, Biden must willy-nilly remain in power beyond 2024 or else  he becomes extremely vulnerable. Therefore, Biden desperately needs a second term. He cannot be too sure even if some other Democratic candidate wins in 2024. God forbid, if the Republicans seize the presidency, Biden and his family members will be fighting with their backs against the wall. 

But there is also the flip side. Biden’s candidacy will bring Nord Stream, Hunter Biden, Ukraine war, et al, to the centre stage of the election campaign. Is it worth the risk? 

Frankly, it is a ‘zugzwang’ for Biden. It is his turn to move, but all of his moves are so bad that having to move can lose the game — and in chess, there is nothing like “pass,” either.   

The sabotage of the Nord Stream forms part of the Ukraine issue. Whoever destroyed that pipeline did it with the intention to eliminate any residual prospect left of a revival of the post-cold war Russian-German alliance in Europe built around the two countries’ energy cooperation and interdependency. 

The Biden team in sheer naïveté thought that sabotage of the Nord Stream would be a geopolitical masterstroke to humiliate Germany and make it a vassal state, destroy all bridges leading from Russia to Europe, and consolidate the US’ transatlantic leadership. They overlooked, out of sheer hubris,  that it still remained a cowardly criminal act. 

To compound matters, the war in Ukraine flowed out of Biden’s  decision to destroy the Nord Stream (which, according to Hersh, dated back to September 2021.) Today, Biden cannot easily end his war as he is also beholden to Zelensky (who knows far too much about Hunter Biden’s escapades in Kiev.)    

Will Biden Administration succeed in hushing up the Nord Stream scandal? Hersh is sure to revisit the topic. Biden cannot walk away from the crime now. But it doesn’t cease to be a crime.

Biden’s remaining option may be to announce he’s going to contest the 2024 election because Build Back Better Framework is still a work in progress.   

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The sudden unannounced arrival of the top US military officer General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a dusty American base in Syria’s remote northeast on Friday may call to mind a famous quote by Dick Cheney, vice-president in the George W Bush presidency:

“The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the business is.” 

According to eyewitness accounts, as recently as last week, on 27 February, US troops transported at least 34 tankers filled with stolen Syrian oil through the illegal Al-Mahmoudiya border crossing to their bases in Iraq. In the estimation of the Syrian foreign ministry, the cumulative losses incurred by the country’s oil and gas sector on account of theft and other US actions were to the tune of $107 billion as of August last year. 

Oil is a unique mineral that anaesthetises thought, blurs vision, corrupts. But according to a Reuters report, Milley’s visit was about something else than oil —  purportedly “to assess efforts to prevent a resurgence” of the Islamic State militant group and “review safeguards for American forces against attacks, including from drones flown by Iran-backed militia.” 

Now, that is a stretch for two reasons — one, there are only around 900 US troops all in all in Syria and Milley doesn’t have to undertake such routine mission; two, there is actually no history of the Islamic State [ISIS] having ever attacked the US forces in Syria. 

On the contrary, the folklore among regional states is that the US mentors the Islamic State, gives training to the cadres of the shadowy militant group at the remote American base at Al-Tanf on the Syrian-Iraqi border, and even provides logistical support to the group’s operations in Syria’s desert region. 

It is unclear whether Milley met with commanders of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces that have been the main ally of US forces in north-eastern Syria. 

One plausible explanation will be that Milley came on White House instructions against the backdrop of a legislation to end the US involvement in Syria that will be up for a vote in the US Congress this week. US Congressman Matt Gaetz (Republican from Florida) who last month introduced a  War Powers Resolution to direct President Joe Biden to remove the US Armed Forces from Syria has frontally attacked Milley’s visit. 

Gaetz said in a statement on Friday,

“If General Milley wants this war so bad, he should explain what we are fighting for and why it is worth American treasure and blood. An America First foreign policy demands realism, rational thought, and seriousness.”

He pointed out that

“Syria is a quagmire of a tinderbox. America has no discernible interest in continuing to fund a fight where alliances shift faster than the desert sands.” 

But Milley is unfazed. Asked by reporters if he believed the Syria deployment is worth it, Milley said,

”I happen to think that’s important.” Milley added, “So I think that an enduring defeat of ISIS and continuing to support our friends and allies in the region … I think those are important tasks that can be done.”

Congressman Gaetz tabled the draft legislation following a press release by the US Central Command on February 17 announcing that four service members were wounded during a helicopter raid in northeastern Syria when an explosion was triggered from the ground. 

The bottom line is that there is no rationale other than geopolitical considerations for the continued US occupation of about a third of Syrian territory. These considerations are principally: 

• Need to keep US footprint in the strategic Eastern Mediterranean;
• US’ troubled relations with Turkey; 
• Israel’s security; 
• Russian bases in Syria; 
• the Russian-Syrian-Iranian axis; and, most important, 
• the geo-strategy to keep Syria weak and divided for the foreseeable future. 

A commentary last year in the government-owned China Daily poignantly captured the Syrian tragedy:

“The alleged plunder of Syrian oil by the United States and its proxies will only worsen conditions in the sanctions-hit country as it struggles to rebuild after years of war… consumption of Syria’s limited resources by the hegemonic power and its proxy groups in the troubled nation will encourage militancy and undermine efforts to stabilise the wider region.”

The commentary cited the Syrian Foreign Ministry to the effect that the presence of US forces in the country’s northeast and the plundering of Syrian oil is an attempt to obstruct a political solution and undermines stability and security. It said

“the way Washington is acting and its unlimited support of terrorist groups show the hypocrisy of the US in the region, a situation that is no longer acceptable morally or politically.” 

