Global Research

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.

***

Canada’s career foreign affairs officials admit that Canada’s staunchly pro-Israel voting record at the United Nations contradicts its own values and interests and harms its international reputation, according to documents released under the Access to Information Act and obtained by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME). The released documents cover the period leading up to Canada’s 2019 decision to resume its support for Palestinian self-determination at the UN, and reveal how Canadian officials critically view Canada’s voting record. CJPME urges the Canadian government to use the upcoming session of the UN General Assembly as an opportunity to reorient its approach, and to start supporting resolutions which aim to uphold Palestinian human rights.

Read the full analysis in CJPME’s report, “Voting Against Its Own Interests”.

“Canada’s automatic opposition to anything unflattering of Israel at the UN has made Canada an embarrassment – both on the world stage and within its own public service,” said Thomas Woodley, President of CJPME. “We’ve been arguing for years that Canada’s votes against Palestinian rights are inconsistent with Canada’s own official policies, and the released documents show that Canadian officials actually agree with this analysis,” added Woodley.

The released documents include a memo from Global Affairs Canada officials which recommends that Canada end its uniformly pro-Israel approach at the UN. In that memo, officials admit that Canada has been voting against UN resolutions on Palestinian rights “without considering the specific merits of each resolution,” and “despite their alignment with Canadian values, interests, and standard positions.” The memo identified several votes on Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, and Palestinian refugees, that would likely change if Canada were to adopt a “merit-based approach” rather than automatically opposing such motions as a package.

Officials also describe Canada’s pro-Israel voting record as a liability to its international reputation, noting that it has “has set us apart from like-minded countries” and attracts criticism from UN member states. Canada’s representatives to the UN in New York, as well as officials working on UN Security Council issues, had been pushing for Canada to adopt an entirely “merit-based approach” to resolutions on this issue, which would have resulted in more votes in support of Palestinians. CJPME notes that this push came amid Canada’s campaign for a UNSC seat, lending evidence to claims that its voting record on Palestinian issues was a contributing factor in the failure of its bid.

There are 10-16 standing resolutions on Palestinian human rights which are considered by the UN General Assembly each year. Although in the early 2000s Canada voted in support of nearly all of them, this approach radically changed under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who in 2011 began voting against nearly every one of these resolutions as a package. In 2019, Trudeau made a small shift by resuming Canada’s vote in favour of a single resolution on Palestinian self-determination. CJPME’s UN Dashboard is an interactive resource which shows how Canada’s votes on these motions have changed from 2000 to the present.

*

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 The Canadian Jewish News

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.

***

The Netherlands’ agricultural minister Henk Staghouwer has been forced to resign following widespread protests from Dutch farmers over his radical climate agenda that seeks to destroy their livelihoods.

Staghouwer was leading the Dutch agriculture ministry’s climate policy that involved confiscating farms in a forced government buy-out scheme.

In the wake of the huge protests from farmers, Staghouwer has now been forced to step down.

He told the Dutch cabinet that pushback from farmers had meant he would not be able to meet a September deadline for rolling out the government’s radical green policy, the AP reported.

The climate agenda involves cutting nitrogen emissions from the nation’s farming sector to the point where it made it impossible for farms to continue operating.

The initiative includes a $24.2 billion scheme to buy out local farmers and facilitate the transition away from intensive farming practices.

The push provoked mass demonstrations by farmers across the continent.

“Farmers and fishermen need certainty,” Staghouwer said in a statement to his ministry Monday evening, NL Times reported.

The farming sector faced a massive upheaval due to emissions reduction goals, he added.

In July, over 40,000 farmers took to the streets in protest of the policy, blocking roads with tractors and defacing government officials’ homes.

Sympathizers elsewhere in Europe staged protests in solidarity with the Dutch farmers, arguing that such a policy is counterproductive amid highly elevated inflation levels and food shortages.

“I asked myself the question, ‘Am I the right person as Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality to lead the tasks that lie ahead?’,” Staghouwer said after nine months in office, according to NL Times.

“Last weekend, I came to the conclusion that I am not that person.”

Staghouwer said he required more time to develop proposals for a future sustainable agriculture industry ahead of the government’s budget formation earlier on Monday.

He added that he wanted to wait until ongoing talks between his office and industry representatives had come to a conclusion, NL Times reported.

Ik ben tot de conclusie gekomen dat ik op dit moment niet de juiste persoon ben om als minister leiding te geven aan de grote opgaven die er liggen in de land- en tuinbouw en in de visserij. Ik treed om deze reden terug als minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit. pic.twitter.com/PhUFGc1QkY

— Henk Staghouwer (@ministerlnv) September 5, 2022

Staghouwer faced criticism from the parliament for failing to develop a concrete plan to help the sector transition to farming practices that lower nitrogen emissions, according to DutchNews.nl.

Officials within his department also resisted plans to revamp the farming industry.

The Dutch government mandated a 50% reduction in nitrogen emissions by 2030, tasking individual municipalities to figure out how best to meet that goal, Deutsche Welle reported.

Livestock farming accounts for 40% of emissions in the country.

The policy could see up to a third of livestock farmers put out of business.

The Netherlands is the world’s second-largest exporter of agricultural products and the European Union’s largest meat exporter, according to CBS News.

Protests continued through July.

Bart Kemp, the foreman of the farmers’ interest group Agractie Nederland, told NL Times that farmers said Staghower had “little concrete vision in him” and “faced an impossible task.”

Staghouwer’s predecessor, Carola Schouten, temporarily took over his position while a replacement is determined from Staghouwer’s party.

“Schouten has never attached any value to a good relationship with the farmers,” Kemp told NL Times.

*

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 Slay News

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.

***

Kirk Milhoan, MD, PhD, FACC, FAAP Medical Director for Heart and Souls speaking about Covid-19 vaccines in children.

Are they safe? What are we to believe?’

*

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 Health Impact News

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

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.

***

Two and a half years ago I had the inkling that we were in a war the likes of which had not been waged or experienced before. A war unlike the one in which my father participated in the 1940s in France, and unlike the war from which older kids returned to the Naval Hospital in Philadelphia with broken bodies and souls in the 1960s and early 1970s, if they returned at all.  

The Corona War, as I shall name it, involved casualties: people were injured and people died.  Winston Churchill famously said that in wartime “truth is so precious she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” The precious truth in the Corona War, which we all continue to endure, is that it was indeed all founded on a lie.

Michel Chossudovsky, in his book “The Worldwide Corona Crisis” describes in clear and concise and unabashed language the origins of this war, its conduct and its goals.

He calls a spade a spade and, unlike some in the so-called resistance movement, he is unafraid to expose the conspirators that have engineered this war against humanity.

He is unafraid to pierce through the fog of this war – a fog that has been universally oppressive, relentless, a smothering and infinite barrage of threats and calculated feints and deceptions from the beginning – to demonstrate the truth.

Yes, it is a globally coordinated effort by the Few (World Economic Forum, World Health Organisation, Billionaires) to control the Many, whose endgame, via the manufactured COVID-19 crisis, is eugenics and depopulation.

Living as we do in the ongoing history of this crisis still, it is especially valuable to have a resource that provides a critical timeline of the various events leading up to and throughout the battle, and to learn in substantial detail about

• Big Pharma and Big Money;
• the drumbeat of fear;
• the consequences of the global shutdown on world economy and personal health;
• the fraudulence of the PCR test;
• the campaign against hydroxychloroquine;
• the lack of evidence to support claims to have isolated the actual virus;
• the severe impact of the derogation of rights and forced lockdowns on mental health;
• the death jabs masquerading as vaccines;
• and, of course, the Great Reset with its concomitant goal of universal digital IDs and a world populated by far fewer people living in subservience to the Global Elite.

The final chapter speaks about a road ahead and a need for “a degree of solidarity, unity and commitment unparalleled in world history” in the battle against tyranny, in the fight to reclaim the lives to which we are entitled, with their unalienable rights.

No book of this kind can be infinitely comprehensive, nor should it aspire to be. But in this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight.

Every day I awaken and ask myself the question “Can this really be happening, and on such a scale, can they really be doing this?”  And every day I acknowledge the fact that indeed it is and indeed they are.

*

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.

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. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image by fernando zhiminaicela from Pixabay

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

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.

***

Read Part I and II:

The Origins of the Money Crisis. “Money is Printed by the Fed., Using Black Magic, Doled out to the Rich for Free”.

By Emanuel Pastreich, September 06, 2022

Propping Up the Wobbly Dollar: “Addicted to the Dollar Economy as it Collapses”, The Decadence of Wealth and Power

By Emanuel Pastreich, September 07, 2022

The decay of values, the decline of crafts, of art, of literature, and, above all, of intellectual inquiry in the United States leaves us facing a wasteland wherein money is the only sentient beast, demanding due worship by all.

This horrific change was accompanied by the hollowing out of the economy. We went from agriculture in which there is a clear relationship between labor, product, and the moral and physical wellbeing of the family, to manufacturing in which production was cut off from daily life and monopolized by global capital, to a consumption and the service economy which is mediated by computers, creating online platforms controlled behind the curtains by unaccountable multinational technological monopolies.

And now, in the last stage of the decay of the angel, we are encouraged to welcome as a sign of advancement the replacements of humans with robots, drones, and AI systems. Citizens have no role in this alien economy and we can only feed our families by engaging in some banal activity at a tremendous distance from family and neighbors, and then bringing back the dollars so earned to purchase products sold retail by multinational corporations.

When family farms were replaced with factory farms, when local manufacturing was replaced with imports from China and Thailand, when local businesses were ruthlessly exterminated by monster outlets funded by private equity in the name of efficiency and free trade, when the banks stand triumphant on the ruins of what was once America, they will unfurl a new slavery, dressed up as fashion, safety, and identity awareness, that will crush what remains of our selves. Fascism will come to America when it is downloaded from an I-phone, or posted on Facebook.

Corporate media networks keep repeating the same fraudulent reports about how technological progress had ushered in a better world. Hapless students are taught from elementary school that money is the highest priority, that new technology is required, as is competitiveness, in order to secure a happy future.

Because all aspects of human experience have been farmed out to multinational corporations like Amazon, WalMart, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Disney, organizations that function like governments but that are not subject to the Constitution, organizations that keep their finances offshore, we have lost the ability to assess what is true; we have been blinded physically and spiritually.

The private banks ran the show under Presidents Clinton, Bush, Trump, and Biden. They offered us a brave new world in which the stock market determined the health of the economy, a stock market that was inflated by stock buybacks using fake money generated by quantitative easing.

Citizens were forced by their retirement plans to put their money into this ponzi scheme. The corporate media encouraged them to think that funny money printed up by the Federal Reserve was real and that farm land, natural assets, universities and research institutes, even government institutions like the Center for Disease Control that the billionaires had bought with that fake money actually belongs to them.

Derivatives (futures, options, and swaps) are the most abominable of the wretched creatures unleashed on the working people. Derivatives form a system wherein multinational investment banks can claim to have a financial interest in goods they never own using the Mickey Mouse games cooked up by IT experts. The profits from derivatives, in the trillions of dollars, have nothing to do with the real world, but are created out of whole cloth for the billionaire class through the manipulation of information.

Another monster is cryptocurrency, and other forms of digital coinage that crawl the floors of the putrid seas of greed and fraud in search of innocents and fools. These want-to-be currencies follow the primary directive laid down by the grandfather of modern economics P.T. Barnum, “There is a sucker born every day.”

These cryptocurrencies are promoted as a form of money more stable than the bedridden dying dollar, but the metrics that determine the value of BitCoin or Ethereum are rigged by bankers stringing along the little man until he can be wiped out in 9.11 financial disaster.

That final day of reckoning is not far away. Already trillions of dollars of our money was doled out to billionaires through qualitative easing, dumping our money into rigged markets for stocks and bonds, and of course the grotesque ladling out of trillions more during the 2020 COVID crisis.

We cannot know where that money went.

Why? Because the role of intelligence organizations (now run as for-profit corporations) has been vastly expanded over the last two decades. Along the way, they have merged with international investment banks and private equity to become essentially one, a dark octopus colored by greed and fraud that encircles the Earth in its stranglehold, then led by Goldman Sachs, now led by BlackRock and friends, the name does not matter much. What is certain is that its tentacles are wrapped around the neck of every local economy.

The thickest tentacle encircles the Capitol, the United States Congress.

The result? Fiscal and monetary policies are made classified; it is crime to disclose to the public the crimes of global capital. Congress has passed legislation known as “secret law” which has the effect of Federal statutes, but that cannot be made public.

I would love to explain to you this process, with concrete examples of how BlackRock, the Houses of Saud and Windsor, private equity firms, and other entities behind which the super-rich hide, have used secret and top-secret classification to hide their theft of your money; but if I did, I would go to jail and this speech would come to an abrupt end.

The zombie becomes a vampire

The clammy hand of digital currency reaches from the grave to seize us

Now that they have sufficiently degraded our thinking with childish entertainment and a culture driven by narcissistic impulses to keep us unfocused, distracted, and naïve, the time has come for them to launch the final incarnation of money, the vampire that will suck all remaining value out of us, leaving us spiritually and physically impoverished.

I am speaking about the CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency).

We shall not allow the American worker to be crucified on a cross of ones and zeros.

For yes, verily, the CBDC is the final stage in the decay of the dollar.

President Biden issued an executive order, not a law, entitled “Ensuring responsible development of digital assets” –that means the opposite of its name. This order hands over the treasury to the bankers.

Everyone knew that a law creating a digital currency could not be passed, even in this corrupt Congress. Only the doddering, tottering, Biden could try to make this power grab seem legitimate.

This digital currency will move your savings from your bank to the Federal reserve where it will be used by such monsters as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and be unrelated to any aspect of the economy as we know it.

The billionaires must push through digital currency quickly, before any organized resistance is possible. Citizens who are not billionaires must be deprived of the ownership of property, of their labor and their thinking, and even of their own bodies. The right to travel, or to communicate, must be ended so that the billionaires can rule with absolute dominion.

Digital currency will also be linked to a carbon credit system whereby the invisible hands of the World Economic Forum, not those with moral or scientific credibility, will determine what you can buy.

The Federal Reserve, now but an appendage of the financial blob encircling the Earth, will be empowered by digital currency to turn off your access to money, to freeze the money held in your name, before you can call a lawyer, or make any appeal, and to do so through multinational IT intelligence firms accountable to no one.

You will not have any right to contest the seizure of your money, or your possessions. Your appeal will not go to a judge in a human-based constitutional system, but will be handled by smiling and uncaring AI systems.

In the name of sustainable development, under a United Nations that has become the play toy of billionaires, your money—and NOT the money of billionaires–can be designated as legitimate for buying candy bars, but not for buying nails and lumber, legitimate for buying silly Netflix films, but not for purchasing forbidden books. You will be able to purchase food imported from Mexico at WalMart, but will not be able to buy the lettuce and cucumbers grown by your neighbor.

You will be prohibited from travelling abroad, but those with private planes, those involved in high level public-private partnerships, will be free to do so.

This digital money will be under the control of the Federal Reserve, tracked by corporations on government contracts, and protected by the FBI, Secret Service and other federal agencies that are now on permanent loan to multinational corporations.

Needless to say this action is a violation of the United States Constitution which grants Congress authority to borrow money, and to “coin money and regulate the value thereof” (Article I, section 8). But if no one stands his or her ground, the constitution will be used to mop the floor.

Increasingly, we cannot conduct the transactions of daily life using cash. Already, the United Kingdom, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and China are well on their way to eliminating cash. They say it is in the interest of convenience, modernity, and safety. But in fact they are opening the gates of hell, paving the road to tyranny.

All we need is a crisis that will force us to embrace this new digital currency. Already they are planting the thermite of hyperinflation in the wobbly columns supporting the dollar. As I speak, they are preparing a controlled demolition that will have us all on our knees when the cardboard messiah of digital currency manifests itself after the crash.

*

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 US Provisional Government.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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.

***

The absolute last thing that Poland wants right now is for everyone to remember how actively its leadership lobbied for exactly this outcome that’s since brought so much hardship to hundreds of millions of people, which is why it’s so important right now for activists to prioritize raising awareness of this “politically inconvenient” fact.

The entire US-led Western Mainstream Media (MSM) went wild on Friday after Gazprom announced the indefinite suspension of supplies through Nord Stream I due to technical malfunctions that were only just discovered. The Golden Billion’s perception managers speculated that Russia was weaponizing the export of gas to Europe as punishment for the bloc complying with the US’ counterproductive sanctions demands. The prevailing theory is that President Putin wants to exacerbate the EU’s impending energy crisis ahead of the coming winter in an attempt to pressure its leaders to coerce Kiev into concessions.

Whatever one’s views may be about that interpretation of events, there’s no denying that Europe’s in an unprecedented state of panic, especially considering the very likely possibility of large-scale socio-political unrest the longer that its systemic economic crisis lasts. To remind everyone, this crisis was brought about by the combination of complying with the US’ sanctions and Nord Stream I’s unexpected indefinite disruption. Likewise, there’s also no denying the following “politically incorrect” fact that’s being desperately suppressed by the MSM because it raises too many questions at this sensitive time.

Few folks remember it, but Polish Prime Minister Morawiecki demanded in late May ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos that Germany unilaterally shut down Nord Stream I by the end of the year. Prior to that, he proposed including that pipeline in the Golden Billion’s sanctions package right after the latest US-provoked phase of the Ukrainian Conflict began over half a year ago. It’s now known just how disastrous the disruption of Russian exports through that route has been for European stability, which wasn’t unexpected but should make observers wonder why Poland wanted this predictable outcome.

From the get-go, this aspiring Central & Eastern European (CEE) hegemon has pushed for the most radical anti-Russian policies possible, with its leadership even going as far as boasting that they set the global standard for Russophobia. Part of the reason is due to the “negative nationalism” that’s regrettably come to influence the formation of Polish nationalism in recent years wherein Poles obsess over what supposedly differentiates themselves from Russians instead of embracing “positive nationalism” which refers to pride in what one is without comparing themselves to others.

The other reason is much more strategic and related to the desire to sabotage leading European countries’ efforts to maximize their strategic autonomy. In particular, Poland fears that a strong Germany will impose its envisioned continental hegemony onto all others, beginning with its eastern neighbor. Its leadership therefore decided to pursue a dual policy of presenting itself as the US’ leading anti-Russian force in Europe so as to become that declining unipolar hegemony’s top partner on the continent in parallel with trying to trick Germany into committing economic suicide.

The first-mentioned was achieved through its rabidly Russophobic policies while the second was advanced by consistently pushing for Berlin to unilaterally shut down Nord Stream I on the false basis of “solidarity with its fellow democracies”, the manipulative rhetoric of which the Polish Ambassador to India just referenced while trying to pressure Delhi into condemning and sanctioning Moscow. Even though shutting down that pipeline would damage Poland’s own interests, Warsaw wagered that its people won’t protest all that much since they’re so indoctrinated with “negative nationalism”.

That aspiring hegemon’s grand strategic interests with respect to undercutting Germany’s rise as a global power through the aforementioned means are regarded as much more important than its short-term ones connected with the disruption of the continent’s Russian energy supplies. What Poland has plotted all along is to mislead Germany into promulgating counterproductive policies that would irreversibly weaken its strategic autonomy vis a vis the US and thus enable Washington to restore its declining unipolar hegemony over Berlin and the bloc that it unofficially leads more broadly.

The purpose behind doing so is for the US to privilege Poland over Germany as its top European vassal as a reward for Warsaw perfectly marching in lockstep with Washington’s anti-Russian demands and tricking Berlin into irreversibly weakening its strategic autonomy to the point where America could successfully reassert its hegemonic control over the continent. The euro has dropped to its lowest rate against the dollar in two decades as a result of the joint US-Polish Hybrid War on Germany, which means that it’s unlikely that this aspiring global power can ever economically compete with the US again.

This outcome would have happened even sooner had Germany gone along with Poland’s ill-intended plan to sanction Nord Stream I half a year ago prior to announcing in late May like Morawiecki demanded at the time that it’ll unilaterally stop importing gas from this pipeline by the end of the year. The whole point behind pursuing these destabilizing objectives was for Poland to get Germany to weaken itself and the EU by none other than its own hand so as to ensure the successful reassertion of US hegemony over the continent in order to forever avert a rapprochement with Russia.

For as distant as that second scenario might have seemed up until recently, it was still possible in theory for a strategically autonomous Germany to eventually repair its relations with Russia after some time so long as the economic foundation of the bloc’s de facto leader remained comparatively stable and it was thus able to retain some degree of independence from the declining American hegemony. That’s precisely why Poland wanted Germany to get rid of Nord Stream I in order for its Hybrid War target to sabotage its own objective national interests.

Regardless of whatever one thinks about Nord Stream I’s latest disruption and whether it’s truly related to technical malfunctions or whatever else, this development dooms Germany to vassalhood status vis a vis the US in full accordance with the grand strategic outcome that Poland’s been pursuing for the past half-year already as was earlier explained. The unprecedented socio-economic hardships that the unexpectedly exacerbated energy crisis is bound to inflict on hundreds of millions of people in the EU makes this latest event extremely unpopular though, which risks making its Polish mastermind look bad.

Even though Poland ultimately wasn’t responsible for the outcome that it’s pursued for so long after it ended up officially occurring due to technical malfunctions and not Germany’s own hand, Warsaw still doesn’t want to be associated with the immense hardships that this development has inflicted on the European people. It intended for Berlin to be blamed for this, which would have destroyed its target’s soft power once and for all, but now the MSM’s perception managers can conveniently blame Moscow while simultaneously trying to make everyone forget that Warsaw’s wanted this all along.

The absolute last thing that Poland wants right now is for everyone to remember how actively its leadership lobbied for exactly this outcome that’s since brought so much hardship to hundreds of millions of people, which is why it’s so important right now for activists to prioritize raising awareness of this “politically inconvenient” fact. Europeans deserve to know that this is all part of the joint US-Polish Hybrid War on Germany for the earlier explained grand strategic aims even though the climax thus far was due to technical malfunctions and not Berlin being tricked into shutting down the pipeline.

*

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 OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is taken from OneWorld

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.

***

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, contradicted Ukrainian authorities on August 31 by stressing that his visit to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant was a “technical mission” that aimed to prevent a nuclear accident. His comments came as Kiev claimed his visit was a step towards “de-occupying” the power plant from Russian control.

Grossi, who led the mission, arrived on August 31 to the Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia, near the powerplant. Asked about whether the plant could become a demilitarised zone, he said that “this is a matter of political will”, adding: “But my mission – I think it’s very important to establish (this) with all clarity – my mission is a technical mission.”

“It’s a mission that seeks to prevent a nuclear accident. And to preserve this important (nuclear power plant),” he said.

On August 31, Ukrainian Energy Minister German Galushchenko told Reuters that the IAEA mission to the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant was a step towards “deoccupying and demilitarising” the site, prompting Grossi to stress that it was just purely a “technical mission”.

The nuclear power plant, the largest in Europe, was captured by Russian forces in March but is still operated by Ukrainian staff. The site is less than 10 km away from Ukrainian positions across the Dnipro River and has come under repeated shelling over the past month, with Ukraine and Russia accusing each other of being responsible.

Many are finding it hard to believe that Russia is responsible for the shelling as it has nothing to gain by destroying vital infrastructure that it already controls. Meanwhile, Ukraine could be motivated to shell the plant as it can continue manipulating Western audiences via its intense media campaign by denying such attacks and claiming that Russia will soon be responsible for a nuclear catastrophe.

Arriving at the site, Grossi said

“The difference between having the IAEA at the site and not having us there is like day and night. I remain gravely concerned about the situation at the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant – this hasn’t changed – but the continued presence of the IAEA will be of paramount importance in helping to stabilise the situation. I’m immensely proud of the critically important and courageous work the IAEA team is now able to perform at the ZNPP.”

Although Kiev attempted to manipulate such statements to mean that Russia will soon abandon the site, it also means that there will be neutral observers to any future attack against the power plant. Despite it not being the IAEA’s mission to hold anyone accountable for attacks as their focus is purely technical, they will be eyewitnesses to any strikes, and Kiev might want to avoid another fiasco like the uncovering of the “Ghost of Kiev” and “Snake Island” myths.

Explaining the nature of his trip, Grossi said:

“Our team on the ground received direct, fast and reliable information about the latest significant development affecting the plant’s external power situation, as well as the operational status of the reactors. We already have a better understanding of the functionality of the reserve power line in connecting the facility to the grid. This is crucial information in assessing the overall situation there.”

With Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant working at limited capacity, it also means that Ukraine misses out on potential new opportunities for revenue, especially at a time when Europe hopes nuclear energy can help offset the loss of oil and natural gas imports from Russia that were imposed through self-destructive sanctions, which are now massively backfiring.

Although Germany planned to close all of its nuclear reactors by the end of the year, there is debate on whether to keep them open as the country faces an economic crisis not seen since last century’s two world wars. Neighbouring Belgium, which was planning to close two reactors by 2025, has decided to keep them operating until at least the 2030’s. France, going in the complete opposite direction to Germany and Belgium, is looking to build an additional 14 reactors over the coming decades, as are the United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Poland and others.

None-the-less, Kiev’s attempt to politicise the IAEA mission completely failed as the agency made it clear that its only intentions are technical in nature. This will not deter Kiev from continuing such attempts of politicising the agency, and it remains to be seen whether the IAEA will go down the path of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which was humiliating caught-out covering up a damning report regarding Syria and lost its credibility.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

***

As we approach the official convening of the International Tribunal for the (are we now allowed to say: Former?) Ukraine, or perhaps initially it will just be a Donetsk/Lugansk tribunal, we are still largely in the dark about some fundamental issues. Clarity on those issues would be helpful because the convening of this tribunal is a singular opportunity not just for justice to be done but also to be seen by almost the entire world to be done. It is a brilliant opportunity to lay bare collective West’s moral turpitude before the remaining 85% of the world that is happily situated outside its autistic confines and not susceptible to its distortions of reality. Morally and politically, this is a unique opportunity that must not be forfeited.

It is the prosecutors, of course, who will select the legal framework under which they will act in presenting their case. They alone will ultimately determine what Ukrainian or foreign individuals and entities will be put in the dock, and based on what legal theories. Nevertheless, some useful suggestions can perhaps still be made to assist the tribunal in fulfilling its important task.

[1] Ground rules. This is basic and refers to the tribunal’s fundamental charter, or Statute, and its Rules of procedure and evidence. These documents define the tribunal’s mission and prescribe how it goes about it. It is the general road map for the proceedings, governing their scope and operational methodology. For credibility that is indispensable.

A political decision may have been taken to conduct the first phase of the proceedings under the aegis of the judicial systems of the two Donbass republics, presumably for reasons of territorial jurisdiction to handle locally captured suspects from Nazi and foreign mercenary outfits. A plausible argument to that effect could be ventured, but that is the extent and no further that local courts should be involved.

The international tribunal that is being set up is a major legal undertaking. It has much larger issues to deal with and bigger fish to fry than local outrages committed by pathological misfits. There are vital and complex legal issues that require adjudication, including the planning of aggressive war, genocide, and grave crimes against humanity, to name just a few, which local, provincial courts clearly lack the capacity to deal with. The catalogue of potential high value culprits encompasses officials and institutions greatly superior hierarchically to mere foot soldiers and field executioners, disgusting as their atrocities may be. A tribunal seen to be endowed with competence and professional distinction is expected to hear evidence and pass judgment on the overarching crimes and on their suspected perpetrators. It is primarily high value suspects, in person or in absentia, Ukrainian or foreign, that must be identified and indicted.  They should be brought to answer charges before an institutionally and professionally credible body with precise ground rules and impeccable international credentials.

[2] Establishing context. Context is a key dimension of the contemplated proceedings. Its importance cannot be overestimated but could easily be overlooked by tribunal organisers with a parochial perspective and scant experience. Their natural inclination, especially if they come from pre-modern, non-Western legal systems, is to focus narrowly on individual guilt, disregarding a broader analysis of the origin and rationale of the criminal conduct under review. However, in dealing with the Ukrainian conflict, legal and political considerations intersect. The criminal behaviour the court will deal with is not merely individual but also institutional and systemic. Properly presented contextual background is therefore decisive for the correct judicial assessment of the evidence.

The creators of the Hague Tribunal were keenly aware of their project’s political implications; they consequently laid great stress on the elaboration of contextual issues. But like practically everything in that failed tribunal, that also was done with disregard for sound judicial practice. ICTY chambers allowed much allegedly contextual evidence to be introduced primarily for its propaganda effect but with little regard to whether it was genuinely probative or relevant.

The prosecution of the Ukrainian tribunal has no need to resort to skulduggery in order to make its case. The context of the Kiev regime’s criminality can be easily and compellingly demonstrated by voluminous and unimpeachable evidence of its Nazi affiliations and of the hospitality extended by its foreign sponsors to hard-core World War II Nazi collaborators whose ideological progeny now constitute the regime’s backbone. There is abundant evidence that over a decades long period descendants of wartime Nazi helpers were groomed and kept in reserve to be subsequently sent en masse to Ukraine and installed in key positions after the 2014 Maidan coup. Absent the presentation of this incriminating contextual background of long-term preparation and planning, each separate crime committed by tattooed Nazi thugs, no matter how appalling and thoroughly documented, will be swept under the rug by Western narrative spinners as just the solitary act of deranged individuals.

[3] Expert witnesses. For the crimes which are the subject of these proceedings to be treated as more than just incidents perpetrated by individuals the prosecution must connect the dots and provide a comprehensive overview of the criminal design. Skilled and experienced expert witnesses are required for that purpose. A competent expert witness interprets and gives coherence to disparate ground-level facts. He assists the chamber and the public to better understand how the crimes came to be committed. ICTY practice in this area is instructive, but only as a negative example not to be followed.

ICTY prosecutors were in the habit of bringing “experts” with dubious qualifications to elaborate tendentious narratives. Many of them were destroyed on the witness stand. These and other debacles, however, had little impact on the outcome of ICTY’s staged trials, though they did bring great discredit upon the court and its proceedings. Precautions can and should therefore be taken to ensure that the Hague Tribunal’s foolish blunders are not repeated by the Ukraine tribunal.

Qualified experts are opinion as opposed to fact witnesses. In a criminal trial they offer important assistance to the court by presenting an independent technical interpretation of the factual evidence. They should be used where appropriate in the Ukrainian criminal trials. Their input would benefit both the judges and international public opinion by shedding light on the many technical and forensic issues that will arise in the course of the proceedings.

[4] Genocide. It has been suggested that the charge of genocide would feature prominently in the Ukraine indictments. The opportunity to apply the Genocide Convention to the factual matrix of the Ukrainian conflict and to develop case law in that important legal area should not be passed over. However, the genocide argument must be thought through carefully to avoid pitfalls, such as basing the contention of genocide mainly on numbers. Genocide indictments, if issued, must be aligned closely with the conceptual scheme of the Convention, bearing in mind also that this area of international law is still largely uncharted territory. There is presently little case law on the subject to assist prosecutors in framing a genocide case, if we disregard (as we should) the politically corrupted and intellectually dishonest practice and pronouncements of the Hague Tribunal.

The key point to remember is that the Convention emphasises deliberate infliction on the targeted group of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part. It nowhere mentions a specific number of victims as a threshold for proving genocide. The 14,000 civilian shelling victims in the Donbas since 2014 certainly are a factor that should be cited in support of the prosecution’s genocide case, but this allegation must be complemented with additional evidence to flesh out the legal argument and to keep it from becoming a numbers game. In addition to the large number of civilian victims, other prima facie elements consistent with the Convention’s conceptual scheme should also be highlighted. Suppression of Russian language and culture, widespread intimidation of Russian speakers and social and economic discrimination designed to encourage their “voluntary” departure, forced re-education of Russian children with the clear objective of changing their identity, open appeals by Ukrainian officials and regime connected public figures for the extermination of Russian speakers  – these are some of the elements in thecampaign conducted by Kiev authorities and aimed against a protected group, namely those who consider themselves ethnically and culturally Russians. There is thus a strong presumptive case that the provisions of the Genocide convention have been systematically violated by Ukraine. For the case to be successfully made, the evidence must be properly assembled, presented to the court and made accessible to world public opinion.

The forthcoming Ukrainian War Crimes Tribunal is an exciting experiment in dispassionate justice in a still ongoing conflict that from the beginning has been mired in deliberate lies and deceptive hyperbole. While many of the perpetrators will undoubtedly be identified and punished, it is likely that many more will slip through the cracks if for no other reason than because they are so numerous. That unavoidable fact should not discourage anyone. If the Tribunal manages to calmly and methodically document the horrors inflicted on the people of Ukraine of all persuasions it will have done its job, and with honour.

*

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.

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

***

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.

***

Several embalmers across the country have been observing many large, and sometimes very long, “fibrous” and rubbery clots inside the corpses they treat, and are speaking out about their findings.

Numerous embalmers from different states confirmed to The Epoch Times that they have been seeing these strange clots, starting from either 2020 or 2021.

It’s not yet known if the cause of the new clot phenomenon is COVID-19, vaccines, both, or something different.

The Epoch Times received additional videos and photos of the anomalous clots, but could not upload them due to the level of gore.

Mike Adams, who runs an ISO-17025 accredited lab in Texas, analyzed clots in August and found them to be lacking iron, potassium, magnesium, and zinc.

Adams’s lab uses inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), triple quadrupole mass spectrometer, and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, usually testing food for metals, pesticides, and glyphosate.

“We have tested one of the clots from embalmer Richard Hirschman, via ICP-MS. Also tested side by side, live human blood from an unvaccinated person,” Adams told The Epoch Times.

He found that the clots are lacking key elements present in healthy human blood, such as iron, potassium, and magnesium, suggesting that they are formed from something other than blood.

Adams is joining analytic forces with more doctors and plan to invest out of their own pocket in equipment in order to further determine their composition and probable causation.

The string-like structures differ in size, but the longest can be as long as a human leg and the thickest can be as thick as a pinky finger.

Drastic Increase in Clots

Richard Hirschman, a licensed funeral director and embalmer in Alabama, recalled that he has been in the trade since the tragedy of 9/11.

“Prior to 2020, 2021, we probably would see somewhere between 5 to 10 percent of the bodies that we would embalm [having] blood clots,” Hirschman told The Epoch Times.

“We are familiar with what blood clots are, and we’ve had to deal with them over time,” he said.

He says that now, 50 percent to 70 percent of the bodies he sees have clots.

“For me to embalm a body without any clots, kind of like how it was in the day, prior to all of this stuff … It’s rare,” Hirschman said.

“The exception is to embalm a body without clots,” he noted.

Clot Analysis

The chart below shows the differences between the blood of the unvaccinated and the clot tested with ICP-MS, according to Adams’s analysis.

“Notice that the key elemental markers of human blood such as iron are missing in the clot (which is just at 4.4 percent of blood). Similar story with magnesium, potassium, and zinc. These are clear markers for human blood. Live human blood will always have high iron, or the person would be dead. These clots have almost no iron, nor magnesium, etc.,” Adams told The Epoch Times.

Wade Hamilton, a cardiologist who is familiar with clots, told The Epoch Times:

“The fact that the magnesium, potassium, and iron are very low in the samples could suggest that they are not the usual post-mortem clots, that in fact there was no blood flow in these vessels. These structures raise but do not totally answer some interesting questions.”

“The combination of the low electrolytes and the novel very strong string-like structures suggests that these areas where the string-like structures are seen in the blood vessels did not receive circulation. They are not ‘normal’ post-mortem findings according to experienced embalmers bent on obtaining total body vascular access from one site, which because of the unusual ‘clots,’ they were unable to do,” he added.

“They are not normal post-mortem clots but rather the long tiny strings may have been etiologic in the deaths, preventing circulation to those regions. Others have shown that the spike protein can and does unfold and form a different configuration, contributing to tight string-like bonded structures with longitudinal twisting as well as cross binding, visible by microscopy, each one measuring angstroms in diameter—it takes 25,400,000 angstroms to make an inch—a typical capillary is around 5 microns, so many strings are needed to occlude a vessel.”

The embalming process has become much more difficult too, causing some embalmers to have to drain the blood via multiple points instead of a single spot.

‘Never Seen’ Before

“In 20 years of embalming, I had never seen these white fibrous structures in the blood, nor have others in my field. In the past year, I have seen these strange clots in many different individuals, and it doesn’t seem to matter what they die of, they often have similar substances in their blood. This makes me very concerned because if something is wrong in the blood, it begs the question: is something causing people to die prematurely?” Hirschman said.

“As the summer [of 2021] went on, COVID deaths were on the decline, but these clots were increasing in number. My suspicion is that the vaccine may be the cause of these strange clots. I realize that I am not a doctor nor am I a scientist, but I do know what blood looks like and I am very familiar with the embalming process that I have been doing for two decades. I do not know 100 percent what causes these clots, but I do know from my experience and through speaking with several other embalmers and funeral directors none of us had seen this strange clotting before.”

Hirschman sent the clots to a few pathologists and claims that some of them have “overlooked” them, probably due to fear of retaliation.

He has embalmed thousands of bodies and is very familiar with blood, and he feels that the blood of most of the bodies he has seen in the last two years “has changed.”

Hirschman is not afraid to lose his job because he’s a trade embalmer and not employed by a funeral home, but is also cautious not to reveal where exactly he works.

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.

***

Many people in Europe and beyond seem to believe that Russia, in response to Western sanctions, has been limiting gas flows to Europe. Yet this is not the case, as the following analysis shows.

There are currently five major pipelines that supply – or could supply – Russian gas to Europe: Nord Stream I and Nord Stream II through the Baltic Sea to Germany; the Jamal pipeline through Poland to Germany; the Soyuz and Brotherhood pipelines through Ukraine; and the TurkStream pipeline through the Black Sea and Turkey to Southeast and Central Europe (see the map above).

All of these pipelines are currently out of service or run at limited capacity – though not because of Russian retaliation, but because of Western sanctions or political decisions:

• The Jamal pipeline is closed because Poland has terminated the operational agreement with Russia (after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and to become independent of Russian gas).
• The Soyuz pipeline – which accounts for about one third of the gas delivered through Ukraine – has been closed by Ukraine after LPR forces took control of the gas compressor station.
• Nord Stream I runs at limited capacity because Canadian and EU sanctions have prevented the maintenance and return of several Siemens gas compressor turbines.
• Nord Stream II was completed in late 2021 but has never entered service due to US political pressure on Germany; Germany canceled certification of the pipeline on February 22.
• TurkStream – which in 2014 replaced the South Stream project – remains operational, but because of EU sanctions, Bulgaria has denied euro payment to the Russian Gazprom Bank. In contrast, Hungary has defied EU sanctions and continues to receive gas through TurkStream.

Source: Swiss Policy Research

Another widespread misconception is that Russia demanded “payment in rubles” to retaliate against Western sanctions. Yet this is not the case, either. Instead, after Western sanctions against the Russian central bank froze about $300 billion in Russian foreign exchange reserves, Russia decided that euro and dollar payments for gas have to be made to an account at Russian Gazprom Bank and will then be converted into rubles by the Russian central bank (to avoid seizure by the US/EU).

Why is Russia not (yet) actively limiting or stopping gas flows to Europe? Simply because Russia is interested in earning revenue from gas exports, being seen as a reliable supplier, and avoiding further escalation of the Ukraine conflict and direct confrontation with NATO countries. However, Russia did put pressure on Kazakhstan to prevent Kazakh oil exports via Turkey instead of Russia.

Why then is Europe jeopardizing its own gas supply through sanctions against Russia? The initial goal likely was to cripple Russian export revenues and the Russian economy. Yet this has largely failed as international oil and gas prices have risen to record highs. Thus, Russian oil and gas revenue has actually increased since the outbreak of the Ukraine war (though tech sanctions are still biting).

However, the Western response can only really be understood from a US perspective, not from a European perspective. From a US perspective, cutting off Russian gas flows to Europe is a means to isolating Russia, pressuring Europe into supporting the US proxy war in Ukraine, and forcing Europe to switch to American or Arab LNG gas supplies. The most obvious example of this strategy is the Nord Stream II pipeline, which the US blocked despite a German-Russian agreement.

Moreover, the US strategy in Ukraine has to be seen in the context of the broader US strategy in Eurasia. Back in June, former US Secretary of State and former CIA director, Mike Pompeo, explained in a speech at the Hudson Institute: “By aiding Ukraine, we undermined the creation of a Russian-Chinese axis bent on exerting military and economic hegemony in Europe, in Asia and in the Middle East. () Indeed, by empowering Ukraine, we demonstrate to China the cost of invading Taiwan. () We must prevent the formation of a Pan-Eurasian colossus incorporating Russia, but led by China.”

Nevertheless, most European countries – including Germany – will still reach their gas storage target levels for the winter season and may be able to partially replace reduced Russian gas supplies with supplies from other countries, though at significantly higher market prices. This has already led to some bizarre situations, such as Germany’s largest fertilizer producer having to halt production, while German fertilizer shortfalls are being replaced by imports from – Russia.

Update: Still no Russian energy war

On September 5, the British Financial Times published a craftily worded article that has received worldwide attention: “Russia halts gas supplies to Europe until western sanctions lifted” (later changed to “Russia switches off Europe’s main gas pipeline until sanctions are lifted.”).

The article once again suggested that Russia was deliberately “halting gas supplies” to retaliate against Western sanctions. In reality, the Russian government stated that they “remain committed to their obligations and contracts”, but that they cannot operate Nord Stream I as long as the technical equipment of that pipeline remains sanctioned.

In particular, the six Nord Stream I gas turbines, maintained by a British division of German energy company Siemens, remain sanctioned under British law – four of them are still in Canada, one has been transferred to Germany instead of Russia, and the last one is affected by a minor oil leak that Siemens is not allowed to repair due to British and EU sanctions.

The Financial Times later added a quote from the energy spokesman of the European Commission, according to whom Russia was “unwilling to deliver gas to Europe through other pipelines”. Yet as seen above, those “other pipelines” have been closed by Poland, Ukraine, and Germany.

