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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Summit of the Americas is off to an inauspicious start after several of the region’s leaders followed through on their commitment to skip the event over US President Joe Biden’s decision to exclude Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

The presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, Honduras, Grenada, St. Kitts & Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, sent lower level delegations in their place as a show of protest over the politically driven decision by the United States to bar the aforementioned countries from the proceedings in Los Angeles. The leaders of Guatemala and El Salvador also opted not to attend, but for different reasons.

Both Chilean President Gabric Boric, who is attending the summit, and Mexican Foreign Affairs Secretary Marcelo Ebrard, who is participating in place of President López Obrador, classified the White House decision as a “mistake”.

López Obrador has called for the Organization of American States (OAS) to be cast aside and be replaced with a new regional body. A rival regional organization, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), witnessed a revival under the leadership of Mexico, which held the pro-tempore presidency of the regional body before passing the torch to Argentina.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro called the US-hosted event a “total failure” and said that Argentine President Alberto Fernández would represent the voice of Venezuela at the summit.

Maduro went on to propose that Argentina, as the head of CELAC, which brings together all the states of the Western Hemisphere with the exception of the United States and Canada, should organize a summit and invite Biden as a guest in a sort of role reversal that would underline a non-US-led regional integration.

Despite White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre confirming that the US continues to recognize Juan Guaidó as “interim president” the Venezuelan opposition leader did not receive an invite to the event, and instead received a call from Biden in what AP called “an attempt at damage control.”

Meanwhile, social media has been inundated with scenes of journalists and activists confronting figures such as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the Organization of American States Secretary-General Luis Almagro over their interference in the domestic affairs of countries in the region.

For their part, Activists and organizers have also gathered in Los Angeles in the People’s Summit of the Americas.

On its first day of activities, the counter-summit welcomed Bolivian Senate President Andrónico Rodríguez, who hails from the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party that was returned to power in the 2020 election after an OAS and US-backed coup ousted Evo Morales in 2019.

“This awakening of the peoples of South America, of Latin America, is beginning to radiate throughout the Americas and the entire world. It is the time of the peoples, not of the empire,” said Rodríguez.

Speakers at the People’s Summit of the Americas likewise centered their criticism of the US’ efforts to exclude Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

“This is a summit of the people, an international meeting of friends, we are uniting in all corners of the world. The other Summit excluded the people of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua as well as our women, our Black and Indigenous people,” said Manolo De Los Santos from the People’s Forum, one of the event’s organizers.

The 9th Summit of the Americas was meant to be an opportunity for the US to show a renewed commitment to the region after former President Donald Trump snubbed the previous summit but has instead turned into a diplomatic debacle for the Biden administration.

Washington engaged in an intense lobbying effort to try to convince all leaders to attend, ultimately pressuring those who had publicly called for the US to invite every country in the Americas, such as Argentina’s Alberto Fernández and much of the CARICOM community, to ultimately confirm their participation.

The discussion over attendance also largely overshadowed any substantive talk about the meeting. A press briefing ahead of the meeting with Juan González, National Security Council Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere and Brian A. Nichols, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs was dominated by discussion of invites.

The White House likewise faced criticism for the poor planning leading into the event. On Wednesday, Biden announced the “Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity” that was light on details and largely read as a rehash of previous foreign policy aims in the region. Despite the summit’s stated aim to bring together the Hemisphere’s leaders to discuss regional issues, the agenda appeared largely focused on the US’ priorities.

“It has no agenda, it has no theme, it has no decision points, it has nothing to link the problems and issues of interest to the peoples of the Americas to that meeting,” said Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro ahead of the gathering in Los Angeles.

US Vice-president Kamala Harris in particular has faced criticism over her handling of the immigration file, meant to be one of Washington’s priorities at this summit.

Harris was tasked over a year ago to lead the White House effort to address the root causes of migration but has failed to show any progress, announcing modest private sector commitments to invest in low-income countries in the hemisphere. These sorts of measures have been previously criticized by migrants rights activists for being insufficient as they largely respond to the needs of capital and not those of communities and countries with high emigration rates.

Notably, in addition to the snub by López Obrador and President Xiomara Castro of Honduras, the presidents of Guatemala and El Salvador also chose to skip the summit. With migrants from these three Central American countries making up a large portion of the asylum seekers who cross through Mexico hoping to reach the United States, any significant discussion on the issue of migration at the gathering is largely unrealistic.

*

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

Featured image: Activists and organizers gathered at the People’s Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles to hear opening remarks from Bolivian Senate President Andrónico Rodríguez. (@PeoplesSummit22 / Twitter)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Regional Leaders Snub Summit of the Americas as Activists Hold ‘People’s Summit’
  • Tags:

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Leaked documents from US energy envoy Amos Hochstein suggests that Washington wants Lebanon to abandon its rights to the Karish gas field, according to a Mehr Newsreport from 13 June.

Lebanese media reportedly obtained the leaked documents on the same day as Hochstein’s arrival. The former member of the Israeli army is serving as negotiator for the US on the Lebanese-Israeli maritime border negotiations.

Hochstein arrived in Beirut on 13 June and met with Lebanese Energy Minister Walid Fayyad and Major General Abbas Ibrahim, the director of Lebanese General Security. The meetings were held in the presence of the US Ambassador to Lebanon, Dorothy Shea.

According to the documents, the US negotiator will claim Lebanon has no right to line 29, thereby losing its claim to the resource-rich Karish gas field. As a compromise, the US may give the Qana gas field to Lebanon, which falls in line 23.