The Assad government’s normalisation process with the regional states in the Gulf — especially, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar — as well as Egypt and Turkey has put the US in a predicament. It is particularly galling for the US that Russia is mediating the Turkish-Syrian rapprochement. 

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov announced on Monday that his country, Turkey, Iran, and Syria are discussing organising a meeting of their respective foreign ministers —

“We are working on it. I can say that we agreed not to disclose details for the time being; not everything is so simple; we must work discretely on the principles of quiet diplomacy,” he added in an oblique reference to devious attempts to derail the process. 

Suffice it to say that Washington is increasingly left with no option but to stir up the Syrian pot again and create turmoil with a view to create an alibi for the continued occupation of Syria. The Syrian government has drawn attention to this in a statement condemning Milley’s “illegal visit to an illegal US military base.” 

The statement alleged that

“the international community knows very well that Daesh [ISIS] is an illegitimate offspring of US intelligence… [and] the support provided by the US forces to terrorist and separatist militias in the areas of its occupation is a declared American stance aimed at prolonging the terrorist war against Syria for goals that are no longer hidden from anyone.” 

Milley himself has been candid that the US military occupation must continue. Given Milley’s professional reputation as a ‘yes’ man, who is acutely conscious of the ‘wind factor’ (as the Chinese would say) in the corridors of power in DC at any given time, it is entirely conceivable that President Biden will now get exactly the feedback and recommendation he needs to block the momentum in the US Congress for withdrawal of American troops from Syria. 

The Moscow daily Vedmosti reported today, citing an informed diplomatic source, that Assad plans to pay an official visit to Russia in mid-March. Assad last visited Russia in September 2021. 

The Russian daily estimated that humanitarian issues relating to the recent earthquake and Russian assistance would be the focus of the talks, but it is also “important for the parties to compare each other’s positions and develop common approaches” on a range of political issues. Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria have a common position calling for an end to the 7-year old US occupation of Syria.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: US Joint Chiefs Chair, General Mark Milley (L) paid an unannounced visit to a US military base in Northeast Syria, March 3, 2023 (Source: Indian Punchline)

---

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Colonel Douglas McGregor doesn’t need a lot of introduction to people aware of the current geopolitical situation, as his actions, integrity and wisdom speak for themselves. Unfortunately, such cadres are now almost entirely absent from Washington DC, particularly the Pentagon. They have been replaced by a plethora of post-Cold War neoconservatives and neoliberals intended on not just maintaining the so-called Pax Americana, but also extending it to essentially every corner of the planet. In his latest interview with “Real America’s” Dan Ball, Colonel McGregor gave an assessment of the current state of the Kiev regime forces, as well as their prospects in the coming weeks and months.

Scroll down for Video

After the anchor gave a brief breakdown of the disastrous state of the United States under the troubled Biden administration, he touched on the subject of ever-escalating military “aid” the Washington DC has been sending to the embattled Neo-Nazi junta in hopes of stopping Russia from finally inflicting a crushing defeat on them. He pointed out that the US Congress just approved its latest “aid” package worth $400 million, pushing the publicly revealed amount to $32 billion of US taxpayer dollars for Washington DC’s favorite puppet regime, out of the $113 billion approved thus far, “with no end in sight”, as he correctly noted.

Dan Ball then assessed the meeting between Joe Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, signaling the symbolic end of the very last remnants of Berlin’s sovereignty as Germany pledged to send more weapons and funds for the Neo-Nazi junta, despite the tremendous problems this is causing on the home front. Ball also pointed out the glaring hypocrisy of the political West, as NATO is publicly bragging about its involvement with the Kiev regime, including the massive weapons shipments and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets, while openly threatening China in case it sends armaments to Russia.

Aside from the fact that Beijing never made such statements, nor is there any indicator that Moscow is desperate to get help from China, it’s quite obvious the US has completely lost touch with what actual diplomacy is. The anchor also questioned the impact of the “aid” the Neo-Nazi junta is getting, but warned that it’s certainly “drawing down our existing weapons stock, which puts America in a bad spot, kind of like Biden draining our emergency oil reserves”. The last line refers to Joe Biden’s unrelenting squandering of America’s SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve), which has been actively (ab)used for nearly a year now, despite the fact it was founded for emergencies such as nationwide natural disasters or major wars.

After touching on the topic of sending F-16 fighter jets, the question even the Pentagon is “stingy and unsure” about, Dan Ball introduced Colonel Douglas McGregor, who immediately pointed out the staggering losses of the Kiev regime forces, “now approaching 200,000”. According to McGregor, this was largely due to the Neo-Nazi junta’s disastrous decision to defend Bakhmut (Artyomovsk), with the Russian military using the opportunity to “apply all of their rockets, missiles, artillery fire against concentrations of Ukrainian infantry, inflicting enormous casualties”. He also stated the city is going to fall anyway, making the deaths of thousands of forcibly conscripted Ukrainians all the more pointless.

McGregor also touched upon the increasingly strained relationship between the Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky and his General Staff which is rightfully furious at him for not listening to their assessment it would’ve been better to leave the city and set up a new defense line further to the west. The colonel warned that the junta has expended most of its reserves, both in terms of equipment and manpower, while its “best soldiers are dead, so it’s now shoving boys, old men, women into the breach”. He further added that Zelensky is essentially admitting defeat and taunting the political West, specifically the US, to “come here and win the war for us,” otherwise, “it’s over”.