That Russia is still not waging an “energy war” against Europe can be seen by the following facts:

1. Russia continues to deliver gas through the Brotherhood pipeline to Ukraine (!) and to Europe as well as through the TurkStream pipeline to parts of southeastern Europe;
2. Russia is ready to supply gas through the Nord Stream II pipeline, whose turbines are maintained by Russia itself, as soon as Germany (and the US) would open that pipeline;
3. Russia continues to deliver oil via Ukraine to Europe through the Druzhba pipeline, even though Ukraine had temporarily closed this pipeline in August. However, an EU embargo against Russian oil imports was agreed upon in June and will come into effect in January 2023.

The British BBC was more accurate, this time, when they titled their article: “Russia blames sanctions for gas pipeline shutdown”. Indeed, the decision to decouple Europe from Russian energy supplies remains an entirely Western geostrategic decision, yet Western leaders and Western media, understandably, would like to blame Russia for that decision (and the consequences).

*

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 Swiss Policy Research.

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.

***

Once again, reports indicate that the Kiev regime acts in a destabilizing way in Zaporozhye. Local officials informed that Ukrainian agents had recently attacked the region with the aim of capturing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team, which would allow them to keep international officials hostage in a human shield. This type of tactic is absolutely condemned according to international humanitarian standards, which reveals the criminal praxis of the Ukrainian forces.

In an interview to Russian media, Vladimir Rogov, a member of the top council of Zaporozhye’s civil-military administration, claimed that Ukrainian saboteurs had tried to hold IAEA officials hostage to gain an advantage in Kiev’s planned military “counteroffensive.” According to Rogov, the attacks in the region were strongly intensified during the inspection, and at least two dozen high-speed military boats with several armed soldiers on board were disembarked in the area of ​​the Kakhovka Reservoir. The reservoir is close to the nuclear plant, being a strategic position for the grouping of troops that would be mobilized for the operation in the facilities.

“In the event of a successful capture of the nuclear power plant, the goal of the Ukrainian saboteurs was to take hostage the IAEA delegation and the employees of the nuclear power plant in order to use them as a human shield to establish control over the nuclear power plant, which would allow blackmailing Russia and the whole world with a nuclear threat”, Rogov told media in a recent interview.

Earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry had already said that at least 60 Ukrainian paratroopers had taken part in an operation to occupy the ZNPP before the arrival of the delegation. Most of the soldiers were neutralized by Russian forces in the surrounding area of the Kakhovka reservoir, preventing the Ukrainian plan from materializing. Now, however, more recent information makes it clear that Kiev has continued to insist on its plan to seize the plant despite the presence of international inspectors, putting civilians’ lives unnecessarily in danger.

More serious than the mere attempt of irresponsible capture of the ZNPP, however, is the fact that there was possibly a plan to capture and hold as hostage innocent employees of an international inspection mission, whose purpose in the region is absolutely peaceful. The attempt to capture civilians in order to obtain military advantages through human shielding and intimidation is a real crime, which violates the most basic principles of international law. Although this was not the first attitude of this type on the part of Kiev, the case is especially serious as it shows how anti-Russian forces act in a destabilizing and anti-humanitarian way, targeting civilians.

As far as the IAEA’s work is concerned, the results of the inspection are yet to be announced. More likely, Rafael Grossi, director general of the IAEA, will publicly present a report in the third week of August. In fact, there is still the possibility of starting a permanent mission, with part of the delegation remaining at the ZNPP for continuous inspection. There is great expectation on the part of both sides about what will be said by the Agency’s representatives, as the Western side fears that its narrative about Russian attacks in the region will be denied and, in the same sense, Moscow expects the delegation to act with sincerity and report what actually happened in the region during the inspection.

Rogov, for example, commented that IAEA agents simply cannot say they did not see Ukrainian bombings in the region, as it was quite clear that it was the Kiev side that attacked the plant many times during the inspection. The western side, however, puts pressure on IAEA agents to confirm their narrative, as the current program of military aid to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia would lose support from public opinion if it were revealed by the agency that Kiev really attacks the plant. It remains to be seen what the official assessment will be and whether the report will be done in a truly neutral and apolitical manner.

In any case, the data from the Russian authorities about the attempt to capture civilians to form a human shield cannot be ignored. Once again, Kiev appears to be the side responsible for serious and extremely dangerous crimes. Coercive measures against the Ukrainian regime are necessary, as the country seems willing to disobey all international norms. And, certainly, the first step to be taken is to stop the Western military support that allows Kiev to continue committing such crimes.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

***

Corona Investigative Committee interviewed Vera Sharav (Human Rights Activist and Holocaust Survivor) and Uwe Alschner (Business Consultant and Blogger).

*

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 a screenshot from the video

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

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.

***

Smart meters measure and record electricity usage at least every hour, if not more, and provide the data to the utility company and consumer at least once a day

The data from smart meters reveal far more than you might think — and could even be used against you to control your individual energy use or, one day, to help ensure “net zero” compliance

Smart meters do more than measure your energy usage; they’re also capable of distinguishing what type of energy you’re using, such as doing laundry or watching TV

It’s an intensely personal form of surveillance — one that could easily be used against you, including to scrutinize your energy usage and even ration your energy

Smart meters should also be avoided because they’re yet another source of electromagnetic fields, which include radio frequencies from smart meters, cellphones and Wi-Fi, and dirty electricity

If you can, opt out of receiving a smart meter; be aware that you will likely be charged an extortion fee, in the form of one-time and monthly charges, to do so

*

Many people have embraced the convenience of wireless devices in their homes, but these devices come at a price — your privacy and your health. With each smart device that you welcome to your home — such as connected alarm clocks, vehicles, refrigerators and doorbells — another layer of your personal life is revealed and your health is sabotaged by the EMFs.

This is certainly true of smart meters, which are officially known in the U.S. as advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) installations. In 2020, 102.9 million such smart meters were installed by U.S. electric utilities, about 88% of them in personal residences.¹ AMI meters measure and record electricity usage at least every hour, if not more, and provide the data to the utility company and consumer at least once a day.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “AMI installations range from basic hourly interval meters to real-time meters with built-in two-way communication that is capable of recording and transmitting instantaneous data.”²

What could be wrong with transmitting every last detail about your real-time energy usage to an energy company? Those data reveal far more than you might think — and could even be used against you to control your individual energy use or, one day, to help ensure “net zero” compliance.

Smart Meters Aren’t There for Your Benefit

Before smart meters were widely available, your electricity usage was recorded by a meter reader, who would visit your property once a month and manually record your energy usage. Now, this data is tracked at hourly or half-hour intervals, which energy companies are billing as a way to save you, the customer, money. The U.K.’s Shell Energy, which describes smart meters as “the future of energy,” notes:³

They let you know exactly how much it’s costing you to boil that kettle or charge your phone. Armed with this knowledge, you can make a more informed decision about whether to turn up the heating, or put another load in the tumble dryer.

… Smart meters are set to revolutionize the way we use electricity. They make it easier for suppliers like us to offer cheaper, off-peak rates for, say, charging your electric car. They tell us more about how you use your energy, which means we can offer you more suitable tariffs. It may be that, one day, you’re offered cheaper electricity on sunny or windy days, when clean energy is easier to come by.”

Smart Energy International also describes Comarch’s smart metering systems as a solution for “remote and automatic measurement of media consumption.” Note that their smart meters once only measured electricity and now are available for other utilities, including water, gas and heat, “the consumption of which should be constantly monitored.”⁴

Using the tactic of manufacturing fear, they spin smart meters as a necessity so that energy companies can keep close tabs on consumption and step in when needed:⁵

“A whole new era of readings has come. Smart metering systems provide companies in the utilities sector with the ability to monitor media supply networks and efficiently respond to current events. Data can be obtained even from meters that are difficult to access and those located at long distances from each other. They are sent periodically, informing the end-user about the reading, transmission data, and possible failures and errors.

This makes it possible to send teams almost immediately where they are needed at any given time. All this is to respond as quickly as possible if a problem arises.”

If They Control the Energy, They Control You

The technocratic elite, including both BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and Bill Gates, are pushing for “net zero” carbon emissions.⁶ While BlackRock is busy buying up houses, Gates is hard at work amassing farmland and is now the largest owner of farmland in the U.S.⁷

Gates is pushing for drastic, fundamental changes by 2030, including widespread consumption of fake meat, adoption of next generation nuclear energy and growing a fungus as a new type of nutritional protein.⁸ The deadline Gates has given to reach net zero emissions is 2050,⁹ and smart meters are already being positioned as an essential part of this plan. According to Shell Energy:¹⁰

“Indeed, the government considers smart meters key to the UK cutting its emissions and reaching net-zero by 2050. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has worked out that, if we all switch to smart meters, the UK can knock 45 million tonnes off its carbon emissions — the equivalent of taking 26 million cars off the road for a year.”

But according to many experts, including Vandana Shiva, new conditionalities are being created through net zero “nature-based” solutions in order to force the world to accept a new food and agricultural system, along with a new wave of colonization in the name of sustainability. Navdanya’s report, “Earth Democracy: Connecting Rights of Mother Earth to Human Rights and Well-Being of All,” explains:¹¹

“… ‘Net Zero’ is a new strategy to get rid of small farmers … through the burden of fake carbon accounting. Carbon offsets and the new accounting trick of ‘net zero’ does not mean zero emissions. It means the rich polluters will continue to pollute and also grab the land and resources of those who have not polluted — indigenous people and small farmers — for carbon offsets.”

In other words, the elite will continue to consume resources as always, including indulgences like polluting private jets, but will be able to purchase carbon credits to offset the emissions they create.¹² Meanwhile, the average person will face increasing scrutiny of their energy usage, to the point that it may one day be rationed in the name of “climate compliance.”

Will Smart Meters Be Used to Ration Energy Use?

Smart meters do more than measure your energy usage. They’re also capable of distinguishing what type of energy you’re using. So they know if you’re doing a load of laundry, watching TV or have left your home for the day. While this might not sound nefarious on the surface, it’s an intensely personal form of surveillance — one that could easily be used against you, including to ration your energy. Journalist Abby Martin explains:¹³

“If the notion about what you are doing and when you are doing isn’t disturbing enough — it’s worse. These devices are capable of regulating, controlling and even rationing your energy use. Take this example, you are running your fans in the hot summer months and the power company decides you are using too much power, they will take it upon themselves to lower it regardless of the consumer willing to pay for the extra usage.

A point to consider is what these companies will do with this information. Once this is shared with law enforcement, it can and it will be used against you. Cops will be able to know what you are doing in the privacy of your own home.

Secondly these companies can sell this information of our daily lives for data mining and advertising. It is disturbing at so many levels but these little surveillance units are being implemented across the country without the public’s consent and in many cases without their knowledge of being installed.”

It’s Time to ‘Think the Unthinkable’

It’s unthinkable that the powers that be could be intent on increasing surveillance and control, to the point that even your energy usage is under their thumb, but as GBNews host Neil Oliver put it in the video above, it’s time to “think the unthinkable”:¹⁴

“People raised to trust the powers that be, who have assumed, like I once did, that the state, regardless of its political flavor at any given moment, is essentially benevolent and well meaning, will naturally try to keep that assumption of benevolence in mind to make sense of what’s going on around them.

People like us, you and me, raised in the understanding that we are free, that we have inalienable rights and that the institutions of this country have our best interests at heart will tend to tie ourselves in knots rather than contemplate the idea those authorities may actually be working against us now.

… We are no longer being treated as individuals entitled to make the most of our lives, but as a barn full of battery hens — just another product to be bought and sold, sold down the river … treat yourself to the gift of understanding that the powers that be fully intend we should have less heat and less fuel, and that in the planned future only the rich will have cars anyway. The plan is not to fix it. The plan is to break it and leave it broken.

… If net zero and the rest was about the good of the planet and not about clearing the beaches and skies of scum like us, don’t you think those sainted politicians and A-listers would be lighting the way for us by their own example?”

Another Problem With Smart Meters — EMFs

Even if you put aside the surveillance and privacy issues and their potential for abuse, smart meters should be avoided because they’re yet another source of electromagnetic fields, which include radio frequencies from smart meters, cellphones and Wi-Fi. Smart meters also have the additional challenge of emitting dirty electricity which consists of transient voltage spikes as a result of switching mode power supplies. Adverse health effects linked to these EMF exposures include:¹⁵

• Excess oxidative stress
• Opening your blood-brain barrier, allowing toxins to enter your brain
• DNA damage and altered microbiome
• Impaired proton flow and ATP production
• Altered cellular function due to excessive charge

One way to reduce your exposure is to refuse smart meters as long as you can. Note that some states already prohibit opt-outs while others allow them but will charge you an extortion fee, in the form of one-time and monthly charges, to do so. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures:¹⁶

“In almost every case, customers who elect to opt-out of smart meter installation are charged to do so — often through a one-time “set-up fee,” followed by monthly fees associated with the cost of sending out meter-readers. The fees can vary considerably. A utility in Rhode Island charges a one-time fee of $27, while a Texas utility’s one-time fee is $171. The monthly fees range from around $9 to $32.”

If you can afford to do so, opting out will protect both your privacy and your health from this unnecessary intrusion. Alternatively, you can shield the meters with kits available online but those will not reduce the dirty electricity produced by the meters.

*

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.

Notes

^1, 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, FAQs

^3, 10 Shell Energy, Smart meters and the future of energy

^4, 5 Smart Energy International May 15, 2020

⁶ YouTube June 25, 2021

⁷ Fortune March 13, 2021

⁸ ZeroHedge February 16, 2021

⁹ Fox Business February 21, 2021

¹¹ Navdanya, Earth Rights Are Human Rights

¹² Forbes January 21, 2020

¹³ Matthew Bell August 24, 2016

¹⁴ GBNews, Neil Oliver August 14, 2022, 1:00 to 4:44

¹⁵ Createhealthyhomes.com, Electromagnetic Fields: Modern Health Hazard? (PDF)

¹⁶ National Conference of State Legislatures, Smart Meter Opt-Out Policies August 20, 2019

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.

***

The sailboat Golden Rule will embark on a 15-month, 11,000 mile voyage near Stillwater, Minnesota this September to raise awareness about the growing danger of nuclear war and build support for abolishing nuclear weapons.

Referred to as the Great Loop, the crew will make 100 ports of-call along the Mississippi River, coastal cities and around the Great Lakes before heading back to San Francisco through the Panama Canal. Planned community events that link environmental, and peace and justice concerns to anti-war issues will include school visits, seminars and venues for speakers.

While in Stillwater, anyone interested can meet the crew and learn more about the project:

• September 17, 3-5 p.m. at Stillwater Library, 224 3rd St N. Stillwater, MN 55082, Margaret Rivers Room and Terrace
• September 18, 2-4 p.m. at Lowell Park South, Sam Bloomer, Stillwater, MN 55082

The Golden Rule will be docked at St. Croix Dock & Packet in Stillwater September 16-19.

“We are sailing for a nuclear-free world and a peaceful sustainable future” says Golden Rule Project Manager Helen Jaccard. “Our mission is all the more urgent now that two nuclear powers are confronting one another in Ukraine which greatly increases the chances of nuclear war.”

While the Golden Rule’s primary message about nuclear war and what can be done to prevent it is crucial, there was controversy about how that message would be delivered. The idea of having a 36 foot Ketch hauled 2,000 miles overland from San Francisco to Minnesota had critics questioning the expense of such an endeavor and wondering if the money might be better spent elsewhere. In spite of the seriousness of this campaign, visions of peaceniks floating down river sipping wine or eating THC gummies danced in the heads of skeptics.

Those more familiar with the project scoffed and pointed to the dedication of national organizers and the vast amounts of work and money already invested in the legendary boat that made a trip like this possible. In 2010 the Golden Rule (affectionately called Goldie) was a submerged wreck in California’s Humboldt Bay until it was pulled ashore. As the story goes, the harbor master, along with a bottle of whiskey and some friends, planned to make a bonfire out of her until they were told about the sailboat’s historical significance.

The vessel made headlines in 1958 when four Quaker activists tried sailing her from Los Angeles to the Marshall Islands to interfere with nuclear testing after traditional methods of protesting failed. The crew never made it and were jailed after stopping in Honolulu. The upside, however, is their arrests created global buzz and not long after, records of nuclear pollution along with reports of radiation in mother’s milk began to surface. In 1963, President Kennedy, along with leaders of the UK and the USSR, signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which banned nuclear testing in air, water and space.

After five years of restoration, the Golden Rule set sail again in 2015 and has since plied the West Coast waters from Mexico to British Columbia and visited all of the Hawaiian Islands. Now owned, maintained and sometimes sailed by members of Veterans For Peace (VFP), she’s rigged and ready for a new adventure. But the challenges of keeping and operating a sailboat remain.

The old mariner adage “a boat is a hole in the water you throw money into” is only one of the headaches. Long-distance sailing can be nerve wracking and sometimes surprising. Jaccard talked about how water from a fuel tank rusted out the boat’s engine while at sea and how bad judgment calls about weather can make landings dangerous. There’s no escaping inconvenience and discomfort.

With waves sometimes almost as high as the 35 foot mast and feeling like she was in a washing machine, Jaccard recounted sailing 17 hours from Honolulu to the port of Nawiliwilli on Kauai with four of the seven crew so seasick they stayed below deck.  “I eventually took the helm and wouldn’t let go. The two other healthy crew kept a lookout on each side because the spray made my glasses unusable. As we approached the harbor, they would shout “Turn Left” or “Turn Right” after catching a brief peek at a buoy before it disappeared behind the next wave. Then the sun went down, visibility even worse. It was impossible to figure out the distance from us to the buoy and the entrance to Nawiliwili is very curvy. We finally got in after 10 pm, exhausted and greatly relieved! The high waves lasted right into the harbor entrance and the wind continued to hammer us long after we docked.”

Golden Rule protesting at Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) — the world’s largest international maritime war exercise in 2020. The event is held biannually near Diamond Head. (Photo: Kate Thompson of Honolulu)

She spoke solemnly about the wet chill and sleep deprivation sailors live with between ports. It takes about three to four weeks each way to sail between California and Hawaii. The journey to New Orleans won’t be brunch and white deck shoes either. There are 29 locks and dams between the Twin Cities and St. Louis and beyond that, opportunities to refuel, buy provisions, take a shower or empty waste are scarce. It can take days or a week or more to reach a Marina. Then there’s debris and ocean freighters to dodge and scenery that’s sometimes less than charming.

Still, the crew along with its supporters, believe enough in the importance of the project to endure the hardships, setbacks and economic uncertainty. Jaccard is determined to follow the Golden Rule throughout North America noting that “it’s not always easy connecting with community organizers and media by sailboat.”

Church, school and civic groups are welcome to schedule educational presentations by contacting Golden Rule Project Manager Helen Jaccard at vfpgoldenruleproject@gmail.com or 206-992-6364

In addition to educational outreach programs, there will be fundraisers. The cost of boat insurance alone can be staggering. “It’s a lot of money” said Jaccard “but look at how much money we put into a nuclear weapon we can never use.” According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the nine nuclear-armed countries of the world spent 82.4 billion on nuclear weapons in 2021. The U.S. plans to spend an additional 494 billion on nuclear programs over the next decade.

Undaunted by detractors, this little sailboat, which once lost its mast, was twice sunk and nearly burned for firewood, remains steadfast with her original mission to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

*

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.

A shorter version of this article appeared in The Stillwater Gazette.

Craig Wood is a Minneapolis writer and member of Veterans For Peace. He can be reached at [email protected]

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

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.

***

The recent attack on the Russian embassy in Kabul was another shocking episode in the current wave of assaults against Russian civilians around the world. Daesh claimed responsibility for the crime, which raises a number of suspicions about possible cooperation between anti-Russian groups abroad, considering the links between Islamic terrorists, Western intelligence and Ukrainian neo-Nazis.

On August 5, the Russian Embassy in Afghanistan was the target of a terrorist attack. A suicide bomber approached the entrance to the Embassy facility and operated the explosion, killing two Russian diplomatic staff’s employees, as well as at least six Afghan citizens who were nearby. The Embassy’s guards even shot down the terrorist, but the action was not fast enough to prevent self-detonation, which culminated in the tragedy. Several people remain hospitalized, and the number of deaths could increase in the coming days.

Although several hostilities against Russians have already taken place in Afghanistan in the past, this is the first time that such an attack has taken place since the Taliban took Kabul, after the American defeat in 2021. According to local sources, Daesh, which is an enemy of the Taliban and has acted intensively in the country to harm the new government, claimed responsibility for the attack. In fact, the incident was characterized by a number of similarities with Daesh’s praxis in other assaults, which would raise suspicions about the group’s involvement even if responsibility had not been assumed.

Russia is one of the few countries to maintain an embassy in Kabul after the Taliban took over the country. Although Moscow still does not officially recognize the Taliban government, Russian diplomats are talking to local authorities in order to advance bilateral negotiations, having currently plans to improve supply of fuel and other commodities. The Russian government is working to overcome old rivalries with the Taliban and reach a positive agreement for all sides, as the Afghan situation currently appears to be between a stable government with the Taliban or the absolute chaos of the civil war operated by terrorist organizations, such as Daesh. The mere fact of maintaining bilateral dialogue with the de facto government of the Taliban seems to be reason enough for terrorists to target Russian citizens.

However, it would be naive to think that the reasons for this attack are limited to pragmatic Moscow-Kabul relations. If this were the only reason, certainly other episodes of terrorism would have already occurred at the Embassy at other times. There is undoubtedly something specific motivating this violence at this time. The main suspicion is that the attack is related to the publication by the Russian Embassy of a list of names of Afghan citizens who had applied to receive student visas in Russia. But it is possible that there are even more issues involved in this case.

One of the most neglected topics about the Ukrainian conflict is that since 2014 there has been vast cooperation between Kiev’s neo-Nazis and foreign terrorists, including members of Daesh. Many Daesh leaders and fighters migrated to Ukraine, especially after the defeat of terrorists in Syria with the Russian military intervention in 2015. More than that, saboteurs affiliated with the Islamic State and Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias allegedly had already conspired together to carry out terrorist attacks within Russian territory itself, according to FSB data published in 2017.

With the start of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, the situation may have become more serious. In June, the Syrian government provided Russia with intelligence data proving the collaboration of Western powers and Turkey to send Daesh fighters to Ukraine. There is no precise information on the number of fighters and their identities, but it seems quite evident that Daesh members have been in Ukraine over the last eight years and that they are now continuing there, fighting Russian forces. And that brings up a series of suspicions about what may have happened in Kabul.

Apparently, the attack on the Embassy was just another typical episode of the criminal cowardice that has been seen in the praxis of anti-Russian forces. Saboteurs have operated to kill Russian civilians in various parts of the world. The murder of Daria Dugina in the middle of the Moscow oblast was a clear example of this. In the same vein, what happened in Kabul, whether or not there was foreign participation, seems to be related to this wave of violence against Russian civilian targets.

Deeper investigations are needed to conclude what actually motivated the attack and whether there was participation or sponsorship by Western or Ukrainian groups. However, the main fact is that who attacked the Embassy was Daesh – and Daesh fights Russia in Ukraine.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

***

The US military will test-launch an intercontinental ballistic missile on Wednesday, the Pentagon announced, in the second such practice operation of the country’s nuclear defense in less than a month.

“There will be an operational test launch of an Air Force Global Strike command unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile early tomorrow morning, September 7, from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California,” Pentagon Spokesman Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said Tuesday.

The announcement ahead of the launch was unusual; the Pentagon has not confirmed recent tests until after they take place.

Ryder stressed the test would be “routine,” adding that it had been long-scheduled and that the US had notified Russia and other countries of the plans.

The aim of the test “is to demonstrate the readiness of US nuclear forces and provide confidence in the security and effectiveness of the nation’s nuclear deterrent,” Ryder told reporters.

The US Air Force successfully launched a Minutemen III ICBM August 16, after having postponed the test twice to avoid stoking tensions over Ukraine and Taiwan.

The missile carried a test re-entry vehicle, which in a strategic conflict could be armed with a nuclear warhead.

The re-entry vehicle traveled about 4,200 miles (6,760 kilometers) to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands in the western Pacific.

Ryder said the two tests were scheduled long in advance and are occurring close together because of the first one’s postponement.

*

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: Cape Canaveral – February 20, 1958. The launch of a U.S. Air Force Atlas missle, test number 449, takes place from the Air Force Missle Test Center. 

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.

***

In a blatant violation of international law and its 1947 hosting agreement, the US government has blocked numerous countries from participating in events at the UN headquarters in New York City.

The Biden administration is banning Russian diplomats, while the Trump administration illegally prohibited top officials from Venezuela and Iran.

Reuters reported on September 2 that Russia has filed a formal complaint with the United Nations, after the US government has “been constantly refusing to grant entry visas” to Russian diplomats to participate in events at the UN headquarters, Moscow’s ambassador said.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his delegation have been denied entry to the United States, barring them from the UN.

This Joe Biden administration policy, which flagrantly violates international law, was likewise implemented by the Donald Trump administration.

In January 2020, Foreign Policy reported that Trump had banned Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif from addressing the UN Security Council in New York, after Washington assassinated top Iranian official Qasem Soleimani, in an illegal act of war.

Foreign Policy wrote,

“The Iranian government was awaiting word on the visa Monday (January 6) when a Trump administration official phoned U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres to inform him that the United States would not allow Zarif into the country.”

The outlet noted that this US policy violates “the terms of a 1947 headquarters agreement requiring Washington to permit foreign officials into the country to conduct U.N. business.”

Exclusive: Trump administration bars top Iranian diplomat from addressing U.N. Security Council, in breach of U.S.-U.N. host country agreement, FP's @columlynch and @RobbieGramer report.https://t.co/c9Pb9aqK1d

— Foreign Policy (@ForeignPolicy) January 6, 2020

In April 2020, the US government similarly barred Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro from speaking at the United Nations.

A Justice Department spokesperson told CNN that Maduro would be “arrested immediately” if he stepped foot on US territory.

“Nicolás Maduro will be arrested if he is in the United States,” the spokesperson said, in remarks reported in the Spanish-language press. “The government of the United States does not recognize him as head of state. Executive immunity does not apply to him.”

The Justice Department spokesperson threateningly added that “Maduro would face a mandatory minimum sentencing of 50 years in prison and a maximum of life in prison.”

This policy also blatantly violated international law. The United Nations always recognized Maduro as the one and only legitimate president of Venezuela.

Moreover, even at the peak of the US-led coup attempt against Venezuela in 2019, more than two-thirds of UN member states – the vast majority of the international community – still recognized Maduro as Venezuela’s president, not US-appointed coup leader Juan Guaidó.

EEUU advirtió sobre el "arresto inmediato" de Nicolás Maduro si llega a pisar su territorio https://t.co/nCbnEZs9Lh

— infobae (@infobae) April 16, 2020

Foreign Policy magazine made it clear that this illegal US behavior is official, systematic government policy, in another report published in November 2019.

Titled “Trump Turns U.N. Visas, Travel Restrictions Into Foreign-Policy Cudgel,” the article noted, “If you’re deemed hostile to U.S. interests, you may face travel limitations, arbitrary visa denials, sudden airport checks, and other forms of harassment, diplomats say.”

Foreign Policy wrote:

The decision to withhold federal protection for a senior Syrian official is just one among a growing number of diplomatic slights experienced by delegates from a handful of countries with poor relations with the United States during their travels to New York City for United Nations meetings. It reflects the punitive nature of U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump, whose administration has sought myriad ways to sanction or penalize individuals and countries that are viewed as hostile to the United States, or that simply refuse to comply with U.S. demands. It reinforces the perception among some diplomats that the United States has contempt for the United Nations.

“Not exactly a high point in U.S. diplomacy,” said Larry Johnson, an American lawyer who previously served as the U.N. assistant secretary-general for legal affairs.

Johnson, an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School, said it’s not the first time the United States has “resorted to delaying tactics and harassment” to keep unwanted foreigners out of the country. But he said Washington has acted under “weak or no legal grounds” in denying access to U.N. headquarters.

Representatives from the U.N. delegations of China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, and Syria say their diplomats and support staff are subjected to increasingly restrictive travel limitations, arbitrary denial of visas and driver’s licenses, additional airport security checks, and curtailed access to banking services needed to conduct their diplomatic work and pay their dues at the U.N., according to a report by a U.N. committee that monitors U.S. dealings with the U.N.’s 192 other states.

Those measures, they contend, violate the host country treaty, or Headquarters Agreement, signed by the United States in 1947. In many cases, the U.N.’s lawyers agree. In an Oct. 15 statement, the U.N. legal counsel told the committee that U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres is “concerned” by recent measures, including the rejection of a visa for a Russian national hired by the United Nations and new travel restrictions imposed on the Iranian delegation and foreign minister after Tehran refused to participate in talks with Washington. The statement said the U.N. was maintaining its long-standing position that the United States lacks legal authority to impose travel restrictions on states in retaliation for restrictions on U.S. diplomats serving in those countries. “There is no room for the application of measures based on reciprocity,” according to the statement.

The lengthy claims of diplomatic retaliation are included in a 64-page report of the U.N. host committee that details a range of matters that bear on U.S. relations with the diplomatic community in New York.

Diplomats coming from countries considered hostile to U.S. interests have been experiencing travel limitations, arbitrary visa denials, sudden airport checks, and other forms of harassment, @columlynch reports. https://t.co/FVtltVB6jl

— Foreign Policy (@ForeignPolicy) November 6, 2019

*

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 Multipolarista

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.

***

On Wednesday, September 7 at 11 a.m. EDT, Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) is hosting an international press conference on its just released reports, “Kiev’s ‘Info Terrorist’ List: ‘Global NATO’ Issues Hit on Advocates of Peace,” and follow-up article, “Ukraine’s Deathlist Database: myrotvorets.center,” by an EIR Investigative Team.

Scott Ritter, Ray McGovern, Col. Richard Black (ret.), Diane Sare, candidate for U.S. Senate, and other Americans targeted by Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD), who have also demanded Congressional action to stop the U.S. funding of the CCD, will be available to speak to the media. Simultaneous interpretation will be available for several languages (for more information concerning interpretation, contact us by email).

The EIR report states that, “Rapid, decisive international action is required to force the closure of the [Orwellian-named] Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD), which operates under and answers to Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council. A blacklist issued by the CCD July 14, 2022, naming more than 70 leading journalists, academics, politicians, military, and other professionals from 22 countries, as ‘Kremlin propagandists,’ is a hitlist, posing a grave threat to the personal security of those named therein.”

And that EIR report further states that it has now confirmed that at least five of those fingered by the CCD are included in the list of “criminals to be eliminated” published by the avowedly fascist “Myrotvorets” gang in Ukraine: Schiller Institute founder and leader Helga Zepp-LaRouche; Schiller Institute spokesman Harley Schlanger; former CIA officer and active anti-war activist Ray McGovern, the co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), who has participated in Schiller Institute conferences; former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter; and former U.S. Congresswoman and Democratic presidential pre-candidate Tulsi Gabbard. The Myrotvorets list is reported to have accumulated nearly 200,000 names since it was started in 2014 and, given the difficulties in using its search engine, others from the CCD blacklist may also be on the Myrotvorets hitlist.

The report documents that, “Although the CCD operates under the Office of the Presidency, it is not Ukraine’s “Ministry of Truth”; it is, rather, Global NATO’s. It is funded and closely advised by the U.S. State Department, British intelligence, and NATO in every step it takes.”

Responsibility for the CCD/Myrotvorets hits, both those which have occurred and those threatened, will rest squarely on those international sponsors—including members of the U.S. Congress who vote in support of continued funding for the CCD operation.

To join the press conference as a journalist with the possibility of posing questions to the panelists, please RSVP by emailing EIR at [email protected] with your name, country, affiliation, and phone number. You will receive a special Zoom link.

For all others: The press conference is available live for view-only access at this link.

Read a full report on Ukraine/NATO’s “deathlist” HERE.

*

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 TGP

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.

***

Last month, Western University announced that not only were they reinstating their vaccine mandate for the Fall academic year, they were also going to require that all students, staff, and faculty get at least one booster. This was the first such “booster” mandate in Canada at a post-secondary institution.

In stark contrast to Summer 2021, civil society immediately pushed back. Western University students created the #enoughisenough campaign and drew support from independent media, professors, scientists and doctors, even politicians and various public figures.

In particular, Canada’s freedom organizations, including TBOF, immediately rallied to the aid of Western students. TBOF Advisor, Dr. Julie Ponesse gave an impassioned speech at a protest on Western’s campus (Dr. Ponesse is herself an ethics professor at Western that was let go on account of refusing to be coerced into disclosing her vaccination status).

Among other efforts, TBOF partnered Vaccine Choice Canada, the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, and countless other organizations to write an open letter to Western University calling on them to immediately rescind their vaccine and booster mandates (we also wrote Queens, Toronto, Guelph, Ontario Tech, Seneca, Waterloo and York universities and colleges).

You may view our open letter here: Open Letter Queen’s 08.30.22V2

Facing incredible national and international backlash, including even from legacy media, Western University announced on September 6 that they are delaying the mandate until January 2023. They cited the ridiculous justification that because Health Canada announced new boosters, students should have more time to get the booster (are they implying that the current booster, which they were dead-set to mandate a week ago, is ineffective or unsafe?).

Our read is that Western’s administration refuses to capitulate at this time and embarrassingly admit they instituted this policy maliciously, recklessly, and without any regard to the actual science, morality, ethics, or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, it seems they will rag the puck and quietly end the policy in a way that looks like “they are in control”.

Regardless, although TBOF and other organizations see this as an important victory, we will not settle for anything less than a complete revocation of Western’s policy. A “delay” will not cut it.

This small victory could not have been possible without the support, advocacy, and donations from millions of Canadians like yourself.

We push forward!

*

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 TBOF

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

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.

***

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, said in an email obtained by The Epoch Times that his reasons for leaving Greenpeace were very clear:

“Greenpeace was ‘hijacked’ by the political left when they realized there was money and power in the environmental movement. [Left-leaning] political activists in North America and Europe changed Greenpeace from a science-based organization to a political fundraising organization,” Moore said.

Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, 15 years after he co-founded the organization.

“The ‘environmental’ movement has become more of a political movement than an environmental movement,” he said. “They are primarily focused on creating narratives, stories, that are designed to instill fear and guilt into the public so the public will send them money.”

He said they mainly operate behind closed doors with other political operatives at the U.N., World Economic Forum, and so on, all of which are primarily political in nature.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] is “not a science organization,” he said. “It is a political organization composed of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program.

“The IPCC hires scientists to provide them with ‘information’ that supports the ‘climate emergency’ narrative.

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.

***

Read Part I:

The Origins of the Money Crisis. “Money is Printed by the Fed., Using Black Magic, Doled out to the Rich for Free”.

By Emanuel Pastreich, September 06, 2022

The Federal government gave up all pretentions that money is backed by the gold held at the Federal Reserve, or backed by anything concrete, in 1972. The dollar became a fiat currency, money that is not tied to anything but reputation. Since that fatal day, the powers behind the curtains have maintained the value of the dollar in various ways.

The legitimacy of the dollar was tied to the legitimacy of the United States and its strength as a cultural, educational, scientific, technological, and sadly military, power. This approach worked until the 1990s, but the decay of the angel was inevitable.

As the value of the United States has decreased because of corruption and decadence, and because of the inevitable rise of the other nations devastated in the Second World War, increasingly devious means were employed to assure dollar’s value.

Covert efforts were launched to undermine the authority of other nations, whether Russia and China, or Germany and Japan. Perhaps it seemed like a good idea on Wall Street, but the result was the creation of a brutal winner-takes-all global economy—and the same covert means would be used finally against Americans themselves to keep them addicted to the dollar economy as it collapsed.

The United States slipped into a malignant culture. The decadence of wealth and power meant that innovation was stifled by conceited men like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates who pretended to be the inventers of things they stole and were enshrined in a handful of paralyzed institutions.

The quality of literature and art, of film and music, declined. American universities ceased to strive for truth and for science. Instead they crawled into bed with private equity and billionaire philanthropists, using advertising, rather than education, to prop up their global status.

The strategy of using culture to hold up the value of the dollar ceased to be effective.

Another approach was to tie the dollar’s value to the sale of petroleum, a product that everyone needs in our over-industrialized society.

The United States used its diplomatic, financial and military power to make sure that petroleum was only sold in dollars, thereby establishing a clear value for that fiat currency—that almost was equal to being backed by gold.

But that value was added to the dollar at a horrific price.

Many nations saw the value of selling petroleum in their own currencies, and they tried to do so. Those countries had to be infiltrated, undermined, intimidated, or bought off. In some cases, they had to be invaded and overthrown. The process has reached a crescendo in recent months, auguring for world war as the final consequence of this crusade to save the dollar.

You see, the United States had to control the Middle East, and to have its long fingers deep in the politics of nations around the world, in order to keep this petroleum system going. The cost of holding up the dollar was horrific, and bit by bit, the United States was corrupted beyond recognition.

Wars for oil, and other natural resources, became the primary concern in foreign policy, not peace. As a result, militarism sunk its roots deep in the economy, deep into the very spirit of the nation. There was no space left to seek for cooperation and accommodation. Any threat to the dollar had to be beaten down brutally.

At the same time, it was necessary to promote petroleum, and a consumer culture that demanded petroleum usage, at every level in America, and around the world. Automobiles were glorified, cities were designed to make automobiles necessary, oil-based fertilizers, and pesticides were sprinkled on industrialized farms. Oil companies and auto makers became all powerful because they helped to prop up the value of the dollar and forced petroleum on the common man.

The other device for backing the dollar was the promotion of global free trade, a system wherein products that could be made locally by neighbors are shipped halfway around the world, burning fuel all the way, so as to make sure that most everything on your plate, on your table, on your back, has passed through the logistics monopolies who take their cut.

This global “free” trade destroys local economies and renders citizens dependent on multinational corporations like WalMart and Amazon that take their money and do nothing to help the local economy.

The dollar was placed at the center of this closed trade system—anything but “free.”

Average Americans were impoverished even as the dollar was promoted in our name. Our republic was transmogrified into a ruthless empire that demanded everything be bought and sold in dollars.

The cancerous military economy also served a critical role in propping up the dollar as the other sources of power faded in the 1990s.

Nations could be invaded, or sanctioned, if they did not accept the dollar as the global currency.

Military equipment became a form of meta-currency—nations were compelled to purchase overpriced, and often worthless, military systems for billions of dollars as a way of propping up the dollar. Those designated as allies of the United States were expected to purchase fighter planes and tanks, drones and missiles at exorbitant prices. The most notorious example is the F-35 stealth fighter which costs around 80 million US dollars each and is barely functional. These devices, bulky tokens, force the large transfer of foreign capital into dollars in the name of security.

With trillions of dollars unaccounted for, the Pentagon has become the primary money laundering operation for the world, taking in money from billionaires, drug dealers, and just about anyone else and paying them off with money from the defense budget, and from weapons purchases from around the world.

Of course the threat of force makes the fiat currency stronger—but the cost is endless war.

Another ingenious way of propping up the dollar is to force debt on our citizens, making them scramble to obtain the dollars to pay off debts incurred in the process of trying to stay alive and to meet the criteria demanded by corporations for employment.

The cost of healthcare has skyrocketed, as has the cost of education. We find ourselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt just for being born, educated, treated for illness, and buried—let alone more serious challenges. And the banks drive up the cost of a home through their endless speculation with the fraudulent money they have printed up.

Chase Manhattan and Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and BlackRock, using their pay-to-play authority figures who appear on TV, or at Harvard University, set the value of everything in society, justifying why it must be so expensive.

How many times have you heard your friends talking about money, about how much money they have in their pensions, how much their houses are worth, how much they spend for their children’s educations? Money has been made the primary topic of discussion for our people because the media, the entertainment complex, and the educational system make it that way. The questions: How can I be a good person? What is the truth? What is justice? What does the Constitution say? These questions have disappeared from our discourse.

The Bretton Woods complex, centered around the World Bank and the IMF, and linked to central banks around world, was flawed from the start, but recently it has degenerated much further into a Disneyland of make-believe value wherein human endeavors can only be assessed according to the Procrustean metrics of growth, production, consumption, exports and imports. The rise and fall of the stock market, the bond market, and other fantastic ephemera is considered the determining factor for the well-being of mankind by every newspaper or magazine from the fascists to the socialist, and these metrics of growth and consumption are cited in the university, the government, and the corporation.

In a horrific farce, the fundamental values of humanity: modesty, honesty, sincerity, chastity and humility are treated as at best as hobbies for the leisure class after they have accumulated wealth, but are frequently presented as obstacles to economic growth that requires waste and impulse.

Frugality, is the greatest sin, believing that one can live a spiritually and mentally healthy life without waste is an insult to the beastly ritual of consumption that is held up for all to worship.

Caring for your ill parents, helping your neighbor to repair her window, growing potatoes, or teaching your children to be ethical and to distinguish the truth from falsehood, all these actions are negatives for the gross domestic product, negatives for your standing in society.

Along the way, we drifted from a cooperative economy into a predatory economy, into a parasitic economy.

That process was linked to the two most horrific traumas that shook us to the core.

The only way to cover up the frauds of 9.11 and of COVID-19 over the last twenty years is to silence citizens by making them an offer they cannot refuse: chose money or truth.

The truth is that the billionaires own nothing except a bankrupt and covetous ideology of money.

The purchase of farmland by Bill Gates, the paving over of priceless farmland to erect pointless shopping malls, highways, and highrises by construction firms and real estate speculators, all this was done using the bogus money printed for them by their lackeys at the Federal Reserve.

That land belongs to all of us. The parasites who have murdered our people so viciously with COVID-19 weapons, or poisonous processed foods, or chemicals dumped in our rivers and lakes, those parasites shall hold no dominion.

The first step for addressing the money issue is to give the land back to the people and allow them to grow their own food, make their own furniture, and be independent of the covert stranglehold of the multinationals.

Similarly, we can write our own music, hold our own concerts, make our own art, put on our own theatre, and thereby leave behind the decadent Hollywood culture of sexual titillation and momentary narcissism.

Take away the imperative to collect money at all costs so as to meet artificially created need to consume, and many social ills will be cured. The institutions regulating money have been turned against the citizens whom they should be protecting.

Multinational corporations, and their puppets, flush with our money, lecture us about recycling and sustainability, about how we must tighten our belts, but they will pull every punch to make sure that no one threatens the plastic and paper packaging systems they have set up to extract profit from us at every turn.

We are not citizens empowered by a contractual relationship with each other using money as determined by Constitution, but rather we have been reduced to consumers who can conceive of value only in terms of dollars because Madison Avenue advertising and public relations firms have indoctrinated us to embrace the false values of the cult of the self.

Because we have been reduced from citizens of a republic with a sense of civic responsibly to consumers of the gaudy wares laid out to distract us, we are led forward not by a clarion call, but by a ring through the nose. We are not masters of our fates; we are no captains of our souls. We are but products to be processed and then disposed of like the ragdolls littering the squalid cage of an idle ape.

No! Our eyes must turn to the hope of a new nation coming.

We must trample those hideous grapes of wrath, unloosing the terrible swift sword of truth; like lightening, that the truth may go marching on.

*

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 Fear No Evil.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

9/11 Unanswered Questions: Mysterious September 11, 2001 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 06, 2022

While the Joint inquiry (under the helm of Bob Graham and Porter Goss)  had collected mountains of intelligence material, through careful omission, the numerous press and intelligence reports in the public domain (mainstream media, alternative media, etc), which confirm that key members of the Bush Administration were involved in acts of political camouflage, were carefully removed from the Joint inquiry’s hearings.

New Study of Pfizer and Moderna Data Suggests Vaccine Harm Outweighs Benefit

By Rav Arora, September 07, 2022

The researchers conducted a secondary analysis of randomized, controlled data from Pfizer and Moderna’s phase III clinical trials, focusing on “adverse events of special interest (AESIs)” as listed by the Brighton Collaboration—a “global authority” on vaccine safety. As the authors write, this World Health Organization-approved priority list of adverse vaccine events hasn’t been used to examine side effects in COVID-19 vaccine trial data.

Was the Kremlin’s “Limited Military Operation” in Ukraine a Strategic Blunder?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 06, 2022

The Kremlin warned the West about interfering in the operation, declaring that if the US and NATO got involved, Russia would regard those countries as “combatants.” But the West got involved, slowly and carefully at first to test the waters and then more and more aggressively as what the West originally expected would be at most a week long conflict is now in its seventh month with the Kremlin again talking about negotiation with Zelensky and the Russian advance apparently on hold.

Arms Transfers to Ukraine. Detailed Overview of Deliveries, Timeline

By Forum on the Arms Trade, September 06, 2022

As tensions mounted in late 2021 and into 2022 concerning a Russian invasion of Ukraine, many countries announced arms transfers to Ukraine. As the invasion began in late February, this resource page was launched to track developments related to such transfers, which thus far includes pledges and/or deliveries from more than 25 countries plus the European Union.

Massive Protests in the Streets of Iraq against Endemic Corruption: Interview with Rafid Sadeq

By Rafid Sadeq and Steven Sahiounie, September 06, 2022

Thousands of Iraqis flooded the streets on Friday demanding a political overhaul.  In scenes reminiscent of similar past protests in Lebanon, the Iraqi people are frustrated by the endemic corruption of political leaders.  This anti-government protest began in October 2019 and has remained a constant source of unrest in Iraq.

The Restoration of Russia-Africa Relations: Social, Economic and Geopolitical implications

By Kester Kenn Klomegah, September 06, 2022

Russian Presidential Special Representative for Middle East and Africa, Mikhail Bogdanov, in an April interview to Interfax news agency, offered an insight into aspects of Russia’s policy objectives, initiatives and future prospects in Africa. He highlighted a few obstacles for Russia’s inability to realize its set goals and tasks during the past several years.

Peace Talks Essential as War Rages on in Ukraine

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, September 06, 2022

Western sanctions have had mixed results, inflicting severe economic damage on Europe as well as on Russia, while the invasion and the West’s response to it have combined to trigger a food crisis across the Global South. As winter approaches, the prospect of another six months of war and sanctions threatens to plunge Europe into a serious energy crisis and poorer countries into famine.

Phony Covid Narrative: The Anatomy and Physiology of Power. “Digitization is innately a Form of Dehumanization”

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, September 06, 2022

One may view every scientific advance as a means towards approximating and recreating the infantile environment of omnipotence.  When the stimulus of hunger, with its accompanying representation in thought and feeling, is sated by a caring parent, the association is then made between that complex of sensation and ideation and the ensuing gratification. In other words, the wish to be fed is sufficient in and of itself to ensure that feeding takes place: the wish alone makes it happen and the child is godlike in his or her power.

Terrorism, Repression and Julian Assange – Imperialist Doubletalk

By Stephen Sefton, September 06, 2022

Among the many diverse reasons for the emergence of a multipolar world, currently occurring at this historical moment, is the demand on the part of the majority world for justice and equity in international relations and its institutions.

The Origins of the Money Crisis. “Money is Printed by the Fed., Using Black Magic, Doled out to the Rich for Free”.

By Emanuel Pastreich, September 06, 2022

That pretty printed paper in your wallet, that stuff called money, where does it come from? What gives it value, and why can you buy things with it? The question is not an idle one, nor is it a cynical one, but rather ultimately practical. And yet, this essential question is never asked by the authorities who lecture us on economics, nor the politicians who grace us with their precious opinions from their gilt offices.

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.

***

A new study published on Aug. 31 after being peer reviewed in the journal Vaccine—known for publishing the highest quality vaccinology research—contains inconvenient findings about the safety of mRNA vaccines.

The researchers conducted a secondary analysis of randomized, controlled data from Pfizer and Moderna’s phase III clinical trials, focusing on “adverse events of special interest (AESIs)” as listed by the Brighton Collaboration—a “global authority” on vaccine safety. As the authors write, this World Health Organization-approved priority list of adverse vaccine events hasn’t been used to examine side effects in COVID-19 vaccine trial data.

The stunning finding was as follows: The risk of serious adverse events from the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine exceeds the benefit of reduction of COVID-19 hospitalization. In the analysis, Moderna caused higher adverse events than Pfizer, but both were elevated compared to the placebo arm:

“Higher risk of serious AESI was observed in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine group relative to placebo in both the Pfizer and Moderna adult phase III trials, with 10.1 (Pfizer) and 15.1 (Moderna) additional events for every 10,000 individuals vaccinated.”

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.

***

VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 1,371,474 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 29,981 deaths and 249,116 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and July 29, 2022.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,371,474 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and July 29, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). That’s an increase of 13,534 adverse events over the previous week.

VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 29,981 reports of deaths — an increase of 191 over the previous week — and 249,116 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 1,430 compared with the previous week.

Of the 29,981 reported deaths, 19,348 cases are attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, 7,981 cases to Moderna, 2,603 cases to Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and no cases yet reported for Novavax.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 851,372 adverse events, including 13,894 deaths and 87,050 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and July 29, 2022.

Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 13,894 U.S. deaths reported as of July 29, 7% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 15% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 54% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 603 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of July 27, including 357 million doses of Pfizer, 227 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.

Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to July 29, 2022, for 6-month-olds to 5-year-olds show:

• 2,622 adverse events, including 81 cases rated as serious and 3 reported deaths.
• 4 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department.
• 15 reports of blood clotting disorders.
• 25 reports of seizures.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to July 29, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

• 12,379 adverse events, including 315 rated as serious and 9 reported deaths.
• 24 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis.
• 47 reports of blood clotting disorders.
• 102 reports of seizures.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to July 29, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

• 32,910 adverse events, including 1,850 rated as serious and 45 reported deaths.

The most recent report of a death in the 12- to 17-year-old age group was that of a 17-year-old male from Pennsylvania (VAERS I.D. ​2396146) who died from lymphocytic myocarditis approximately five months after receiving his first dose of Pfizer. The patient had no relevant medical history, according to the report.

The report states the “patient was just hanging with buddies at a soccer game, patient just collapsed, just died right there, EMT rushed patient to hospital and tried 42 minutes of CPR — nothing happened. Once autopsy was done, the patient definitely had myocarditis, and think it was lymphocytic myocarditis.”

The patient did not receive any other vaccine within four weeks of his first dose of Pfizer. The batch and lot number have been requested and “will be submitted if and when received.” However, this information will not be available to the public.

According to the CDC, “VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.”

• 63 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 97% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
• 658 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 645 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
• 165 reports of blood clotting disorders with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
• 20 cases of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) with all cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to July 29, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

• 20% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
• 55% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
• The average age of death was 73.
• As of July 29, 5,684 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID-19 vaccines, including 1,777 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.
• Of the 3,629 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 51% were attributed to Pfizer vaccinations, 40% to Moderna and 8% to J&J.
• 907 reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome, with 42% of cases attributed to Pfizer, 30% to Moderna and 27% to J&J.
• 2,298 reports of anaphylaxis where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death.
• 1,750 reports of myocardial infarction.
• 14,303 reports of blood-clotting disorders in the U.S. Of those, 6,401 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 5,145 reports to Moderna and 2,722 reports to J&J.
• 4,287 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis with 2,627 cases attributed to Pfizer, 1,456 cases to Moderna and 188 cases to J&J.
• 14 cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease with 8 cases attributed to Pfizer, 5 cases to Moderna and 1 case to J&J.
• 272 cases of POTS with 167 cases attributed to Pfizer, 87 cases to Moderna and 17 cases to J&J.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

South Africa confirms first death caused by J&J shot

South Africa’s health regulator on Thursday confirmed a person died from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) caused by J&J’s COVID-19 vaccine. It is the country’s first death officially attributed to a COVID-19 vaccine, officials said.

GBS is a rare neurological disorder in which the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks part of its peripheral nervous system, the network of nerves located outside of the brain and spinal cord.

GBS symptoms can range from mild, brief muscle weakness to paralysis, leaving the patient unable to breathe independently.

According to South African health authorities, the person who died developed symptoms shortly after receiving J&J’s vaccine, which led to prolonged hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, further infections and death. No other cause for the GBS could be identified.

To protect patient confidentiality, no patient details, including the province where the death occurred, will be made public.

Family of 27-year-old who died after AstraZeneca shot weighs legal action

The UK family of a 27-year-old engineer who died from catastrophic brain bleeds after receiving AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine is considering legal action, pending an upcoming preliminary review of their son’s case.

Jack Last, who was vaccinated March 30, 2021, died three weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca jab. A CT scan on April 10, 2021, revealed Last had developed a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, which occurs when a blood clot forms in the brain’s venous sinuses and prevents blood from draining out of the brain.

Last died at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, UK, on April 20, 2021 — 11 days after he sought medical treatment for severe headaches.

His family retained legal counsel after raising concerns about the circumstances leading to Jack’s death, the East Anglian Daily Times reported.

A pre-inquest review will be held on August 11, after which a full inquest will be scheduled. An inquest is a formal investigation conducted by a coroner in order to determine how someone died. The purpose of an inquest is limited to establishing the identity of the deceased individual as well as where, when and how they died.

Woman feels ‘like the walking dead’ after COVID vaccine injuries

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Catherine Parker, 48, said she had a complete and fulfilling life prior to receiving her first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine on April 1, 2021.

Within two weeks of receiving the J&J shot, Parker said she began to have chronic fatigue and insomnia, but doctors said her symptoms were related to menopause. After receiving a Pfizer booster on Nov. 9, 2021, her symptoms worsened. Her hair began to fall out, she had brain fog and she developed uncontrollable tremors, spasms and migraines to the point she couldn’t walk or communicate.

Parker developed a “laundry list of ailments” and tested positive for the Epstein-Barr virus, despite “never [having] had mono in my entire life,” and for antinuclear antibodies and kidney abnormalities.

Parker’s symptoms — and the dismissive attitude of much of the medical establishment — led her to start the Vaccine Injury/Side Effects Support Group on Facebook earlier this year.

In addition, Parker has presented her personal story on social media platforms, including Facebook, YouTube and TikTok, and launched an online crowdfunding campaign to help support her rising medical costs.

The Defender interviewed three other people injured by COVID-19 vaccines who are members of Parker’s group. Read their stories here.

EMA says Novavax COVID vaccine must carry warning for heart inflammation 

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) Wednesday recommended adding a warning for two types of heart inflammation to Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine, marketed under the brand names Nuvaxovid and Covovax, based on a small number of cases reported in those who received the vaccine.

According to a statement, the EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee — responsible for assessing and monitoring the safety of human medicines — concluded that “myocarditis and pericarditis can occur following vaccination with Nuvaxovid.”

“The Committee is therefore recommending listing myocarditis and pericarditis as new side effects in the product information for Nuvaxovid, together with a warning to raise awareness among healthcare professionals and people receiving this vaccine,” the statement said.

The committee also requested the “marketing authorization holder of Nuvaxovid provides additional data on risk of side effects occurring.”

According to Reuters, the FDA flagged Novavax’s risk of heart inflammation in early June. Yet, the agency on July 13 granted Novavax’s request for Emergency Use Authorization of the vaccine for adults 18 and over in the U.S.

*

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.

Megan Redshaw is a staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense and a reporter for The Defender.

Featured image is from CHD

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

Editor’s Note

This paper was presented by the late Sean Gervasi at the Conference on the Enlargement of NATO in Eastern Europe and the Mediterrenean, Prague, 13-14 January 1996. It was published on Global Research when our website was launched on September 9, 2001.

The late Sean Gervasi had tremendous foresight. He understood the process of NATO enlargement several years before it actually unfolded into a formidable military force.  

Sean Gervasi passed away unexpectedly in Belgrade in July 1996.

He had predicted the breakup of Yugoslavia as part of a US-NATO project. 

Sean Gervasi’s Legacy will Live

Michel Chossudovsky, September 7, 2022

Introduction

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has recently sent a large task force into Yugoslavia, ostensibly to enforce a settlement of the Bosnian war arrived at in Dayton, Ohio at the end of 1995. This task force is said to consist of some 60,000 men, equipped with tanks, armor and artillery. It is backed by formidable air and naval forces. In fact, if one takes account of all the support forces involved, including forces deployed in nearby countries, it is clear that at least two hundred thousand troops are involved. This figure has been confirmed by U. S. defense sources. [ 1 ]

By any standards, the sending of a large Western military force into Central and Eastern Europe is a remarkable enterprise, even in the fluid situation created by the supposed end of the Cold War. The Ball:an task force represents not only the first major NATO military operation, but a major operation staged “out of area”, that is, outside the boundaries originally established for NATO military action.

However, the sending of NATO troops into the Balkans is the result of enormous pressure for the general extension of NATO eastwards.

If the Yugoslav enterprise is the first concrete step in the expansion of NATO, others are planned for the near future. Some Western powers want to bring the Visegrad countries into NATO as full members by the end of the century. There was resistance to the pressures for such extension among certain Western countries for some time. However, the recalcitrants have now been bludgeoned into accepting the alleged necessity of extending NATO.

The question is: why are the Western powers pressing for the expansion of NATO? Why is NATO being renewed and extended when the “Soviet threat” has disappeared? There is clearly much more to it than we have so far been told. The enforcement of a precarious peace in Bosnia is only the immediate reason for sending NATO forces into the Balkans.

There are deeper reasons for the dispatch of NATO forces to the Balkans, and especially for the extension of NATO to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary in the relatively near future. These have to do with an emerging strategy for securing the resources of the Caspian Sea region and for “stabilizing” the countries of Eastern Europe — ultimately for “stabilizing” Russia and the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. This is, to put it mildly, an extremely ambitious and potentially selfcontradictory policy. And it is important to pose some basic questions about the reasons being given for pursuing it.

For the idea of “stabilizing” the countries which formerly constituted the Socialist bloc in Europe does not simply mean ensuring political stability there, ensuring that the regimes which replaced Socialism remain in place. It also means ensuring that economic and social conditions remain unchanged. And, since the so-called transition to democracy in the countries affected has in fact led to an incipient deindustrialization and a collapse of living standards for the majority, the question arises whether it is really desirable.

The question is all the more pertinent since “stabilization”, in the sense in which it is used in the West, means reproducing in the former Socialist bloc countries economic and social conditions which are similar to the economic and social conditions currently prevailing in the West. The economies of the Western industrial nations are, in fact, in a state of semi-collapse, although the governments of those countires would never really acknowledge the fact. Nonetheless, any reasonably objective assessment of the economic situation in the West leads to this conclusion. And that conclusion is supported by official statistics and most analyses coming from mainstream economists.

It is also clear, as well, that the attempt to “stabilize” the former Socialist bloc countries is creating considerable tension with Russia, and potentially with other countries. Not a few commentators have made the point that Western actions in extending NATO even raise the risks of nuclear conflict. [2]

It is enough to raise these questions briefly to see that the extension of NATO which has, de facto, begun in Yugoslavia and is being proposed for other countries is to a large extent based on confused and even irrational reasoning. One is tempted to say that it results from the fear and willfulness of certain ruling groups. To put it most bluntly, why should the world see any benefit in the enforced extension to other countries of the economic and social chaos which prevails in the West, and why should it see any benefit in that when the very process itself increases the risks of nuclear war?

The purposes of this paper are to describe what lies behind the current efforts to extend NATO and to raise some basic questions about whether this makes any sense, in both the narrow and deeper meanings of the term.

NATO in Yugoslavia

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949 with the stated purpose of protecting Western Europe from possible military aggression by the Soviet Union and its allies.

With the dissolution of the Communist regimes in the former Socialist bloc in 1990 and 1991, there was no longer any possibility of such aggression, if there ever really had been. The changes in the former Communist countries made NATO redundant. Its raison d’etre had vanished. Yet certain groups within the NATO countries began almost immediately to press for a “renovation” of NATO and even for its extension into Central and Eastern Europe. They began to elaborate new rationales which would permit the continuation of business as usual.

The most important of these was the idea that, with the changes brought about by the end of the Cold War, the Western countries nonetheless faced new “security challenges” outside the traditional NATO area which justified the perpetuation of the organization. The spokesmen for this point of view argued that NATO had to find new missions to justify its existence.

The implicit premise was that NATO had to be preserved in order to ensure the leadership of the United States in European and world affairs. This was certainly one of the reasons behind the large-scale Western intervention — in which the participation of US NATO partners was relatively meagre — in Kuwait and Iraq in 1990 and 1991. The coalition which fought against Iraq was cobbled together with great difficulty. But it was seen by the United States government as necessary for the credibility of the US within the Western alliance as well as in world affairs.

The slogan put forward by the early supporters of NATO enlargement was “NATO: out of area or out of business”, which made the point, although not the argument, as plainly as it could be made. [3]

Yugoslavia has also been a test case, and obviously a much more important one. The Yugoslav crisis exploded on the edge of Europe, and the Western European nations had to do something about it. Germany and the United States, on the other hand, while seeming to support the idea of ending the civil wars in Yugoslavia, in fact did everything they could to prolong them, especially the war. in Bosnia. t41 Their actions perpetuated and steadily deepened the Yugoslav crisis.

It is important to recognize that, almost from the beginning of the Yugoslav crisis, NATO sought to involve itself. That involvement was obvious in 1993 when NATO begari to support UNPROFOR operations in Yugoslavia, especially in the matter of the blockade against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Bosnian airspace.

That involvement, however, had much smaller beginnings, and it must be remembered that NATO as an organization was involved in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina at a very early stage. In 1992, NATO sent a group of about 100 personnel to Bosnia-Herzegovina, where they established a military headquarters at Kiseliak, a short distance from Sarajevo. Ostensibly, they were sent to help United Nations forces in Bosnia.

It was obvious, however, that there was another purpose. A NATO diplomat described the operation to INTELLIGENCE DIGEST in the following terms at the time:

This is a very cautious first step, and we are definitely not making much noise about it. But it could be the start of something bigger…You could argue that NATO now has a foot in the door. Whether we manage to open the door is not sure, but we have made a start. [4]

It seems clear that NATO commanders were already anticipating the possibility that resistance to US and German pressures would be overcome and that NATO’s role in Yugoslavia would be gradually expanded.

Thus NATO was working to create a major “out of area” mission almost from the time that the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina began. The recent dispatch of tens of thousands of troops to Bosnia, Austria, Hungary, Croatia and Serbia is thus simply the culmination of a process which began almost four years ago. It was not a question of proposals and conferences. It was a question of inventing operations which, with the backing of key countries, could eventually lead to NATO’s active engagement “out of area”, and thus to its own renovation.

The Eastward Expansion of NATO

NATO had never carried out a formal study on the enlargement of the alliance until quite recently, when the Working Group on NATO Enlargement issued its report. No doubt there were internal classified studies, but nothing is known of their content to outsiders.

Despite the lack of clear analysis, however, the engines for moving things forward were working hard from late 1991. At the end of that year, NATO created the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. NATO member nations then invited 9 Central and East European countries to join the NACC in order to begin fostering cooperation between the NATO powers and former members of the Warsaw Pact.

This was a fìrst effort to offer something to East European countries wishing to join NATO itself. The NACC, however, did not really satisfy the demands of those countries, and in the beginning of 1994 the US launched the idea of a Partnership for Peace. The PFP offered nations wishing to join NATO the possibility of co-operating in various NATO activities, including training exercises and peacekeeping. More than 20 countries, including Russia, are now participating in the PFP.

Many of these countries wish eventually to join NATO. Russia obviously will not. join. It believes that NATO should not be moving eastwards. According to the Center for Defense Infromation in Washington, a respected independent research center on military affairs, Russia is participating in the PFP “to avoid being shut out of the European security structure altogether.” [5]

The movement toward the enlargement of NATO has therefore been steadily gathering momentum. The creation of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council was more or less an expression of sympathy and openness toward those aspiring to NATO membership. But it did not carry things very far. The creation of the Partnership for Peace was more concrete. It actually involved former Warsaw Pact members in NATO itself. It also began a “two-track” policy toward Russia, in which Russia was given a more or less empty relationship with NATO simply to allay its concerns about NATO expanslon.

However, despite this continous development, the public rationale for this expansion has for the most part rested on fairly vague premises. And this leads to the question of what has been driving the expansion of NATQ during the last four years. The question must be posed for two areas: the Balkans and the countries of Central Europe. For there is an important struggle going on in the Balkans, a struggle for mastery of the southern Balkans in particular. And NATO is now involved in that struggle. There is also, of course, a new drift back to Cold-War policies on the part of certain Western countries. And that drift is carrying NATO into Central Europe.

The Struggle for Mastery in the Balkans

We have been witnessing, since 1990, a long and agonizing crisis in Yugoslavia. It has brought the deaths of tens of thousands, driven perhaps two million people from their homes and caused turmoil in the Balkan region. And in the West it is generally believed that this crisis, including the civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, was the result of internal Yugoslav conflicts, and specifically of conflicts between Croats, Serbs and Bosnian Muslims. This is far from the essence of the matter.

The main problem in Yugoslavia, from the first, was foreign intervention in the country’s internal affairs. Two Western powers, the United States and Germany, deliberately contrived to destabilize and then dismantle the country. The process was in full swing in the 1 980s and accelerated as the present decade began. These powers carefully planned, prepared and assisted the secessions which broke Yugoslavia apart. And they did almost everything in their power to expand and prolong the civil wars which began in Croatia and then continued in Bosnia-Herzegovina. They were involved behind the scenes at every stage of the crisis.

Foreign intervention was designed to create precisely the conflicts which the Western powers decried. For they also conveniently served as an excuse for overt intervention once civil wars were under way.

Such ideas are, of course, anathema in Western countries. That is only because the public in the West has been systematically misinformed by war propaganda. It accepted almost from the beginning the version of events promuligated by governments and disseminated through the mass media. It is nonetheless true that Germany and the US were the principal agents in dismantling Yugoslavia and sowing chaos there.

This is an ugly fact in the new age of realpolitik and geo-political struggles which has succeeded the Cold War order. Intelligence sources have begun recently to allude to this reality in a surprisingly open manner. In the summer of 1995, for instance, INTELLIGENCE DIGEST, a respected newsletter published in Great Britain, reported that:

The original US-German design for the former Yugoslavia [included] an independent Muslim-Croat dominated BosniaHerzegovina in alliance with an independent Croatian and alongside a greatly weakened Serbia. [6]

Every senior official in most Western governments knows this description to be absolutely accurate. And this means, of course, that the standard descriptions of “Serbian aggression” as the root cause of the problem, the descriptions of Croatia as a “new democracy”, etc. are not just untrue but actually designed to deceive.

But why? Why should the media seek to deceive the Western public? It was not simply that blatant and large-scale intervention in Yugoslav affairs had to be hidden from public view. It was also that people would ask questions about why Germany and the US deliberately created havoc in the Balkans. They wanted inevitably to know the reasons for such actions. And these had to be hidden even more carefully than the destructive actions of great powers.

At root, the problem was that the United States had an extremely ambitious plan for the whole of Europe. It is now stated quite openly that the US considers itself a “European power”. In the 1980s, this assertion could not be made so easily. That would have caused too much dissension among Western allies. But the US drive to establish its domination in Europe was nonetheless a fact. And the United States was already planning what is now openly talked about.

Quite recently, Richard Holbrooke, the Assistant Secretary of State for European affairs, made the official position clear. In a recent article in the influential journal FOREIGN AFFAIRS, he not only described the United States as a “European power” but also outlined his government’s ambitious plans for the whole of Europe. Referring to the system of collective security, including NATO, which the US and its allies created after the second world war, Mr. Holbrooke said:

This time, the United States must lead in the creation of a security architecture that includes and thereby stabilizes all of Europe — the West, the former Soviet satelIites of Central Europe and, most critically. Russia and the former republics of the Soviet Union. [7]

In short, it is now official policy to move towards the integration of all of Europe under a Western political and economic system, and to do so through the exercise of “American leadership”. This is simply a polite, and misleading, way of talking about the incorporation of the former Socialist countries into a vast new empire. [8]

It should not be surprising that the rest of Mr. Holbrooke’s article is about the necessity of expanding NATO, especially into Central Europe, in order to ensure the “stability” of the whole of Europe. Mr. Holbrooke states that the “expansion of NATO is an essential consequence of the raising of the Iron Curtain ” [9].

Thus, behind the repeated interventions in the Yugoslav crisis, there lay long-term strategic plans for the whole of Europe.

As part of this evolving scheme, Germany and the US originally determined to forge a new Balkan order, one based on the market organization of economies and parliamentary democracy. They wanted to put a definitive end to Socialism in the Balkans. [10] Ostensibly, they wanted to “foster democracy” by encouraging assertions of independence, as in Croatia. In reality, this was merely a ploy for breaking up the Balkans into small and vulnerable countries. Under the guise of “fostering democracy”, the way was being opened to the recolonization of the Balkans.

By 1990, most ofthe countries of Eastern Europe had yielded to Western pressures to establish what were misleadingly called “reforms”. Some had accepted all the Western conditions for aid and trade. Some, notably Bulgaria and Rumania, had only partically accepted them.

In Yugoslavia, however, there was resistance. The 1990 elections in Serbia and Monetenegro kept a socialist or social-democratic party in power. The Federal government thus remained in the hands of politicians who, although they yielded to pressures for “reforms” from time to time, were nevertheless opposed to the recolonization of the Balkans. And many of them were opposed to the fragmentation of Yugoslavia. Since the third Yugoslavia, formed in the spring of 1992, had an industrial base and a large army, that country had to be destroyed.

From the German point of view, this was nothing more than the continuation of a policy pursued by the Kaiser and then by the Nazis.

Once, Yugoslavia was dismantled and thrown into chaos, it was possible to begin reorganizing this central part of the Balkans. Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were to be brought into a German sphere of interest. Germany acquired access to the sea on the Adriatic, and potentially, in the event that the Serbs could be overwhelmed, to the new :Rhine-Danube canal, a route which can now carry 3,000 ton ships from the North Sea into the Black Sea. The southem reaches of Yugoslavia were to fall into an American sphere of interest. Macedonia, which commands the only east-west and north-south passages across the Balkan Mountains, was to be the centerpiece of an American region. But the American sphere would also include Albania and, if those regions could be stripped away from Serbia, the Sanjak and Kosovo. Some American planners have even talked of the eventual emergence of a Greater Albania, under US and Turkish tutelage, which would comprise a chain of small Muslim States, possibly including BosniaHerzegovina, with access to the Adriatic.

Not surprisingly, Germany and the US, although they worked in concert to bring about the dismantlement of Yugoslavia, are now struggling for control of various parts of that coubtry, notably Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In fact, there is considerable jockeying for influence and commercial advantage throughout the Balkans. [11] Most of this competition is between Germany and the US, the partners who tore Yugoslavia apart. But important companies and banks from other European countries are also participating. The situation is similar to that which was created in Czechoslovakia by the Munich Agreement in 1938. Agreement was reached on a division of the spoils in order to avoid clashes which would lead immediately to war.

The New “Great Game” in the Caspian Sea

Yugoslavia is significant not just for its own position on the map, but also for the areas to which it allows access. And influential American analysts believe that it lies close to a zone of vital US interests, the Black Sea-Caspian Sea region.

This may be the real significance of the NATO task force in Yugoslavia.

The United States is now seeking to consolidate a new European-Middle Eastern bloc of nations. It is presenting itself as the leader of an informal grouping of Muslim countries stretching from the Persian Gulf into thje Batkans. This grouping includes Turkey, which is of pivotal importance in the emerging new bloc. Turkey is not just a part of the southern Balkans and an Aegean power. It also borders on Iraq, Iran and Syria. It thus connects southern Europe to the Middle East, where the US considers that it has vital interests.

The US hopes to expand this informal alliance with Muslim states in the Middle East and southern Europe to include some of the new nations on the southern rim of the former Soviet Union.

The reasons are not far to seek. The US now conceives of itself as being engaged in a new race for world resources. Oil is especially important in this race. With the war against Iraq, the US established itself in the Middle East more securely than ever. The almost simultaneous disintegration of the Soviet Union opened the possiblity of Western exploitation of the oil resources of the Caspian Sea region.

This region is extremely rich in oil and gas resources. Some Western analysts believe that it could become as important to the West as the Persian Gulf

Countries like Kazakhstan have enormous oil reserves, probably in excess of 9 billion barrels. Kazakhstan could probably pump 700,000 barrels a day. The problem, as in other countries of the region, at least from the perspective of Western countries, has been to get the oil and gas resources out of the region and to the West by safe routes. The movement of this oil and gas is not simply a technical problem. It is also political.

It is of crucial importance to the US and to other Western countries today to maintain friendly relations with countries like Kazakhstan. More importantly, it is important to know that that any rights acquired, to pump petroleum or to build pipelines to transport it, will be absolutely respected. For the amounts which are projected for investment in the region are very large.

What this means is that Western producers, banks, pipeline companies, etc. want to be assured of “political stability” in the region. They want to be assured that there will be no political changes which would threaten their new interests or potential ones.

An important article in THE NEW YORK TIMES recently described what has been called a new “grea’: game” in the region, drawing an analogy to the competition between Russia and Great Britain in the northwest frontier of the Indian subcontinent in the nineteenth century. The authors of the article wrote that,

Now, in the years after the cold war, the United States is again establishing suzerainty over the empire of a former foe. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has prompted the United States to expand its zone of military hegemony into Eastern Europe (through NATO) and into formerly neutral Yugoslavia. And — most important of all — the end of the cold war has permitted America to deepen its involvement in the Middle East. [12]

Obviously, there have been several reasons which prompted Western leaders to seek the expansion of NATO. One of these, and an important one, has clearly been a commercial one. This becomes more evident as one looks more closely at the parallel development of commercial exploitation in the Caspian Sea region and the movement of NATO into the Balkans.

On May 22, 1992, the North Atlantic Treay Organization issued a remarkable statement regarding the fighting then going on in Transcaucasia. This read in part as follows:

[The] Allies are profoundly disturbed by the continuing conflict and loss of life. There can be no solution to the problem of Nagomo-Karabakh or to the differences it has caused between Armenia and Azerbaijan by force. “Any action against Azerbaijan’s or any other state’s territorial integrity or to achieve political goals by force would represent a flagrant and unacceptable violation of the principles of international law. In particular we [NATO] could not accept that the recognized status of Nagorno-Karabakh or Nakhichevan can be changed unilaterally by force. [13]

This was a remarkable statement by any standards. For NATO was in fact issuing a veiled warning that it might have to take “steps” to prevent actions by govemments in the Caspian Sea region which it construed as threatening vital Westem interests.

Two days before NATO made this unusual declaration of interest in Transcaucasion affairs, an American oil Company, Chevron, had signed an agreement with the government of Kazakhstan for the development of the Tengiz and Korolev oil fields in the Westem part of the country. The negotiations for this agreement had been under way for two years prior to its being signed. And reliable sources have reported that they were in danger of breaking down at the time because of Chevron’s fears of political instability in the region. [14]

At the time that NATO made its declaration, of course, there would have been little possibility of backing up its warning. There was, first of all, no precedent at all for any large, out-of-area operation by NATO. NATO forces, furthermore, were far removed from Transcaucasia. It does not take a long look at a map of the Balkans, the Black Sea the Caspian Sea to realize that the situation is changing.

The Next Stage: “Stabilizing” the East

The current pressure for the enlargement of NATO to Central and Eastern Europe is part of an effort to create what is mistakenly called “the new world order”. It is the politico-military complement of the economic policies initiated by the major Western powers and designed to transform Central and East European society.

The United States, Germany and some of their allies are trying to build a truly global order around the North Atlantic Basin economy. There is actually nothing very new about the kind of order which they are trying to establish. It is to be founded on capitalist institutions. What is new is that they are trying to extend “the old order” to the vast territories which were thrown into chaos by the disintegration of Communism. They are also trying to incorporate into this “order” countries which were previously not fully a part of it.

In a word, they are trying to create a functioning capitalist system in countries which have lived under Socialism for decades, or in countries, such as Angola, which were seeking to break free of the capitalist system.

As they try to establish a “new world order”, the major Western powers must also think about how to preserve it. So, in the final analysis, they must think about extending their military power toward the new areas of Europe which they are trying to attach to the North Atlantic Basin. Hence the proposed role of NATO in the new European order.

The two principal architects of what might be a new, integrated and capitalist. Europe are the United States and Germany. They are working together especially closely on East European questions. In effect, they have formed a close alliance in which the US expects Germany to help manage not only West European but also East European affairs. Germany has become, as George Bush put it in Mainz in 1989, a “partner in leadership”.

This close relationship ties the US to Germany’s vision of what German and American analysts are now calling Central Europe. It is a vision which calls for: 1 ) the expansion of the European Union to the East; 2) German leadership in Europe; and 3) a new division of labor in Europe.

It is the idea of a new division of labor which is particularly important. In the German view, Europe will in the future be organized in concentric rings around a center, which will be Germany. The center will be the most developed region in every sense. It will be the most technically developed and the wealthiest. It will have the highest levels of wages, salaries and per capita income. And it will undertake only the most profitable economic activities, those which put it in command of the system. Thus Germany will take charge of industrial planning, design, the development of technology, etc., of all the activities which will shape and co-ordinate the activities of other regions.

As one moves away from the center, each concentric ring will have lower levels of development, wealth and income. The ring immediately surrounding Germany will include a great deal of profitable manufacturing and service activity. It is meant to comprise parts of Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and northern Italy. The general level of income would be high, but lower than in Germany. The next ring would include the poorer parts of Western Europe and parts of Eastern E:urope, with some manufacturing, processing and food production. Wage and salary levels would be significantly lower than at the center.

It goes without saying that, in this scheme of things, most areas of Eastern Europe will be in an outer ring. Eastern Europe will be a tributary of the center. It will produce some manufactured goods, but not primarily for its own consumption. Much of its manufacturing, along with raw materials, and even food, will be shipped abroad. Moreover, even manufacturing will pay low wages and salaries And the general level of wages and salaries, and therefore of incomes, will be lower than they have been in the past.

In short, most of Eastern Europe will be poorer in the new, integrated system than it would have been if East European countries could make their own economic decisions about what kind of development to pursue. The only development possible in societies exposed to the penetration of powerful foreign capital and hemmed in by the rules of the International Monetary Fund is dependent development.

This will also be true of Russia and the other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. They will also become tributaries of the center, and there will be no question of Russia pursuing an independent path of development. There will obviously be some manufacturing in Russia, but there will be no possibility of balanced industrial development. For the priorities of development will be increasingly dictated by outsiders. Western corporations are not interested in promoting industrial development in Russia, as the foreign investment figures show.

The primary Western interest in the Commonwealth of Independent States is in the exploitation of its resources. The breakup of the Soviet Union was thus a critical step in opening the possibility of such exploitation. For the former republics of the USSR became much more vulnerable once they became independent. Furthermore, Western corporations are not interested in developing CIS resources for local use. They are interested in exporting them to the West. This is especially true of gas and petroleum resources. Much of the benefit from the export of resources would therefore accrue to foreign countries. Large parts of the former Soviet Union are likely to find themsevles in a situation similar to that of Third World countries.

What Germany is seeking, then, with the support of the US, is a capitalist rationalization of the entire European economy around a powerful German core. Growth and high levels of wealth in the core are to be sustained by subordinate activities in the periphery. The periphery is to produce food and raw materials, and it is to manufacture exports for the core and for overseas markets. Compared to the (Western and Eastern) Europe of the 1980s, then, the future Europe is to be entirely restructured, with lower and lower levels of development as ones moves away from the German center.

Thus many parts of Eastern Europe, as well as much of the former Soviet Union, are meant to remain permanently underdeveloped areas, or relatively underdeveloped areas. Implementation of the new dvision of labor in Europe means that they must be locked into economic backwardness.

Thus, for Eastern Europe and the countries of the CIS, the creation of an “integrated” Europe within a capitalist framework will require a vast restructuring. This restructuring could be very profitable for Germany and the US. It will mean moving backwards in time for the parts of Europe being attached to the West.

The nature of the changes under way has already been prefigured in the effects of the “reforms” implemented in Russia from the early 1990s. It was said, of course, that these “reforms” would eventually bring prosperity. This was, however, a hollow claim from the beginning. For the “reforms” implemented at Western insistence were nothing more than the usual restructuring imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on Third World countries. And they have had the same effects.

The most obvious is the precipitous fall in living standards. One third of the population of Russia is now trying to survive on income below the official poverty line. Production since 1991 has fallen by more than half. Inflation is running at an annual rate of 200 per cent. The life expectancy of a Russian male fell from 64.9 years in 1987 to 57.3 years in 1994. [15] These figures are similar to those for countries like Egypt and Bangladesh. And, in present circumstances, there is really no prospect of an improvement in economic and social conditions in Rússia. Standards of living are actually likely to continue falling.

Clearly, there is widespread, and justified, anger in Russia, and in other countries, about the collapse of living standards which has accompanied the early stages of restructuring. This has contributed to a growing political backlash inside Russia and other countries. The most obvious recent example may be found in the results of the December parliamentary elections in Russia. It is also clear that the continuing fall in living standards in the future will create further angry reactions.

Thus the extension of the old world order into Eastern Europe and the CIS is a precarious exercise, fraught with uncertainty and risks. The major Western powers are extremely anxious that it should succeed, to some extent because they see success, which would be defined in terms of the efficient exploitation of these new regions, as a partial solution to their own grave economic problems. There is an increasingly strong tendency in Western countries to displace their own problems, to see the present international competition for the exploitation of new territories as some kind óf solution to world economic stagnation.

Western analysts rightly suppose that the future will bring political instability. So, as Senator Bradley put it recently, “The question about Russia is whether reform is reversible”. [ 16] Military analysts draw the obvious implication: the greater the military power which can potentially be brought to bear on Russia, the less the likelihood of the “reforms” being,reversed. This is the meaning of the following extraordinary statement by the Working Group on NATO Enlargement:

The security task of NATO is no longer limited to maintaining a defensive military posture against an opposing force. There is no immediate military security threat to Western Europe. The political instability and insecurity in Central and Eastern Europe, however, greatly affect the security of the NATO area. NATO should help to fulfill the Central and Eastern European desires for security and integration into Western structures, thus serving the interests in stability of its members. [17]

This represents an entirely new position on the part of NATO. It is a position which some NATO countries thought imprudent not long ago. And it is alarming, because it does not confront the real reasons behind the present pressure for NATO’s extension. However evasive and sophistical the reasoning of the Working Group may be, it appears that the debate in many countries is now closed. It would, of course, be much better if the real issues could be debated publicly. But for the moment they cannot be, and the pressure for NATO enlargement is going to continue.

The Dangers of Extending NATO

The current proposal to expand NATO eastward creates many dangers.

It should be statedl that many leaders in Western countries oppose the expansion of NATO, and they have repeatedly explained the dangers of such expansion. It is important to recogruze, that despite the official position of NATO and the recent report of the Working Group, there is strong opposition to NATO’s moving eastward. Nonetheless, for the moment, those in favor of NATO expansion have won the day.

Four dangers of NATO expansion in particular require discussion here.

The first is that the expansion of NATO will bring new members under the NATO umbrella. This will mean, for instance, that the United States and other Western members are obliged to defend, say, Slovakia against an attack. Where will an attack come from? Is NATO really prepared to defend Slovakia in the event of a conflict with another East European country?

In a country like the United States, this would be very unpopular. As Senator Kassebaum put it in October of last year:

Are the American people prepared to pledge, in the words of the North Atlantic Treaty, that an armed attack against one or more of these potential new members will be considered an attack against all? [18]

The issue of extending the umbrella is a critical one. For the NATO powers are nuclear powers. The Working Group report stated that, in appropriate circumstances, the forces of NATO allies could be stationed on the territory of new members. And the Working Group did not rule out, as it should have, the stationing of nuclear wepons on the territory of new members. The failure to rule out such a possibility means that NATO is embarking on a dangerous path, a path which increases the risks of nuclear war.

The Working Group’s silence on this matter cannot fail to be taken as a threat by those who are not joining NATO. And, clearly, the most important of these is Russia, because it, too, posseses nuclear weapons — as do the Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

The second danger is that expansion will jeopardize relations between the United States and Russia, or even lead to a second Cold War. While NATO countries present the organization as a defensive alliance, Russia sees it quite differently. For more than forty years, the Soviet Union considered NATO as an offensive alliance aimed at all the members of the Warsaw pact. The general opinion in Russia is still that NATO is an offensive alliance. The former Foreign Minister, Mr. Kozyrev, made this quite clear to NATO members. How can Russia possibly see things differently in the future?