Once again, the anchor Dan Ball mentioned the fighter jets and how the US has essentially lied it wouldn’t provide specific weapons systems, such as advanced missiles or tanks, all of which have been delivered in the meantime (or are about to). Ball warned that the same is true for F-16s, adding that “there’s now a bipartisan push in the Congress to send the jets”, but also stated that it would take at least a year to train pilots, “prolonging the killing in Ukraine”.

Colonel McGregor responded that the US doesn’t have a military strategy, but only a media one to convince everyone that the Neo-Nazi junta is supposedly winning. As the number of those who believe this narrative has dwindled to almost nothing and as the losses are piling up, the Kiev regime is forced to use contractors, the vast majority of whom are NATO personnel, meaning that if F-16s were to be sent, they would require American/NATO pilots to fly them. McGregor warned that “this is now a slow slide into [global] war that many people have really worried about for a long time” and that the US is faced with either admitting failure or pushing for a direct confrontation with Russia.

Ball and McGregor then discussed the issue of an escalating disinformation campaign in the US media, with the colonel pointing out that Washington DC has been doing this for decades, particularly in cases when any given administration was trying to not only justify, but also praise the US aggression against the world, specifically mentioning Bosnia, Iraq and the NATO-occupied Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia. However, McGregor stated that the media are now forced to admit that “the weight of Russian manpower, as well as their military power in general, is crushing Ukrainians”.

He added that the message to the viewers is that “no amount of Ukrainian valor is going to stand up to [Russian] firepower” and people need to read between the lines and that “the message is – Ukraine can’t win”. The colonel further pointed out the Biden administration is certainly aware of this, with the recent Blinken-Lavrov meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in India perfectly illustrating it. McGregor thinks that “our threats don’t ring with much credibility” and that this behavior “puts everything at risk, including the United States“. However, the Biden administration is worried about its political future, so it’s refusing to admit the reality and finally come to an agreement that would take Russia’s security concerns into account.

Watch below the interview of Col. McGregor.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Die Welt, a mainstream media outlet in Germany, revealed that numerous subjects who suffered adverse events, including deaths, during Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot trials were removed from the trial data

A person known as “Pfizer subject C4591001 1162 11621327” died three days after receiving the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID shot, reportedly due to stroke and arteriosclerosis; it was deemed unrelated to the shots

The CDC has since warned that people ages 65 and older who received Pfizer’s updated (bivalent) COVID-19 booster shot may be at increased risk of stroke

Die Welt also revealed contradictions in Pfizer documents, adverse events from the shot downplayed and mass unblinding of study subjects, which wasn’t revealed in a later approval study

In November 2020, Pfizer claimed their COVID-19 shot was 95% effective against COVID-19, but this was highly misleading and based on flawed methodology, including excluding people who got COVID-19 within 14 days after their first shot

Pfizer has profited immensely despite the concerns, earning a record $100 billion in 2022, including $37.8 billion for its COVID-19 shots and $18.9 billion for its antiviral drug Paxlovid

*

Details continue to emerge about coverups and fraud that took place during Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot trials. Die Welt, a mainstream media outlet in Germany, revealed that numerous subjects who suffered adverse events, including deaths, were removed from the trial data.^1,2

Meanwhile, trial data were manipulated “to create the illusion” the shot is 90% effective, for instance by excluding participants who got injected and developed COVID-19 within the next 14 days.³ Taken together, it leaves little doubt that COVID-19 shots cannot be trusted.

Deaths Occurred Within Days of Shots

The Die Welt report described several deaths that occurred shortly after the injections, but were excluded from the trial data. Among them was a person known as “Pfizer subject C4591001 1162 11621327.” The person, a 60-year-old man, died three days after receiving the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID shot, reportedly due to stroke⁴ and arteriosclerosis.

Independent journalist Igor Chudov detailed the case on Substack, noting that the man was discovered via a welfare check, and may have died within two days of the shot. Chudov reported:⁵

“According to the medical examiner, the probable cause of death was progression of atherosclerotic disease. Relevant tests were unknown. Autopsy results were not available at the time of this report.

In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the arteriosclerosis was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures, but rather it was related to suspected underlying disease. Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.”

However, it appears the medical examiner may have been unaware the man had received an experimental COVID-19 shot shortly before his death, and didn’t give the examination a closer look. Pfizer also neglected to request the medical examiner’s report to assess a potential link. Chudov continued:⁶

“They just took the police report’s word that he died of ‘arteriosclerosis,’ stated that Covid Vax cannot cause ‘arteriosclerosis,’ and ruled it ‘unrelated.’ The patient was buried and forgotten. If I may guess, the examiner’s diagnosis was not even accurate. The medications that the deceased took, indicate no ongoing, severe sclerotic disease.”

Pfizer Falsely Ruled Deaths Were Unrelated to Shots

Another subject in Pfizer’s trial also died 20 days after the shots. The death was ruled as due to a cardiac arrest. But pharmaceutical specialist Susanne Wagner told Die Welt:⁷

“According to the current state of science, these two cases would be assigned to the vaccination, especially since the U.S. health authority CDC is currently investigating strokes in vaccinated people and it is known. [Pfizer’s investigators] falsely ruled these deaths unrelated.”