The expansion of NATO is inevitably perceived by Russia as encirclement. It is seen as assuming that Russia will inevitably again become an aggressive state. This, however, is much more likely to push Russia toward belligerence than to do anything else. It will certainly not calm its fears about the intentions of NATO in moving into Eastern Europe. Referring to the recent NATO decision on expansion, the Director of the Institute of USA and Canada Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, stated recently that:

Russia is still a military superpower with a huge area and a large population. It is a country with enormous economic capabilities which has extraordinary potential for good or ill. But now it is a humiliated country in search of identity and direction. To a certain extent, the West and its position on NATPO expansion will determine what direction Russia chooses. The future of European Security depends on this decision.” [19]

The third danger in extending NATO is that will undermine the implementation of the START I Treaty and the ratification of the START II Treaty, as well as other arms control and arms limitation treaties designed to increase European security. The Ruyssians, for instance, have made it clear that they will go ahead with the implementation of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty “if the situation in Europe is stable”. The expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, however, significantly changes the present equilibrium in Europe. So NATO countries are risking many of the achievements of the last 25 years in the field of disarmament. Some argue convincingly that NATO expansion will undermine the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Such consequences will hardly make Europe, or the globe, a safer place in the future.

The fourth principal danger in NATO expansion is that it will unsettle the situation in Eastern Europe. NATO claims that its expansion will help to ensure stability. But Eastern Europe, particularly after the changes of the last five years, is already an unstable place. The piecemeal expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe will increase tensions between new members and those left outside. It cannot fail to do so. Those left outside NATO are bound to feel more insecure when NATO has established itself in a neighboring country. This would place place them in a buffer zone between an expanding NATO and Russia. They are bound to react in a fearful, and even hostile manner. The piecemeal expansion of NATO could even trigger an arms race in Eastern Europe.

The Weakness of the Western Position

When closely considered, the proposal to extend NATO eastward is not just dangerous. It also seems something of a desperate act. It is obviously irrational, for it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It can lead to a second Cold War between the NATO powers and Russia, and possibly to nuclear war. It must be assumed that no one really wants that.

Why, then, would the NATO countries propose such a course of action? Why would they be unable to weigh the dangers of their decision objectively?

Part of the answer is that those who have made this decision have looked at it in very narrow terms, without seeing the larger context in which NATO expansion would take place. When one does look at the larger context, the proposal to expand NATOis obviously irrational.

Consider the larger context. NATO proposes to admit certain countries in Central Europe as full members of the alliance in the near future. Other East European countries are being considered for later admission. This extension has two possible purposes. The fìrst is to prevent “the failure of Russian democracy”, that is, to ensure the continuation of the present regime, or something like it, in Russia. The second is to place NATO in a favorable position if a war should ever break out between Russia and the West.

In an age of nuclear weapons, pursuing the second purpose is perhaps even more dangerous than it was during the years of the Cold War, since there are now several countries with nuclear weapons which would potentially be ranged against NATO. The argument that NATO should be expanded eastward in order to ensure the West an advantage in the event of a nuclear war is not a very convincing one. And it would certainly not be convincing to Central European countries if it were openly spoke of. Those would be the countries most likely to suffer in the first stages of such a war. Their situation would be similar to that of Germany during the Cold War, as the German antiwar movement began to understand in the 1980s.

The main purpose of expanding NATO, as almost everyone has acknowledged, is to make sure that there is no reversal of the changes which have taken place in Russia during the last five years. That would end the dream of a three-part Europe united under the capitalist banner and close a very large new space for the operation of Western capital. A NATO presence in Central and Eastern Europe is simply a means of maintaining new pressure on those who would wish to attempt to change the present situation in Russia.

However, as has been seen, this also means locking Russia, and other countries of the CIS, into a state of underdevelopment and continuous economic and social crisis in which millions of people will suffer terribly, and in which there is no possibility of society seeking a path of economic and social development in which human needs determine economic priorities.

What is horribly ironic about this situation is the the Western countries are offering their model of economic organization as the solution to Russia’s problems. The realist analysts, of course, know perfectly well that it is no such thing. They are interested only in extending Western domination further eastward. And they offer their experience as a model for others only to beguile. But the idea that “the transition to democracy”, as the installation of market rules is often called, is important in the world battle for public opinion. It has helped to justify and sustain the policies which the West has been pursuing toward the countries of the CIS.

The Western countries themselves, however, are locked in an intractable economic crisis. Beginning in the early 1970s, profits fell, production faltered, long-term unemployment began to rise and standards of living began to fall. There were, of course, the ups and downs of the business cycle. But what was important was the trend. The trend of GDP growth in the major Western countries has been downward since the major recession of 1973-1975. In the United States, for instance, the rate of growth fell from about 4 per cent per year in the 1950s and the 1960s, to 2.9 per cent in the 1970s and then to about 2.4 per cent in the 1980s. Current projections for growth are even lower.

The situation was not very different in other Western countries. Growth was somewhat faster, but unemployment was significantly higher. The current rates of unemployment in Western Europe average about 11 per cent, and there is more unemployment hidden in the statistics as a result of various government pseudoemployment plans.

Both Western Europe and North America have experienced a prolonged economic stagnation. And capitalist economies cannot sustain employment and living standards without relatively rapid growth. In the 25 years after the second world war, most Western countries experienced rapid growth, on the order of 4 and 5 per cent per year. It was that growth which made it possible to maintain high levels of employment, the rise in wages and the advance of living standards. And there is no doubt that, in the postwar period, the Western countries made great advances. Large numbers of working class people were able to achieve decent living standards. The middle and upper classes prospered, indeed, many of them reached a standard of living which can only be called luxurious.

The postwar honeymoon, however, is clearly over. The great “capitalist revolution” touted by the Rockefellers is no more. “Humanized capitalism” is no more. Declining growth has now returned us to the age of “le capitalisme sauvage”. It has triggered economic and socil crisis in every Western country. It is undermining the principal achievements of the postwar period. In Europe, the Welfare state has been under attack for fifteen years by those who would shift the burden of crisis onto the shoulders of the less fortunate. In the United States, a relatively meagre “social net” to protect the poor is now being shredded by the aggressive and ignorant defenders of corporate interests, whò also want to be sure that those who can least afford it bear the brunt of the system’s crisis of stagnation.

The West, then, is itself locked in crisis. This is not a transient crisis or a “long cycle”, as academic apologists would have it. It is a systemic crisis. Thje market system can no longer produce anything like proesperity. The markets which drove the capitalist economy in the postwar period, automobiles, consumer durables, construction, etc. are all saturated, as sheaLs of government statistics in every country demonstrate. The system has not found new markets which could create an equivalent wave of prosperity. Moreover, the acceleration of technical progress in recent years has begun to eliminate jobs evetywhere at a staggering rate. There is no possible way of compensating for its effect, for creating new employment in sufficient quantity and at high wage levels.

Government and industry leaders in the West are fully aware of the situation in one sense. They know what the statistics are. They know what the problems are. But they are not able to see that the source of the problem is the fact that, having achieved very high levels of production, income and wealth, the present capitalist system has nowhere to go. Half-way solutions could be found, but Western leaders are unwilling to make the political concessions which they would require. In particular, the large concentrations of capital in Western countries are led by people who are constitutionally incapable of seeing that something fundamental is wrong. That would require them to agree to the curtailing of their power.

Therefore, the leaders of government and industry drive blindly on, not wishing to see, not prepared to accept policies that might set the present system on a path of transition to some more rational and more human way of organizing economic life. It is this blindness, grounded in confusion and fear, which has clouded the ability of Western leaders to think clearly about the risks of extending NATO into Eastern Europe. The Western system is experiencing a profound economic, social and political crisis. And Western leaders apparently see the exploitation of the East as the only large-scale project available which might stimulate growth, especially in Western Europe.

They are therefore prepared to risk a great deal for it. The question is: will the world accept the risks of East-West conflict and nuclear war in order to lock into one region economic arrangements which are already collapsing elsewhere?

Notes

1. DEFENSE NEWS, 25 November 1995; see also Gary Wilson, “Anti-War Activists Demand: No More US Troops to the Balkans”, Workers World News Service, December 7, 1995.
2. See for instance: “NATO Expansion: Flirting with Disaster”, THE DEFENSE MONITOR, November/December 1995, Center for Defense Information, Washington, D.C.
3. Senatore Richard Lugar, “NATO: Out of Area or Out of Business”, Remarks Delivered to the Open Forum of the US State Department, August 2, 1993, Washington, D.C.
4. “Changing Nature of NATO”, INTELLIGENCE DIGEST, 16 October 1992.
5. THE DEFENSE MONITOR, loc. cit., page 2.
6. “Bonn’s Balkans-to-Teheran Policy”, INTELLIGENCE DIGEST, 11 – 25 August 1995.
7. Richard Holbrooke, “America, A European Power”, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, March/April l995, page 39.
8. The crucial point is that Eastern Europe and the countries of the former USSR are to adopt the institutions prevailing in Western Europe, i.e., capitalism and parliamentary democracy.
9. Holbrooke, loc. cit., page 43.
10. See National Security Decision Directive, “United States Policy toward Yugoslavia”, Secret Sensitive, (declassified), The White House, Washington D.C., March 14, 1984.
11. Joan Hoey,”The U.S.’Great Game’ in Bosnia”, THENATION, January 30, 1995.
12. Jacob Heilbrunn e Michael Lind, “The Third American Empire”, THE NEW YORK TIMES, January 2, 1996.
13. “The Commercial Factor Behind NATO’s Extended Remit”, INTELLIGENCE DIGEST, May 29, 1992.
14. Idem.
15. Senator Bill Bradley, “Eurasia Letter: A Misguided Russia Policy”, FOREIGN POLICY, Winter 1995-1996, page 89.
16. Ibid. page 93.
17. Draft Special Report of the Working Group on NATO Enlargement, May 1995.
18. Quoted in THE DEFENSE MONITOR, loc. cit., page 5.
19. Dr. Sergei Rogov, Director of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of USA and Canada Studies, quoted in DEFENSE MONITOR, loc. cit. page 4

I hate to hear “I told you so” and here I am using those words.

As readers know, I have been concerned for many years that Russia’s toleration of endless insults and provocations would continue to encourage more and worst provocations until red lines are crossed that result in direct conflict between the two major nuclear powers.

All these years the Kremlin, unable to understand, or to accept, that its role as Washington’s enemy #1 was set in stone, relied on a strategy of zero to minimal responses in order to undercut the image of a “dangerous and aggressive Russia” set on restoring the Soviet Empire.

This diplomatic strategy, like Russia’s Ukraine strategy, has completely failed.

The Kremlin’s disastrous Ukraine strategy began when the Kremlin paid more attention to the Sochi Olympics than it did to Washington’s overthrow of the Ukraine government.

The Kremlin’s mistakes were put on an accelerating path when the Kremlin refused the Donbass’ request to be reunited with Russia like the former Russian province of Crimea. This left the Donbass Russians, formerly a part of Russia, to suffer persecution by Ukraine’s Nazi militias, shelling of civilian areas, and partial occupation by Ukrainian forces from 2014 until February, 2022 when the Russian Army began clearing Donbass of Ukrainian forces in order to prevent a prepared Ukrainian invasion of the Donbass republics. Having waited 8 years to act, the Kremlin now faced a large, western trained and equipped army plus fanatical Nazi regiments.

One would have thought that by this time the Kremlin would have learned from its extraordinary mistakes and realized that, finally, it needed to demonstrate that it was provoked. Without any question, what was called for was a Russian attack that closed down Ukraine, destroying the government, all civilian infrastructure and ending the conflict immediately. Instead, the Kremlin compounded its mistakes. It announced a limited intervention, the purpose of which was to clear Ukrainian forces out of Donbass. It left the government and civilian infrastructure of its enemy untouched, thereby enabling its enemy to resist the intervention on highly favorable terms.

To be clear, there is no doubt that the Russians can clear Donbass of Ukrainian forces and have about completed the task. The Kremlin’s mistake was not realizing that the West would not permit the intervention to be limited.

The Kremlin warned the West about interfering in the operation, declaring that if the US and NATO got involved, Russia would regard those countries as “combatants.” But the West got involved, slowly and carefully at first to test the waters and then more and more aggressively as what the West originally expected would be at most a week long conflict is now in its seventh month with the Kremlin again talking about negotiation with Zelensky and the Russian advance apparently on hold.

Far from treating the NATO countries as combatants, the Kremlin still provides Europe with energy to the extent that Europe permits Russia to do so. High Russian officials have spoken as if proving Russia to be a reliable energy supplier is more important than the lives of its soldiers fighting against western trained and equipped Ukraine forces supplied by European countries whose armaments industries are running on Russian energy.

I correctly predicted that Russian half measures would result in the widening of the war.

The correctness of my analysis has now been confirmed by a report in The Hill, a Washington publication read by insiders. The report is titled: “Why the US is becoming more brazen with its Ukraine support” and can be read here. Here is the opening sentence of the report and some excerpts:

“The Biden administration is arming Ukraine with weapons that can do serious damage to Russian forces, and, unlike early in the war, U.S. officials don’t appear worried about Moscow’s reaction.”

“’Over time, the administration has recognized that they can provide larger, more capable, longer-distance, heavier weapons to the Ukrainians and the Russians have not reacted,’ former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor told The Hill.

“’The Russians have kind of bluffed and blustered, but they haven’t been provoked. And there was concern [over this] in the administration early on — there still is to some degree — but the fear of provoking the Russians has gone down,’ added Taylor, who is now with the U.S. Institute of Peace.”

“’We were a bit more careful at first … not knowing if Putin would find and attack supply lines and convoys, not being sure if he would escalate, and also not being sure if Ukraine could use what we have [given] them or hold out for long against Russia,’ said Michael O’Hanlon, a military analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Brookings Institution.”

“Since June, the U.S. has steadily been increasing High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems to the country, which American service members have trained Ukrainian troops to use in batches. 

“Looking ahead, multiple reports have indicated that the U.S. plans to soon send Excalibur precision-guided artillery munitions — weapons that can travel up to 70 kilometers and would help the Ukrainians target dug-in Russian positions and command posts.

“Part of the shift in messaging can be attributed to the fact Kyiv defied international expectations and did not quickly fall when Russia first attacked, according to Nathan Sales, a former State Department official who most recently served as the acting undersecretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights.”  (emphasis added by GR)

As I said would be the case, the Kremlin’s limited operation was seen in the West as a half measure that provided the West with the opportunity to widen the war. Now with winter approaching the conflict is widening with shipments of long range powerful weapons capable of attacking Donbass, Crimea, and other parts of Russia from western Ukraine that was spared by the Russian invasion.

As I also said would be the case, by lengthening the war with its go-slow tactics in order to minimize civilian casualties, a noble intent, Russia gave the West the opportunity to characterize the Russian intervention as running out of steam from exhausted munitions and high Russian casualties.

The picture of Russian failure has had the effect I expected of making the West more confident about its combatant role. Here are excerpts from The Hill’s report confirming that:

“Another part of the equation: Recent intelligence that indicates Russia is feeling the sting of Western-imposed sanctions and a military service force that is dwindling in power as the war wears on.

“Last month, Reuters reported that major Russian airlines such as Aeroflot have grounded their planes so they can be stripped for spare parts, taking components from some of their planes to keep others airworthy.

“And facing losses on the battlefield, Putin last month sought to boost Russia’s combat personnel by more than 130,000 troops by eliminating the upper age limit for new recruits and encouraging prisoners to join.

“U.S. officials think the effort is ‘unlikely to succeed.’”

“Taken altogether, the intelligence paints a picture of a country [Russia] struggling to maintain its own institutions, much less fire back at Western nations for aiding Ukraine.

“’I think the instincts of the people in the departments and agencies, particularly State and Defense and the intelligence community, I think their instincts are to be more forward leaning and more aggressive,’” one former senior government official said.

“’We have a lot more space on our side, I think, to take actions that will assist Ukraine without being unjustifiably afraid of how Putin is going to respond,’ they added.”

One can reason that the Kremlin made all these mistakes because it did not want to scare more of Europe into NATO by demonstrating its military prowess in a lightening conquest of Ukraine.

But it is Russia’s halfway measures that have given Finland and Sweden the confidence to join NATO as they see no threat to themselves from being NATO members. A devastating Russian blow to Ukraine would have caused all of Europe to rethink NATO membership as no European country would want to face the prospect of war with Russia. Instead, what the Kremlin has produced is a British prime minister who is prepared to engage Russia in nuclear war, and a NATO that intends to keep the Ukrainian conflict going.

A careless or hostile reader might conclude from my article that I am an advocate of Russian military success. To the contrary, I am an advocate of minimizing the risk of nuclear war. Steven Cohen and I are the two who from the beginning saw how Washington’s interference in Ukraine with the overthrow of the government charted a course that could end in nuclear Armageddon. Cohen was reviled by his own liberal-left, and I was declared a “Putin dupe/agent.”

The name calling we suffered proved our point. The Western world is blind to the potential consequences of its provocations of Russia, and the Kremlin is blind to the potential consequences of its toleration of provocations. As we can see, neither side has yet come to this realization. The Hill’s report demonstrates the correctness of my analysis of the situation and my prediction that the outcome would be a widening of the war and a greater likelihood of miscalculations that could result in nuclear war.

***

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.

“Big Money” and “Big Ignorance”

Political opportunism in support of the Nuclear Weapons Aerospace Complex: There is “Big Money” and “Big Ignorance” behind Truss’  bold statement. Her Conservative Party audience applauded in chorus.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Liz Truss hasn’t the foggiest idea regarding the nature of nuclear weapons and their devastating impacts.

Moreover, she does not know the geography of the Russian Federation, claiming that Rostov on the Don as well as Voronezh belong to Ukraine; it’s like saying that Manchester belongs to Scotland:

“… during their closed-door meeting on Thursday [February 11, 2022] Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov had asked Truss if she recognised Russian sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh – two regions in the south of the country where Russia has been building up its forces.”

… Truss replied that Britain would never recognise them as Russian, and had to be corrected by her ambassador.” (Reuters report)

.

Truss, … told the BBC’s Sunday Morning show that “we are supplying and offering extra support into our Baltic allies across the Black Sea”.

“Humanitarian Nuclear Bombs”

Liz Truss is not the only ignorant Western politician in high office which favours the use of nuclear weapons. In recent years, “Many high-ranking military and civilian officials, politicians and experts are openly talking about the possibility of using nuclear weapons in a first strike attack against any nation under many pretexts with low-yield or high-yield nuclear charges” ( No Guerra No NATO).

A commitment to blowing up the planet preemptively with “humanitarian nukes”, which are “safe for civilians” has become part of a political narrative. We recall Hillary Clinton’s statement during the 2016 election campaign:

“the nuclear option should not at all be taken off the table. That has been my position consistently.” (ABC News, December 15, 2015)

The focus of US military doctrine since the George W. Bush administration has been on the development of so-called “more usable nuclear weapons”.

George W. Bush’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, which was adopted by the US Senate in late 2002. envisaged the development of “a generation of more useable nuclear weapons.” namely tactical nuclear weapons (B61-11 mini-nukes) with an explosive capacity between one third and 6 times times a Hiroshima bomb.

The term “more usable” emanates from the debate surrounding the 2001 NPR, which justified the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater on the grounds that tactical nuclear weapons, namely bunker buster bombs with a nuclear warhead are, according to scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon “harmless to the surrounding population because the explosion is underground.”

The cost of America’s “peace-making” nuclear weapons program is of the order of 1.3 trillion dollars, extending to $2 trillion in 2030.

And there is Big Money behind Jo Biden’s $1.3 trillion nuclear weapons program:

Flash Back. Another Liar and Ignoramus. It Started with Harry Truman

“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark…. This weapon is to be used against Japan … [We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. …  The target will be a purely military one… It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.”

(President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945)

Remember Hiroshima: “A Military Base” according to Harry Truman

“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..” (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).

[Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman’s radio speech to the Nation]

The Unthinkable: Mistakes are a Driving Force behind World History

“Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.

An accidental nuclear war attributable to ignorant, stupid and corrupt politicians cannot be excluded.

“The threat of an all-out nuclear war that can erupt very easily either due to deliberate actions of any nuclear weapons state or because of unintentional, human, technical or other mistake.

Do not vote for Ignoramus Liz who could lead Britain and the World into the unthinkable, a nuclear war which threatens the future of humanity.

Michel Chossudovsky, August 26, 2022

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.

***

As tensions mounted in late 2021 and into 2022 concerning a Russian invasion of Ukraine, many countries announced arms transfers to Ukraine. As the invasion began in late February, this resource page was launched to track developments related to such transfers, which thus far includes pledges and/or deliveries from more than 25 countries plus the European Union. 

Overview of pledged and/or delivered weapons (see timeline below for more details and links)[1]

• Australia:  M113 armored personnel carriers, Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles, missiles, and weapons – AUD $285 million ($200 million), six M77 155mm howitzers, four 14 M113AS4 Armored Personnel Carriers; drones and 34 armored vehicles (valued $68 million)
• Belgium:  200 anti-tank weapons and 5,000 automatic rifles/machine guns
• Canada: 8 armored vehicles, M777 howitzers, 4500 M72 rocket launchers and up to 7500 hand grenades, 20,000 155mm artillery shells, as well as $1 million dollars for the purchase of commercial satellite high resolution and modern imagery​, machine guns, pistols, carbines, 1.5 million rounds of ammunition, sniper rifles, and various related equipment ($7.8 million), plus additional $20 million in military aid (CAD $25 million – details undisclosed)– CAD $118 million total (as of April 22) — and an additional CAD $500 million on May 8 (undefined), 39 armoured combat support vehicles (ACSVs)
• Croatia:  rifles and machine guns, protective equipment valued at 124 million kuna (€16.5 million)
• Czech Republic: T-72 tanks and infantry fighting vehicles; attack helicopters (Mi-24); rocket systems; 400 million koruna ($18.23 million) of non-light weapons, including 160 shoulder-fired MANPADS systems (probably 9K32 Strela-2), 20 light machine guns, 132 assault rifles, 70 submachine guns, 108,000 bullets, 1,000 tactical gloves, all worth 17 million crowns ($756,000), and an earlier 188 million koruna ($8.6 million) worth of 4,000 mortars, 30,000 pistols, 7,000 assault rifles, 3,000 machine guns, a number of sniper rifles, and one million bullets. 
• Denmark: Harpoon anti-ship launcher and missiles, 2,700 anti-tank weapons, 300 Stinger missiles (returned to United States to be made operational), protective vests
• Estonia: Javelin anti-tank missiles; nine howitzers (with German permission)
• European Union:  €2 billion for military supplies, €500 million in military aid
• ​Finland: 2,500 assault rifles and 150,000 cartridges for them, 1,500 single-shot anti-tank weapons, and combat ration packages
• France: MILAN anti-tank guided missile systems and CAESAR artillery howitzers, plus “additional defense equipment,” 6 CAESAR howitzers (June)
• Germany:  50 Cheetah anti-aircraft systems, 56 PbV-501 IFVs, 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger anti-aircraft defense system, plus permission for select other countries to send weapons controlled by Germany, three M270 Mittleres Artillerie Raketen System (MARS) launchers and GMLRS ammunition, 100 tank howitzers, 16 Biber bridge-layer tanks (official page)
• ​Greece: portable rocket launchers, ammunition, and Kalashnikov rifles
• Ireland: 200 units of body armor, medical supplies, fuel, and other non-lethal aid
• Italy: Cabinet approved transfer of military equipment, pending Parliamentary approval.- reported to include Stinger surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank weapons, heavy machine guns, MG-type light machine guns and counter-IED systems
• Japan: bulletproof vests, helmets, and other non-lethal military aid
• Latvia: six 155mm self-propelled Howitzers, four helicopters, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles
• Lithuania: Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems and ammunition, M113 and M577 armored personnel carriers and ammunition
• Luxembourg: 100 NLAW (Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon), Jeep Wrangler 4×4 vehicles, 15 military tents, and additional non-lethal equipment
• Netherlands: 200 Stinger missiles, 3000 combat helmets and 2000 fragmentation vests with accompanying armor plates, one hundred sniper rifles with 30,000 pieces of ammunition, plus other equipment; 400 rocket-propelled grenade launchers (with German permission), heavy weapons, self-propelled howitzers, armoured vehicles
• North Macedonia: unspecified military equipment, unspecified number of soviet-era tanks
• Norway: 100 Mistral air defense missiles, 4,000 anti-tank weapons, helmets, bulletproof vests, other protection equipment, 22 M109 155m tracked self-propelled howitzers and related materials, three MLRS long-range rocket artillery (joint donation with UK)
• Poland: 200+ T-72 tanks, other approved delivery of Piorun (Thunderbolt) short-range, man-portable air defense (MANPAD) systems and munition; Defense Minister expressed readiness to supply several dozen thousand rounds of ammunition and artillery ammunition, air defense systems, light mortars, and reconnaissance drones, three Krab 155m self-propelled howitzer squadrons (worth $700M)
• Portugal: grenades and ammunition, G3 automatic rifles, and other non-lethal equipment
• ​Romania: €3 million of fuel, bulletproof vests, helmets, ammunition, military equipment, and medical treatment
• Slovakia: S-300 air defense system, eight self-propelled Zuzana 2 howitzers.
• Slovenia: T-72 tanks (reported), undisclosed amount of Kalashnikov rifles, helmets, and ammunition
• Spain: 1,370 anti-tank grenade launchers, 700,000 rifle and machine-gun rounds, and light machine guns, 20 tons of medical supplies, defensive, and personal protective equipment composing of helmets, flak jackets, and NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) protection waistcoats
• Sweden: 10,000 AT4 anti-tank weapons, helmets, and body shields; anti-tank weapons and machine guns (valued $40 million)
• Turkey: co-production of Bakar Bayraktar TB2 armed drones​
• United Kingdom: anti-aircraft capabilities (Stormer), 10,000 short-range and anti-tank missiles (including NLAWs and Javelins), Saxon armored vehicles, Starstreak air defence systems, loitering munitions, radar, heavy lift drones — with aid at £200 million, to rise to as high as £500m as of April 25 (note: on April 8, reports indicated aid already at £350 million)– on May 2, an additional £300 million announced, M270 multiple-launch rocket systems (quantity to be announced), $1.2 billion (air defense systems and other technologies), three MLRS long-range rocket artillery (joint donation with Norway); 50,000 artillery shells, artillery guns, drones, anti-tank weapons, additional MLRS, precision guided M31A1 missiles
• United States: Howitzers and artillery rounds; laser-guided rocket systems; Switchblade, Puma, and Counter-Unmannered Aerial systems​; about 700 Phoenix Ghost Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems; counter-artillery radars; 16 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and HIMARS ammunition; eight Surface-to-air Missile Systems (NASAMS); 1400 Stinger and 8500 Javelin missiles; 20 Mi-17 helicopters; ​anti-armor systems, small arms and various munitions; more than 59 millions rounds of small arms ammunition; body armor; hundreds High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs). Total $13.5 billion in security aid since the Biden Administration began, as of August 24, 2022. Factsheet (August 24)

Select Timeline

2022

August

Image: Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System. (Photo by Soldatnytt, licensed under CC BY 2.0)

On Wednesday, August 24, the United States announced $2.98 billion in additional security assistance to Ukraine including National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) and ammunition, 155mm and 120mm Howitzer ammunition, unmanned aerial systems and more (see official press release).

On Friday, August 19, the United States announced $775 million in additional security assistance to Ukraine including more HIMARS, 105mm Howitzers and artillery ammunition, Javelin and other missiles, and Humvees (see official source).

On Tuesday, August 16, Latvia clarified that it had deliver six 155mm self-propelled Howitzers in accordance with a July 28 decision, and had on August 15 announced the delivery of four helicopters – two Mi-17 and two Mi-2 to Ukraine. (see official source)

On Thursday August 11, the United Kingdom pledged to give Ukraine more MLRS and a “significant number” of precision guided M31A1 missiles (see official source).

On Monday August 8, the United States announced $1 billion in additional security assistance to Ukraine including more ammunition for HIMARS and 155mm artillery ammunition (see official press release).

On Monday August 1, the United States announced $550 million in additional aid to Ukraine including additional ammunition (see US Department of Defense).

July

On Friday July 29, Germany announced the donation of 16 Biber bridge-layer tanks to Ukraine on top of the recent howitzer announcement (see media). North Macedonia announced they would send soviet-era tanks of an unknown quantity to Ukraine (see media).

On Wednesday July 27, Germany announced a sale of 100 tank howitzers to Ukraine, reportedly worth 1.7 billion euros (see news).

On Friday, July 22, the United States announced $270 million in additional security assistance for Ukraine (see US Department of Defense news, factsheet).

On Thursday July 21, the United Kingdom announced they would send 50,000 artillery shells, artillery guns, drones, and more anti-tank weapons to Ukraine numbering the hundreds (see UK government resource). Lithuania announced it would send M113 and M577 armored personnel carriers and ammunition to Ukraine (see media source).

On Wednesday July 20, the United States announced four more additional HIMARS would be sent to Ukraine, totalling 16 HIMARS sent to Ukraine by the United States (see US Department of Defense news).

On Monday July 18, the European Union announced an additional 500 million euros in military aid to Ukraine (see media source).

On Monday July 11, Netherlands Prime Minister stated they would provide “heavy weapons, armored vehicles and self-propelled howitzers” to Ukraine (see news).

On Friday July 8, the United States announced $400 million in aid to Ukraine. This drawdown package included four additional HIMARS, precision artillery rounds, 126 155mm Howitzers, 20 Mi-17 helicopters, and numerous other munitions, systems, and other materials (see Department of Defense factsheet, news, and press release). ​

On Monday July 4, upon a visit to Kyiv, Australia’s Prime Minister announced they would pledge $68 million to Ukraine, which would include drones and 34 armored vehicles (see media source). 

On Friday July 1, the United States announced an additional $820 million to Ukraine. This aid is set to include HIMARS ammunition, two Surface-to-air Missile Systems (NASAMS), four counter-artillery radar systems, as well as 155m artillery ammunition (see US Department of Defense press release).

June

Image: GDLS Armored Combat Support Vehicles (ACSV) (Photo by MilitaryLeak)

On Thursday June 30, Sweden announced they would send additional anti-tank weapons as well as machine guns valued at $49 million (see media source). Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, announced at the NATO summit in Madrid Canada would send thirty-nine armoured combat support vehicles (ACSVs) (see media source).

On Wednesday June 29, the United Kingdom and Norway announced a joint donation of initially three MLRS long-range rocket artillery (see Norwegian government statement).

On Wednesday June 29, the United Kingdom announced an additional $1.2 billion to Ukraine to support defense including air defense systems and other defense equipment and technology (see media source).

On Thursday June 23, US President Joe Biden authorized an additional $450 million drawdown to Ukraine (See U.S. Department of Defense news).

On Monday June 20, Australia announced it would send four 14 M113AS4 Armored Personnel Carriers to Ukraine (see media source).

On Thursday June 16, French President Macron announced France would send six more Caesar long-range self-propelled howitzers to Ukraine (see media source).

On Wednesday June 15, more than 50 countries pledged more military aid to Ukraine at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group according to the U.S. Secretary of Defense (See U.S. Defense Department news). The United States announced a $1 billion security assistance package to include multiple launch rocket system munitions, 18 more 155 mm M777 towed howitzers and the tactical vehicles to tow them, and 36,000 rounds of 155 mm ammunition. (See Defense Department announcement.) Germany’s Minister of Defense announced a transfer of three M270 Mittleres Artillerie Raketen System (MARS) launchers and GMLRS ammunition from Bundeswehr stocks to Ukraine. (See joint statement from United States, Germany, and United Kingdom)

On Wednesday June 8, Norway announced that they have donated 22 M109 155mm tracked self-propelled howitzers. Alongside this, Norway included other relevant materials such as gear, parts, ammunition with the howitzers (See official government press release). Poland announced they will sell Ukraine three Krab 155m self-propelled howitzer squadrons reportedly worth $700M (See English and Polish Media). 

On Monday June 6, the United Kingdom announced that they will send M270 multiple-launch rocket systems to Ukraine. The exact number remains unknown, however, the BBC reports that there will be three of these systems (See BBC).

On Thursday June 2, Slovakia indicated a commercial deal with Ukraine to send eight self-propelled Zuzana 2 howitzers. This announcement was made by the Defense Ministry (See media source).

On Wednesday June 1, the United States Department of Defense authorized a Presidential Drawdown of military assistance worth $700 million, making the total value of US military assistance to Ukraine $5.3 billion since the start of the Biden Administration. Notable weapons in this package include; High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and ammunition, five counter-artillery radars, two air surveillance radars, four Mi-17 helicopters and more. (See Department of Defense resource). German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, additionally promised an air defense system as well as a tracking radar system to Ukraine from Germany (See New York Times and German resource).

May

On Tuesday May 31, United States President Biden said in a New York Times op-ed “I’ve decided that we will provide the Ukrainians with more advanced rocket systems and munitions that will enable them to more precisely strike key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine…. We will continue providing Ukraine with advanced weaponry, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, Stinger antiaircraft missiles, powerful artillery and precision rocket systems, radars, unmanned aerial vehicles, Mi-17 helicopters and ammunition,” with indications that the “advanced” weaponry would include multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) that Ukraine had agreed not to use to strike into Russia. (See  New York Times and other media.)    Olaf Scholz, German Chancellor, announced that Germany “will provide Greece with German infantry fighting vehicles,” with the presumption that older Greek military vehicles would be transferred to Ukraine. Soviet-style BMP IFVs are one of the reported Greek weapons that would be transferred to Ukraine. (See media source.)

On Tuesday, May 24, Canada‘s Defense Minister indicated that it will donate 20,000 155mm artillery shells. (See official government resource page and media.)

On Monday, May 23, during a press conference after the second Contact Group meeting, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said “I’m especially grateful to Denmark, which announced today that it will provide a Harpoon launcher and missiles to help Ukraine defend its coast. I’d also like to thank the Czech Republic for its substantial support, including a recent donation of attack helicopters, tanks and rocket systems.  And today, several countries announced new donations of critically needed artillery systems and ammunition, including Italy, Greece, Norway and Poland.” (See transcript and Defense Dept news.) Media reports indicate the attack helicopters from the Czech Republic were Soviet-designed Mi-24s (see Wall Street Journal and Air Recognition).  The European Union adopted two measures under the European Peace Facility (EPF) to create a “fourth tranche [that] will add €500 million to the resources already mobilised under the EPF for Ukraine, thereby bringing the total amount to €2 billion.” (See EU press release.)

On Saturday, May 21, United States President Joe Biden sign the $40 billion Ukraine supplemental appropriations act into law. (See White House notice and official legislation.)

Image: Mountain howitzer firing (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

On Thursday, May 19, the United States announced an additional $100 million drawdown for Howitzers and counter-artillery radar. (See Defense Department statement.)   Australia announced an additional  AUD$60.9 million in new support for Ukraine including 14 M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers and a further 20 Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles. (See Defense Minister Dutton’s website.)

On Monday, May 9, U.S. President Joe Biden signed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 into law, giving him abilities to lend equipment to Ukraine (See White House note, remarks, and Defense Department factsheet on all security assistance as of May 10.)

On Sunday, May 8, The Canadian Prime Minister announced that the additional $500 million for further military aid to Ukraine announced “has begun to roll out” (See official government resource page.)

On Friday, May 6, the United States announced another $150 million drawdown for assistance, including 25,000 155 mm artillery rounds, 3 counter-artillery radars, and other spare parts and field equipment. (See official President statement and Pentagon statement.)

On Monday, May 2, United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced  £300 million in new aid including radars, heavy lift drones, and thousands of night vision devices. (See official transcript.)

April

On Thursday, April 28, U.S. President Joe Biden asked Congress for an additional $33 billion for Ukraine-related efforts, including  $5 billion in additional drawdown authority, $6 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and $4 billion for the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing program. (See White House factsheet.)

On Tuesday, April 26, more than three dozen countries met in at Ramstein air base in Germany to discuss Ukraine, with U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin thanking Germany for committing to send 50 Cheetah anti-aircraft systems and Canada eight armored vehicles. (See U.S. Defense Dept official transcript.) Australia announced they would send six M777 155mm howitzers to Ukraine (see news). 

On Monday, April 25, Poland announced that it had delivered tanks to Ukraine (see media) that later stories indicated was 200+ T-72 tanks, plus previously included infantry fighting vehicles and missiles for MiGs. (See media.) The United Kingdom announced it would send additional anti-aircraft capabilities (See U.S. Defense Dept official transcript and media and additional media)

On Sunday, April 24, the United States Secretary of State declared an emergency need to sell $165 million in ammunition via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, bypassing Congressional review. (See official notification.)

On Friday, April 22, Canada announced that it had delivered M777 howitzers and associated ammunition, with commitments since January 2022 of more than $118CAD million (see official release). In a media interview. President Emmanuel Macron confirmed that France provided MILAN anti-tank guided missile systems and CAESAR artillery howitzers. (See media.) Media reported that Slovenia would deliver T-42 tanks to Ukraine in exchange for Germany to give Slovenia Marder and Fuchs tanks. (See media.) 

On Thursday, April 21, the United States authorized another $800 million in security assistance, including seventy-two (72) 155mm Howitzers and 144,000 artillery rounds. This brings US military assistance to Ukraine to more than $4 bllion, $3.4 billion of which has been committed since the invasion. (See official release.)

On Wednesday, April 20, Norway announced it would donate 100 Mistral air defense missiles (See official story.)

On Wednesday, April 13, the United States authorized an additional $800 million in security assistance to Ukraine. This brings US military assistance to Ukraine to more than $3 billion. (See official press statement and release.) 

On Friday, April 8, Slovakia announced that is has provided Ukraine with its S-300 air defense system after preliminary agreeing to do so if a replacement system was secured. (See media and Prime Minister of Slovakia tweet.) The United Kingdom announced an additional £100 million in aid to include more than 800 NLAW anti-tank missiles, Javelin anti-tank systems, loitering munitions, Starstreak air defence systems, and additional non-lethal aid. (See official news story.)

On Tuesday, April 5, the Czech Republic became the first country to send tanks to Ukraine, including T-72 tanks and armored personnel carriers. (See media.) The United States announced an additional $100 million for anti-armor systems to Ukraine. This additional security assistance under the Biden administration brings the U.S. security commitment to Ukraine to more than $2.4 billion. (See official press statement.) 

On Friday, April 1, the DoD announced it will provide up to $300 million in security assistance to Ukraine, including Laser-guided rocket systems, Switchblade, Puma, and Counter-Unmannered Aerial systems, and more capabilities. (See release.)
Media reported that the United States would facilitate the transfer of Soviet-made tanks to Ukraine, as an intermediary for unnamed countries. Germany also approved the sale of dozens of infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) formerly belonging to East Germany to Ukraine, according to media.

March

On Thursday, March 31, the Norwegian government announced its delivery of 2,000 M72 light anti-armor weapons to Ukraine following an earlier shipment of the same weapons. (See official website.)

On Wednesday, March 30, President Biden informed President Zelenskyy of the United States‘ intent to provide $500 million in direct budgetary aid that media reported the Ukrainian government could use for military purposes. (See official readout). In an interview with NPR, Sen. Bob Casey revealed that “another 2,000 [Javelins] are on the way” to Ukraine along with 800 Stingers; this follows an earlier delivery of 2,600 Javelin and 600 Stinger missiles. 

On Saturday, March 26, the United States announced its intent to provide $100 million in civilian security assistance, including armored vehicles and field gear. (See official press release.)

On Thursday, March 24, Boris Johnson announced the United Kingdom will provide a package of 6,000 missiles, including anti-tank and high explosive weapons, and £25 million in financial backing for the Ukrainian military. (See official press release.) Sweden also announced it will send an additional shipment of 5,000 AT4 anti-tank weapons. (See local media.)

On Thursday, March 17, in a joint news conference with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Slovakia Minister of Defense Jaroslav Nad’, the Minister preliminarily agreed to send S-300 strategic air defense systems to Ukraine on the condition Western allies provide Slovakia with a “proper replacement” to avoid a “security gap” within NATO. (See joint news conference video.)

On Wednesday, March 16, following an address by Ukraine’s president to the United States Congress, President Biden promised $800 million in additional weapons, including 800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems; 2,000 Javelin, 1,000 light anti-armor weapons, and 6,000 AT-4 anti-armor systems, as well as restated previously supplied five Mi-17 helicopters and 70 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs). (White House factsheet). Media indicated that the transfers would also include Switchblade drones.
​
On Monday, March 14, Irish Minister for Defence Simon Coveney approved to provide 10 tonnes of ready-to-eat meals (MRE), 200 units of body armor, medical supplies, fuel, and other non-lethal aid in line with Ireland’s policy of military non-alignment. (See official press release and local media.)

On Saturday, March 12, the United States approved another $200 million in arms transfers, reported to include Javelin antitank missiles and Stinger antiaircraft missiles. (White House notification and media.)

On Wednesday, March 9, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said the United States will not send fighter jets to Ukraine.

On Tuesday, March 8, Poland offered to donate its MiG jets to the United States, for it to transfer them to Ukraine. (Poland’s official website and media). Feasibility and timing of this plan unclear, with indications that the Pentagon did not see as feasible (Pentagon statement). Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Hayashi Yoshimasa, signed a grant to provide Ukraine with bulletproof vests, helmets, and other non-lethal military aid. (See official press release.)

On Monday, March 7, U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to President Biden encouraging the United States to facilitate European countries transferring fighter aircraft to Ukraine. (A day earlier, U.S. officials indicated their support for Poland to do so, according to media interviews.)

On March 6, Antony Blinken stated that the United States has given “the green light” to Poland to send fighter jets to Ukraine, according to a media interview. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that discussions regarding the possibility of the United States providing fighter jets to Poland and other NATO allies are still ongoing, according to media. 

On Saturday, March 5, Ukraine’s President Zelinsky met with member of the U.S. Congress via Zoom and asked for additional fighter jets and a no-fly zone, according to media.

On March 3, according to media, Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren said the Netherlands will no longer publicly share specific details about arms deliveries to Ukraine. The United Kingdom’s House of Commons Library published a reportdetailing military assistance to Ukraine from many countries. Canada announced its intent to provide 4500 M72 rocket launchers and up to 7500 hand grenades, as well as $1 million dollars for the purchase of commercial satellite high resolution and modern imagery, according to an official news release. The Czech Republic also authorized the transfer of 20 light machine guns, 132 assault rifles, 70 submachine guns, 108,000 bullets, 1,000 tactical gloves, all worth 17 million crowns ($756,084) (see resolution 160 on the Czech Government website). 

On March 2, Ukraine’s Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov posted on Facebook that “New bayraktars have already arrived in Ukraine and are on combat duty. There will be more stingers and javelins.” Spain also announced it will send a shipment of 1,370 anti-tank grenade launchers, 700,000 rifle and machine-gun rounds, and light machine guns directly to Ukraine (see media.)

On March 1, Australia said “it will provide around $70 million in lethal military assistance to support the defence of Ukraine, including missiles and weapons.” (Approx $50 million, see official press release, and related media.) New statements from multiple officials drew into question whether EU countries will be providing fighter jets to Ukraine. (See NATO/Poland statement, and media reporting.) At a House Armed Services Committee hearing in the United States, officials confirmed that Stinger missiles and many other U.S. weapons had been delivered since September (see video, approx 41 minute mark). In early March, Ukraine also received a shipment of Turkish-made Bakar Bayraktar TB2 armed drones according to a Facebook post made by Ukraine’s Minster of Defense. 

February

On February 28, Finland said it would deliver 2,500 assault rifles, 150,000 cartridges for the attack rifles, 1,500 single-shot anti-tank weapons and 70,000 combat ration packages. (Ministry of Defense press release.) Norway decided to donate up to 2,000 M72 anti-tank weapons. (Government press release.) Media reported that the Italian cabinet recommended the transfer of military equipment to Ukraine, pending Parliamentary approval, reported to include Stinger surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank weapons, heavy machine guns, MG-type light machine guns and counter-IED systems. Croatia will send rifles and machine guns, plus protective equipment sufficient for four brigades valued at 124 million kuna (€16.5 million), said Defence Minister Mario Banožić. (Government tweet, see also media.) Canada committed another 25 million in undefined military aid ($20 million USD, Canadian government.) Deputy Prime Minister François Bausch also announced Luxembourg will provide Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal equipment including 100 NLAW (Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon), Jeep Wrangler 4×4 vehicles, 15 military tents, as well as logistical and financial support. (See official press release.) The North Macedoniangovernment also announced its decision to donate unspecified military equipment to Ukraine (see media).

On Sunday, February 27, the European Union said it would “purchase and delivery” weapons to Ukraine. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said this will be done via the European Peace Facility for € 500 million and include “…arms and even fighter jets. We are not talking just about ammunition; we are providing the most important arms to go to war. Minister Kuleba has been asking us that they need the type of fighter jets that the Ukrainian army is able to operate. We know what kind of planes and some Member States have these kinds of planes.”  (EU statements and transcripts.) According to media reports, Belgium‘s Prime Minister Alexander De Croo indicated it would send an additional 3,000 automatic rifles and 200 anti-tank weapons (on top of 2000 machine guns announced a day earlier). According to media, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen announced that Denmark will donate 2,700 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. It will also return parts for 300 Stinger missiles to the United States for possible future donation to Ukraine (see additional media). Sweden‘s Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said her country will send 5,000 anti-tank weapons, helmets and body shields, plus 135,000 field rations. (See official government tweet and other media.) Norway decided to send 1,500 bulletproof vests, 5,000 helmets and other equipment (which appears to have been delivered February 28, Government press release, media.)The government of Greece delivered portable rocket launchers, ammunition, and Kalashnikov rifles according to local media. (See Minister of Defence tweet). According to local media, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic Petr Fiala announced an additional 400 million koruna ($18.23 million) of “not light weapons” including 160 shoulder-fired MANPADS systems (probably 9K32 Strela-2) with equipment (total price 38.5 million crows), and the rest is unknown (see Prime Minister’s tweet and resolution 137 on the Czech Government website); this follows an earlier shipment of 4,000 mortars, 30,000 pistols, 7,000 assault rifles, 3,000 machine guns, a number of sniper rifles, and one million bullets worth 188 million koruna ($8.6 million). In addition, the Spanish government has sent 20 tons of medical supplies, defensive, and personal protective equipment composing of helmets, flak jackets, and NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) protection waistcoats to a Polish airport close to the Ukrainian border. (See official Spanish government website and tweet.) In a tweet, Portugal said it would provide “military equipment such as vests, helmets, night vision goggles, grenades and ammunition, portable radios, analogue repeaters, and G3 automatic rifles, as well as hospital support” (see also media). In a press statement, Government spokesperson Dan Cărbunaru announced that Romania would send €3 million consisting of fuel, bulletproof vests, helmets, ammunition, military equipment, and medical treatment. 

On Saturday, February 26, Germany indicated it would send lethal military aid to Ukraine. This includes 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger anti-aircraft defense systems; plus permission from Germany for the Netherlands to send 400 rocket-propelled grenade launchers and Estonia nine howitzers. (See official tweet, and media reports.) Separately, it was announced that the Netherlands agreed to send 200 Stinger missiles, and 50 Panzerfaust 3 anti-tank weapons (see media, official letter). In a tweet, Belgium‘s Prime Minister said his country would supply 2000 machines guns. According to mediareports, France’s President Emmanuel Macron indicated that his country would “deliver additional defense equipment to the Ukrainian authorities as well as fuel support” without given specific weapon details. Denmark‘s armed forces indicated that trucks had left the day prior to deliver 2000 protective vests and related equipment.

On Friday, February 25, U.S. President Joe Biden authorized $350 million in security assistance for Ukraine. (White House memorandum.) A press statement from Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on February 26 indicated “This brings the total security assistance the United States has committed to Ukraine over the past year to more than $1 billion.” A Department of Defense statement indicated it would include “anti-armor, small arms and various munitions, body armor, and related equipment in support of Ukraine’s front-line defenders facing down Russia’s unprovoked attack.” Media later reported this will also include Stinger anti-aricraft missiles.

On Thursday, February 24, Russia launched an invasion of Ukraine, which it called a “special military operation.”

On Wednesday, February 23, a second shipment of Canadian military aid was received in Ukraine.

On Tuesday, February 22, Latvia was scheduled to deliver Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine after a Latvian foreign ministry spokesperson informed Reuters the evening of Monday February 21. Media reported that Belgium had thus far refused requests for helmets and other supplies.

On Monday, February 21, Defence Minister Matej Tonin revealed that Slovenia had delivered an undisclosed amount of Kalashnikov rifles, helmets, and ammunition to Ukraine, according to local media.

On February 18, the Republic of Estonia delivered Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. (Republic of Estonia’s Ministry of Defence) The Netherlands announced a plan to provide “3000 combat helmets and 2000 fragmentation vests with accompanying armor plates, thirty metal detectors and two wire-guided detection robots for (sea) mine detection, two battlefield surveillance radars and five weapon location radars, and one hundred sniper rifles with 30,000 pieces of ammunition.”

On Monday, February 14, Prime Minister Trudeau announced that Canadian officials had authorized $7.8-million worth of arms transfers, described as “lethal equipment and ammunition” to Ukraine. The transfers were to include “machine guns, pistols, carbines, 1.5 million rounds of ammunition, sniper rifles, and various related equipment.” (Canadian Ministry of Defense. See additional reporting.)

On February 12 and 13, Lithuania delivered Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems and ammunition to Ukraine as part of its continuing military assistance. (Ukrainian Ministry of Defence)

Image: Bayraktar TB2 Runway (Photo by Bayhaluk, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

In early February, Turkey and Ukraine agreed to coproduce Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones. Ukrainian Defence Minister Olesii Reznikov informed reporters in Kyiv that Ukrainian pilots would be trained in the coproduction compound. This agreement follows sales of these drones to Ukraine in 2019, which Ukraine has deployed in Donbas in recent months.

On February 1, Poland approved the delivery of Piorun (Thunderbolt) short-range, man-portable air defense (MANPAD) systems and munition; Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki stated that Poland is ready to supply “several dozen thousand rounds of ammunition and artillery ammunition, air defense systems, and also light mortars and reconnaissance drones.” (See media.) Poland has functioned as a logistical hub for countries sending military aid and equipment from sending countries and dispatching them to Ukraine.

January

On January 26, Canada announced it would transfer non-lethal military aid to Ukraine. (Canadian Ministry of Defense)

On January 20, the United States State Department issued a revised factsheet on security assistance to Ukraine; as the United States also directly delivered military assistance to the country. This included some of a $200 million in Department of Defense stocks, a drawdown that was authorized in December 2021. The factsheet detailed that since 2014, the United States had provided $2.7 billion in training and equipment, and particularly highlighted “the 2018 sale of 210 Javelin anti-armor missiles, which has provided Ukraine with a critical anti-armor capability; the 2019 sale of 150 additional Javelins; and the 2020 Mark VI patrol boats sale” (see notifications). The U.S. also permitted U.S.-origin equipment to be transferred from regional allies. 

In January, Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht claimed Germany wants to “de-escalate” the crisis and will not supply weapons to Ukraine, but will instead co-finance 5.3 million euros for a military field hospital. In cooperation with Germany, Estonian Defence Forces were organizing a 13-day training course for Ukrainian military medical instructors provided by the Estonian company Semetron. (Embassy of Estonia in Kyiv)

In mid-January, the United Kingdom supplied 2,000 short-range and anti-tank missiles, Saxon armored vehicles, as well as British specialists to deliver training in Ukraine.

2021

December 

In December 2021, Lithuania sent its first delivery of military aid composed of bulletproof vests and ballistic belts to Ukraine since the beginning of the crisis. 

*

Civil Society ​

• “Ukraine War and Disarmament Resources,” Humanitarian Disarmament, 2022. 
• Landmines and Cluster Munitions
  • “Background Briefing on Landmine Use in Ukraine,” June 15, 2022.
  • “Ukraine: Russia Uses Banned Antipersonnel Landmines,” Human Rights Watch, March 29, 2022.
  • “Backgrounder: Enhanced Blast Weapons in Ukraine,” Human Rights Watch, March 7, 2022.
• Stimson Center
  • “Drone Warfare in Ukraine: Understanding the Landscape,” Stimson Center, June 30 2022.
  • “HIMARS Marks Evolution in US Weapons Transfers to Ukraine,” Stimson Center, June 2, 2022.
  •  “Under Caution: Assessing Arms Transfer Risk in Ukraine,” Stimson Center, March 7, 2022.
  • “U.S. Military Assistance to Ukraine,” Stimson Center, January 26, 2022.
• “Guns in Ukraine,” Gunpolicy.org. 
• “Chronicles of War: Lethal military assistance to Ukraine — Reviewing the lethality of military assistance pledged to Ukraine between February and May 2022,” SecDev, June 15, 2022.
• “Ukraine: Russian Strikes Killed Scores of Civilians in Chernihiv — Both Sides Obligated to Minimize Civilian Harm,” Human Rights Watch, June 10, 2022.
• “Canadian military aid to Ukraine in 2022,” Project Ploughshares, March 21, 2022. 
• International coalition and broad civil society statements:
  • Statement to UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) by 108 organizations, March 1, 2022
  • “Statement on the Armed Conflict in Ukraine,” Control Arms, February 25, 2022.
  • “Ukraine: Use of explosive weapons will be disastrous for civilians,” International Network on Explosive Weapons, February 24, 2022.
• Jordan Cohen, “Sending Weapons to Ukraine Could Have Unintended Consequences,” Inkstick, March 1, 2022.
• “Ukraine: Russia Shift in Warfare Tactics Is Resulting in Mass Civilian Casualties,” Center for Civilians in Conflict, March 9, 2022.
• “What is a thermobaric bomb,” Action on Armed Violence, March 1, 2022.
• Statement, “On Canada’s Provision of Arms to Ukraine,” Project Ploughshares, February 15, 2022.
• Profile of German exports to Ukraine, BICC. 
• “De-escalate, no arms to Ukraine,” Stop Wapenhandel, January 25, 2022. 
• “What do the shares of arms companies predict about the crisis in Ukraine,” Stop Wapenhandel, February 15, 2022. 
• Via Conflict Armament Research:
  • “Weapons of the War in Ukraine: A three-year investigation of weapon supplies into Donetsk and Luhansk,” November 2021
  • Ukraine data analyzer​ 

Select Media Articles

• “Exclusive: U.S. and Ukraine discuss danger of escalation as new arms extend Kyiv’s reach,” Reuters, May 26, 2022.
• “Full list of US & European weapons and military equipment delivered to Ukraine,” Army Recognition, May 19, 2022.
• “Flood of weapons to Ukraine raises fear of arms smuggling,” Washington Post, May 14, 2022.
• “Allies Step Up Military Support for Ukraine,”Arms Control Today, May 2022.
• “The weapons and military aid the world is giving Ukraine,” Politico, March 22, 2022. 
• “Weapons of the war in Ukraine,” Reuters-Graphics, March 10, 2022. 
• “Arming Ukraine: 17,000 Anti-Tank Weapons in 6 Days and a Clandestine Cybercorps,” New York Times, March 6, 2022.
• “Can Ukraine Really Use Donated Fighter Jets? That Depends,” Defense One, February 27, 2022.
• “Germany to send Ukraine weapons in historic shift on military aid,” Politico, February 26, 2022.
• “Biden Administration Debates Legality of Arming Ukrainian Resistance,” Foreign Policy, February 25, 2022.
• “Ukraine declares state of emergency, summons citizens home from Russia,” Reuters, February 23, 2022. 
• “U.S. Arms Sent to Ukraine Would Blunt but Not Stop a Russian Invasion,” New York Times, February 15, 2022. ​

Additional Data

TIV (Trend Indicator Value) of major arms exports to Ukraine (2016-2021), from SIPRI database. See file (overview) and trade register of specific items transferred.

*

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.

Note

[1] this list is primarily meant to indicate lethal weapons, but does include some non-lethal weapons (non-comprehensively)

Featured image is from Forum on the Arms Trade

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.

***

Thousands of Iraqis flooded the streets on Friday demanding a political overhaul.  In scenes reminiscent of similar past protests in Lebanon, the Iraqi people are frustrated by the endemic corruption of political leaders.  This anti-government protest began in October 2019 and has remained a constant source of unrest in Iraq.  As in Lebanon, the corrupted ruling elite failed to form a government, which left the country in stagnation, and the people’s feelings on the boiling point.

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Rafid Sadeq, well known Iraqi journalist and political talk show host, to get to the back story of the current crisis and its implications for the Middle East.

Steven Sahiounie (SS):   There have been massive protests in the streets of Iraq and political tension. In your opinion, what is the cause of this political tension? Is it really over corruption, or is it foreign intervention?

Rafid Sadeq (RS):  It’s not possible to limit the developments to the current protests that Iraq is witnessing; rather, it is necessary to return to what happened in 2019, when October protests erupted calling for comprehensive political reform. Back then, the events came to an end with calls for holding early elections and forming a new government after Abdul-Mahdi resigns.

Following that, the results of the elections came in a way that confused the balance. The law came in favor of some political powers, whereas it disadvantaged others. However, these forces that consider themselves to be unprivileged due to the nature of the law have a political and social influence. Therefore, the political situation became confused; influential forces were underrepresented while politically and socially uninfluential forces became the representative.

Winning the elections in our country is not sufficient; one needs to have a political heritage and social influence that come in support of the winner’s votes numbers.

Protests were divided one time in favor of this and another for that and each calls for fighting corruption and system reform… All parties had enough corruption suspicions. The loudest anti-corruption shouts may be the most complicit ones, where they are loud to cover the embroilment. Unless we return to true representativeness and political balance, we will not witness stability in Iraq.

SS:  The political parties in Iraq are talking about new elections and a new constitution.  In your opinion, will this solve the problem?

RS:  Elections, on their terms and conditions, are a fair law that achieves good representation for all arenas and forces, an independent commission, a new government represented with full legitimacy, without compromise and not a caretaking one, and then the Parliament is dissolved.

As for the constitution, it is circumstances-oriented where it was written in circumstances that don’t belong to the current ones neither in terms of time nor of generation. Iraq has a youthful community, most of it born after 2003, which means that the existing people didn’t participate in the process of drawing up the constitution or voting for it, which constitutes a problem. Amending some of the constitution articles such as the ones on treasury and deciding on the largest bloc may denote an introduction to larger reforms that may touch on the form of the political system, to say the least.

SS:  The United States and Iran are getting ready to sign a new nuclear deal. This could mean the tension between Washington and Tehran will decrease.  In your opinion, will this new relationship between the US and Iran help Iraq and the Iraqis?

RS:  One of the most important problems of the regions was overthrowing Saddam’s regime without looking for an alternative one. Parallel to that, Iran’s nuclear program came to light to confuse the region’s balances i.e., Iran picked the right time for that.

In Iraq, attention was paid to the importance of a US-Iran dialogue to divide the spheres of influence restoring Iran to a normal state.

Iraq has 1300km of land borders with Iran and it Affects and is being affected by the Iranian situation. Moreover, settling the nuclear file would leave a positive effect on everyone’s interests. I think that the region’s states are now convinced that the agreement is about to be reached, evidence that the gulf ambassadors to Iran have been reinstated.

SS:  The Syrians accuse the US of stealing oil and transporting it in tankers to Iraq. What has the Baghdad government said about this?

RS:  In this region, oil wells comply with the communicating vessels principle. That is, the upper pour on the lower. Contrariwise, Iraq suffers from oil products being smuggled into Syria to take advantage of the price differences.

As for the crude oil, both Iraqi and Syrian crudes find their way to Turkey, which is a well-known fact confirmed by international reports and even in the statements and data of the leaders of some states.

I think that the USA wants to control the oil and deprive Damascus of an important economic resource.

SS:  President Al-Kadhimi had tried to improve the relationship between Tehran and Riyadh. What is the status on that effort?

Al-Kadhimi is trying to play a balanced role between Tehran and Riyadh and it seems that he was largely successful in this mission.

This mission began when Al-Kadhimi was the head of the security service and I think that al-Abadi and Abdul-Mahdi also paved the way for that.

Iraq’s position towards the parties is neutral and every success in the fence-mending mission is to a high extent related to the desire of the converging parties.

SS:  Moktada Al-Sadr announced that has resigned political life for life.  In your opinion why did he resign and was he under foreign pressure.

RS:  Al-Sadr resigned because of the statement of the religious authority, Al-Haeri. Here, it is a must to define the nature of the relationship between the religious authority and the political party. No Islamic party is authorized to be engaged in politics without permission from an all-inclusive religious authority. However, I don’t think that it’s Al-Sadr’s end as he is politically and socially influential. I think he will seek new authorization from a religious authority in Qom or Najaf or will have a special independent opinion.

*

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.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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.

***

Russian Presidential Special Representative for Middle East and Africa, Mikhail Bogdanov, in an April interview to Interfax news agency, offered an insight into aspects of Russia’s policy objectives, initiatives and future prospects in Africa. He highlighted a few obstacles for Russia’s inability to realize its set goals and tasks during the past several years. What is spectacularly interesting in the interview text concerns Soviet and Russian education for Africans.

Bogdanov authoritatively told the interviewer, Ksenia Baygarova, that Africa has always been an important region from the point of view of foreign policy of the Russian Federation. “This cooperation is very multidimensional. For instance, how many Africans have studied at our universities? Back at the end of 1950s-1960s, the Soviet Union played the most important historical role for African peoples in getting their statehood and independence during their fight against colonial rule. Of course, these historical ties give a solid basis for cordial relationships. Many generations of politicians and diplomats have changed but it is good that continuity and solidarity between our country and Africa has been upheld,” he narrated about the past historical records.

Understandably, now is the time to restore Russia-African ties after a pause linked to domestic problems in the country. The collapse of the Soviet Union pushed cooperation with Africa into the background. “Some of our embassies in African countries were closed. Regrettably, much has been lost over this period, and as they say, nature abhors a vacuum. Others, western countries, China, Turkey, and India, filled the vacuum that emerged after our ‘retreat’ from Africa,” he convincingly explained.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs website indicates that during the past years, there have been several top-level bilateral meetings, signing of MoUs and bilateral agreements. In November 2021, a policy document titled the ‘Situation Analytical Report’ presented at the premises of TASS News Agency was very critical about Russia’s current policy towards Africa.

While the number of high-level meetings has increased, the share of substantive issues and definitive results on the agenda remains small. Apart from the absence of a public strategy for the continent, there is the lack of coordination among various state and para-state institutions working with Africa.

Russia grossly lacks public outreach policies that could help form good perception and build image especially among the youth and the middle-class that form the bulk of Africa’s 1.3 billion population.

Researchers have been making tangible contributions to the development of African studies in Russia. The Moscow-based Africa Studies Institute has a huge pack of research materials useful for designing an African agenda. In an interview, Professor Vladimir Shubin at the Institute for African Studies under the Russian Academy of Sciences reiterated that Russia is not doing enough to communicate to the broad sectors of the public, particularly in Africa, true information about its domestic and foreign policies as well as the accomplishments of Russia’s economy, science and technology to form a positive perception of Russia within the context of the current global changes of the 21st century.

Under the geopolitical changes and circumstances, Russia would have to open-up more especially working with strategically chosen social groups and business associations in Africa. China has such a strategy and resultantly has excellent footprints. While Deputy Minister Mikhail Bogdanov is still talking about Soviet Union education in 1950s-1960s, China’s current focus is on different forms of education, ranging from short-term, requalification courses and academic fellowships to the regular intake of African students.

With far-sightedness and long-term strategy, Beijing is very desirous to win the hearts and minds of Africa’s future leaders and influencers by offering them educational opportunities in China. It is investing and exercising soft power in the education sector, and it is reported that China provided 12,000 scholarships to African students in 2021, despite the Covid-19 pandemic. 

China has been training African civil servants and runs the Confucius Institute in some 20 African countries. It recently opened the first Party School and admitted the first batch of 120 participants from African ruling parties at the US$40 million facility in Tanzania funded by the Chinese Communist Party. There is now a total of 81,562 African students this 2022/23 academic year in China, according to the Chinese Ministry of Education.

The data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics shows that Asian countries have become the second most popular destination for African students studying abroad with China being number one followed by the likes of India, Japan, Korea, and Israel, among others. Judging from our monitoring and research, India has also taken steps aimed at building a more practical partnership in a number of spheres in the continent. New Delhi has a new set of opportunities in human resources development, information technology and education. 

While Indian companies rely more on African talent, they do capacity building of the local population. The India diaspora plays its own bridging role between India and Africa. India offers many academic fellowship and internship opportunities for young Africans.

The United States and European countries train thousands yearly, ranging from short-term courses to long-term academic disciplines. During the tenure of Barak Obama, the White House created the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI). It brings 500 Africans to the White House in Washington and runs various academic and training programmes for Africans. Before the Covid-19, The Times Higher Education index indicated that approximately 43,000 Africans enrolled into American universities. Many African universities and institutes jointly run programes, including fellowships, together with Westerners and Europeans. Compare this with Russia’s annual scholarship of about 1,800.

In August 2022, the EU offered postgraduate scholarships to over 200 young Nigerians in top European universities. France, a member of the European Union, is collaborating with French-speaking African countries to offer an intensive orientation and educational training for 10,000 French teachers in Africa. Besides training French teachers, it has regular students’ intake from Africa. France, like any other foreign player, has been looking for effective ways of improving its public diplomacy especially in French-speaking African countries. 

From the Arab world and Gulf region, Turkey has been making inroads into Africa. It has shifted direction and now pursues a more diversified, multidimensional foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Turkey was accorded an observer status by the African Union. In a reciprocal move, the AU declared Turkey its strategic partner in 2008, and since then relations between Africa and Turkey is still gaining momentum. It trains more and more agricultural specialists for Africa.

In 2009, there were only 12 Turkish embassies in African countries, with five of them in North Africa. Now, there are 43. With tourism promotion at the hotspot, Turkish Airlines has flights to 60 different destinations in 39 countries on the continent while the Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) has nearly 30 coordination centers throughout Africa. 

Arguably, the Presidential Special Representative for Middle East and Africa, Mikhail Bogdanov, most probably understands all this when he said in his Interfax interview that other foreign players are active and operating in Africa. Statistics on African students are, in fact, still staggering. Russia’s Ministry of Science and Higher Education, citing confidentiality, declined to give the current figure for Africa.

For the coming years, Russia needs a model template of social policy for Africa. With the emerging new world order which invariably incorporates in its fold education and cultural influence – the importance soft power – for making alliances and inroads, networking and collaborating with institutions, in Africa. Chairman of the State Duma, Viacheslav Volodin, is convinced that cultural and educational cooperation could be equally important areas needed to be developed and intensified in Russia-African relations.

Professor Vladimir Filippov, former Rector of the Russian University of People’s Friendship (RUDN), popularly referred to as Patrice Lumumba Friendship University, has underscored the fact that social attitudes toward foreigners first have to change positively, the need to create a multicultural learning environment, then the need to expand educational and scientific ties between Russia and Africa. Established in 1960 to provide higher education to Third World students, it later became an integral part of the Soviet cultural offensive in non-aligned countries. His university has gained international popularity as an educational institution located in southwest Moscow.

“The present and the future of Russia-Africa relations is not about charity, it’s about co-development,” states Evgeny Primakov, Head of the Russian Federal Agency for International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo) and member of the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum. The Secretariat has, under its aegis, three coordination councils namely business, public and scientific councils. Primakov heads the humanitarian council that deals with education and humanitarian questions for the Foreign Ministry. Primakov underlines that the number of Russian state scholarships for African citizens – for the whole continent made up of 54 African countries – has increased from 1765 in 2019 to 1843 in 2020.

The Russian system of higher education needs to adapt to the new realities, to gain more value on the international market especially for Africa’s middle class whose kids could study on contracts in the Russian Federation. This is strictly not humanitarian aid as perceived by Mikhail Bogdanov and Evgeny Primakov.

Similarly at the Valdai Discussion Club, academic researchers from the Institute for African Studies and policy observers held discussions on current Russia’s policy, emerging opportunities and possibilities for partnerships in Africa. Quite interestingly, majority of them acknowledged the need for Russia to be more prominent as it should be and work more consistently to achieve its strategic goals on the continent.

While Russia claims to have trained thousands of Africans from 1950s and 1960s as emphatically explained by Deputy Minister Bogdanov, the African youth and the middle class, African NGOs and the civil society, are remote in Russia’s policy towards Africa.

Gordey Yastrebov, a Postdoctoral Researcher and Lecturer at the Institute for Sociology and Social Psychology at the University of Cologne (Germany), argues in an email interview discussion that “education can be a tool for geopolitical influence in general, and for changing perceptions specifically, and Russia (just like any other country) could use it for that same purpose. However, Russia isn’t doing anything substantial on this front, at least there is no consistent effort with obvious outcomes that would make me think so. There are no large-scale investment programmes in education focusing on this.” 

Western educational and scientific paradigm embraces cooperation and critical independent thinking, whereas this is not the case with the Russian paradigm, which is becoming more isolationist and authoritarian. Obviously by now, Africa should look up to more successful examples elsewhere, perhaps in the United States and Europe.

Professor Natalia Vlasova, Deputy Rector at the Department of International Relations and Cooperation of the Ural State University of Economics (USUE) in Yekaterinburg, explains that many African countries are developing rapidly. The African elites and the growing middle-class are great potentials for sponsoring their children’s education abroad. She explains the necessity to develop bilateral ties not only in the economic sphere but also in education and culture, promote exchange of people and ideas in the social sphere. 

She concludes: “In times of Soviet Union, African countries were strategic partners, and now we should reactivate these relations because in the nearest future they will have big economic and political power. This could, indeed, be a huge market and has potential basis for future diversified business.”

Sergey Lavrov and Mikhail Bogdanov at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and top officials at the Ministry of Higher Education and related agencies have to work more on opportunities and diverse ways to increase the number of students, especially tuition paying agreements for children of the growing elite families and middle-class from African countries. It has to review its cultural component in its current foreign policy, undoubtedly, be directed at strengthening relations. It is certainly true that western and European system classically appeal more to Africans. If Russia’s ultimate interest is to lead a fairer and more stable global system, then it is necessary to share these interests through educational sphere in sub-Saharan Africa.

Rossiyskaya Gazeta, a widely circulated Russian daily newspaper, also reports that Russia has to focus on the young population from developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. It has to target the elite and middle class in these markets for the export of education which has great potential. The paper notes that Africa’s fast-growing population is a huge potential market for knowledge transfer and export education. 

Beyond all these trends in the Russia-African relations discussed above, it is necessary here to recall that President Vladimir Putin particularly notes the good dynamics of specialist training and education in Russian educational institutions for African countries. Putin, however, suggests that Russian and African participants should map out broad initiatives in the sphere of education and culture.

*

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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a regular contributor to Global Research. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

Featured image is from the author

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.

***

The self-sustaining cycle of socio-economic and political unrest triggered by European leaders complying with the US’ demands to promulgate counterproductive policies is expected to continue for the indefinite future.

A large-scale protest took place in the Czech capital of Prague on Saturday involving an estimated 70,000-100,000 people who came out en masse to peacefully raise maximum awareness of their government’s policies that have drastically worsened their living standards over the past half-year. Instead of acknowledging their legal dissent despite disagreeing with the causes behind their socio-economic suffering, Prime Minister Petr Fiala attempted to discredit the protest by falsely claiming that it “was called by forces that are pro-Russian”, adding that “It is clear that Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns are present on our territory and some people simply listen to them.”

His reaction appears to have been influenced by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s latest remark completely discrediting the entire concept of Western Democracy after she insisted that her government will cling to its illegal anti-Russian sanctions policy despite it being directly responsible for her people’s socio-economic suffering. Like her, Fiala also refuses to change course, let alone recognize that his government’s same policy is responsible for triggering the same reaction from his people as Baerbock’s has already triggered from her own. The identical nature of these neighboring governments’ policies and their responses to the popular discontent that they provoked exposes a large trend.

To elaborate, the European elite were ordered by their American patrons into promulgating counterproductive policies that tanked their economies and provoked political unrest, both consequences of which have absolutely nothing to do with so-called “Russian propaganda” and everything to do with the US’ meddling in their sovereign affairs. Had these politicians retained even a semblance of policymaking independence, then they’d have at least countenanced the benefits inherent in acknowledging their people’s peacefully expressed and legitimate frustrations along with possibly scaling back some of these same counterproductive policies for politically self-serving reasons.

Instead, these same leaders are clinging to the policies that are responsible for destabilizing their countries by none other than their own hand for reasons that are clearly connected to the debts that they owe their American patrons for putting them in power in the first place. It’s one thing to be thrown out of office after the next election, exactly as President Putin predicted in mid-June during the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) could very well happen across the entirety of the EU in the coming future in order to bring about what he described as “a change in elites” (which is a clever play on the US’ policy of regime change), and another entirely to be taken out by the US as revenge.

Source: OneWorld

By “taken out”, what’s being implied here isn’t just that American intelligence could orchestrate the sequence of political events leading to their replacement by a more pliable puppet, but perhaps even advancing the worst-case scenario that could remove the targeted politican for good. It’s with these fears in mind, the credibility of which is unquestionable considering the CIA’s track record over the decades, that politicians like Baerbock and Fiala continue clinging to their counterproductive policies in spite of them having totally destabilized their own countries. Attempting to blame everything on so-called “Russian propaganda” will only provoke their people even more.

The EU’s censorship of publicly financed Russian international media flagships RT and Sputnik means that neither of them (which are just publicly financed and not “state-controlled” unlike the BBC and their other Western analogues) has any realistic chance of influencing Czechs, Germans, or the bloc’s many other people into protesting against their governments even if they tried (which hasn’t happened nor will it). Their citizens know this too, hence why their authorities’ false claims are rightly interpreted as insults to their intelligence and desperate smears to discredit their genuinely grassroots and purely peaceful expression of their constitutionally enshrined political rights, thus provoking more protests.

The self-sustaining cycle of socio-economic and political unrest triggered by European leaders complying with the US’ demands to promulgate counterproductive policies is expected to continue for the indefinite future. The end result is that the EU will continue being destabilized per America’s Machiavellian grand strategy of weaponizing chaos in an attempt to create opportunities that it can consequently exploit in order to indefinitely prolong the decline of its unipolar hegemony. Millions of people will suffer, US influence will surge throughout the bloc, and Europe will never be able to collectively compete with America again.

*

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 OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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.

***

European solidarity continues cracking amid growing protests in different corners of the EU, with citizens angry at the collective policy of “standing up to Russia” in support of Ukraine at all costs. For example, Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock days ago openly expressed that she’s committed to support Ukraine “no matter what German voters think.”

But elsewhere, Italy’s League party leader Matteo Salvini, (which the mainstream media consistently dubs as “far-right wing” – though he would describe his party as the government of “good sense”) on Sunday broke ranks with other European leaders who have lately seemed to echo some form of this ‘Ukraine first’ policy.

On Sunday Salvini urged an end to Russia energy sanctions which are only leaving Europeans “on their knees” due to higher energy bills and lack of supply. “Several months have passed and people are paying two, three, even four times more for their bills,” he said in an interview RTL radio. “And after seven months, the war continues and Russian Federation coffers are filling with money.”

He explained that not only are the sanctions not working, but they hit Italy harder. While saying he stands in solidarity with Ukraine, he’s not willing to stick with something obviously counterproductive where the blowback is felt more in Europe, Italy in particular with its soaring energy import prices, and not the intended target of the Putin government.

This was the same message he issued to a gathering of Italy’s political leaders on Lake Como, where he stressed that Russia’s export surplus of $140 billion is the direct result of these backfired sanctions.

“Do we have to defend Ukraine? Yes,” Salvini said. “But I would not want the sanctions to harm those who impose them more than those who are hit by them.” Politico meanwhile noted his coalition is expected to win big in late September national elections:

Salvini’s remarks come just weeks before Italians head to the polls on September 25 in a national election in which a right-wing coalition that includes the League is expected to win. His comments could therefore raise concerns about the future government’s resolve against Russia among other EU politicians, especially given one of Salvini’s allies in the coalition, Brothers of Italy leader Giorgia Meloni, has vowed to stand firm with NATO on tough measures against Moscow.

Salvini called for a rethinking of current tactics, but still vowed that if in power his League party won’t stop backing Ukraine. “If we get into government will we change alliances? No. We remain deeply, proudly and firmly rooted in a free and democratic West that opposes war and aggression,” he explained. “But if we adopt an instrument to hurt the aggressor and after seven months of war it has not been hurt, at least considering a change seems legitimate to me.”

“We certainly need a European shield, like during COVID,” Salvini said of collective measures which could be more sensible in lowering energy prices and saving jobs:

“In place of sanctions, which were supposed to hurt the Russians, it would be better to protect the Italians and Europeans with a shield, a parachute,” Salvini said on the stump for the September 25 general election in the northern town of Bolzano.

“The only emergency in this moment are electricity and gas bills. It is serious that one side of politics does not understand this,” he said referring primarily to the center left. “It is a continental and national problem”.

Naturally (and just like is typical in US political discourse), the mere suggestion of backing down from any sanctions currently on the table resulted in his political opponents labeling Salvini essentially a Putin puppet.

Meanwhile, in the UK, where leaders have long demanded the population “sacrifice” for the sake of Ukraine…

#ThisMorning has turned completely dystopian and Black Mirror by offering to pay energy bills as a competition prize. pic.twitter.com/hs1DD6NXbo

— Scott Bryan (@scottygb) September 5, 2022

Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio of the Together for the Future party charged that Salvini’s comments stem ultimately from wanting to “do [Vladimir] Putin a favor.” Di Maio said in a Sunday media interview: “The issue of sanctions is very clear in the Italian right: They don’t have a line,” while at the same time Enrico Letta, the leader of the center-left Democratic Party, quipped: “I don’t think Putin could have said it better.”

But underscoring that the proverbial chickens are about to come home to roost, Reuters on Monday writes in the wake of Salvini’s warnings that “Italy’s net energy import costs are set to more than double this year to nearly 100 billion euros ($99.5 billion), the economy minister said, warning Rome could not spend indefinitely to cushion the blow on the economy.”

*

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 Zero Hedge

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.

***

Physicians in Italy studied the blood of patients who had been injected with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and found foreign matter long after vaccination, a new study shows.

The three doctors, all of whom are surgeons—Franco Giovannini, M.D., Riccardo Benzi Cipelli, M.D., and Giampaolo Pisano, M.D.—examined freshly drawn blood of more than a thousand patients using direct observation under microscopes to see what was happening in the blood.

Their results were published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research in August 2022.

For this study, the Italian doctors used optical microscopy, that is, regular light microscopes, to examine the blood. Blood cells are easily visible under a microscope. Their shape, type, and how and if they are aggregated—clumped together—can help the skilled physician better understand the patient’s health.

In their 60-page peer-reviewed study, the Italian researchers did not draw any conclusions. They just reported case studies from their observations. Although they could not explain what they observed, they noted in the study that what they saw was so strange that they felt the need to alert the medical community.

Dark-Field Microscopy

The light or optical microscope uses visible light and a series of lenses to magnify small images.

Unlike electron microscopy, light microscopy provides a direct image of what is under the lens. With light microscopy, scientists can either use a bright white background behind the cells, with the light shining from behind the slide, or they can use a dark background.

This technique, which is called dark-field or dark-ground microscopy, works by blocking the backlighting and bouncing the light around from the side in order to make the slide stand out from the dark background. Dark-field microscopy uses a special aperture to focus the light so the background stays dark. The light will not pass directly through the sample, and no staining is required, so living cells do not need to be killed to be studied. For this research, the doctors used dark-field microscopy.

Abnormal Blood

Of the 1,006 patients, 426 were men and 580 were women. One hundred and forty-one received only one dose of an mRNA vaccine, 453 got two doses, and 412 received three doses in total. The patients ranged in age from 15 to 85. The average age of the patients was 49. All 1,006 patients were seeking healthcare because they were not feeling well: presenting with a wide variety of health issues.

On average, the patients whose blood was examined had been vaccinated about one month prior.

Of the 1,006 patients, after vaccination, only about 5 percent—just 58 people—had blood that looked normal.

The doctors were able to examine the blood of 12 of the patients before they had received any vaccines. At that time, previous to being vaccinated, all 12 patients presented with normal, healthy blood, according to the researchers.

The authors did not reveal how many people were vaccinated in total, so the percentage of vaccinated people who developed abnormal blood is unknown. This is a shortcoming of their research. What is known, however, is that 94 percent of the patients surveyed in this study, who developed subsequent symptoms, had abnormal blood.

Each of the patients was being reviewed for symptoms, a wide range of which had arisen since their vaccinations.

The images are dramatic. Side-by-side pictures of a patient’s blood before and after vaccination show stark differences. Before vaccination, the red blood cells are separate from each other and are round, while the blood drawn after vaccination shows red blood cells that are deformed, and that cluster in coagulation around visible foreign matter that was not present before.

Foreign Material Aggregated in the Blood

This foreign material seemed to collect itself into structures, sometimes forming crystals and other times forming long tubes or fibers.

The foreign-body structures in the patients’ blood, which had not been there before vaccination, certainly look unusual in the photos included in the study.

The large shapes seemed to the doctors to have aggregated in the blood, and they observed shapes that suggest the way graphene can self-assemble into structures.

Graphene is a form of carbon that occurs when the atoms are arranged in hexagons, making a flat crystal, like a sheet. In this form, though the carbon is not a metal, it behaves chemically like a metallic compound.

The two shapes they noticed in the blood stream were crystal-like chunks and tube-like lengths. While the researchers could not confirm that what they saw was graphene, they pointed out that graphene can aggregate into shapes similar to those the doctors observed.

Is It Graphene?

Graphene has been used in nasal-delivery flu vaccinations, and is being developed for use in other medicines. However, it is not listed as an ingredient in any of the mRNA vaccines.

The Italian doctors did not chemically test for graphene. They only speculated that graphene may be a component of the structures. Graphene can self-assemble tiny nano-structures, making it useful for carbon nanotubes and carbon fiber. However, as the authors mentioned, graphene self-assembling into structures in the bloodstream could provide something for blood to clot on, potentially causing large-scale blood clots.

These speculations raise more questions than answers, as neither graphene nor other metallic compounds were supposed to have been used in the vaccines. So why did over 950 people experiencing post-vaccination health issues present with foreign material in their blood?

This is not the only study to find blood abnormalities post-mRNA vaccination.

In a previously published study in the same journal, a Korean team also showed that mRNA-vaccinated blood contained metallic objects that should not have been there. The Korean scientists analyzed samples of centrifuged blood from eight people who had received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against two people who did not receive any COVID-19 vaccines.

The team of three South Korean medical doctors, Young Mi Lee, Sunyoung Park, and Ki-Yeob Jeon, explained that:

“The preponderance of evidence suggests that the foreign materials found in the COVID-19 vaccine recipients … were injected into their bodies when they received one or more doses of the COVID-19 vaccines.”

According to this study:

“From the 8 COVID-19 vaccine recipients: 6 plasma samples contained a multilayered disc of unidentified composition; 3 samples contained beaded coil-like materials; 1 plasma sample contained a fibrous bundle of similar appearing beaded foreign material; and a different group of 3 samples had crystal-like formations of foreign material. The various shapes and sizes of foreign materials in the centrifuged plasmas of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals closely resembled the shapes and sizes of foreign materials previously observed directly in the vaccines themselves.”

The Italian study, which analyzed over 10 times as many blood samples, appears to confirm the findings from Korea. However, it is difficult to extrapolate from their findings. It would be easier to confirm that the vaccines were indeed the cause of the blood abnormalities if the Italian researchers had also analyzed the blood of a control group of patients presenting with similar unusual symptoms (or lack thereof) who had not been previously vaccinated.

Clotting Problems

Clotting problems are one of the hallmark complications seen after COVID-19 vaccination.