Indeed, an announcement made by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration warned that people ages 65 and older who received Pfizer’s updated (bivalent) COVID-19 booster shot may be at increased risk of stroke.⁸

The CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which uses near real-time surveillance to track vaccine safety, flagged the potential safety issue, revealing that those 65 and over were more likely to have an ischemic stroke 21 days after receiving Pfizer’s bivalent COVID-19 shot compared to 22 to 44 days later.⁹

The FDA and CDC released the statement on a Friday night before a three-day weekend, “which is proof they wanted to bury it,” Dr. Meryl Nass, a board-certified internal medicine physician with special expertise in vaccine safety and vaccine mandates, said.¹⁰ Even Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo tweeted about the odd timing:^11,12

“What better time than a Friday afternoon for @CDCgov and @US_FDA to let Americans know that the mRNA shots they’ve been pushing may be causing strokes? Don’t worry, we’ll make sure the word gets out — just like we’ve been doing for months.”

Die Welt also revealed contradictions in Pfizer documents and mass unblinding of study subjects, which wasn’t revealed in a later approval study:¹³

“In one fell swoop, the test management said goodbye to 53 subjects on August 31, 2020. The test candidates were ‘unblinded,’ which means they were informed about their vaccination status, a process that the Pfizer study protocol expressly only provides for ‘in emergencies.’

But there is nothing about it in the approval study. In protocol documents that are available to WELT, and which are actually not intended for the public, those responsible get caught up in contradictions.”

Severe Adverse Reaction to Shots Brushed Off

Another example revealed by Die Welt involves trial participant Augusto Roux, a lawyer in Argentina. After receiving his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot, he experienced shortness of breath and chest pain, and passed out. Within days, he visited a hospital for his symptoms, where he tested negative for COVID-19 but a CT scan showed fluid, or pericardial effusion, in Roux’s heart.

A physician noted in his chart, “Adverse reaction to the coronavirus vaccine (high probability).” Despite this connection and ongoing health problems, this adverse reaction was downplayed by Pfizer and listed as unrelated to the shots. According to Die Welt:¹⁴

“Over the next few months, Roux lost 14 kilos [30.8 pounds], he had liver problems, and his heart sometimes beat irregularly … The diagnosis for the symptoms after the second vaccination is very likely to be ‘pericarditis,’ inflammation of the heart. All of this fits exactly with a clinical picture that the Paul Ehrlich Institute also has in its list of ‘rare side effects’ for mRNA vaccines.

… His story, one might think, should appear in Pfizer’s pivotal study papers, but it doesn’t. The pharmaceutical company’s papers say Roux informed the research team that he was hospitalized with pneumonia on both sides, following the initial report, which was classified as an ‘adverse event of toxicity level 1.’

That could have nothing to do with the vaccine, the file goes on to say, it is probably a Covid infection. Not a word that Roux had tested negative for Corona in several PCR tests.”

Pfizer Created an ‘Illusion’ of Effectiveness

In November 2020, Pfizer claimed its COVID-19 shot was 95% effective against COVID-19, but this was highly misleading and based on flawed methodology.¹⁵ One trick used to get this misleadingly high efficacy figure is to ignore people who got COVID-19 within 14 days after their first shot.

In Pfizer’s trial, 37.2% of those who were tested for COVID-19 within 13 days of their first shot were positive — but not counted as such. How can this skew results? As explained on Substack’s “Where are the numbers,” a newsletter about the abuse of science and statistics:¹⁶

“Imagine the most extreme case in which every vaccinated person gets covid within the first two weeks of their first dose. Then, assuming (as is likely) that none get infected a second time within the 19 weeks, according to the study definition no vaccinated people ever got covid over the whole period of the study.

If only one person in the the unvaccinated comparative cohort had got covid, over the same period, the vaccine efficacy (defined as one minus the proportion of vaccinated infected divided by the proportion of unvaccinated infected times 100) will be reported as 100%.”

The study found that during any two-week period from December 28, 2020, to May 19, 2021, the COVID-19 infection rate was about 0.8%, compared to 37.2% among those tested within two weeks of their first shot.

“If people were tested every two weeks then we could reasonably conclude the vaccinated were getting infected — within two weeks of their first jab — at a rate that was almost 50 times greater than the general rate for this population,” but “if you don’t look for covid, by not testing for it, or by ignoring the test results you won’t find it.”¹⁷

They also pointed out that no deaths occurred among the participants who tested positive for COVID-19 and had at least one COVID-19-like symptom, including among the 812 (out of 1,482) who were unvaccinated. But since this clearly makes the shots look unnecessary and ineffective, it was conveniently ignored:¹⁸

“[T]here was a grand total of zero deaths: an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0%. And 812 of those were unvaccinated. Bear in mind that this when covid was supposed to have been rampaging globally and causing widespread death.

And of course that nugget somehow never got mentioned in the abstract, mains results, conclusions, or discussion. It only appeared in the detailed results section (along with the fact that only 2% were hospitalized).”

More Deaths in the Shot Group Than the Placebo Group

Former Blackrock portfolio manager Edward Dowd also warned about problems with Pfizer’s trial. A friend from the biotech industry told him that the all-cause mortality endpoint had been missed by Pfizer in the original clinical trial, meaning that in the jab group there were more deaths than in the placebo group. Normally, during the drug approval process, if you fail that endpoint, you do not get approved.

Dowd said. “When that came out in November, the biotech executives who saw that decided they weren’t going to get boosters, and the people who weren’t vaxxed were not going to get vaxxed.”¹⁹

Whistleblower Brooke Jackson, a regional director formerly employed by Pfizer subcontractor Ventavia Research Group, which was testing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, also witnessed falsified data, unblinded patients, inadequately trained vaccinators and lack of proper follow-up on adverse events that were reported.