As the subject pool was of people who had been recently vaccinated and subsequently had health problems arise, this new science suggests that these structures in the blood and the abnormal clotting behavior of the blood cells could be a major part of why clinical doctors are seeing so many unusual health issues consequent to mRNA vaccination.

Indeed, large clots have even been found in the bodies of the deceased since the vaccine program started. An embalmer in Alabama noticed that large clots of a sort he had never seen in his 20-year career started to become commonplace once the vaccine program started, according to a non-profit Alabama news agency.

Richard Hirschmann told 1819 News that he has collected pictures of over a hundred cases of these blood clots. Hirschmann also alerted local labs and has been working with a radiologist, Phillip Triantos, M.D., to better understand why and how patients are presenting with large-scale slow-forming blood clots.

Other doctors, including Ryan Cole, M.D., a dermatopathologist (which is a doctor who uses a microscope to examine samples of skin, hair, and nails to diagnose diseases) and founder of the Idaho-based company, Cole Diagnostics, have also seen large blood clots becoming an emerging phenomenon since widespread vaccination campaigns started, according to 1819 News.

Microscopes in Medicine

It used to be common for medical doctors to have microscopes in their offices and to examine their patients’ blood (and other bodily fluids) themselves, according to Barron Lerner, M.D., author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics.”

While medical doctors today, with some exceptions, almost always send tests off to outside laboratories for analysis, Barron Lerner described how senior physicians used to feel it was their duty to teach their younger colleagues and medical students how to do testing themselves: Gram stains to test for bacterial infections, urine analysis under the microscope, and centrifuging blood to check for anemia and other issues.

Akin to medical doctors of past eras, the Italian team of doctors who published these new findings explained that they have looked at the blood of patients over their entire careers, including after every other sort of vaccination. But they have never seen foreign bodies of this sort before.

Post-market surveillance of medical devices, new medications, and vaccinations is of the utmost importance to ensure safety. These unusual and widespread findings of abnormalities in the blood post-mRNA vaccination should be of global concern. If 94 percent of patients with adverse health problems have occlusions in their blood that were not present before they were vaccinated, these scientists may have uncovered an unanticipated and dangerous side effect of mRNA vaccines.

*

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.

Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is an award-winning journalist and author of “Your Baby, Your Way: Taking Charge of Your Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Parenting Decisions for a Happier, Healthier Family.” A Fulbright awardee and mother of four, she has worked on a child survival campaign in West Africa, advocated for an end to child slavery in Pakistan on prime-time TV in France, and taught post-colonial literature to non-traditional students in inner-city Atlanta. Learn more about her at JenniferMargulis.net

Joe Wang, Ph.D., was a lead scientist for Sanofi Pasteur’s SARS vaccine project in 2003. He is now the president of New Tang Dynasty TV (Canada).

Featured image:  A hand holding an mRNA vaccine vial. (Spencer Davis / Unsplash)

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

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.

***

A brand new video from the World Economic Forum’s agenda article! The agenda is to stop growth and decide what industries to shut down.

Some very juicy quotes from the video (with timestamps)

4.23: Some economists think the solution is to reengineer our economies completely. They make the case that what we should really be doing is weaning ourselves from the addiction to growth and shifting to a post-growth economy (later defined as liquidation of various industries — I.C)

Instead of growing, WEF wants us to focus on what we “really need” (according to WEF)

4:46 things like renewable energy, healthcare, and public transportation. To do that, economists think that rich countries should do something like guarantee living wages.

They are talking about unearned “universal basic income” because the next cut shows a sad-looking lonely person spending a day not working. It promises that people will not be needing jobs to “earn their living or get healthcare”:

What is the goal? To scale down production of things deemed less necessary! (sic)

WEF asks if we could “do away with entire industries”, showing an anxious, sweaty man worried about his industry being shut down:

How would we decide what is unnecessary, asks the voice prompter. How would we resolve our disagreements? How to make these decisions?

The answer is, says WEF, is that we need to enlist help from AI systems, in order to answer the questions such as which industries to do away with.

WEF loves AI!

The WEF deciding what industries to do away with, using WEF-sponsored AI, may sound insane and stupid like a half-baked, paranoid conspiracy theory of a delusional hillbilly.

But I did not come up with any of it! I just retold the WEF article and the WEF video. I am not sure if they are serious or are just trolling us, but in the past, they were dead serious about their agenda.

What do you think?

*

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.

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

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.

***

September 5, 2022

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
SUBJECT: Ukraine Decision Time
REF: Nukes Cannot be Un-Invented, VIPS

Mr. President:

Before Defense Secretary Austin flies off to Ramstein for the meeting Thursday of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group we owe you a few words of caution occasioned by our many decades of experience with what happens to intelligence in wartime. If he tells you Kyiv is beating back the Russians, kick the tires – and consider widening your circle of advisers

Truth is the coin of the realm in intelligence analysis. It is equally axiomatic that truth is the first casualty of war, and that applies to the war in Ukraine as well as earlier wars we have been involved in. When at war, Defense Secretaries, Secretaries of State, and generals simply cannot be relied upon to tell the truth – to the media, or even to the President. We learned that early – the hard and bitter way. A lot of our comrades in arms did not come back from Vietnam.

Vietnam: President Lyndon Johnson preferred to believe Gen. William Westmoreland who told him and Defense Secretary McNamara in 1967 that South Vietnam could win – if only LBJ would supply an additional 206,000 troops. CIA analysts knew that to be untrue and that – worse still — Westmoreland was deliberately falsifying the number of forces he faced, claiming there were only “299,000” Vietnamese communists under arms in the South. We reported the number was 500,000 to 600,000. (Sadly, we were proven right during the countrywide communist Tet offensive in early 1968. Johnson quickly decided not to run for another term.)

All being fair in love and war, the generals in Saigon were determined to offer a rosy picture. In an August 20, 1967 cable from Saigon, Westmoreland’s deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams, explained the rationale for their deception. He wrote that the higher enemy numbers (which were supported by virtually all intelligence agencies) “were in sharp contrast to the current overall strength figure of about 299,000 given to the press.” Abrams continued: “We have been projecting an image of success over recent months.” He cautioned that if the higher figures became public, “all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion.”

The Demise of Imagery Analysis: Until 1996, CIA had an independent capability to do unencumbered military analysis enabling it to speak the truth – even during war. One key arrow in the analysis quiver was its established responsibility to perform imagery analysis for the entire Intelligence Community. Its early success in pinpointing Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962 had earned the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) a solid reputation for professionalism and objectivity. It helped considerably in our analysis of the Vietnam war. And later, it played a key role in assessing Soviet strategic capabilities and in verifying arms control agreements.

In 1996, when NPIC and its 800 highly professional imagery analysts were given, kit and kaboodle, to the Pentagon, it was goodbye to impartial intelligence.

Iraq: Retired Air Force General James Clapper was eventually put in charge of NPIC’s successor, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) and thus was well positioned to grease the skids for the “war of choice” on Iraq.

Indeed, Clapper is one of the few senior functionaries to admit that, under pressure from Vice President Cheney, he was “leaning forward” to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; could find none; but went along anyway. In his memoir Clapper accepts part of the blame for this consequential fraud – he calls it “the failure” – in the quest to find the (nonexistent) WMD. He writes, we “were so eager to help that we found what wasn’t really there.”

Afghanistan: You will recall the extreme pressure on President Obama coming from Defense Secretary Gates, Secretary of State Clinton, and generals like Petraeus and McCrystal to double down in sending more troops to Afghanistan. They were able to push aside Intelligence Community analysts, relegating them to strap-hangers at decision-making meetings. We recall U.S. Ambassador in Kabul Karl Eikenberry, a former Army Lieutenant General who had commanded troops in Afghanistan, appealing plaintively for an objective National Intelligence Estimate on the pros and cons of doubling down. We are also aware of reports that you demurred, sensing that deepening US involvement would be a fool’s errand. Remember when Gen. McChrystal promised, in February 2010, a “government in a box, ready to roll” into the key Afghan city of Marja?

The President, as you well know, deferred to Gates and the generals. And, last summer, it was left to you to pick up the pieces, so to speak. As for the fiasco in Iraq, the “surge” that Gates and Petraeus were picked by Cheney and Bush to implement brought almost a thousand additional “transfer cases” to the mortuary in Dover, while allowing Bush and Cheney to go West without having lost a war.

As for former Defense Secretary Gates’s undented Teflon coat, after his doubling-down advice on Iraq and Afghanistan, he had the chutzpah to include the following in a speech at West Point on Feb. 25, 2011 shortly before he left office:

“But in my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it.”

Syria – Austin’s Reputation Not Without Blemish: Closer to home, Secretary Austin is no stranger to accusations of politicizing intelligence. He was commander of CENTCOM (2013 to 2016) when more than 50 CENTCOM military analysts, in August 2015, signed a formal complaint to the Pentagon Inspector General that their intelligence reports on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria were being inappropriately manipulated by the top brass. The analysts claimed their reports were being changed by higher-ups to dovetail with the administration’s public line that the US was winning the battle against ISIS and the al-Nusra Front, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria.

In February 2017, the Pentagon Inspector General found that allegations of intelligence being intentionally altered, delayed or suppressed by top CENTCOM officials from mid-2014 to mid-2015 were “largely unsubstantiated.” (sic)

In Summary: We hope you take the time to review this history – and to take it into account before sending Secretary Austin off to Ramstein. In addition, today’s announcement that Russia intends to cut off gas through Nord Stream 1 until Western sanctions are removed is likely to have a significant impact on Austin’s interlocutors. It may even make European government leaders more inclined to carve out some sort of compromise before Russian forces advance farther and winter arrives. (We hope you have been adequately briefed on the likely outcome of the recent Ukrainian “offensive”.)

You may also wish to seek counsel from CIA Director William Burns and others with experience in the history of Europe – and particularly of Germany. Media reports suggested earlier that in Ramstein Secretary Austin will commit to providing Ukraine with still more weaponry and will encourage his colleagues to do the same. If he follows that script, he may find few takers – particularly among those most vulnerable to winter cold.

FOR THE STEERING GROUP: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

• William Binney, NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)
• Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) and Division Director, State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research
• Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
• Graham E. Fuller, Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
• Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
• Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
• Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official (ret.)
• John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
• Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
• Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
• Edward Loomis, Cryptologic Computer Scientist, former Technical Director at NSA (ret.)
• Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)
• Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & CIA political analyst (ret.)
• Pedro Israel Orta, former CIA and Intelligence Community (Inspector General) officer
• Todd Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
• Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
• Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
• Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (Retired)/DIA, (Retired)
• Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned in opposition to the war on Iraq)

*

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.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs) is made up of former intelligence officers, diplomats, military officers and congressional staffers. The organization, founded in 2002, was among the first critics of Washington’s justifications for launching a war against Iraq. VIPS advocates a US foreign and national security policy based on genuine national interests rather than contrived threats promoted for largely political reasons.

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English

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.

***

Six months ago, Russia invaded Ukraine. The United States, NATO and the European Union (EU) wrapped themselves in the Ukrainian flag, shelled out billions for arms shipments, and imposed draconian sanctions intended to severely punish Russia for its aggression.

Since then, the people of Ukraine have been paying a price for this war that few of their supporters in the West can possibly imagine. Wars do not follow scripts, and Russia, Ukraine, the United States, NATO and the European Union have all encountered unexpected setbacks.

Western sanctions have had mixed results, inflicting severe economic damage on Europe as well as on Russia, while the invasion and the West’s response to it have combined to trigger a food crisis across the Global South. As winter approaches, the prospect of another six months of war and sanctions threatens to plunge Europe into a serious energy crisis and poorer countries into famine. So it is in the interest of all involved to urgently reassess the possibilities of ending this protracted conflict.

For those who say negotiations are impossible, we have only to look at the talks that took place during the first month after the Russian invasion, when Russia and Ukraine tentatively agreed to a fifteen-point peace plan in talks mediated by Turkey. Details still had to be worked out, but the framework and the political will were there.

Russia was ready to withdraw from all of Ukraine, except for Crimea and the self-declared republics in Donbas. Ukraine was ready to renounce future membership in NATO and adopt a position of neutrality between Russia and NATO.

The agreed framework provided for political transitions in Crimea and Donbas that both sides would accept and recognize, based on self-determination for the people of those regions. The future security of Ukraine was to be guaranteed by a group of other countries, but Ukraine would not host foreign military bases on its territory.

On March 27, President Zelenskyy told a national TV audience, “Our goal is obvious—peace and the restoration of normal life in our native state as soon as possible.” He laid out his “red lines” for the negotiations on TV to reassure his people he would not concede too much, and he promised them a referendum on the neutrality agreement before it would take effect.

Such early success for a peace initiative was no surprise to conflict resolution specialists. The best chance for a negotiated peace settlement is generally during the first months of a war. Each month that a war rages on offers reduced chances for peace, as each side highlights the atrocities of the other, hostility becomes entrenched and positions harden.

The abandonment of that early peace initiative stands as one of the great tragedies of this conflict, and the full scale of that tragedy will only become clear over time as the war rages on and its dreadful consequences accumulate.

Ukrainian and Turkish sources have revealed that the U.K. and U.S. governments played decisive roles in torpedoing those early prospects for peace. During U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s “surprise visit” to Kyiv on April 9th, he reportedly told Prime Minister Zelenskyy that the U.K. was “in it for the long run,” that it would not be party to any agreement between Russia and Ukraine, and that the “collective West” saw a chance to “press” Russia and was determined to make the most of it.

The same message was reiterated by U.S. Defense Secretary Austin, who followed Johnson to Kyiv on April 25th and made it clear that the U.S. and NATO were no longer just trying to help Ukraine defend itself but were now committed to using the war to “weaken” Russia. Turkish diplomats told retired British diplomat Craig Murray that these messages from the United States and United Kingdom killed their otherwise promising efforts to mediate a ceasefire and a diplomatic resolution.

In response to the invasion, much of the public in Western countries accepted the moral imperative of supporting Ukraine as a victim of Russian aggression. But the decision by the U.S. and British governments to kill peace talks and prolong the war, with all the horror, pain and misery that entails for the people of Ukraine, has neither been explained to the public, nor endorsed by a consensus of NATO countries. Johnson claimed to be speaking for the “collective West,” but in May, the leaders of France, Germany and Italy all made public statements that contradicted his claim.

Addressing the European Parliament on May 9, French President Emmanuel Macron declared,

“We are not at war with Russia,” and that Europe’s duty was “to stand with Ukraine to achieve the cease-fire, then build peace.”

Meeting with President Biden at the White House on May 10, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi told reporters,

“People… want to think about the possibility of bringing a cease-fire and starting again some credible negotiations. That’s the situation right now. I think that we have to think deeply about how to address this.”

After speaking by phone with President Putin on May 13, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz tweeted that he told Putin,

“There must be a cease-fire in Ukraine as quickly as possible.”

But American and British officials continued to pour cold water on talk of renewed peace negotiations. The policy shift in April appears to have involved a commitment by Zelenskyy that Ukraine, like the U.K. and U.S., was “in it for the long run” and would fight on, possibly for many years, in exchange for the promise of tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons shipments, military training, satellite intelligence and Western covert operations.

As the implications of this fateful agreement became clearer, dissent began to emerge, even within the U.S. business and media establishment. On May 19, the very day that Congress appropriated $40 billion for Ukraine, including $19 billion for new weapons shipments, with not a single dissenting Democratic vote, The New York Times editorial board penned alead editorial titled, “The war in Ukraine is getting complicated, and America isn’t ready.”

The Times asked serious unanswered questions about U.S. goals in Ukraine, and tried to reel back unrealistic expectations built up by three months of one-sided Western propaganda, not least from its own pages. The board acknowledged, “A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal.… Unrealistic expectations could draw [the United States and NATO] ever deeper into a costly, drawn-out war.”

More recently, warhawk Henry Kissinger, of all people, publicly questioned the entire U.S. policy of reviving its Cold War with Russia and China and the absence of a clear purpose or endgame short of World War III.

“We are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’s supposed to lead to,” Kissinger told The Wall Street Journal.

U.S. leaders have inflated the danger that Russia poses to its neighbors and the West, deliberately treating it as an enemy with whom diplomacy or cooperation would be futile, rather than as a neighbor raising understandable defensive concerns over NATO expansion and its gradual encirclement by U.S. and allied military forces.

Far from aiming to deter Russia from dangerous or destabilizing actions, successive administrations of both parties have sought every means available to “overextend and unbalance” Russia, all the while misleading the American public into supporting an ever-escalating and unthinkably dangerous conflict between our two countries, which together possess more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

After six months of a U.S. and NATO proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, we are at a crossroads. Further escalation should be unthinkable, but so should a long war of endless crushing artillery barrages and brutal urban and trench warfare that slowly and agonizingly destroys Ukraine, killing hundreds of Ukrainians with each day that passes.

The only realistic alternative to this endless slaughter is a return to peace talks to bring the fighting to an end, find reasonable political solutions to Ukraine’s political divisions, and seek a peaceful framework for the underlying geopolitical competition between the United States, Russia and China.

Campaigns to demonize, threaten and pressure our enemies can only serve to cement hostility and set the stage for war. People of good will can bridge even the most entrenched divisions and overcome existential dangers, as long as they are willing to talk – and listen – to their adversaries.

*

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.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, which will be available from OR Books in October/November 2022. They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

***

For 10 years after his acquittal for alleged genocide crimes, the former Rwandan foreign minister Jerome Bicamumpaka pleaded for permission to be reunited with his wife and children in Montreal.

Canadian officials ignored every request – until three months ago, when he died of cancer at the age of 64, stateless and exiled in East Africa. Then at last they relented: They allowed his body to be flown to Canada, in a coffin.

Mr. Bicamumpaka is today buried in a cemetery in Montreal’s east end, where his family visits his grave. Embittered by Ottawa’s treatment of him in his final years, they are asking awkward questions about Canada’s role in an international justice system that kept him in a surreal state of statelessness for decades.

“They refused to respond to us – they ghosted us,” said Mr. Bicamumpaka’s son, Cédric. “It’s unfair. When he was alive, they didn’t want him on their territory. But when he died, it was acceptable.”

Since 1994, Canada has pumped an extraordinary amount of money into the international courts for Rwandan genocide crimes. In total, Canada has transferred almost $90-million to support the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and its successor agency, according to James Wanki, a spokesperson for Global Affairs Canada, in response to questions from The Globe and Mail.

Despite its heavy financial investment in the tribunal, however, Ottawa seems unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of its verdicts by allowing family reunification after acquittals, Mr. Bicamumpaka’s lawyer and family say.

Click here to read the full article on The Globe and Mail.

*

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.

Our thanks to John Philpot for sending this article to us. 

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.

***

Among the many diverse reasons for the emergence of a multipolar world, currently occurring at this historical moment, is the demand on the part of the majority world for justice and equity in international relations and its institutions. The recent death of the only ever President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, reminds us of a time when there was an effective global balance between the Soviet Union and the United States. It was a balance that made possible many advances for the peoples of the world, including the victory of the people of Vietnam and too Cuba’s active solidarity with the liberation forces which ended apartheid in South Africa.

The power of the Soviet Union also allowed countries such as Nicaragua, Angola and Mozambique to resist the terrible wars imposed on their peoples by the United States and its allies carried out via the systematic use of terrorism. However, as the Nobel Laureate for Literature Harold Pinter observed in 2005:

“Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn’t know it. It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. ”

Pinter is referring both to the impunity of the imperial powers for their crimes, and to the monopoly control of information worldwide by the United States and its allies at that time. In the latter sense, of course he exaggerates, but not by much. For its part, Nicaragua is proud to have demonstrated before the International Court of Justice in 1986 that the United States was guilty of systematic terrorism against the Nicaraguan people with an enormous cost in both human lives and material damage. In a moral sense, it was an unprecedented victory in which a small majority country of the world defeated the world’s most powerful country before the highest international court of law. Also, in practical terms, it is likely that the legal process in The Hague encouraged the US Congress in 1985 to prohibit US government aid to the Contras in Nicaragua.

However, the US government sought to continue its illegal campaign of terrorism against Nicaragua by means of the Iran-Contra stratagem. They sold weapons to Iran illegally and secretly and, with the funds obtained, bought weapons for the Contra in Nicaragua. In parallel, the same covert operations structure carried out drug trafficking operations and, with the sale of drugs in the United States, also financed the Ronald Reagan government’s war of terror against Nicaragua. Despite the Iran-Contra scandal in the United States, there were no major consequences. A junior officer Colonel Oliver North was sentenced to a few months of community service. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was indicted but before trial received a pardon from President George Bush in 1992. And that was it.

Years later, at the end of the decade of the 90s, genuine reporters like Gary Webb and Robert Parry investigated these facts and managed to publish a great deal of the hidden truth. But, as Harold Pinter commented, it was as if nothing took place, nothing happened, it didn’t matter. It was not of the least interest. On the contrary, Gary Webb was persecuted in such a ruthless and relentless way that he found it impossble to find work in the news media. He suffered a vile slander campaign at the hands of mainstream media. His family was destroyed. He fell into extreme poverty and finally committed suicide. Why remember all this after so many years? It is important to remember this story because it shows that terrorism, suppression of the truth and repression against those who publish the truth are fundamental and permanent features of the policies of the United States and its allies.

The countries of North America and Europe insist that they are morally superior to the rest of the world and that their good intentions and actions benefit and support the majority world. If this sounds absurd, that’s because it is, just as Harold Pinter observed in 2005 and as the populations of the majority world can observe for themselves every day of their lives. However, with the tremendous power of their corporate monopolies, Western elites still maintain, in much of the world, a dominance of the relevant commercial structures, of information and entertainment technology and of communications. It is in this way that the terrorism of the government of Ukraine against its own Russian-speaking population in Donetsk and Luhansk was covered up for eight years despite a death toll of 14000 people, the vast majority civilians.

Knowing that the dominant political forces in the government of Ukraine were and are of Nazi ideology, the United States and its European allies concealed in broad daylight that they armed, trained and financed the Ukrainian authorities to kill their own population. On the other hand, it was precisely on the false pretext that the governments of Libya and Syria were massacring their own populations that the United States and its European allies attacked those countries. The United States and its NATO allies used a similar false pretext to bomb Serbia for almost three months in 1999, killing thousands of Serbian civilians in the name of freedom and democracy. Thus, the terrorism promoted by the West goes hand in hand with a brutally repressive control of the psychological warfare apparatus, which facilitates the perversion not only news and information media, but also academic research, the reports of non-governmental organizations and the functions of international institutions.

That sinister, almost absolute control of the production and distribution of information facilitates the constant mass dissemination of false beliefs which in turn facilitate the construction of false memories. It is an infinite feedback process of psychological warfare that mainly affects Western populations but has a significant impact on the majority world populations as well. And it is in this way that with disconcerting straght faces and impressive shamlessness, Western leaders claim moral superiority while being themselves the worst terrorist criminals on the planet.

In Latin America, the operation of imperialist armed and economic terrorism and how these are combined with a monopoly of information production and distribution can be seen as clearly as possible. In several countries this combination has been complemented by systematic institutional abuse in the form of the so-called “lawfare” and the endless abuses of institutions such as the Organization of American States. The cases of Bolivia and Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua are perhaps the most extreme and obvious. In Nicaragua in 2018, the United States and its European allies promoted an attempted coup d’état based on armed terrorism and on media terrorism. The attempt failed in reality because the Nicaraguan people defeated it. However, the prevailing opinion internationally favors the virtual coup promoters’ version despite abundant evidence contradicting them.

International opinion believes the lie that the criminals iprisoned for their coup-mongering actions are innocent champions of democracy. They allege that these prisoners are mistreated and even tortured in the Nicaraguan penitentiary system and denied their rights under the law. In fact, the undeniable truth was demonstrated at the recent hearings in the judicial system in which these people appeared not just in visibly perfect physical health but also in obviously good psychological health as well. It is worth comparing the behavior and appearance of these people duly convicted for serious crimes against the State and People of Nicaragua with the situation of Julian Assange, among many other political prisoners in the West. Julian Assange has not been convicted of any crime. He committed a minor misdemeanor for a bail violation for which he has already served a light sentence many years ago. But since being seized from the Educaroan embassy in 2019, Julian Assange has been held in a maximum security prison under the most stringent conditions permitted in the British prison system, being held for long periods in solitary confinement.

International expert opinion, like that of UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer, states that Julian Assange has been the subject of torture for many years. When he appears in court on the few occasions he is allowed to participate but always without the ability to consult freely with his lawyers, Julian Assange’s behavior and appearance confirms his dreadful physical and emotional deterioration. The British authorities, with their usual hypocrisy, keep Julian Assange in these conditions in obedience to the demands of the Yankee government because Julian Assange published the truth of US government crimes in its wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.

Until now, Julian Assange has avoided the fatal despair that cost Gary Webb his life. But the intention of the Western authorities has been to torture Julian Assange physically and psychologically in order to destroy him as a person. Even so, despite its extreme cruelty, the case of Julian Assange is merely one more in the endless catalogue of crimes committed by the Western powers and their governments. The special importance of the Julian Assange case lies in how it brings together imperial terrorism with the fierce information and communication repression that allows criminal political leaders in North America and Europe to enjoy absolute impunity, for the moment anyway. The hope of the majority of the world is that, sooner rather than later, that impunity will finally end.

*

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 Tortilla con Sal, translated from Spanish.

Stephen Sefton, renowned author and political analyst based in northern Nicaragua, is actively involved in community development work focussing on education and health care. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

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.

***

One may view every scientific advance as a means towards approximating and recreating the infantile environment of omnipotence.  When the stimulus of hunger, with its accompanying representation in thought and feeling, is sated by a caring parent, the association is then made between that complex of sensation and ideation and the ensuing gratification. In other words, the wish to be fed is sufficient in and of itself to ensure that feeding takes place: the wish alone makes it happen and the child is godlike in his or her power.

Therefore every step in humankind’s mastery of the physical and natural world brings us one step closer to that ideal of effortless supremacy. It follows that science over the ages has become revered for the power it confers rather than the knowledge it reveals.  Knowledge for knowledge’s sake, knowledge with little or no practical value, is generally ignored or dismissed or, if taken up, is taken up because it provides the illusion of achievement or control, the way a neatly solved riddle may give satisfaction.

I write this as a kind of preface to some general observations about the exercise of power, particularly in groups and by so-called leaders, and in the context of a live-action demonstration, thanks to Covid, of governmental manipulation at a scale unprecedented in human history.   I write so that we who wish to resist propaganda and phoney narratives and the attempts to deny us our livelihoods and, indeed, our very lives, by measures imposed to ‘keep us safe’ may better learn, the better to oppose these measures.

First, those in power – individuals or groups – never willingly give their power up. The entire history of Western law is a record of the struggle of the weak who, by aggregating, sought protection from those who have ruled over them in the form of justice, the Magna Carta being a principal example, and the Declaration of Independence of the United States representing a culmination.

Second, those in power seek relentlessly to augment their power. If the weak besiege them with legal redress they will attempt to subvert the judiciary and, if possible, work outside the law to achieve their ends. For those in power the law works only when it works for their own ends.

Third, the astonishing advances in the concentration of technological force via computerization have allowed for an immense increase in the facility of exercising power. In short, it has never been easier for the ‘elite’ few to control the many.

Fourth, the endpoint of political State power is complete control over its population of underlings.  We have had a taste of this with the coordinated subjugation of the world under the pretext of protecting us from Covid –  lockdowns, distancing, masking, mandatory inoculations, the destruction of small businesses and individual lives, and the rending of the very social fabric that makes life worth living. We see it in even starker nakedness in the form of the social credit system and the Total Surveillance State exercised by Chinese authorities over its citizenry.

Fifth, digitization is innately a form of dehumanization. We have long been accustomed to regard Capitalism as the system wherein human beings have been rendered into dollars and cents, as it were. However our now-universal digital culture, in its essence, translates complexity into on-off states and seeks to reduce human choice to a sequence of multiple digital ‘decisions’ – left or right, up or down, yes or no, plus or minus.

Sixth, the Power Elite will employ every method of persuasion to manipulate its subjects – with every degree of truth and deception, every sophisticated lure, with fear, covert and overt threats, and with physical force.

Seventh, with every technocratic/scientific advance the distance between thought and action, between wish and deed, is lessened.

Eight, every scientific advance is appropriated by those in power to enhance their power.

The Covid era has brought the machinations of the Power Cartel into relief, and they have included deceitful diagnostic tests, the suppression of truthful information about ‘vaccines’, the silencing of physicians who attempted to conduct themselves in accordance with the basic principles of Medicine, the propagation of fear through traditional media outlets that have functioned as propaganda mouthpieces, the depredation of human liberty under cover of a so-called health emergency, and even outright large-scale murder, the details of which – and much more – are superbly delineated by Michel Chossudovsky in his recent book The Worldwide Corona Crisis.

We cannot and should not expect those in power to act lawfully or to respond to appeals of conscience.

Those in power today quite openly aspire to immortality and omnipotence, and this leads me to what I believe is the most pressing practical and philosophical question of our time:

If no further scientific or technological advances could be made; if, in fact, humanity were stuck with only the knowledge and tools at its disposal today; if nothing new could be discovered; if no novel use of technological power could arise – what would then occur?

Might the renunciation of godlike ambitions result in a fairer and more just world?

*

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.

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. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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.

***

Many people in the West are asking just how much their elites will ask them to sacrifice for the sake of Ukraine.

However, they are asking the wrong question.

The correct question is rather how can they bear the coming cost to themselves for the sake of gaining global hegemony for the collective West.

The absolute “necessity” of defeating both Russia and China, and in so doing how to manage the crushing weight that this task will inevitably bring down upon their populations is THE primary conundrum for western elites.

That they MUST defeat Russia and China is totally clear to them and they will do absolutely anything to bring the defeat of these two about. If they fail to do this they know that a wholly new, multipolar paradigm will result. The central goal that the political leaders of the West are fixated upon, maintaining their global dominance in order to create liberal democracies (sic) worldwide, will be lost forever. The multipolar world where power is dispersed across a far greater number of national powers will bring as one of its central precepts a mutual tolerance of many diverse forms of governance instead.

With the goal to maintain a faltering patrician dominance, and in the face of a Chinese economy now matching and in the near future vastly exceeding that of the USA, standing alongside a Russian leadership able to combine with Eurasian economies in unity against western demands, the entire West faces a meltdown of its influence. This is an unbearable prospect for western leaders, a prospect that they are willing to do literally ANYTHING to forestall.

No one should be surprised that the western political elites are supplying weapons to the Ukrainian regime in the hope of killing as many Russians as possible. I suspect that many have still not come to terms with the fact that we are most undoubtedly within World War III and have been for some time now.

The Eurasian powers, China, Russia and others in the global south see clearly that their chance to win the future for maximal tolerance and trade in the face of what has been an era of western

Intolerance and aggression, is now and if it is not won now that future will be lost. This is why from their side they too cannot give up.

Neither side can give up and surrender to the other. This is a fight to the death of one vision or the other. There can be no middle ground achieved as the western powers are totally insistent on the future being their way and that no other future is acceptable.

If reasonable people stood at the apex of western political power things would be very different. The course of events would be eminently peaceful incorporating cooperation across a wide panoply of issues. This is the future that people such as Jeffrey Sachs envisions, a future where connection and communication are the order of the day among pragmatic leaders seeking to understand one another for the good of all.

In a multipolar world the emphasis would be on trade and agreements and ameliorating any disagreements arising through extensive arbitration. Areas of concern where ambitions or national priorities conflicted would be ironed out long before any major conflict could arise. International law and the United Nations as a forum would be preeminent. Waging war as a solution would become extremely rare if it occurred at all.

In a renewed unipolar world where the USA and its allies have successfully beaten Russia and China, the concept of a rules-based order based on rules formulated by them would be the order of the day. Due to fears concerning continued resistance to their newly won dominance, surveillance would be widespread and punishments for varying degrees of opposition would be agreed and applied. International law would no longer be the yardstick for legality or illegality on the global scene and the United Nations would most likely cease to exist or simply become a toothless entity and talking shop. In essence the world dominated in perpetuity by the western powers would become a de facto prison planet.

We are all now faced with these dual visions of our common future as laid down by these two sets of elites, one western, the other eastern and southern. The current political leaders of the West say there is no middle ground, that no compromise is possible and that there is no higher priority than them winning against those who wish for an entirely different future, even if their ambition was simply to have this for their own populations. For the western political elites they must be brought to heel and made to accept western global preeminence. Or else.

With no prospect of diplomacy intervening as this for the western powers would only delay their wished-for outcome, the only alternative path forward for them is the fomenting of war at every possible level and in every possible circumstance to create the destructive forces within their target nations to bring them to their knees. Thus we have the unlimited aggression and supply of weaponry and finance to the Ukrainian regime. As has been bare-facedly admitted by senior U.S. officials, the end goal of this policy is to weaken Russia and the effect upon Ukraine is largely inconsequential.

Inconsequential too by default will be the suffering of western populations as a result of the war being waged on Russia and the additional suffering they will undoubtedly have to endure as the war against China becomes ever more fierce. That western populations suffer incredibly traumatic deprivations never before seen in modern times, in the infamous words of Madeleine Albright, is now, and will continue to be seen by all present political elites in the West, as a price worth paying.

*

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 The Greanville Post

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.

***

If the non-stop dancing duo Biden and Blinken is seriously seeking to validate its view that the United States of America is and should be the world’s hegemon, they are going about it the wrong way. They should be taking their lead from Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky by turning their press conferences into entertainments with dancing bears and scantily clad chanteuses pirouetting and singing across the stage. They would benefit from recalling how Zelensky rose to power through his performances of comedy routines in which he would be prancing around on high heels with three colleagues who appeared to be mocking what might be construed as gay mannerisms to amuse the audience? Or perhaps the rather more outre performance where Zelensky would play a piano with his penis?

If one can remember all that it would most definitely help to understand the foreign policy that is somehow playing out in Ukraine, where Zelensky has transitioned into a serious, unsmiling guy who is adept at solicitations for money and weapons. His pleading has become a shameless full-time endeavor as he now appears on thousands of screens via video link all over the world, saturating the airwaves and dropping in on both major and minor gatherings. Australian journalist Caitlin Johnstone recalls how he has appeared on “the Grammy Awards, the Cannes Film Festival, the World Economic Forum and probably the Bilderberg group as well, [while also] having meetings with celebrities like Ben Stiller, Sean Penn, and Bono and the Edge from U2. It’s as busy a PR tour as he could possibly have without having a discussion about the strategic importance of long-range artillery with Elmo on Sesame Street.”

Elmo might in fact be coming next as NPR is clearly one of Zelensky’s biggest fans. One also suspects that before the Ukrainian President is finished, he will be addressing a rotary meeting in Sioux Falls South Dakota. And Zelensky has even turned begging into a family affair, with his wife Olena welcomed by the President and First Lady at the White House while also going on to address the US Congress, entreating America’s Solons to provide plenty of cash and things that go bang to thwart the ambitions of one Vladimir Putin. As she put it, she is concerned lest her son and daughter be unable to return to school and university in the fall. She then observed that “We would have answers if we had air defense systems” which would enable a “joint victory in the name of life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.”

Indeed, a high point of the recent antics has to be the unique cover photo shoot by Vogue magazine, in which the lovey-dovey couple Volodymyr and Olena grin and hug before the cameras. Zelensky declares his undying affection. Vogue aside, the entire Zelensky performance, choreographed as it is by neocons inside and outside the administration, is perfectly color and image coordinated. Zelensky has an endless supply of olive drab t-shirts and he entertains in Kiev a steady stream of statesmen and even heads of government from Europe and the US, including the US Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has appointed a seasoned Justice Department “Special Investigations”, i.e. “Nazi hunter” investigator, named Eli Rosenbaum to look into possible Russian war crimes.

The Garland/Rosenbaum dynamic duo will not be looking into possible Ukrainian war crimes like the recent assassination of Darya Dugina in Moscow as it is not part of the mandate from Biden/Blinken and besides which the Ukes are America’s friends, just like the Israelis who are such great friends that they also get a pass on whatever they inflict on the Palestinians, including shooting or blowing up civilians. Indeed, Zelensky’s White House approved message is always the same: “give us money and guns and we will defeat the Russkies.” So Honest Joe Biden gives them the cash and the things that go bang in the night and in return they get a hearty hand shake when the bundles of Benjamins get transferred into the trunk of someone’s car. All of which leads one to wonder if Mr Z is the best reliable source for anything having to do with himself and the corrupt toadies that adhere to him, given the recurring reports that some donated weapons are already making their way into the black market just as quickly as the money goes into officials’ pockets. Zelensky has reacted to criticism by shutting down opposition parties and media, assassinating dissident politicians and firing or imprisoning any other official who might be inclined to disagree with him.

Apart from that, there is allegedly a war going on, which may not be evident from all the horse trading taking place at the presidential palace. It also would appear to be counter-intuitive that the Russians, blamed without much in the way of evidence for atrocity after atrocity, have apparently proven willing to let Zelensky entertain all his guests undisturbed. If you are truly committing a lot of war crimes, why not add one more to the list by blowing up the Kiev presidential palace and both killing Zelensky and probably ending the war at a stroke?

There are, in fact, two wars taking place simultaneously. There is, to be sure, fighting going on around Donbas, but the more important conflict is the phony war being waged by the Biden Administration and a number of European Chancelleries in support of whatever is actually taking place in Ukraine. This latter aspect of the war consists of perhaps the most stifling – and effective – propaganda effort the world has ever seen. It includes Joe Biden and his brigade of clowns, but it also has a supporting cast consisting of NATO, a number of European heads of state and virtually the entire western media. Social media has also joined in the struggle, banning Russian originating news stories and opinion, and using algorithms and other forms of manipulation to make reporting favorable to Moscow go away. The allied effort to defeat and destroy Russia relies on lies, half-truths, and out-and-out deception. But why bother to do it? It is because the war was preventable and avoidable, which is what the White House and other governments cannot admit to the public. It makes absolutely no sense and will benefit no one when it is over, and “over” might mean “really over” as nuclear weapons are on the table.

But what about the good old American exceptionalism which Biden-Blinken and that stalwart warrior Merrick Garland are supposed to be defending? Well, that seems to have taken a hit as much of the world, watching the fiasco unfold in Ukraine, apparently doesn’t appreciate the Anglo-Saxon sense of humor. To them, the war in Ukraine would never have started if the US and Europeans had invested in the tiniest effort as mediators to come to a negotiated solution. They have given up on the United States as a “force for good” and have rather concluded that Washington is a global bully and a regular aggressor.

Former US Air Force colonel and PhD Karen Kwiatkowski has an interesting tale to tell about how far the mighty have fallen. She writes “…I saw that the Solomon Islands refused (ignored really, which is even better) a US Coast Guard request to come to port, to buy fuel, like with real American dollars, y’all! Why was the US Coast Guard floating around the South Pacific – were they lost? After getting a fuller picture – they were looking for lawbreaking fishermen and that’s where their mission took them…” So what was the US response to this outrage, which was immediately blamed on interference by the Chinese? We need “a new embassy in the Solomon Islands… along with a new five year engagement plan in the Pacific.”

During the Cold War before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, a commonly heard comment was that the country had become economically and politically an “Upper Volta with rockets,” which implied that the USSR spent so much on weapons that the civilian economy was starved of resources. Well, welcome to the former United States of America. As the nation’s decline and fall will no doubt be facilitated due to the millions of mostly Latino “asylum seekers” flowing over America’s southern border, the US as a “Bolivia with nukes” might be more appropriate. The world is tired of Washington and its pretenses and the walls will inevitably come tumbling down when the Biden unsustainable trillions of dollars of added debt-surge brings on bankruptcy Argentina style. A sharp change in course might be able to fix some of the problems, but there is an election coming up which the White House is keen to win by flooding its cherished constituencies with funny money in exchange for votes, a practice which once upon a time would have been seen as corruption. Come to think of it, the US has become a banana republic run by an essentially criminal gang that alternates every few years to pretend to be a democracy. Can’t get much lower than that, but Biden sure is trying!

*

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.

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 temporarily [email protected]. 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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.

***

British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss will replace Boris Johnson as the British prime minister after the UK’s Conservative Party voted to make her the leader of the government. She beat out former Finance Minister Rishi Sunak and is expected to be formally named prime minister by the Queen on Tuesday.

As the British foreign secretary, Truss has delivered some of the most hawkish rhetoric against Russia in NATO’s response to the invasion of Ukraine. When the war first broke out, Truss said that she supported individuals from the UK who wanted to fight in Ukraine.

While campaigning to become the prime minister, Truss said if she took the position, she would follow in Johnson’s footsteps and be Ukraine’s “greatest friend” to ensure that Russian President Vladimir Putin “fails in Ukraine and suffers a strategic defeat.”

According to a report from The Financial Times, Truss and her team have been frustrated that the US hasn’t taken a “harder line” on Russia even as Washington has pledged over $13 billion in weapons for Ukraine, dwarfing the $2.8 billion in military aid London has committed.

While the UK isn’t contributing nearly as much money as the US, Britain is one of the leading NATO supporters of Ukraine. The British are currently training thousands of Ukrainian soldiers inside the UK, with the goal of training 10,000 within 120 days. According to reports from The Times and The New York Times, British special operations forces are on the ground in Ukraine.

Truss has also voiced her opposition to negotiations with Russa, saying talks could only happen after Moscow is “defeated.” Johnson frequently discouraged negotiations and reportedly played an integral role in the failure of earlier peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, a pattern that will likely continue under a Truss premiership.

Truss has also been hawkish in her rhetoric against China and has called for a “global NATO” that’s capable of defending Taiwan and the broader Asia Pacific region. She is expected to be confrontational with Beijing and will reportedly classify China as a “threat” to British national security for the first time.

Liz Truss will be the next British prime minister. She told a town hall recently that she's 'ready' to launch a nuclear war. pic.twitter.com/Qo04IVIl9i

— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) September 5, 2022

During a recent town hall, Truss was asked by host John Pienaar how she would “feel” if she had to order a nuclear strike, which Pienaar recognized would likely mean global annihilation. Truss said, “I think it’s an important duty of the prime minister and I’m ready to do that.”

When asked again how ordering a nuclear strike would make her feel, Truss simply responded, “I’m ready to do that.”