“I was working on Pfizer’s trial,” she said in the film “Anecdotals.”²⁰ “What I saw was like nothing I’ve ever seen before.” She explained:²¹

“The speed in which they were enrolling in the study — four to five coordinators pushing through 40, 50, 60 patients a day. We were not storing the vaccine at its appropriate temperature, the failures in reporting serious adverse events. We had so many reports of adverse events … we just could not keep up. The study doctor signed a physical exam when he wasn’t even in clinic.

Then Ventavia had unblinded every patient that was randomized in the trial. When we brought it to their attention, that’s what we were instructed to do — remove the evidence and destroy it. Emails about mislabeled blood specimens per Pfizer’s protocol, we should have immediately stopped enrolling, but they never told Pfizer.

I would bring the concerns to my managers and it was, ‘We’re understaffed.’ The FDA — they only see what Pfizer gives them. So I was documenting all of this. And on the 25th of September, I went directly to the FDA, and about six and a half hours later, I lost my job. I was fired.”

The FDA and Pfizer attempted to hide the COVID-19 shot clinical trial data for 75 years, but the FDA was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to release redacted versions of trial documents on a much faster schedule. As part of the court order, 80,000 pages of documents related to the FDA’s approval of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots were released June 1, 2022.²²

Among those documents were case report forms revealing that deaths and severe adverse events took place during Phase 3 trials, but, as reported by Children’s Health Defense, Pfizer had “a trend of classifying almost all adverse events — and in particular severe adverse events — as being ‘not related’ to the vaccine.”²³

Pfizer has profited immensely nonetheless, earning a record $100 billion in 2022, including $37.8 billion for its COVID-19 shots and $18.9 billion for its antiviral drug Paxlovid.²⁴

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Notes

^{1, 4, 7, 13, 14} World Tribune February 20, 2023

² Archive.Today Die Welt

^{3, 16, 17, 18} Substack, Where are the numbers? February 3, 2023

^5, 6 Substack, Igor’s Newsletter July 1, 2022

⁸ U.S. FDA January 13, 2023

⁹ Reuters January 13, 2023

¹⁰ Substack, Meryl’s COVID Newsletter January 13, 2023

¹¹ Substack, Steve Kirsch’s newsletter, January 13, 2023

¹² Twitter, Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD January 13, 2023

¹⁵ Rumble, Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion September 28, 2022, 15:11

¹⁹ KLIM News February 15, 2022, 6:45

^20, 21 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 12:01

²² Children’s Health Defense, The Defender, February 7, 2022

²³ Children’s Health Defense, The Defender, June 21, 2022

²⁴ CNBC January 31, 2023

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

---

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

February 27 through May 8 marks the 50^th anniversary of the occupation by the American Indian Movement (AIM) of Wounded Knee on the Oglala Lakota Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota, the site of the last great massacre of the Indian Wars in December 1890.

In a 2019 documentary that aired on PBS, From Wounded Knee to Standing Rock: A Reporter’s Journey, filmmaker Kevin McKiernan interviewed Tom Parker, an FBI agent working for the FBI’s counter-intelligence operation (COINTELPRO), who admitted that the FBI had helped to fracture and disrupt AIM during its 1973 Wounded Knee occupation.

“[W]e wanted them to kill each other, as we were in a war against AIM,” Parker said.

According to Parker, a main goal of COINTELPRO was to infiltrate informers into AIM and to publicly identify AIM activists with the FBI so that others in AIM would turn against them.

In this way, Parker said, dissension would grow among AIM, and AIM members would become paranoid about FBI infiltration and turn against one another, and there would be violence.

The Case of Annie Mae Aquash

One of the tragic victims of the FBI’s COINTELPRO operation was Annie Mae Aquash, a Micmaq from Nova Scotia and teacher who participated in the 1973 Wounded Knee occupation. She was murdered by two members of AIM in December 1975 at the age of 30 after the FBI and CIA had disseminated rumors that she was an AIM informant.

In March 2003, Arlo Looking Cloud and John Graham (also known as John Boy Patton) were indicted for Aquash’s murder and both were convicted and given long prison sentences.

Aquash’s family, including her two daughters, believe that higher-level AIM officials ordered her murder, fearing she was an FBI informant.

Some even suspected that AIM leader Dennis Banks (1937-2017) was involved, though the South Dakota district attorney’s office exonerated him.

FBI Agent David Price had made it a practice of befriending Aquash in public to give off the impression that she had become an informant.

This was part of the campaign to sow the seeds of distrust within AIM and have people in the group turn on one another. According to Parker, it was “in the realm of possibility that Annie Mae Aquash was killed in that way; and if she was, we [the FBI] weren’t concerned about it; like in a criminal situation, we wanted them to kill each other.”

AIM Founding and Goals

From Standing Rock to Wounded Knee includes original footage from the 1973 AIM occupation of Wounded Knee, which was triggered by the terrible living conditions on the Pine Ridge reservation and mistreatment of the Indian population.

Filmmaker Kevin McKiernan during the occupation at Wounded Knee in 1973, with Lakota elders Oscar Bear Runner and Tom Bad Cob. [Source: listen.sdpb.org]

AIM had been founded in Minneapolis by Dennis Banks, Clyde Bellecourt, Eddie Benton Banai, and George Mitchell. Its original goal was to help Indians in urban ghettos who had been displaced by government programs that had the effect of forcing them from the reservations.