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is by Tim Hammond / No10 Downing Stree, from Flickr licensed under Creative Commons

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.

***

The Joe Biden administration pledged Ukraine $39.87 billion in military aid in the six months between February and August 2022, for an average of $228 million per day, fueling what even former US government officials admit is a “brutal proxy war” that is causing tens of thousands of deaths.

Researcher Stephen Semler documented the 21 distinct military aid packages that the Joe Biden administration approved for Ukraine in the year between August 2021 and August 2022, at a total of $40.13 billion.

Two of those 21 pledges were approved before Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Excluding these two presidential drawdowns from August and December 2021, which are worth $260 million combined, the Biden administration passed $39.87 billion for military aid in Ukraine between February 25, 2022 (the day after the Russian invasion) and August 19, 2022.

This $39.87 billion in pledged military aid divided by the 175 days between February 25, 2022 and August 19, 2022 comes out to an average of approximately $228 million per day.

This spending does not include the billions more that the US government has pledged in economic aid to Ukraine. It likewise excludes the tens of billions of dollars of military aid that European countries have approved for Ukraine.

Video

*

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: Ukrainian military exercise “Cossack Will” in 2018 (Source: Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense)

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.

***

The British Conservative Party selected Liz Truss as its new leader, and the United Kingdom‘s next prime minister, on Monday.

Truss, who is currently foreign secretary, will formally be confirmed as prime minister on Tuesday following her success in the contest to succeed Boris Johnson as leader of the governing party.

She has been called a political “shapeshifter” and someone whose views are “very black and white“. As prime minister she inherits a political agenda dominated by a domestic cost of living crisis fuelled by spiralling inflation and energy prices.

But her record as foreign secretary and previously as a minister for international trade also offers clues as to the likely direction the Truss-led government will take in the key policy areas involving the UK and the Middle East.

Israel-Palestine

As Israeli air strikes pummelled the besieged Gaza strip in early August, killing at least 45 Palestinian civilians, including 15 children, Truss issued a statement of support for Israel, saying: “The UK stands by Israel, and its right to defend itself.”

Closer to home, Truss will be taking over a government that is seeking to outlaw the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement by preventing public bodies, councils and their pension funds from boycotting investments in Israel.

Despite criticism from civil society organisations that the move would represent a “threat to freedom of expression, and the ability of public bodies and democratic institutions to spend, invest and trade ethically in line with international law and human rights”, Truss has offered no indication that she would reverse course.

The prime minister’s staunch support for Israel has even led to her stating that she had overruled long-serving bureaucrats at the Foreign Office by backing Israel at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and suggesting that the UN body had been “used to peddle a particular agenda which frankly have strong elements of antisemitism”.

In June, UNHRC members passed two resolutions affirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and condemning illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Golan Heights.

The UK voted against the resolutions, putting it largely out of step with the rest of the international community.

More recently, in a move that would reverse decades of British policy on Israel-Palestine, Truss said she would “review” the relocation of the country’s Israel embassy to Jerusalem.

“I’ve had many conversations with my good friend [Israeli] Prime Minister [Yair] Lapid on this topic. Acknowledging that, I will review a move to ensure we are operating on the strongest footing within Israel,” she wrote in a letter to the Conservative Friends of Israel advocacy group.

Under Truss, the British foreign office has also opened free trade negotiations with Israel, hoping to boost the more than $5bn worth of trade between the two countries.

UK and Gulf ties

When a committee of members of parliament asked Truss to name a time that she had raised human rights concerns with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries – a political and economic bloc made up of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman – she failed to do so.

Despite her past promises to hold countries engaged with human rights abuses “to account”, Truss believes it’s more important “to do business” with Gulf countries.

As foreign secretary, she oversaw the start of the UK’s efforts to secure a free trade agreement with the GCC countries. The British government has “identified the region as crucial to London’s interest for commercial and strategic reasons,” said Umberto Profazio, associate fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

“For the post-Brexit UK, it’s evidently important to diversify as much as possible its trade partners, and the Gulf is certainly an important region where London is nonetheless facing several competitors that have been able to make significant inroads in recent years,” Profazio told Middle East Eye.

“Facing China and Russia’s growing influence in the region, the UK is certainly losing ground like many other western powers, which are suffering from a lack of credibility in the eyes of their Arab partners,” added Profazio.

As Britain seeks to diversify its trading relationship, Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, which has left thousands dead and millions on the brink of starvation, will likely take a back seat.

The humanitarian crises in Yemen hasn’t prevented the UK government from approving continuing weapons sales to the Saudis either, with the Department of International Trade dragging its feet when MEE asked to see documents which could offer insights into how decisions about policy regarding arms sales to Saudi Arabia has been shaped by the conflict.

Egypt’s human rights record

Liz Truss’s focus on doing business with Middle East countries and prioritising her leadership race to become the prime minister has meant the plight of the British-Egyptian activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been largely ignored.

The Egyptian state has hounded the Egyptian writer and political activist since 2014. He was arrested and imprisoned in 2019 and, in December 2021, was sentenced to five years for spreading “false news”. The evidence used against him was a retweet.

Since May, Alaa has been on hunger strike, with prison authorities denying him consular assistance, reading materials, a bed, and even a clock.

Alaa’s family recently slammed Truss for her failure to assist him, expressing their exasperation at her lack of help. “Honestly, it just feels like she is intentionally dismissing our plight and her responsibility towards us,” his sister Mona Seif wrote on Twitter.

Business as usual on Iran

While Truss was credited for helping Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the UK-Iranian charity worker who spent more than five years in jail in Iran on accusations of spying, back to Britain, her husband accused her of not doing enough to hold to account those responsible for his wife’s incarceration.

Richard Ratcliffe said Truss had not followed through on a promise to impose sanctions on individuals in Iran who had been involved in the affair.

On the pressing matter of the Iranian nuclear deal, Truss has taken a more hardline position.

“I have been clear that progress on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is not moving fast enough, and I assure you that if the JCPOA collapses, all options are on the table,” she said recently.

There is every sign that Truss would follow a “business as usual” approach on the Middle East, said Profazio from ISS.

“While much of her attention would be inevitably devoted to the difficult economic situation and domestic policies, a Truss government would be managing the different crises according to its interests and privileging security and stability over any other issue,” added Profazio.

“I would expect much closer ties with Gulf partners, in consideration of the importance of the FTA negotiations for the UK, and further efforts to accommodate the interests of main partners such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, including in the main conflict theatres where these countries are actively engaging,” Profazio told MEE.

*

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 licensed under OGL 3

Ukraine: US Launches a Fascist Government, and World War III?

By Felicity Arbuthnot, September 04, 2022

It all started on March 5, 2014: a US-sponsored fascist coalition government under the guise of democracy was installed in Ukraine. With historical foresight this article by Felicity Arbuthnot was first published on March 15, 2014 in the immediate wake of the US-sponsored EuroMaidan Coup d’état.

Casting Malevolent Shadows: Liz Truss Wins the Tory Leadership

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, September 06, 2022

10 Downing Street is set to be bathed in social media guff with the victory of Liz Truss.  Confirmed as Boris Johnson’s successor, the new British Prime Minister won by a slimmer margin over rival contender Rishi Sunak than anticipated.  Nonetheless, 81,326 votes to 60,399 was sufficient to guarantee her a secure margin – for the moment.

Monkeypox: Is the Fear Campaign Losing Steam?

By Dr. Gautam Das, September 06, 2022

As a part of global co-ordinated response, the national and international media dutifully carried scary headlines to sound the loudest alarm bell. Even some experts expressed their deep anguish on rapidly closing window of opportunity for containing global outbreak!

The Biggest Prison on Earth. The Land of Historic Palestine

By Antonio Tujan, September 05, 2022

In his book “The biggest Prison on Earth”, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe presents a historical account that undermines the Israeli narrative that Israel fought a defensive war to pre-empt a full-fledged Arab offensive in 1967.

Analysis of the Early Fighting in the First World War, 108 Years Ago

By Shane Quinn, September 05, 2022

The really decisive fighting in the First World War occurred during the opening few weeks of the conflict having broken out. The war’s outcome rested on the success or failure of the German Empire’s Schlieffen Plan, named after its principal strategist Alfred Graf von Schlieffen.

Video: The Octopus and “The Great Reset”. Peter Koenig

By Peter Koenig, September 05, 2022

Mask wearing, social distancing, lockdowns, followed by work-from-home, were physically and psychologically damaging, lowering peoples’ self-esteem, immune system, and social belonging. These coerced measures were dividing countries, societies and even families – applying the principle of “divide to conquer”.  These mandates were strictly forced upon society with threat of punishment – all under the false pretext of health protection, health security.

US-sponsored “Soft Coup” Against Paraguay

By Miguel Santos García, September 05, 2022

The US turned the Paraguayan political world upside down in a new cycle of Hybrid Warfare against the South American nation by employing sanctions and allegations of corruption against members of its political class. The article focuses on the incidences of these sanctions and allegations and their impact on Paraguayan political dynamics.

How to Green Our Parched Farmlands and Finance Critical Infrastructure

By Ellen Brown, September 05, 2022

Particularly urgent today is infrastructure to counteract the record-breaking drought in the U.S. Southwest, where 50% of the nation’s food supply is grown. Subsidies for such things as the purchase of electric vehicles, featured in the IRA, will pad the coffers of the industries lobbying for them but will not get water to our parched farmlands any time soon.

EU Complicit in US Plan to Throw Europe Into Chaos

By Manlio Dinucci, September 05, 2022

Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Policy, not only announced the suspension of visas for Russian tourists, dealing another blow to the Italian and European tourism sector.  At a meeting of EU defense ministers, he said, “EU countries have been discussing the possibility of a training mission for Ukrainian forces since before the war: now is the time to act.”

Is the Age of Big Bang Cosmology and the “Science of Scarcity” Finally Coming to an End?

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, September 05, 2022

It appears increasingly like our world is being shaped by ideas and intentions that have a pseudo-religious like commitment to limits and reducing human activity upon the earth.

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.

***

10 Downing Street is set to be bathed in social media guff with the victory of Liz Truss.  Confirmed as Boris Johnson’s successor, the new British Prime Minister won by a slimmer margin over rival contender Rishi Sunak than anticipated.  Nonetheless, 81,326 votes to 60,399 was sufficient to guarantee her a secure margin – for the moment.  (The turnout had been 83 per cent.)

There is little doubt that the Tory selectorate – a good deal of it – seem to adore her.  That hardly makes them, or her, representative of a broader constituency, and certainly the same constituency that voted for Johnson in 2019.  Certain conservative voices have even warned that the Tory party now resembles, in part, the Labour Party of Jeremy Corbyn.  Corbyn stormed through the ranks with an adoring base of party supporters and ideological brio.  The broader electorate were not quite so enamoured.

The challenges the new prime minister faces are biting.  The country is facing energy bills Truss has herself described as “eye-watering”.  But despite this, she is willing to deliver £30 billion in tax cuts via an emergency budget and a reversal of April’s rise in National Insurance.  Betraying a characteristically woolly understanding of economics, notably on progressive taxation, she sees no problem about the accrued benefits to higher-income earners.  “The people at the top of the income distribution pay more tax – so inevitably, when you cut taxes you tend to benefit the people who are more likely to pay tax.”  That’s sorted then.

Over the weekend, a promise was given of some emergency plan that would emerge within a week of her taking office, with a specific focus on targeting the sharp spike of energy bills.  This would go “hand in hand” with a plan to increase domestic energy supplies.  All of this was vague compared to Sunak’s promises to provide relief to pensioners and the low-paid from rising energy costs while also cutting Value Added Tax on energy bills.

BBC’s Newsnight, in an effort to get a sense of what the UK is in for, trotted out a few Conservative views favourable to Truss as the flexible, adjustable figure.  Baroness Morgan of Coates predicts “a combination of approaches” that would make it hard to “pigeonhole” Truss.  The editor of the Conservative Home website, Paul Goodman, noted her “adaptability” over the course of her political life.  “So although she has this reputation as an idealogue and she has very clear ideological roots – originally as a Liberal Democrat – she is somehow the darling of the Leavers who in the [Brexit] referendum was a Remainer.”

What was striking, and utterly deceptive, was the effort by Truss to show herself as a changeling of sorts, rather than a figure of a dying status quo.  This, despite being a Cabinet member for ten years.  Sunak, despite being comparatively new, was given the touch-up of status quo inflexibility, one padded by expensive suits and tastes.  It did not matter that he seemed, at least relatively speaking, less inscrutable and more focused on the immediate crisis.

In her speech of uneven quality and many fictions, Truss doffed her cap to Johnson in a tribute that can only trouble those who wished him gone for good.  “Boris, you got Brexit done.  You crushed Jeremy Corbyn.  You rolled out the vaccine.  And you stood up to Vladimir Putin.  You are admired from Kyiv to Carlisle.”

Hardly agreed upon history, but it seemed to be an infection coursing through the ranks.  Thanks were also given to Johnson by the Tory party co-chair, Andrew Stephenson, suggesting an outbreak of masochism.

Through this, both the disgraced Johnson and his opponents in the Labour Party will be holding out hope.  Truss was critical of those who removed him for the number of calamities he inflicted upon himself, his party and the British public.  And then there was that bitter distinctly non-concessional speech by Johnson, taking aim at the vicious, knife-bearing “herd instinct” that had robbed him of office.

Johnson’s supporters are promising to be a disruptive bunch.  Many have already put out teasing feelers suggesting a return when the time is right.  Johnson’s former chief of staff, Lord Udny-Lister, is one willing to wager that Johnson “is going to be watching all of this and if something happens in the future […] the ball comes loose in the scrum, then anything can happen.”

The Sunday Mirror has reported that 12 Tory MPs are willing to submit letters to the 1922 Committee to express no confidence in the incoming prime minister – and this, even before Truss sets foot in 10 Downing Street.  For Jake Berry, MP for Rossendale and Darwen in Lancashire, such a move was “certainly suicidal”, while former Conservative chancellor Lord Hammond warned Johnson not to linger like a “malevolent shadow”.

The Truss factor has also given British Labour a boost of seven percentage points.  Party strategists, as part of this bounce, have already readied a campaign in the so-called Red Wall seats, using previous, leaked remarks from Truss about how British workers produced “less per hour” than their foreign equivalents, “and that’s a combination of, kind of, skill and application.”  But opinion polls do not deliver election victories. The Tory party machine, cunning, ruthless and mendacious, does at least know something about that.

*

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.

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 is from Clicksbox / Shutterstock

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.

***

The Russian Defense Ministry said Saturday that Ukrainian forces attempted to capture the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) on Friday night.

The Defense Ministry said that Ukrainian vessels with a force of about 250 Ukrainian troops attempted to land on the shore of a lake near the plant, which is located in the southern city of Enerhodar.

The alleged operation came as inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were stationed at the plant.

“Despite the presence of representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the Kyiv regime once again attempted to seize the plant,” the Russian Defense Ministry said, according to Reuters.

The comments from the Russian Defense Ministry were the second time Moscow accused Ukraine of attempting to capture the ZNPP. Russia said that it thwarted an attempt by 60 Ukrainian militants to capture the plant on Thursday morning when IAEA inspectors were on their way to the ZNPP. Russian-installed authorities in the region claimed the fighters were trained by the British intelligence agency MI6 as thousands of Ukrainian troops are being trained inside the UK.

The Russian claims about Ukraine’s attempt to capture the ZNPP aren’t confirmed, but the Ukrainian military did admit to shelling in areas around the plant in Enerhodar on Friday.

The confirmation of strikes in Enerhodar is a rare admission of military operations in the area. The ZNPP and the areas around it have been the site of frequent shelling, but Ukraine has tried to blame Russian forces for the attacks, even though the territory has been controlled by Russia since March.

Shelling continued in the area on Saturday despite the IAEA presence, resulting in the ZNPP losing its main connection to the power grid again. The plant is still connected to the power grid thanks to a reserve line. Russian-installed officials in the region said there was no shelling on the ZNPP on Sunday.

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi announced Friday that the nuclear watchdog isleaving two inspectors at the ZNPP to establish a permanent presence.

“We are establishing a permanent presence on site, this time with two of our experts, which will be continuing the work,” he said.

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is from New Scientist

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.

***

Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.

“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.

The apparent revelation raises some key questions: Why did Western leaders want to stop Kyiv from signing a seemingly good deal with Moscow? Do they consider the conflict a proxy war with Russia? And, most importantly, what would it take to get back to a deal?

For now, we can only speculate about the answers to the first two questions. The third is perhaps no less challenging, especially given the fact that both Ukraine and Russia have (at least publicly) hardened their negotiating positions significantly in recent months. But there are some clues that could help us answer it.

One possible path back to a peace deal is to build on July’s grain agreement, in which Kyiv and Moscow agreed to restart wheat exports from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. The deal has held strong despite continued hostilities, allowing more than one million metric tons of grain to enter the world market so far. This accord shows that each side is at least interested in reducing the global impact of the war.

The other option is more complex but no less important. Just yesterday, a team of international inspectors arrived at the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which has been threatened by nearby shelling in recent weeks. The visit, which will allow experts to ensure that the plant remains in safe condition, is the result of intensive talks, backed by pressure from the international community. In this case, both Russia and Ukraine are signaling their commitment to avoiding a nuclear catastrophe.

In other words, Kyiv and Moscow have both shown that they want to mitigate the secondary effects of the conflict, and they’re willing to negotiate with the enemy in order to do it. But, as long as this war drags on, people around the world will continue to suffer, and the specter of a catastrophic event — whether through an errant strike on a power plant or an uncontrolled escalation to nuclear war — will continue to loom. It’s time for Russia, Ukraine, and the West to recognize that there’s only one way to put an end to those risks: Lay down arms and come to the negotiating table.

In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:

— The European Union is expected to suspend a visa agreement with Russia, which will make it more difficult (and more expensive) for Russian tourists to visit countries in the bloc, according to Reuters. The decision is a compromise between EU members that want to ban all Russian travelers from entering the Schengen Zone and others that see such a move as counter-productive. In a joint statement, France and Germany explained their opposition to a full ban: “We caution against far-reaching restrictions on our visa policy, in order to prevent feeding the Russian narrative and trigger unintended rallying-around the flag effects and/or estranging future generations.”

— Russia blocked a UN agreement aimed at shoring up the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), citing concerns about clauses related to the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, according to the Guardian. The move highlights the negative effect that Russia’s invasion has had on non-proliferation efforts in recent months. But, as Shannon Bugos arguedin Responsible Statecraft, Washington should still do everything in its power to work with Moscow to reduce each country’s nuclear stockpiles. “The framework for a U.S.-Russian arms control arrangement is not perfect and will require concessions from both Washington and Moscow,” Bugos wrote. “[B]ut this is part of the arms control bargain, and the benefits, like the non-use of nuclear weapons in warfare since 1945, have consistently outweighed the perceived costs.”

— On Thursday, French President Emmanuel Macron gave a detailed run-down of his stance toward the war in Ukraine, according to AP. Macron argued that Europe “must get prepared for a long war” in order to put Ukraine in the best possible position for negotiations. He also defended his decision to keep talking with Putin, arguing that “we must do everything to make a negotiated peace possible.”

U.S. State Department News:

In a Tuesday press briefing, spokesperson Vedant Patel responded to concerns that U.S. weapons transfers to Ukraine have dropped Pentagon weapons stockpiles to “uncomfortably low” levels. “The United States has stood with the people of Ukraine for 31 years, and we will continue to firmly stand with them as they defend their freedom and independence,” Patel said. “We are going to continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as that takes.”

*

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 Responsible Statecraft

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.

***

The most perceptive ancient historians and philosophers could not have foreseen a time when a certain type of mass convenience and abundance becomes a threat to democracy, justice and dispersed power. Welcome to the incarcerations of the credit card payment systems Gulag and the corporate state’s drive to stop consumers from paying with cash.

So long as you have a credit card and a credit score, you’re in a world of easy credit (no down payments, etc.), and high interest rates, especially on unpaid monthly balances. All it takes is swiping your card and pushing buttons at retail establishments or online to make a purchase.

If you are in the lower 20% of the income scale, unbanked and outside the Gulag, consumer protections are really weak. Rip-off practices such as pay-day loan rackets and check cashing gouges proliferate.

For over a decade the screws have been tightening to coerce people into the credit-debt economy. Both the corporations and the government are to blame.

Try renting a car or getting home insurance without a credit card and credit history. Try using FedEx or UPS without a credit card. More retail outlets are experimenting with cashless transactions, even in places like the District of Columbia where a law barring discrimination against cash purchases goes unenforced.

“Cash” is defined for this article as paper money, checks and money orders. Many state laws define cash as only paper money.

The government, for example, is turning the screws by forcing Social Security recipients into receiving electronic monthly direct deposits or prepaid debit cards instead of receiving a check in the mail. This started in 2010. If you don’t have an “E-ZPass” on the Massachusetts Turnpike, an electronic camera catches your license plate and bills you with an added fee, even though you were willing to pay cash for which there is no toll gate.

Last month, the city of Newburgh, New York, converted its coin-only parking meters to cashless meters on the city’s business corridor streets. According to Blaise Gomez of “News12 Hudson Valley,” florist Christine Bello said the city is out of touch with its largely low-income demographic. “They eliminated an entire portion of my customer base by making this strictly cards,” she related. “So many of my customers do not have credit cards. They don’t have bank accounts. They don’t have smartphones. What were they thinking?”

Ms. Bello is speaking for tens of millions of poorer Americans who are being denied, excluded, penalized and harassed simply because they want to use paper cash which is “legal tender.” Isn’t that what 31 U.S.C. 5103 stipulates – that “United States coins and currency [including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve Banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues”? Except for the loophole, which is that vendors can give you notice that they don’t accept cash, unless you are in one of the few states with laws declaring cash must be accepted.

There are many inducements for vendors getting you into the credit-card economy. First, you lose control over your money. The ever-tightening tentacles of their fine-print contracts dictate the terms of their grip over you and any remedies you may have to challenge abuses. While losing your bargaining power under this consumer servitude, you also are losing your privacy big time, compared to buying with cash. “Data mining” takes over and sends your purchase history and profiles to anyone in the world willing to pay or anyone able to hack. Corporate Big Brother – Equifax and Facebook – are profiting from your personal data.

With credit, you are more likely to make impulsive purchases and not be able to control your children’s buying escapades. Debt, high interest payments, and maybe harassment by bill collectors enter your life. Some who live beyond their means are seduced by the gambling industry’s lure of riches.

A new Gallup Poll reports that 64% of respondents say it is “likely the U.S. will be cashless in their lifetime!” Other countries are moving to cashless faster – some for authoritarian motivations.  Just try being a tourist in Europe without a credit card.

There is a class stratification in the poll. The lower people’s income, the more likely they use cash for most purchases. The higher income and the younger they are, the more likely they use credit/debit cards or other digital payment systems. Interestingly, however, far more U.S. adults say they would be “upset” if the U.S. becomes a cashless society (46%) than the ones who say they would be “happy” with such an outcome (only 9%).

A majority (56%) of Americans, Gallup finds, say they “like to have cash with them at all times when they are outside their home.”

The poll registers a sharp partisan difference: “Republicans are most resistant to a shift to a cashless economy, with 60% saying they would not like it. Independents register 45% and Democrats register 28% taking that rejectionist position.

While the Covid-19 pandemic contributed to the shift from cash, all the corporate pressures and extreme surveillance capitalism are in that direction. Even the union-owned Amalgamated Bank recently announced that its Washington, D.C. branch is now “a cashless bank.” Imagine “a cashless bank” so you can no longer cash a check or get money for petty cash!

The ever-increasing loss of consumer freedom is a daily work in regress by the fine-print commercial planners of growing consumer peonage. They have corporate contract attorneys who brag about each step they originate, including blocking you from going to court for your grievances and relinquishing other rights.

There is no time to lose. Consumers need an all-American advocacy organization to protect and defend the use of paper cash, checks and money orders for the consumers’ control, freedom and the privacy these payment systems enable. We invite people interested in helping to create such an organization to write to Protect Cash, P.O. Box 19367, Washington DC 20036, or send an email to [email protected].

*

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 Advancing Time

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.

***

The invasion of Ukraine has been going on for more than five months now and hostilities may continue for quite some time. In military terms, the outcome is still uncertain, but what is already clear is who the big winners and losers of this conflict are.

For the arms manufacturers, this war is like a gift from heaven. At the behest of NATO, European countries will increase their armament efforts by hundreds of billions in the coming years. In central Europe we may expect a new arms race — just think of the threat to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus.

In the Arctic region, the same thing threatens to happen with the entry of Finland and Sweden into the Atlantic alliance. The push for a so-called “global NATO” may also lead to a new and dangerous arms race in Asia.

This militarization and new threats of war make the value of stocks in the defense companies in the U.S. skyrocket.

The same goes for the big fossil fuel companies. The unprecedented rise in gas and petroleum prices has increased their profits by 350 percent.

The third big winner is NATO itself. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the alliance’s raison d’etre ceased to exist — and under Trump, the alliance was even declared brain dead. Today, however, it is alive and well.

In Europe, two new members were added and operational combat troops have increased from 40,000 to 300,000. In Asia, as well as other continents, expansion is in the works, either through new partnerships or by increasing existing military deployments.

Over the past quarter century, NATO has waged wars against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, resulting in nearly one million deaths.

The fourth winner is the U.S. — 25 years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski, advisor to several U.S. presidents, wrote that, for the U.S., control of the Eurasian continent was essential to maintaining hegemony. Close cooperation between Europe, Russia, and China had to be thwarted at all costs.

Over the past decade, stronger economic relations between Europe, China, and Russia have been growing. This war is reversing that trend.

China is also being targeted. Mike Pompeo, former director of the CIA and secretary of state under Trump, said it plainly: “We must prevent the formation of a pan-Eurasian colossus incorporating Russia, but led by China.”

Liz Truss calls for an “economic NATO” to cut off China and Russia from Western economies.

The losers

Those who stand to lose the most are Ukrainians, with thousands dead and wounded as well as millions fleeing the country. Ukraine is heading for complete bankruptcy.

Thousands of Russian soldiers have lost their lives while the population back home is suffering from Western sanctions and increased state repression.

This war has been particularly damaging to the global food system, already seriously weakened by Covid-19, climate change, and high energy prices.

A total of 50 million people in 45 countries are on the brink of famine.

The European population has also been affected by disproportionate food and energy price rises. Not only will that cause a lot of misery, but it also increases the likelihood of an economic recession.

Europe’s prestige has also taken a hit among a large proportion of non-Western countries which cannot understand how the EU has completely surrendered its sovereignty to the U.S. and Britain.

Another major loser is world stability. With the rise of China and other emerging countries, we seemed to be moving toward a multipolar world — a positive evolution, but now the world is heading towards a division into two camps: a bloc dominated by the West against the rest of the world.

It has to be noted that only a quarter of the countries worldwide have been willing to support sanctions against Russia.

The war has also jeopardized urgent action against global warming.

Last, as in all wars, truth is the first casualty. The mainstream Western media puts forward NATO’s version of events, while dissenting voices of the peace movement or some academics are barely heard.

Before the war, Ukraine was portrayed as “the most corrupt country” in Europe. Today, the country is the epitome of “liberal ideals.”

A broad front is urgently needed between the peace movement, the third world, labor, and environmental movements to stop the madness of this war.

*

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.

Marc Vandepitte is a Belgian economist and philosopher. He writes on North-South relations, Latin America, Cuba, and China. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

***

The odious legacy of Stepan Bandera drives the suppression of those who dare challenge the narrative of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict promulgated by the Ukrainian government, its Western allies and a compliant mainstream media.

In May 1986 I received orders to attend a counterterrorism awareness course at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School, in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. For the next two weeks I learned about the various terrorist threats facing the United States military, and was taught various skills to overcome them, such as high-speed evasive driving, counter-surveillance methodology and reactive shooting techniques.

Upon my return to Twenty-Nine Palms, where I was stationed as a Marine Corps intelligence officer, I was given the task of putting my newly learned skills to work by carrying out a base-wide counterterrorism exercise. I borrowed a scout-sniper team from the infantry battalion on base, and set them up in an apartment off base, where I turned them into a terrorist cell tasked with collecting intelligence on the senior officers who lived and worked on the base. The only rule was that the terrorists could not engage with civilians — no families were to be impacted by the drill.

Over the course of the next 30 days, my terrorist team was able to “assassinate” every battalion commander, the regimental commander and the base commander, using improvised explosive devices and sniper fire — and had the photographs to prove it.

The takeaway from this exercise was that if someone wanted you dead, you were probably going to die.

Vigilance was your only real defense — to be alert for anything suspicious. In short, to live a life governed by paranoia. In the age of terrorism, if you feel like someone is seeking to do you harm, it is probably because someone is seeking to do you harm.

Using Those Skills

Throughout my professional life, I have had occasion to use the skills I learned at Fort Bragg on several occasions — I was targeted for assassination while working as a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq and I was informed that I was the subject of a “hit” put out by the Russian mafia for my role in breaking up an illicit missile component smuggling ring.

I would conduct a 360-degree inspection of my vehicle before entering it, looking for signs of tampering. And I would conduct counter-surveillance drills while driving, accelerating at odd intervals to see if anyone kept pace, or rapidly exiting a highway to see if anyone followed.

Today, I’m a 61-year-old writer living in the suburbs of Albany, New York. It’s a quiet neighborhood, where everyone knows everyone. And yet, due to recent circumstances, I once again find myself inspecting my vehicle before getting inside, keeping a watchful eye out for strange vehicles driving down my street and conducting counter-surveillance maneuvers while driving.

Why the paranoia? Simply put, my name has been added to a Ukrainian “kill list.” Think I’m getting too wound up? Ask the family of Daria Dugina, the 29-year-old daughter of the Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin. Both she and her father were on the same list. Both were targeted for death by an assassin dispatched by the Ukrainian security services. Only a last-second change of plans, which put Alexander Dugin behind the wheel of a different car, kept him from being killed in the blast that took the life of his daughter.

I’ve been writing for some time now about the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation and their publication in mid-July of a “blacklist” containing the names of 72 intellectuals, journalists, activists and politicians from several countries who were labeled “Russian propagandists” by the Ukrainian government for having the audacity to speak critically, yet factually, about the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

I took umbrage over this list for several reasons, first and foremost that the salaries of the Ukrainians who compiled this list appeared to be paid by the U.S. taxpayer using funds appropriated by Congress for that very purpose. The idea of Congress passing a law which empowered the Ukrainian government to do something — suppress the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and a free press — that Congress was Constitutionally prohibited from doing angered me.

So, too, did the fact that the Center for Countering Disinformation announced the existence of this “blacklist” at a function organized by a U.S.-funded NGO and attended by State Department officials who sat mute while their Ukrainian colleagues labeled the persons on this list “information terrorists” who deserved to be arrested and prosecuted as “war criminals.”

At the time, I cautioned that the use of such inflammatory language meant that the “blacklist” could be turned into a “kill list” simply by having a fanatic decide to take justice into his or her own hands. Given that the U.S. government funded the creation of this list, organized the meeting where it was presented to the world and gave an implicit stamp of approval to the list and its accompanying labeling through the attendance of U.S. government officials, these fanatics don’t have to be foreign sourced. Plenty of people in the U.S. adhere to the same hate-filled ideology that exists in Ukraine today and which gave birth to the “blacklist.”

Some of them are my neighbors.

In June I drove down to Bethel, New York (the site of the original Woodstock music festival), to participate in a Spartan Obstacle Course Race. To get there, I had to drive past Ellenville, a sleepy little town that is home to a camp belonging to the Ukrainian American Youth Association which, every summer, coordinates with the Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms of Ukraine to hold a “Heroes’ Holiday” honoring veteran of the Ukrainian People’s Army and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.

I just realized the principal CYM-A camp is in Ellenville, NY, the same Ulster county I live in. CYM-A [aka SUMA]'s Ellenville camp ("Oselia") pictured below: the year it opened (1955), on the 25th anniversary of the UPA leader's death (1975), and its "Heroes Monument" today. pic.twitter.com/1AHa9sDKL1

— Bandera Lobby Blog (@mossrobeson__) May 17, 2019

The camp boasts a “Heroes’ Monument”, consists of a 42-foot-tall structure with a Ukrainian trident at the top flanked by the busts of Yevhen Konovalets, Symon Petliura, Roman Shukhevych and Stepan Bandera —four leading figures in the history of Ukrainian nationalism, all of whom were involved in the murders, collectively, of hundreds of thousands of Jews, Poles and Russians.

Bandera has been elevated to the status of a national hero in Ukraine, and his birthday is considered a national holiday.

That a monument to men responsible for genocidal mass murder and who, in the case of two of them (Shukhevych and Bandera) openly collaborated with Nazi Germany, could be erected in the United States is disturbing.

That every year Ukrainian-American adherents of the odious ideology of Stepan Bandera gather to celebrate his legacy at a “children’s camp” where the youth are arrayed in brown uniforms that make them look like what they, in fact, are — ideological storm troopers for a hateful neo-Nazi ideology that promotes the racial superiority of the Ukrainian people, is an national abomination.

Here is another, newer CYM-A camp ("Beskyd") which can be found in Baraboo, Wisconsin, featuring its fascist "Heroes Monument," including a bust of the wanna-be Hitler of Ukraine, Stepan Bandera. pic.twitter.com/RYTqcTQTaD

— Bandera Lobby Blog (@mossrobeson__) May 17, 2019

From Ellenville to Bethel, I saw evidence of this hateful reality in every blue-and-yellow Ukrainian flag fluttering in the wind — and every red-and-black banner of the Bandera-worshipping Ukrainian neo-Nazi fanatics that fluttered next to them.

Stepan Bandera Legacy 

The legacy of Stepan Bandera is at the very heart of what passes for Ukrainian nationalism today. It dominates the political arena inside Ukraine, where all competing political ideology and affiliations have been outlawed by President Volodymyr Zelensky.

It is behind the suppression of all dissenting voices — foreign and domestic — that dare challenge the narrative about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict being promulgated by the Ukrainian government, its Western allies, and a compliant mainstream media.

After Consortium News published my letter to my New York congressional delegation (Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and Rep. Paul Tonko), in which I called them out for voting for Public Law 117-128 appropriating $40 billion in U.S. taxpayer money to underwrite the Ukrainian government and military, there was concerted action by others impacted by the Ukrainian “blacklist,” which the legislation had funded.  This was led by Diane Sare, the LaRouche Party candidate challenging Schumer for his Senate seat.

The publicity about congressionally-funded suppression of free speech appeared to be too much for those who are complicit in a frontal assault on the U.S. Constitution. The Center for Countering Disinformation’s “blacklist” was removed from the internet.

Victory, however, was short lived. Within days of the Center for Countering Disinformation’s “blacklist” being taken down, a list published by the Ukrainian “Myrotvorets” (Peacemaker’s) Center incorporated names that had been on the Center for Countering Disinformation “blacklist.”

Coat of Myrotvorets staff member with field version of their emblem on sleeve. (Shao, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

The Myrotvorets list has been in existence since 2014 and has been described as “effectively a death list for politicians, journalists, entrepreneurs and other public figures who have been ‘cleared for firing’” by the list’s creators.

Daria Dugina’s name was on that list.

And now so is mine, along with several other Westerners, such as Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett and British rock musician Roger Waters.

Scott Ritter on the death list. (Click to enlarge).

The Biden administration is silent about this abomination.

So is Congress.

According to 6 USCS § 101, the term terrorism is

“any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”

There is little doubt that the murder of Daria Dugina was an act of terrorism perpetrated on behalf of the Ukrainian government. (Her photo on the list now has the word “liquidated” written diagonally across it in red.)

While the Ukrainians deny any such allegations, Russian authorities have assembled a convincing factual case to the contrary.

The existence of the Myrotvorets “death list” is an instrument of terror and should be taken down at the insistence of the U.S. Government.

The failure of the Ukrainian government to shut down the Myrotvorets Center and condemn its activities would constitute material support of terrorism.

The U.S. should also recognize any organizations which embrace the ideology of Stepan Bandera as terrorist entities — including those responsible for raising a new generation of brown-shirted neo-Nazis in the heartland of America.

The “Hero’s Monument” in Ellenville must be closed, and the statues of Bandera and the other three Ukrainian nationalists removed from public view.

It is a national disgrace that U.S. citizens are subjected to death threats from an erstwhile ally of the United States for simply exercising their Constitutional right of free speech. The adherents to the ideology of Stepan Bandera, in Ukraine and in the United States, must be treated as terrorists, and prosecuted with the same level of intensity and purpose as were the followers of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Until this is done, I will have no choice but to take the appropriate precautions to make sure that neither my family nor I suffer the fate of Daria Dugina.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.

Featured image: Stepan Bandera monument in Ternopil, Ukraine, 2017. (Mykola Vasylechko, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

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.

***

Maliciously smearing approximately half of the country as existential terrorist-inclined threats to “the soul of the nation” is nothing but the crudest Machiavellian means of dividing and ruling the population.

The Unprecedentedly Dangerous Divider-In-Chief

US President Joe Biden’s nationally televised speech on Thursday that the official White House website headlined as being about “the continued battle for the soul of the nation” saw the incumbent become the most dangerous and divisive American leader in history. Far from trying to cleanse and protect that very same soul, he shamelessly spit on it by pitting his people against one another as part of an obvious divide-and-rule plot ahead of the neck-and-neck midterm elections that are only two months away.

Debunking Biden’s False Belief In Equality & Democracy

The first part that stands out is Biden emphasizing how the location of his speech, Philadelphia’s Independence Hall where the Declaration of Independence was made and the Constitution signed, reinforces the mutually complementary concepts of equality and democracy connected with those two documents. He doesn’t truly believe in either of those though as proven by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre condemning all minority views as “extremist” earlier that same day.

Nevertheless, he pretended that he’s a true believer in them in order to artificially manufacture the basis upon which to contrast himself with former US President Donald Trump. Biden claimed that his predecessor and those who still support his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement supposedly “represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” Falsely framing them as existential threats so close to the midterms is obviously aimed at manipulating voters’ perceptions.

Applying The “Rules For Radicals” Against The MAGA Movement

This crude tactic would be condemned by the American Government if it was employed by any Global South leader irrespective of whether it’s baseless like in Biden’s case or genuinely backed up by facts. Biden then channeled the infamous Saul Alinksy’s “Rules For Radicals”, specifically the thirteenth rule to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”, when claiming that “the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans”.

By adding that “that is a threat to this country”, the incumbent ominously implied that the full authority of the state will be brought down to bear on those who are even simply suspected of being remotely connected to the former president or his movement on faux national security pretexts. He then instantly reverted to gaslighting once again just like he earlier did by unconvincingly claiming that he supports the Founding Fathers’ vision of equality and democracy by contrasting Democrats and MAGA on false bases.

Who Really Employs Political Violence & Election Conspiracy Theories?

The same man who represents the party that frenziedly fanned the flames of the joint Antifa- and BLM-led Hybrid War of Terror on America all throughout summer 2020, whose countless antagonists were manipulated into functioning as “useful idiots” of the anti-MAGA faction of the US “deep state” (permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies), counterfactually claimed that it’s Trump and his supporters who divided the country through the use of violence for political ends.

Biden also insulted Americans’ intelligence by gaslighting that it’s only some MAGA folks who’ve ever rejected the outcome of a presidential election when most Democrats refused to recognize the legitimacy of Trump’s victory in 2016. Not only that, but their anti-MAGA “deep state” puppeteers literally concocted the Russiagate conspiracy theory that they laundered through allied congressional representatives, law enforcement, media, and NGOs to discredit the entirety of his four years in office.

The Democrats’ Path To A Dystopian Post-Modern Dictatorship

The ”carnage and darkness and despair” that the incumbent claimed that MAGA folks see when they look at America was actually the Democrats’ rallying cry during all of Trump’s term and especially ahead of the 2020 elections. When Biden said that “They spread fear and lies – lies told for profit and power”, this objectively described the Democrats as was earlier explained with respect to the Russiagate conspiracy theory as well as their false fearmongering about Trump being a “dictator worse than Hitler”.

On the topic of dictatorship, the author predicted shortly after 2020’s disputed election that “Biden’s America Would Be A Dystopian Hellhole”, which continues progressively unfolding exactly as foreseen. “Every Democrat Is A Wannabe Dictator”, so it naturally follows that the party’s latest figurehead would play to this fantasy by falsely describing his political opponents as supposed “threats” in order to create the “publicly plausible” pretext for imposing a Pakistani-like post-modern dictatorship.

His infamous speech perniciously manipulated the concept of pre-bunking in order to mislead Americans into falsely considering approximately half of the country to be an existential threat to “the soul of the nation.” By dividing and ruling them in such a stereotypically Machiavellian way, Biden (or rather those members of the “deep state” that are behind him and wrote his speech) is deliberately trying to radicalize the minority of at-risk MAGA folks to engage in highly publicized political violence.

The MAGA Mentality

Objectively speaking, they’ve always been on the strategic defensive even before Trump’s election since the whole reason why they voted for him in the first place was their hope that he’d reverse – or at least slow down – the Democrat-driven trend of comprehensively dismantling everything that America stood for. Upon the 45^th President entering office, they then found themselves viciously targeted by their opponents, who ultimately waged a nationwide spree of urban terrorism against them in summer 2020.

After their hero’s scandalous departure from the White House and his replacement with the “deep state”-backed Democrat’s placeholder, those who sympathize with MAGA or are at the very least perceived as being associated with it are now at risk of being actively oppressed by the state. Biden’s hate-filled speech will only exacerbate these fears, which could very easily radicalize the absolute minority of those folks with preexisting mental illnesses and thus push them to political violence.

The Worst-Case Scenario

No sincerely law-abiding and patriotic American would ever harm their compatriots no matter how fierce their political disputes may get, yet it’s impossible to ever perfectly defend against “lone wolves”, including those that have previously been on the secret police’s (FBI) radar. In the worst-case scenario that one or some of them end up doing something terrible, God forbid, then there’s no doubt that the incident (which might even manifest as a terrorist attack) would be exploited by the ruling party.