AIM subsequently expanded to promote economic independence, the revitalization of traditional culture, protection of legal rights and, most especially, autonomy over tribal areas and the restoration of lands that they believed had been illegally seized.

Source: northcountrypublicradio.org

War on AIM

After AIM occupied Wounded Knee, Richard Wilson, the head of the Oglala Sioux tribal council, declared a state of emergency and called in U.S. marshals to back him up.

A plumber by trade, Wilson had been a target of AIM, which accused him of the misappropriation of tribal funds and saw him as being too close to the whites.

He deployed his own private militia against AIM, called Guardians of the Oglala Nation (GOONs), which worked with the FBI and killed dozens of AIM activists and their supporters.

Most of the killings went unpunished as the homicide rate on the Pine Ridge reservation became among the highest in the U.S.

GOON leader Duane Brewer said that he “got along very well with the FBI,” which gave him ammunition to “do the job against AIM,” with whom the GOON’s were at war.

Among those killed was Brian DeSersa, a young Oglala AIM supporter who was shot at the wheel of his car in broad daylight.

One of AIM’s primary demands in leading the occupation of Wounded Knee was to overturn the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, which had forced the Sioux to give up thousands of acres of land and to move to the Great Sioux reservation in the western half of South Dakota.

The signing of the treaty—between the United States, represented by General William T. Sherman, and the Sioux—in a tent at Fort Laramie, Wyoming, 1868. [Source: factsandhistory.com]

The Fort Laramie Treaty was violated when General George A. Custer, commander of the U.S. Army’s 7th Cavalry regiment, led an expedition into the Black Hills, accompanied by miners, seeking gold, and began attacking bands of Sioux hunting in accordance with their treaty rights.^[1]

In April 1973 after several months of occupation, the Nixon administration said that it would revisit the Fort Laramie Treaty and adhere to AIM’s demands to keep old treaty rights alive.

Kent Frizzell, Nixon’s lead negotiator who was then U.S. Assistant Attorney General, even attended a pipe-smoking ceremony with Russell Means and other AIM leaders as a sign of peace.

Russell Means and Kent Frizzell shaking hands. [Source: history.com]

The agreement fell apart, however, as the Nixon administration claimed that it would not negotiate while AIM had guns pointed at federal officials.

The FBI and other federal agencies at this point laid siege to the Pine Ridge reservation, cutting off electricity and water. Gunfights ensued and the U.S. Army secretly began running military operations against AIM.

When anti-war protesters parachuted food to the residents of Pine Ridge, Army helicopters shot at the food and killed a member of AIM. AIM supporters fired back in kind. Phil Bautista, an Ojibwa Vietnam veteran, said that he loved shooting at government helicopters as it was a way of fighting back against the injustices done to his people over hundreds of years.

The Ordeal of Leonard Peltier

On May 8, 1973, AIM surrendered to federal authorities, ending the three-month occupation.

Many of the AIM leaders were subsequently killed by Wilson’s paramilitary GOON squad or prosecuted by the federal government, which aimed to tie up AIM in court cases while waging an effective counterinsurgency operation against it.

When two FBI agents were killed on the Pine Ridge reservation on June 26, 1975, the FBI fingered AIM leader Leonard Peltier, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

However, one of the key witnesses at the trial, Myrtle Poor Bear, said that she had been coerced into signing a false affidavit implicating Peltier and that her life had been threatened. “They had the law in their hands, and could do anything,” she said of the FBI.

U.S. Lost, Indian People Won

Though AIM had been forced to end its occupation and its ranks were decimated, University of Colorado law professor Charles Wilkinson suggests that it was the U.S. that lost the second battle of Wounded Knee, and that it was Indian people who won.

This was because the AIM occupation of Wounded Knee raised public awareness about the injustices experienced by Native Americans and emboldened them to stand up for themselves and take pride in their culture.

Afterwards, a flurry of legislation supporting Indian rights was passed by Congress.

Key new laws included: a) the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act, which committed greater federal funds to provide education and services to help Native American children to succeed; b) the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which returned basic civil liberties to Native Americans by protecting their freedom to engage in traditional religious practices (which had been restricted in the past); and c) the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, which recognized the authiority of tribal courts to hear the adoption and guardian cases of Indian children.

In the early 21^st century, many AIM veterans could be found working to revitalize their communities and helping to revive its cultural practices, with the threat of government violence receding.

From Wounded Knee to Standing Rock

From Wounded Knee to Standing Rock ends with footage from 2016 when the Standing Rock Sioux led large-scale protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAP), which threatened the local water supply and was in violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty guaranteeing the undisturbed use of reservation lands.

Source: occupyworldwriters.org

Viewed positively by a significant percentage of the U.S. public, the DAP protests marked an important victory for the heirs of AIM.

The Biden administration, nevertheless, showed it was not so different from its predecessors when it failed to shut the DAP down while an environmental review demanded by the protesters and ordered by the Supreme Court was being conducted.

Biden was also carrying out brazenly imperialistic policies including the theft of land and resources around the world that are all too familiar to Native Americans.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Note

1. In 1876, Custer, leading an Army detachment, encountered an encampment of Sioux and Cheyenne at the Little Bighorn River, and Custer’s detachment was annihilated. The Wounded Knee massacre was carried out in revenge by Custer’s old 7^th Cavalry regiment. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Who built Thebes of the 7 gates?
In the books you will read the names of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock?
And Babylon, many times demolished,
Who raised it up so many times?
In what houses of gold glittering Lima did its builders live?

Questions From a Worker Who Reads. Bertolt Brecht 1935

Dubai Superlatives

Maybe the closest we can get to Elon Musk’s vision of Mars is a visit to Dubai. Imagine an alien planet where you can only live in the base settlement with a breathable atmosphere: a comfortable place and a comfortable temperature.

In the hottest months of the year in Dubai, temperatures rise to 50 degrees so people move from air-conditioned apartments to air-conditioned cars to air-conditioned offices to air-conditioned shopping malls.

Of course, they are very nice cars, apartments, offices and shopping malls. Dubai deals in expensive property and large scales: the tallest building in the world, the Burj Khalifa (829.8m, 2,722ft), the tallest hotel in the world under construction (Ciel), and the foundations laid for the tallest construction in the world – the Dubai Creek observation tower which will be 1.3km (1,300m, 4,300ft) high.

Workers gardening near Burj Khalifa, Dubai, UAE (Photo: Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin)

This should keep Dubai on the superlative lists into the next decade. Here the hierarchies of height determine your wealth.

For example, the entrance to the Burj Khalifa is a luxurious shopping mall which also contains a massive food hall for the workers, servers and shop workers. The more money you have to spend, the higher up the Burj Khalifa you can go. The extremes of wealth mean that it is likely that most of the people who work in the mall have never been up the lifts into the stratospheric heights of the tallest building in the world. While many eat in the cheap food mall at the base, only a few have tea and coffee in the lounge and outdoor observation deck on the 148th floor (named At the Top) which is so high that it is more like looking down on Dubai from a plane than from a building. This contrast is certainly symbolic of the incredible extremes of wealth that exist in Dubai.

Where, the evening that the Great Wall of China was finished, did the masons go?
Great Rome is full of triumphal arches.
Who erected them?
Over whom did the Caesars triumph ?

History

I read a comment somewhere that if Dubai were described as a book then the front cover would be Cosmopolitan Magazine and the inside would be The Big Issue (homeless magazine). Starting life as a poor village in the desert beside the sea, Dubai has come on in leaps and bounds ever since. For example,”in 1822, a British naval surveyor noted that Dubai was at that time populated with a thousand people living in an oval-shaped town surrounded by a mud wall, scattered with goats and camels.”

By the 1930s Dubai was known for its pearl exports but “the pearl trade was damaged irreparably by the 1929 Great Depression and the innovation of cultured pearls. With the collapse of the pearling industry, Dubai fell into a deep depression and many residents lived in poverty or migrated to other parts of the Persian Gulf.” However, oil was struck in 1966 and this all changed. While Dubai had already started a period of infrastructural development and expansion in the 1950s based on revenue from trading activities (such as the trade in gold), the discovery of oil offshore set the tone for a new rapid growth in building projects during the 1970s.

This growth was fueled by revenues from oil and gold but depended mainly on cheap labour from developing countries. The treatment of the many thousands of workers in Dubai has been the subject of many reports and documentaries, such as Human Rights Watch (living conditions  described as being “less than humane”) and the documentary, Slaves of Dubai (2009).

In an article titled  “What is Modern Slavery in Dubai and How Does it Affect You?” it is stated:

“More than 88.5% of UAE residents are foreign workers, with South Asian migrants constituting 42.5% of the UAE’s workforce. […] These migrants, usually illiterate and from impoverished, rural communities in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh […] Eager to move to Dubai and begin earning money that they can send home to their families, they take out loans of up to $3000 from unscrupulous recruitment agencies to pay the exorbitant ‘visa fees’ (which is actually illegal – the recruitment agencies are supposed to cover these fees) and board flights to Dubai, excited for a new life in the glitzy Emirate. When they touch down in Dubai, however, it’s a different story. Driven to squalid shanty towns on the outskirts of Dubai, where 45 men share one outdoor bathroom and 10 or more people sleep in a room, their passports are confiscated and they are told that they will actually be working 14 hour days, 6 or 7 days a week, in the desert sun.”

The cramped living conditions and low wages has led to high suicide rates too.

City Centre Deira, mall worker, Dubai, UAE (Photo: Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin)

Questions From a Worker Who Reads. Bertolt Brecht 1935

Philip of Spain wept when his armada went down.
Was he the only one to weep?
Frederick the 2nd won the 7 Years War.
Who else won it?
Every page a victory.
Who cooked the feast for the victors?
Every 10 years a great man.
Who paid the bill?

Questions From a Worker Who Reads. Bertolt Brecht 1935

Workers districts

By far the most interesting areas of Dubai are the areas where the workers themselves live, work, and shop. Deira, for example, is a historic district where the population consists mainly of Pakistan and India natives.

Deira has many markets: Murshid Souk, Spice Souk, Deira Covered Souk, and Gold Souk. There are leather shops, shoe shops, supermarkets, barbers, butchers, cafes and family restaurants with dining areas on the city pavements. Compared to the soulless atmosphere of the wealthier districts, Deira is full of life with friendly shop assistants and large groups of African, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi workers and their families enjoying the convivial atmosphere of the restaurants indoors and outdoors.