Biden’s backers would certainly take advantage of it to accelerate America’s descent into a dystopian post-modern dictatorship, but for their plans to enjoy the greatest probability of success, they must first effectively divide and rule the population through gaslighting tactics exactly as the incumbent just did. The next step is to precondition them into expecting political violence by the side that’s misportrayed as an existential threat that’s supposedly predisposed to terrorism, which Biden also just achieved.

Upon the worst-case scenario transpiring, God forbid, so-called “cancel culture” can then immediately be weaponized to its most vicious political extreme by carrying out a nationwide crackdown against everyone even remotely suspected of being associated with MAGA. These devious plans aren’t anything that a sincere believer in “the continued battle for the soul of the nation” would plot, but that’s why nobody should fall for Biden’s, his backer’s, and their “useful idiots”’ false claims that they’re patriots.

Unity & Division

From top-down and bottom-up, the Democrats are united like never before when it comes to carrying out this nationwide crackdown, even though their agreement with one another in this respect is thus far only tacit and not explicit. Be that as it is, so too can it be said that MAGA is unprecedentedly united in bracing for this dystopian post-modern dictatorship scenario, though it’s only the former that have the power to be “legitimate” agents of change due to their monopoly over the state’s use of violence.

To be absolutely clear so that there’s no false perception of ambiguity whatsoever at all, the author is not in any way implying that MAGA should illegitimately employ violence (i.e. anything that isn’t the legally enshrined right to self-defense) against anyone, whether their political opponents or the state. The movement that coalesced around Trump but organically arose long before his political rise must absolutely remain committed to peaceful and political means for regaining power through the ballot.

Having clarified that crucial point of principle that should always be at the forefront of every MAGA-aligned person’s mind, political practice sometimes differs from political theory, so it can’t be taken for granted that at least one of those folks who’ve objectively been on the strategic defensive for years as was earlier explained won’t be triggered into committing political violence by Biden’s speech. However it might unfold, God forbid, that worst-case scenario would set drastic events into motion.

Reflecting On Biden’s Hateful Remarks

Those who have the time to reread the incumbent’s hateful remarks in full will more be able to more clearly discern the ulterior motives that are very strongly implied by his provocative words. He was tasked with repeating high-sounding rhetoric in order to gaslight people into not suspecting the Democrats of preparing for the sequence of events that would follow his deliberate attempt at radicalizing already the ultra-fringe minority of already psychologically disturbed MAGA folks.

Maliciously smearing approximately half of the country as existential terrorist-inclined threats to “the soul of the nation” is nothing but the crudest Machiavellian means of dividing and ruling the population. For as dark as the future might appear after Biden’s unprecedentedly divisive information warfare provocation against the American people, the worst-case scenario isn’t inevitable since nothing about the presently chaotic trajectory of the situation is deterministic.

Pulling America Back From The Brink of Civil War

While it arguably does indeed appear as though an undeclared civil war might soon be fought between the “deep state”-backed Democrats led on the streets by a coalition of Antifa, BLM, and ideologically aligned law enforcement on one side against MAGA-affiliated Americans on the other (or is already being waged according to some), that scenario could also still be averted. Responsible influencers from both sides should immediately make it known that they disavow any and all violence.

Those within their ranks who disagree with their peaceful methods of resolving political disputes must be disowned so that any rogue violence that they might God forbid commit isn’t credibly associated with either side’s cause. Law enforcement members should also remember their duty to impartially uphold the law and not allow themselves to be manipulated by anyone for political ends, while lawmakers mustn’t ever forget their sacred obligation to protect the people who they’re responsible for.

The Role Of Responsible Political Leaders & Law Enforcement Members

The Hybrid War of Terror on America could have easily been nipped in the bud had mayors/governors ordered local police/ National Guard to do so, but they purposely declined as part of their political plot to influence people’s perceptions ahead of the 2020 elections so that they’d vote against Trump. In the event of forthcoming large-scale unrest, whether driven by “deep state”-backed Democrat “useful idiots” or rogue MAGA folks, these same leaders must decisively act unlike before.

Likewise, law enforcement should prepare themselves to publicly disagree with those abovementioned leaders if their superiors once again decline to deploy them to protect the populace. The principled among them should also consider refusing to illegally restrict law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights if they’re ordered to do so since that’s one of the scenarios that could be employed by the Democrats in response to the earlier speculative worst-case scenario or possibly even to provoke it.

Concluding Thoughts

America is dangerously on the verge of descending into a fast-moving and full-on dystopian post-modern dictatorship, pushed over the precipice by none other than its incumbent president and those shadowy “deep state” forces that are behind him. That disastrous outcome can still be averted, as well as the worst-case scenarios that would likely make this trajectory irreversible, but it’ll require Americans of all political views coming together to peacefully defeat those who want to divide and rule them.

*

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 OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is taken from The Unz Review

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.

***

Autonomie ist der Zustand und das Lebensgefühl der Selbstbestimmung, Unabhängigkeit (Souveränität) und Selbstverwaltung. Philosophisch gesehen ist es die Fähigkeit, sich als Wesen der Freiheit zu sehen und aus dieser Freiheit heraus zu handeln. Sie ist auch die Kraft zum Nicht-Mitmachen (Adorno(Link ist extern)).

Das Naturrecht sagt, dass es etwas gibt, was von Natur aus recht ist. Es unterscheidet sich vom durch Menschen gesetztes, sogenanntes positives Recht dadurch, dass es dem Menschen allein schon deshalb zusteht, weil er Mensch ist. Da es durch keinen Machthaber oder wie auch immer gearteten Mehrheitsbeschluss geschaffen wird, ist es vorstaatliches Recht. Das heißt, die Gesetze eines Staates müssen sich kritisch am Naturrecht(Link ist extern) messen lassen. [1]

Das Wissen darüber, was von Natur aus recht ist, ermöglicht uns, totalitären Ideologien und Diktaturen von einem festen mitmenschlichen Standpunkt aus entgegenzutreten, ein Gefühl der Empörung gegen Unrecht und Unmenschlichkeit zu empfinden, auch wenn eventuell die ganze Gesellschaft einem Diktator zujubelt.

Was ist Naturrecht?

Das naturrechtliche Denken nimmt seinen Anfang in der antiken griechischen Philosophie, vor allem in der Auseinandersetzung Platons(Link ist extern) mit den Sophisten(Link ist extern). Ihnen hielt Platon entgegen, dass es objektive, absolut gültige Normen, Werte und Gesetze gibt, die nicht von den wechselnden Meinungen der Menschen abhängig sind. An diesen objektiven Ideen dessen, was Recht ist, muß sich der Staat und die Staatsführung zu allen Zeiten messen lassen. Platon hat hinter dem Recht die objektive Idee der Gerechtigkeit gesehen.

Das höchste Ziel im menschlichen Leben ist das vernunftbestimmte Leben und dazu kann der Mensch nur gelangen, wenn er in Kindheit und Jugend lernt, seine Begierden und Affekte zu mäßigen. Er muss das goldene Maß der Mitte einhalten lernen (Gerechtigkeit, Tapferkeit und Besonnenheit). Wenn das nicht schon im Kindes- und Jugendalter zur Lebensgewohnheit wird, dann wird er später von extremen Affekten hin- und hergerissen und wird nie zu einer tugendhaften, besonnenen, vernunftbestimmten Lebensführung (Klugheit) gelangen.

Der große Kirchenlehrer Thomas von Aquin(Link ist extern) hat die Philosophie des Aristoteles(Link ist extern) mit der von Augustinus(Link ist extern) herkommenden christlichen Philosophie und Theologie verbunden. Er hat damit überragende Bedeutung für die Herausbildung des christlichen Naturrechts, der christlichen Anthropologie und Theologie, in deren Zentrum der Mensch als Person steht.

Die von Gott erschaffene Seins-Ordnung sei vollkommen gut. In ihr wirke das „ewige Gesetz“, lex aeterna. Das ist die göttliche Weisheit, als oberstes Gesetz. Von diesem ewigen Gesetz könne der Mensch durch seine Vernunft einen Teil erkennen.

Der Mensch hat eine natürliche Neigung zum Guten, die ihm durch das ewige Gesetz „ins Herz geschrieben“ ist. Sie hilft ihm, das Naturrichtige besser zu erkennen. Die wesentlichen natürl. Neigungen des Menschen sind diejenigen zur Wahrheitserkenntnis und zum Gemeinschaftsleben. Mit seiner Vernunft kann der Mensch die Gesetze der Natur erkennen und erfasst damit die von Gott geschaffene Ordnung.[wer sowas glaubt; H.S.]

Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar

Artikel 1(Link ist extern) des deutschen Grundgesetzes (GG) lautet: „Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt.“ Die Würde des Menschen stellt den obersten Verfassungsgrundsatz dar, an dem folglich alle staatliche Gewalt ihr Handeln auszurichten hat. Sie ist daher Maßstab für Legislative, Exekutive und Judikative. Der Staat hat alles zu unterlassen, was die Menschenwürde beeinträchtigen könnte. In der Interpretation des Artikels ist umstritten, ob die Menschenwürde als über-positives Recht (Naturrecht) aufzufassen ist, oder ob sie als positives Recht(Link ist extern) zu gelten hat. [geändert H.S.]

Was sich jedoch gerade nicht nur in Deutschland, sondern weltweit abspielt, ist das Gegenteil von dem, was das deutsche Grundgesetz fordert. Die Würde des Menschen wird mit Füssen getreten – und das erinnert an das Deutschland der 30er Jahre, den aufkommenden Faschismus. Jeder denkende und fühlende Mitbürger kann es „am eigenen Leib spüren“.

Wir sind nicht mehr frei und können unser Leben nicht mehr selbstbestimmt und unabhängig führen. Die Regierungen lassen uns keinerlei Handlungsspielraum und verweigern uns das verbriefte Recht, diesen Wahnsinn nicht mitzumachen, den totalitären Machenschaften entschieden und mit aller Willenskraft entgegenzutreten. Der Rechtsstaat ist gestorben.

Doch unsere Gedanken sind frei (Cicero(Link ist extern)) und niemand kann uns unsere Würde nehmen. Auch können wir den Mut aufbringen, uns unseres eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen (Kant). Und wir wissen, was von Natur aus recht ist. Deshalb werden wir uns dem Diktat korrupter Politiker, Wissenschaftler, Mediziner, Journalisten oder fragwürdiger Mäzene wie Bill Gates nicht unterwerfen. [> NRhZ Nr. 741 vom 8.04.2020: „Auf zum letzten Gefecht!(Link ist extern)“]

Bereits vor über 100 Jahren gab der große russische Schriftsteller Leo N. Tolstoi(Link ist extern) seine Einschätzung von Regierenden zu Protokoll:

„Man könnte die Unterordnung eines ganzen Volkes unter wenige Leute noch rechtfertigen, wenn die Regierenden die besten Menschen wären; aber das ist nicht der Fall, war niemals der Fall und kann es nie sein. Es herrschen häufig die schlechtesten, unbedeutendsten, grausamsten, sittenlosesten und besonders die verlogensten Menschen. Und dass dem so ist, ist kein Zufall.“[2]

Von der Wissenschaft – auch der Medizin – erwartet die menschliche Gemeinschaft zu Recht, dass sie die Not der Menschen lindert und dem Schutz des Lebens dient. Aber immer mehr Wissenschaftler verhökern ihr Wissen und Können und oft auch ihre Seele dem militärisch-industriellen Komplex. Sie entfernen sich sogar so weit von ihrem Menschsein, dass sie die Mittel für die allgemeine Vernichtung der Menschheit vervollkommnen helfen.

Einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Aufklärung und Ermutigung der Menschen könnten die Massenmedien leisten, da sie gemäß nationaler und internationaler Vereinbarungen der wahrheitsgemäßen Information von uns Bürgern und dem Frieden verpflichtet sind. Doch das Gegenteil ist der Fall. Sie stehen „im Dienst der Kriegshetze und Hasspropaganda“ und „im Dienst der Verdummung der Massen“ (Bertha von Suttner(Link ist extern), * 9. Juni 1843 in Prag; † 21. Juni 1914 in Wien).

Erhalten wir uns also das Lebensgefühl der Selbstbestimmung, Unabhängigkeit (Souveränität) und Selbstverwaltung und die Fähigkeit, uns als Wesen der Freiheit zu sehen und aus dieser Freiheit heraus zu handeln.

*

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.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, Jahrgang 1944, ist Rektor i.R., promovierter Erziehungswissenschaftler, ehemaliger Lehrer und Schulberater sowie Diplom-Psychologe mit den Schwerpunkten Klinische Psychologie, Pädagogische Psychologie und Medienpsychologie. Er ist Buchautor sowie Autor von Fachartikeln zu den Themen Jugendgewalt (beispielsw. über Gewaltprävention in der Schule als Beitrag zur Friedenserziehung), Mediengewalt (z.B. „Unterhaltungsgewalt“ in Fernsehen, Video- und Computerspielen) und bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung. Er schreibt regelmäßig Beiträge für Global Research.

Noten

[1] Messner, Johannes (1984, 7. unveränderte Auflage). »Das Naturrecht. Handbuch der Gesellschaftsethik, Staatsethik und Wirtschaftsethik«, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin. Mittlerweile in 8. unververä. Auflage (2018). ISBN 978-3-428-15576-7 (Print), ISBN 978-3-428-55576-5 (E-Book), ISBN 978-3-428-85576-6 (Print & E-Book). [> Leseprobe(Link ist extern); H.S.]

[2] Tolstoi, Leo N. (1983). »Rede gegen den Krieg(Link ist extern)«. Frankfurt am Main, S. 74

Lesetipps von Tolstoi-Fan Helmut Schnug: Liste der Werke Lew (Leo) Tolstois >> weiter(Link ist extern).

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.

***

On December 16, 2017, the Finnish daily newspaper Helsingin Sanomat published an investigative report on the activities of the Finnish Intelligence Research Centre.  Titled “Finland’s Most Secret Place,” the report focused on the military intelligence agency’s tasks and noted its rough location.

The article was particularly pertinent, given debates at the time on whether the powers of the seemingly innocuous body in question should be expanded to monitor private data in digital networks while discussing an overall expansion of surveillance powers.

As the paper noted in scathing tone, the MPs debating the matter in Parliament seemed ignorant about what was actually at stake and taking place at Tikkakoski.  In the miasma of celebrated political ignorance, powers could be enlarged with little care and worry, elected representatives remaining, as they often have in history, asleep as the needle is administered.

The Finnish Intelligence Research Centre sounds positively ordinary in terms of designation and function.  Ditto in Finnish, where it passes for Viestikoelaitos.  Over the years, the testing facility has not been reticent about aspects of its activities, much of it based on a campaign to gain broader acceptability.  Its ultimate purpose, using radio signal intelligence, is to ensure that the Prime Minister of the day is apprised of the next potential attack on Finnish territory, were it to happen.  The concern here is that the medium of such intelligence has degraded.  Where intelligence and signals capacity degrade, broader powers tend to be sought.

As a result, reporters Tuomo Pietiläinen and Laura Halminen, and the paper’s acting manager at the time, Kalle Silfverberg, are facing the ire of the national security establishment.  Halminen’s apartment was raided in December 2017 by the police, who also seized her computer and flash drives.  According to MTV, a second instalment was not run by order of the editor-in-chief after the first publication drew criticism.

If convicted, the accused parties face prison sentences of up to four years.  “It is completely exceptional that Finnish journalists are being accused of high treason,” Hanne Aho, chairwoman of the Finnish Journalists’ Union stated to Reuters.

In the amnesiac-rich field of social media, this sounds new.  In fact, the process has been in train for some time.  Originally, five suspects were named in the investigation, including the editor-in-chief Kaius Niemi.  On October 29, 2021, charges for the disclosure and attempted disclosure of state secrets were announced against the three who now figure.

In terms of what defence may be mounted, the idea of prior publication, or material that is already available, seems the most sensible.  It is standard fare and tends to catch out governments obsessed with not being embarrassed. In fact, pre-trial investigations did little to dispel this point.

International Press Institute Executive Director Barbara Trionfi, in responding to the charges last year, drew attention to its bizarre quality.  “It is unacceptable and absurd that journalists in a European democracy like Finland are facing imprisonment for doing their job and reporting on an issue of massive public interest, which the discussion about the activities and powers of Finland’s security agencies undoubtedly was.”

Trionfi also notes that lengthiness in investigation and how it constitutes a form of constriction and deterrence.  “This investigation itself – which has dragged on for years – had already cast a shadow over Finnish reporting on national security issues.  These charges will now worsen this chilling effect, jeopardizing the public’s right to be informed on issues of tremendous importance to society.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists has also added its voice of concern.  Its Europe Director Attila Mong is adamant: “It is unacceptable that investigative journalists in an EU country could face prison sentences for their work.”

There are some striking similarities to the battle being waged against journalists in another country, one supposedly liberal democratic and claiming to have, superficially at least, some respect for press freedoms.  The Afghan Files, published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, revealed alleged atrocities by Australian special forces in Afghanistan, and eventually resulted in a raid of the national broadcaster by the Australian Federal Police.

The AFP took its time before executing a warrant to raid the Ultimo headquarters in Sydney despite already knowing the core source of the files, the whistleblower and former SAS operative David McBride.  The entire affair was one of abuse, deterring intimidation and even terror.

It further left the option for prosecuting one of the journalists who had compiled the report, Dan Oakes, open.  The case was eventually dropped by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions on public interest grounds.  While the CDPP had what could only be described as an attack of conscience, the entire measure was both dangerous and farcical.

The prosecutor in the case against the three Finnish journalists has demanded that the online version of the story be scrubbed from the newspaper’s website.  But as Aho remarks, very little is being given away about the substance of charges.

This may well be a sign of things to come, suggesting that Finns may have more to worry about than the distracting antics of their dancing premier.  The national security wonks, now in full embrace with NATO and keen to anticipate the next crisis, will not be thrilled about debates on intelligence and any proposed expansion of powers.  For a country solid and reliable in its defence of press freedoms, this is a rotten turn up for the books.

*

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.

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 is from the Committee to Protect Journalists

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.

***

Before bidding good-bye to Covid 19 pandemic, WHO boss, Mr. Tedros has exhorted us to welcome yet another PHEIC under the shadow of monkeypox.

As a part of global co-ordinated response, the national and international media dutifully carried scary headlines to sound the loudest alarm bell. Even some experts expressed their deep anguish on rapidly closing window of opportunity for containing global outbreak!

Since then one and half month has elapsed with no appreciable sense of horror and anxiety smouldering among the masses. Reports of the most innocuous sibling of deadly smallpox virus spreading like wildfire are disappearing as fast as they caught us unaware. Let alone the big headlines and frightening data on monkeypox, not even few lines in small print are now visible any longer.

It appears that monkeypox has either detested the co-ordinated and earth-shaking hullabaloo and preferred to remain incognito or it is waiting in it’s wings to allow the strengthening of vaccine-ecosystem. The purpose of this article is not to resurrect a horror story that has already started dying out. Rather, it will be more sensible to raise a pertinent question, is the fear campaign on monkeypox losing steam? Curiously, the answer is both yes and no.

What are the possibilities of the answer being ‘Yes’?

There is a host of implausible statements and goof-ups on the part of WHO boss who failed to create  convincing and awe-inspiring pre-conditions that could lead the monkeypox borne PHEIC to a predictable pathway of pandemic and follow the foot-prints of Covid 19.

Firstly, he said that he acted as tie-breaker by unilaterally declaring monkeypox a PHEIC when his own advisors of EC, on 21 July, 2022 resolved against his decision by 9 against and 6 for opinion.

One month ago, on 23 June, the similar move of Mr. Tedros was also defeated by 11 against and 3 for PHEIC. Secondly, though he tried his best to outsmart those holding opposite view, he ended up with such statement, “scientific principles, evidence and other relevant information- which are currently insufficient and leave us with many unknowns”. It was the fourth component of five elements of IHR that he invoked to justify his action. In the same speech given on 23 July, he said, “outbreak that has spread around the world rapidly, through new modes of transmission, about which we understand too little.” In the same breath, he claimed, “with the tools we have right now, we can stop transmission and bring this outbreak under control.”

With many unknowns and insufficient informations how could he play a messiah to bring out magic “tools to stop the transmission”? wondered even the most hardened believer of vaccine and RT-PCR method of diagnosis of viral infection. While Mr. Tedros said,

“the outbreak has been concentrated largely among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men, with many occurring in men who have had multiple recent sex partners,”

And on that same day, one of his temporary recommendations (2.a.iii) issued by WHO reads:n

“Implement response actions with the goal of protecting vulnerable groups (immune suppressed individuals, children, pregnant women) who may be at risk of severe monkeypox disease.”

How can the children & pregnant women be vulnerable with a disease “largely concentrated among MSM” – is comprehensible only to a corrupt global leader of public health who knows how to make mockery of scientific truth.

All five deaths ostensibly occurred were confined to two African countries which are said to be the home of monkeypox. Untill then, no death was reported in USA or Europe. Yet, Europe was placed on high alert requiring “accelerated research into use of vaccine, therapeutics and other tools.”

On the day Mr. Tedros declared PHEIC, WHO published an interim guidance on Laboratory Testing for the Monkeypox. It says, to differentiate monkeypox from a group of closely resembling set of clinical features, laboratory confirmation of specimen is to be done by NAAT ( generic to Orthopox virus) or real-time PCR test specific to monkeypox virus. They cunningly brushed aside a fundamental question, can PCR test confirm the presence of an infectious virus? A research article published by CDC on 7 July, 2006 unequivocally said,

“PCR can only identify short stretches of poxvirus DNA (1,7). Nevertheless, since EM and PCR cannot discriminate between infectious and noninfectious virus particles or nucleic acids, they are not satisfactory when an evaluation of the infectious capacity of viral particles is required.”

It went on to say,

“Virus concentration should exceed 10 particles/mL; however, even at these concentrations only the virus family can be determined, and no additional classification is possible.”

The latest disclaimer on Monkeypox generic real time PCR test issued by CDC on 6 June, 2022 says, “The recipient testing laboratory is responsible for generating validation or verification data as applicable.” The generic test method was “just an example on how the test was done” in their lab. They did not claim that this test method was validated or verified for universal use. Nevertheless, by 22 June, “CDC in collaboration with US department of HHS began shipping orthopoxvirus tests to five commercial laboratory companies, including the nation’s largest reference laboratories.” Buoyed by the prospect of sharpening the most lucrative tool, HHS secretary said,

“All Americans should be concerned about monkeypox cases. Thankfully we have right now the tools to fight and treat cases in America by dramatically expanding the number of testing locations throughout the country, we are making it possible for anyone who needs to be tested to do so.”

All the hypes and hooplas about monkeypox and cacophony on mounting co –ordinated response with already approved vaccine, test method and drugs failed to seduce the monkeypox virus due to a simple reason. It is the fact that monkeypox has remained endemic in the wretchedly poor west and central African countries for last three decades causing almost zero death in healthy individuals. Therefore, when this self-limiting virus was reported to have hopped too far , on the developed European countries and number of exported cases occurred in hundereds which are far in excess of that happened in the countries where it is endemic, it poses an uncanny situation for the epidemiologists who are thinking very seriously to restore people’s trust in their science. Given the lack of validation and verification of generic rt-PCR tests, the poxvirus must have encountered profound identity crisis. So did Mr. Tedros, but in his case, credibility crisis has become so much disabling that monkeypox scare is surely fizzling out from public psyche.

What are the possibilities of the answer being “No”?

Let’s begin with a fundamental question, will the scare of PHEIC or  future pandemic end with the frenzy on monkeypox losing steam?

Answer is a resounding ‘No’.

It is because fear is universal in nature. It has no species, family or population and pathogen specificity. So do the vaccines developed by CEPI against new and unknown pathogen. Does it sound crazy ? May be.

But, the claims made by CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness & Innovations) are far more weird. The CEO of CEPI wrote an article, “Could monkeypox give us an R&D blueprint to end pandemics?” on 24 May, 2022. He said that wiping out a deadly disease called smallpox was the crowning glory.

Yet, he wanted us to believe that they have created a global stockpile of smallpox vaccine and anti viral drugs for use in case of outbreak or bio-terrorist attack. Even in wildest fantasy, it is difficult to conjure up bio-terrorists innovating means to weaponise an eradicated virus so much so that it would cause epidemic outbreak.

If they really exist on this planet and they are armed with cutting edge technology of genetically manipulating a plethora of deadly pathogens, why raising a gigantic fund of 3.5 billion US$. Why not eradicating the imagined bio-terrorists? Why so much furore and funding( read investment) to put out imaginary fire, instead of stamping out the source of fire? The greatest lesson of Covid 19 is that common sense and plain truths are the principal targets of blitzkrieg of high voltage campaign spiced up with pseudo- scientific jargons. As a perfect example of this fact, let me cite an outlandish statement of CEO of CEPI,

“COVID-19, and now monkeypox, have made us all too aware of an unfortunate biological truth: viruses do not respect borders. But if governments and industry can work together, transcending those same borders that viruses so effortlessly pass through, we can create a vaccine library with prototype vaccines against almost any viral threat.”

Nevertheless, the most pragmatic lessons learnt by Mr.Tedros is this – “let me highlight three specific lessons as they relate to CEPI, our CEPI”. In the key note speech at Global Pandemic Prepareness Summit, on 8 March, 2022 he made this statement explaining further,

“A commitment to CEPI is commitment to science.” …. “fully funded CEPI is a commitment for better future”.   …. “That’s why I welcome CEPI’s 100 Days Mission and urge donors to fully fund CEPI’s 3.5 billion US dollar investment case.”

Such a glib talk makes us curious to know something more about his CEPI. It is a WHO-mediated platform for worldwide promotion of vaccines, drugs and diagnostics under the pretext of pandemic preparedness. Structurally, it is a coalition of big pharma companies manufacturing vaccines, anti- virals and diagnostics, big financial and banking giants like Goldman Sachs and private organizations like Welcome trust, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation & World Economic Forum. Founded in Davos summit of WEF in 2017, It coaxed most of the governments across the world to pump money into it’s coffer.

It’s annual report of 2020 mentioned that one of it’s missions is “to fill the critical gap in vaccine eco-system”. Needless to say that the critical gap is not imaginary, it is real. It owes it’s existence to the gap between production and market. They also answered how would they fill this ‘gap’-

Firstly. By moving vaccine candidate before epidemic begins and stockpiling for use in outbreak. Secondly, Development of vaccine against NEW & UNKNOWN pathogen.

It must be appreciated that they have enough wisdom to predict that the new and unknown virus will not only respect border but will certainly respect their seamless business strategy across the borders and will not undermine the critical gap they are bridging up. Anyone may ask, how will they manage the critical gap while taking out the chosen vaccine from the shelves of their so called vaccine library within 100 days, if drug regulatory bodies approves them only after due process?

The thought leaders of CEPI has already roped in EMA, FDA and WHO by co-opting them as a part of co-ordination group. On the otherside of the spectrum of this formidable coalition, the scientists and researchers are sitting in the scientific advisory committee. Quite expectedly, these greatest scientists of our time will be churning out hundreds of research papers and study results to justify the making of vaccines against new and unknown pathogen.

The whole pandemic preparedness project thus appears so watertight that no amount of truth-seeking criticism or relentless questioning will be able to make a dent on it. This is the reason why CEPI can non-chalantly say that they have had five priority pathogens on their portfolio. They even clarified. “In 2019, there were outbreaks of all of CEPI’s priority pathogens: Ebola, Nipah, MERS, Lassa, Rift, Chikungunya as well as many other diseases.”   

Finally, the bombshell was dropped by Mr. Tedros himself. He clarified in his keynote speech at CEPI summit that two years before the CEPI was born or by 2015 they had already developed vaccines against SARS, MERS and yet then unidentified disease X  which turned out to be Covid 19. He added,

“But of course, COVID-19 will not be the last Disease X.” and

“we are here to prepare for respond rapidly to future pandemics” and most important of all,

“This pandemic(Covid 19) is not over anywhere until it is over everywhere.”

Therefore, the pandemic preparedness is essentially a formidable two-pronged tool. On the one hand, there is the pretext of perpetual pandemic and on the other hand there shines the monkeypox-inspired blue print of R & D for vaccines for all possible future outbreaks. This is the reason why the saga of monkeypox is not going to fizzle out with the temporary waning of co-ordinated cacophony.

*

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.

Gautam Das is a medical doctor based in Kolkata, India practicing Family Medicine. He has been writing and speaking against the official Covid narrative and Covid mandates. His recent article on pandemic treaty was published in UHO website, India, see this and this.

Sources

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-62279436

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/27/asia/monkeypox-asia-alert-outbreak-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/health/monkeypox-is-spreading-fast-now-kids-are-getting-it-too-101659181453462.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02054-7

https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-statement-on-the-press-conference-following-IHR-emergency-committee-regarding-the-multi–country-outbreak-of-monkeypox–23-july-2022

https://www.who.int/news/item/23-07-2022-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-(ihr)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-multi-country-outbreak-of-monkeypox

https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/WHO-MPX-laboratory-2022.1

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/7/06-0093_article

https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/pdf/pcr-diagnostic-protocol-508.pdf

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/06/22/hhs-expanding-monkeypox-testing-capacity-five-commercial-laboratory-companies.html

https://cepi.net/news_cepi/could-monkeypox-give-us-an-rd-blueprint-to-end-pandemics/

https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-keynote-speech-at-the-global-pandemic-preparedness-summit

https://cepi.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022_07_06-CEPI-Investment-Overview.pdf

https://cepi.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2020-Board-of-Directors-Report-and-Annual-Accounts-incl-Auditors-report.pdf

Featured image is from OffGuardian

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.

***

The side effects of anti-Russian sanctions are becoming increasingly unbearable for Western countries. Finland has activated maximum alert levels due to the energy crisis, initiating exceptional measures to manage supply difficulties. The head of government even stated that the country would be experiencing a “war economy”, despite the fact that Finland is obviously not at war with any other state. This scenario reveals the disastrous path that the West chose to follow by its own decision.

On 1 September, Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin described the economic situation in her country in the midst of the gas supply crisis as a “war economy”. Interestingly, in her speech, Marin blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for the crisis, despite the fact that the decision to sanction Moscow was taken unilaterally by Western countries. According to her, the gas crisis is occurring because the Russian government is using energy as a weapon in the current conflict.

“We seem to be living in a war economy. This is not a normal economic situation”, she said during a press conference.

She also added that this is the third calamity her country has faced since she took power in 2019:

“The first [crisis] was the pandemic, the second was the tide of war coming in Europe, and the third is the energy crisis, which both Finland and all other European countries in the grip of, due to the war and the fact that Putin is using energy as a weapon against Europe”.

Marin did not explain exactly how the gas was being used as a weapon by the Russians. She just blamed Putin in a generic and unjustified way. In fact, her words sounded like a desperate attempt to make a kind of scapegoat for the impending crisis that will damage her country. Marin just tried to evade her responsibility as the Finland’s head of government, pointing to the president of a foreign country as the cause of the problems.

However, it is necessary to emphasize that there is no validity in Marin’s rhetoric. Russia initially had no intention of using energy as a strategic point in its international disputes. On the contrary, it was the West itself that imposed a series of sanctions to which Moscow was forced to respond with some measures, such as demanding payment in rubles, controlling prices and even banning sales in some more serious cases.

If the West had not taken the initiative to try to “punish” Russia for starting the special operation in Ukraine, Moscow would certainly have kept the European energy supply intact. All Russian actions arose in response to Western provocations. The problem is that European countries do not seem to have acted with prudence and strategy, they simply adhered to the American plan to sanction Russia even though they are energetically dependent on Russia and lacking alternative sources of gas. Now, Marin tries to “blame” the Russians, but imposing sanctions and even asking for NATO membership was her government’s unilateral initiative.

The Finnish case is quite emblematic and sums up well the abyss that Europe has chosen for itself. Before the escalation of the Ukrainian conflict, the Nordic country depended on Moscow for the supply of 70% of its natural gas and 35% of its oil, in addition to 14% of its electricity. Without the partnership with Moscow, Helsinki would simply not have been able to meet the energy demands of the production chains and the population, but even so, the country chose to sanction Russia, ban imports and denied any form of dialogue. There is no way to analyze these facts and conclude that Russian President Vladimir Putin is the one “to blame” for the crisis. The responsibility undoubtedly lies with the Finnish government itself.

On the “war economy” situation, in fact, an unprecedented crisis threatens Helsinki. And the most curious thing is that the government takes measures that will only worsen the situation even more, instead of seeking improvement. Finland was one of the first states to impose restrictions on the entry of Russian tourists, halving the number of visas. Under the recently announced new rules, only 500 visas can be granted per day to Russian citizens, 100 of which are reserved for tourists and 400 for work, study and family trips. It is important to remember that more than 20% of all Finnish tourism income comes from Russian citizens. According to official sources, the country will lose more than 600 million euros with the new visa rules.

In addition, Finland remains firm in its application to join the Western military alliance. In fact, the more the country is affected by tensions with Russia, the more it seems to be willing to worsen these tensions. Moscow at no time showed any sign of threat to Helsinki, but the Nordic country appears to be absolutely influenced by the fallacious Western rhetoric that the operation in Ukraine will “expand” throughout Europe, so it prefers to go into recession and economic crisis instead of simply being diplomatic with Russia.

For now, Marin will certainly continue to try to make Putin the scapegoat for her administration’s mistakes. But that won’t convince the public for long. The PM has been heavily criticized for both mismanagement and scandals in her private life. Her popularity is likely to drop further as the country sinks into a “war economy” without being at war.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

***

July 26, 2022, marked the 69^th anniversary of the 1953 attack on the Moncada Barracks in Santiago de Cuba by a group of Cuban activists, patriots and revolutionaries.

The attack signaled the beginning of the end for the U.S.-backed, repressive and reactionary regime of Fulgencio Batista.

The insurrection, led by 26-year-old lawyer Fidel Castro, set out to put an end to the corrupt, fascist, and murderous regime of Batista, who ruled Cuba with an iron fist in order to maintain the primacy of capital over the lives of the Cuban people.

The multinationals dominating Cuba’s economy, such as Coca Cola, the United Fruit Company and others, had the support of the United States government; even the Mafia had a pivotal role in the corruption and political life of Cuba, which was marked at the time by sweeping inequality.

From a Banana Republic to an Independent Nation

On the eve of the storming of the Moncada Barracks by Castro and his associates, U.S. corporations and the local oligarchy owned and controlled the vast majority of Cuba’s sugar plantations, cattle ranches, mines and utilities.

Tourist brochure from the early 1950s. [Source: efe.com]

The consequence was described by the late Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr. Eric Williams, in his book From Columbus to Castro—The History of the Caribbean.

Dr. Williams wrote: “75 percent of rural dwellings were huts made from the palm tree…The peasantry was isolated on account of the state of the roads. There was one doctor for more than 2,000 persons in the rural areas…Only 4 percent of the Cuban peasantry ate meat as a regular part of their diet; while 1 percent ate fish, less than 2 percent eggs, 3 percent bread, 11 percent milk; none ate green vegetables.”

According to Dr. Williams: “Cuba’s backwardness was largely due to the fact that it was at the mercy of external forces on the world market.”

The failure of the attack on the Moncada Barracks was just a brief setback for the revolutionary forces. After their release from prison, they regrouped and returned to Cuba from Mexico in December 1956 and waged a valiant and successful war against Batista’s forces, culminating in a victorious march by the revolutionaries into Havana on January 8, 1959.

A French journalist reported after the Revolution tellingly that “Fidel Castro’s victory was no real military victory. It was primarily a moral victory of the people…Castro did not destroy the enemy. The latter collapsed because it was rotten to the core.”

Fidel (center) and Raul (left) surrounded by supporters and raising fists after the overthrow of the U.S.-backed bloody dictator Fulgencio Batista. [Source: en.vietnamplus.vn]

The Empire Tries to Strike Back

The empire predictably struck back by trying to destroy the Cuban people’s revolution, with the goal of setting the socio-economic clock back to pre-revolutionary Cuba.

After the Eisenhower administration severed diplomatic relations with Cuba on January 3, 1961, the Kennedy administration and its successors became obsessed with trying to overthrow and assassinate Castro, starting with the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961.

This latter invasion was organized by the CIA with a group of exiled Cubans (1,400) trained by the U.S.; the group was roundly defeated within 72 hours by the Cuban military forces.

By the end of 1961, Kennedy had approved an espionage and sabotage campaign against Cuba called Operation Mongoose. Efforts to assassinate Castro and spark regime change continued under Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon.

On October 6, 1976, right-wing CIA-backed terrorists bombed a Cuban airliner after it left Barbados, killing all 76 persons on board.

Earlier that year, there was an explosion from a suitcase bomb in Jamaica shortly before it was loaded onto an aircraft. This incident was two-fold: to sabotage and pressure Cuba and to embarrass and coerce the government of Michael Manley into severing ties with Cuba.

The bombing was part of the destabilization campaign by the CIA to topple the progressive Manley government.

The mastermind of the Cuban airline bombing, Luis Posada Carriles, who had a long relationship with the CIA, was noticeably sheltered by the United States despite being considered a terrorist by the FBI, and was never brought to justice or extradited.

Peoples Dispatch reported that there were at least 638 attempts against Castro’s life.

By contrast, the U.S. forged good relations with an assortment of tyrants whose crimes dwarfed those Castro was alleged to have committed.

Image: Michael Manley, left, with Fidel Castro in 1977. [Source: npr.org]

The rogues list includes: Augusto Pinochet of Chile; Anastasio Somoza Debayle of Nicaragua; Carlos Castillo Armas of Guatemala; the Shah of Iran; and, more recently, Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda.

For years, the United States supported or propped up these despots and never once instituted any sanctions or listed them as terrorists or the tyrants that they were or are.

Media Distort Purpose of 2021 Protests

Demonstrations in Cuba last summer had nothing to do with governmental mismanagement or “failure”—as claimed in the U.S. media.

Rather, the demonstrations resulted from the illegal, immoral, and unilateral embargo by the United States, which places unreasonable and additional hardships on a society that is still trying to live up to the ideals of the July 26^th Movement by building an egalitarian society.

Castro was prophetic in a speech he delivered on January 8, 1989, marking the 30^thanniversary of the Revolution, when he said: “If historical circumstances have prevented imperialism from liquidating socialism by war, imperialism has not renounced the idea of liquidating socialism by means of subversion, corrosion, and, if possible, destruction of the socialist system from within.”

The U.S.’s unilateral economic blockade has been unsuccessful for 61 years and has become globally unpopular. Just last year 184 countries of the UN voted in favor of lifting the blockade.

Image: Source: leftreviewonline.com

To further bolster its “regime-change” obsession with Cuba, the United States has again put Cuba on the list of “state sponsors of terrorism,” using the State Department’s rationale that Cuba has provided support of international terrorism. To this day, not one agency of the government has ever been able to provide any empirical evidence that Cuba has ever been involved in any such activity.

The Legacy of the July 26^th Movement

A significant achievement of the Cuban Revolution is its ability to provide the basic fundamental social needs of the people in health care, education, affordable housing and vaccine development.

Further, Cuba has made unselfish sacrifices internationally in the ideological and material support for the National Liberation Movements and progressive socio-economic developments in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.

Illiteracy has been reduced essentially to zero and education is still free from primary school through university.

The Revolution has considerably reduced infant mortality rates and has almost eradicated Hepatitis B through vaccines developed locally at its Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology.

By the end of 2018, the infant mortality rate was reported at 4 deaths per 1,000 live births. Cuba Si reports that the “child vaccination schedule includes 11 vaccines against 13 diseases.” During the Pandemic, Cuba was able to develop three Covid-19 vaccines within a year, despite the difficulty of buying raw materials from outside sources because of the embargo.

At last count, Cuba has vaccinated upwards of 90% of its population with at least one dose; many developed countries have yet to meet this milestone. The country was also able to manufacture 250 ventilators that were distributed to hospitals all over the country; and they were working on a second batch.

The most indelible legacy of the July 26^th Movement—and its child the Cuban Revolution—is Cuba’s consistent and principled practice of international solidarity with the oppressed peoples of the world.

Despite its own difficulties and challenges Cuba has sent medical personnel, teachers, technical experts, and military assistance to whoever has requested its help. Cuba has also opened its doors to the training of thousands of doctors and nurses without cost to the recipient countries or individuals, in Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America.

These internationalist gestures Cuba has done at great national and personal cost, including the loss of lives on battlefields alongside compatriots fighting apartheid and colonialism in Southern Africa. Cuba’s technical experts contributed to the upgrading of the Maurice Bishop International Airport (formerly Point Salines Airport) in Grenada; they facilitated the design and building of micro-dams for irrigation during the drought season and, the construction of the José Martí Technical High School in Jamaica.

Cuban doctors working with their South African counterparts to combat the coronavirus. [Source: vaticannews.va]

From the beginning of the revolution, Cuba’s global impact and achievements did not go unnoticed; Dr. Eric Williams wrote: “In 1959 Cuba, as the first Caribbean country to challenge successfully the power of the U.S.A. in the hemisphere, sought to establish a regime based on national independence and social justice, including racial equality. She is the first Caribbean country to have mobilized the entire population in the task of national reconstruction.”

Cuba Must Live!

The Cuban Revolution has shown the inherent immorality of capitalism. Despite limited resources, Cuba under socialism has been able to provide basic social needs for its people in healthcare, education, affordable housing, and a society based on economic and social justice.

The Revolution has exposed the irony and antagonistic relationship of social production and private accumulation, which intensifies capitalism’s voracious greed above the needs of the people.

The 26^th of July Movement holds tremendous lessons in the subject of struggle and the role of the working class and democratic forces in the liberation struggle. Cuba continues to be a bulwark among developing countries struggling to rid their respective countries from the choke-hold of global capitalism and U.S. imperialism in particular.

Cuba must be allowed to develop and prosper; Cuba must not be coerced into becoming a lackey of the United States.

*

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.

Richard Dunn is a retired construction professional, trained in Architecture and Energy Management. He’s been a social justice activist since 1968 and was particularly active with the Walter Rodney defense demonstrations. Richard is an author, a contributing columnist to newspapers, an editor for a music industry magazine and operates a social justice website. Richard can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image: Portrait of Fidel Castro in front of the Moncada Barracks. [Source: idcommunism.com]