Deira, Creek, Dubai, UAE (Photo: Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

I don’t want any new monuments to individuals to replace any ripped down for racism or other offenses. Individuals are deeply flawed — every single one of them, and morality changes with the times. Whistleblowers are by definition less than divinely perfect, as their service is revealing the horrors of some institution they’ve been part of. But when you look around for individuals you’d like people to be learning from, there are some that soar to the top, and one of those is Dan Ellsberg. When I first met him, around 20 years ago, he was, and he has been ever since a fulltime advocate for peace and justice, no longer a new whistleblower and no longer in quite the spotlight he’d been in for releasing the Pentagon Papers. He has continued to be a whistleblower, releasing new information, and recounting endless quantities of facts and incidents. He and others have continued to reveal more about his earlier days, every scrap of which has only made him look wiser. But I met Daniel Ellsberg as a peace activist, one of the best there has ever been.

Courage

Dan Ellsberg risked life in prison. And then he went on risking punishments again and again. He took part in countless — I think he may actually have a count, but the word is appropriate — nonviolent protest actions that involved his arrest. He knew that information was not enough, that nonviolent action was needed as well, and that it could succeed. He inspired and encouraged and volunteered to take risks with new whistleblowers and new activists and new journalists.

Strategy

Ellsberg clearly devoted himself to anything that could be done, but not without constantly asking what would work best, what would have the greatest chance of success.

Humility

Not only did Ellsberg never retire. He also, to my knowledge, never showed the slightest negative impact of fame, never arrogance or contempt. When I hardly knew him, he would call me up seeking insights and information on strategizing to influence Congress. This was when I lived in or near Washington, D.C., and did some work with some Congress Members, and I think that was largely the value sought in asking me questions. The point is that I know I was one of a great many people Dan was phoning and asking questions. The guy who knew more about the military industrial complex than anyone else, or at least anyone else willing to talk about it, mostly wanted to learn anything he didn’t know.

Scholarship

A model of careful and diligent researching, reporting, and book authoring, Ellsberg can teach the importance of finding the truth in a complex web of half-truths and lies. Perhaps the impressiveness of his scholarship, combined with the passage of time, has contributed to various comments suggesting that some new whistleblower who has offended the establishment is “No Daniel Ellsberg” — an error that Dan himself has been quick to correct, siding with the truth tellers of the current moment, rather than with the disneyfictation of his own memory.

Curiosity

What makes the information provided on war history, peace activism history, politics, and nuclear weapons in Ellsberg’s writing and speaking so interesting is the questions he asked in order to find it. They are mostly not the questions that were being asked by major media outlets.

Independent Thinking

If you deal with a single topic area long enough, it becomes hard to run into a new opinion. Where you do run into new opinions, most often it’s with someone who thinks for himself. Ellsberg’s views on the gravest dangers we face, the gravest crimes of the past, and what we must do now are not those of anyone else I know, except for the great numbers of people who have listened to him.

Agreeable Disagreement

Most people, probably myself included, are hard to always get along with amicably even when jointly working toward the same end. With Ellsberg, he and I have literally done public debates on things we disagreed on (including elections) completely amicably. Why can’t that be the norm? Why can’t we disagree without harsh feelings? Why can’t we seek to educate and learn from each other without striving to defeat or cancel one another?

Prioritization

Daniel Ellsberg is a moral thinker. He looks for the greatest evil and what can be done to alleviate it. His reluctance to speak, with me, of rejecting WWII, I think, comes out of his understanding of the extent of the Nazis’ plans for mass murder in Eastern Europe. His opposition to U.S. nuclear policy comes from his knowledge of U.S. plans for mass murder in Europe and Asia far beyond the Nazis’. His focus on ICBMs comes, I think, from his having thought through what existing system creates the greatest risk of nuclear apocalypse. This is what we all need, whether or not we all focus on the same extreme evil. We need to prioritize and act.

Brevity

Only kidding! As everyone knows, you can neither stop Daniel Ellsberg when he has a microphone nor regret a single moment you failed to stop him. Perhaps death alone will silence him, but not as long as we have his books, his videos, and those he’s influenced for the better.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on WorldBeyondWar.Org.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk World Radio. He is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and U.S. Peace Prize recipient. Longer bio and photos and videos here. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook, and sign up for: Activist alerts. Articles. David Swanson news. World Beyond War news. Charlottesville news.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from WBW

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The New York Times is so pathetic.

US President Biden is in deep sh*t because of Seymour Hersh’s detailed revelation of how Joe Biden ordered the bombing of the Nord Stream, how it was done, and who did it.

In order to save face for the boss Joe Biden who runs the party behind the New York Times, the NYT suddenly brings up a big lie that “Ukraine” bombed the Nord Stream.

And the New York Times wants the public to believe that the US “just found out” about this today.

WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the Atlantic for months.

U.S. officials said that they had no evidence President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top lieutenants were involved in the operation, or that the perpetrators were acting at the direction of any Ukrainian government officials.

The brazen attack on the natural gas pipelines, which link Russia to Western Europe, fueled public speculation about who was to blame, from Moscow to Kyiv and London to Washington, and it has remained one of the most consequential unsolved mysteries of Russia’s year-old war in Ukraine.

The New York Times’ fake story has not even a sketchy content, no details, no description how Ukraine should have managed this, and got away with it. Or who participated. No nothing.

Oops, The story was picked up by Reuters (Where are the Reuters Fact-checkers?)

This is so gross – only stupid people will believe the New York Times and its twisted fairy tale story about “Ukraine done it”.

With help from the US deep-state including its organs like CIA and the FBI, the New York Times has managed to conjure a reputation for “accuracy” – and the New York Times is now callously abusing that false reputation in its Democrat political project for power.

Western “media freedom” is a US lie made to create a global “truth” monopoly.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from FAIR