However, while Karish has been proven to have natural gas, the Qana gas field is currently only suspected to have gas and has not been fully ascertained yet.

In anticipation of the arrival of Hochstein, the Lebanese president, prime minister, and house speaker all unanimously declared that they will not give up Lebanon’s natural resources and maritime wealth, and urged the return to the negotiating table to formalize the border demarcation.

Beirut plans to present a written proposal to the US delegation with the approval of President Michel Aoun, interim prime minister Najib Mikati, and House Speaker Nabih Berri, according to an official Lebanese source who spoke to Sputnik News.

We reject the threats of the Israeli enemy, which acts in contravention of international laws and resolutions,” President Aoun wrote on Twitter.

Indirect maritime border negotiations have been on hold for months after Hochstein offered the US ambassador in Beirut, Dorothy Shea, the role of mediator in the negotiations.

Negotiations restarted after a ship belonging to the Greek-founded, British-based corporation Energean arrived in Lebanon’s territorial waters to drill in the Karish gas field on 5 June.

The ship is reinforced with protection from the Israeli navy, using submarines as well as ships equipped with Iron Dome missile defense systems.

Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, told media on 6 June that the resistance is willing to defend Lebanon’s water rights, including through the use of force.

On 12 June, Israeli Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi announced that “thousands of targets in Lebanon” have been identified in the case of a new war with their neighboring state. The targets he mentioned included civilian, infrastructural, and agricultural areas.

*

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

Featured image is from NS Energy

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In his new memoir, Sacred Oath, former US Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, who served under President Donald Trump at the time of the arrest of Alex Saab in Cape Verde, effectively admits that the White House was quite aware of the fact that Saab was a diplomat at the time of his capture.

As Esper writes, “At Maduro’s direction, Saab was reportedly on special assignment to negotiate a deal with Iran for Venezuela to receive more fuel, food, and medical supplies. Saab was Maduro’s long standing point man when it came to crafting the economic deals and other transactions that were keeping the regime afloat.” Esper’s recognition that Alex Saab was “on special assignment” and negotiated economic deals for Venezuela is a tacit recognition of Saab’s diplomatic status.  Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Esper was unaware of documentation from both Iranian and Venezuelan authorities that verifies Saab’s special envoy status at the time of his apprehension in Cape Verde.

The inconvenient fact is that Saab was a Venezuelan diplomat, and had been for some time, when his plane was forced to land in Cape Verde, as opposed to in Senegal or Morocco which the US prevailed upon not to allow Saab’s plane to land and refuel, and he was arrested by Cape Verde authorities.  Saab was therefore entitled to diplomatic immunity as provided for by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, and his arrest and continued detention to this day, in spite of this immunity, was and continues to be illegal under international law.  So painfully aware of the illegality of their actions, and the dangers this of course may pose for Washington’s own diplomats if they were treated in the same fashion, that, as Esper makes clear, “the officials at State, Justice and the NSC [National Security Council] who were working on this case” were filled with trepidation (though Esper himself had no such qualms).

Still, the Trump Administration pushed on with the arrest, prosecution and extradition of Saab to the US (also despite the fact that there was no extradition treaty between the US and Cape Verde)  because, Esper explains, “access to him could really help explain how Maduro and his regime worked. It was important to get custody of him. This could provide a real roadmap for the US government to unravel the Venezuelan government’s illicit plans and bring them to justice.”  In other words, just as Saab and his many defenders have argued from the start, the arrest, detention and extradition has been politically motivated.  Even more to the point, the treatment of Saab has been motivated by the desire of the US to understand Saab’s very diplomatic functions for Venezuela – that is, how he went about helping obtain food and medicine for Venezuela despite illegal US sanctions — again underscoring the illegality of this treatment under the Vienna Convention.

Lawyers working on Alex Saab’s case, including myself, have just filed information requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with the White House, State Department, Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Treasury Department to provide further confirmation of what Esper admits and what Saab has claimed all along: that his treatment is illegal under the Vienna Convention, that the US government knew this from the start, and that it nonetheless pursued the arrest of Saab for wrongful purposes.  We are hopeful, and indeed confident, that the information obtained will lead to the release of Alex Saab after two years of illegal detention.

Meanwhile, Mark Esper explains in his book that his dismissal  from the Trump Administration was directly related to the tactical decisions Trump wanted to deploy to try to pursue Saab.  Thus, Esper, who agreed with the decision to detain and extradite Saab,  relates that he was fired by the Trump Administration over his disagreement with Trump’s tactical decision to send the USS Jacinto, a warship, to the coast of Cabo Verde to ensure Saab’s continued detention on the island nation until it was possible to extradite him (or, more accurately, kidnap him) to the United States.   Esper, on the other hand, believed that DEA or other police action would be a more appropriate method of accomplishing the same end.

Trump ultimately went ahead with this decision, sending the warship to Cabo Verde in November of 2020, and anchoring it at a cost of over $50,000 a day.

It must be noted that Saab’s arrest, detention, and extradition have already been ruled illegal by a number of international bodies, including The Economic Community of West African States Court of Justice and the United Nations Human Rights Committee which actually issued an injunction requiring Saab’s release back in June of 2021.

It is long past time that the US government abide by international law and release Alex Saab after two years of tortuous and illegal detention.

*

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

Dan Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and is a COHA Senior Research Fellow.

Featured image: Businessman Alex Saab has been a Venezuelan gov’t ally in circumventing US sanctions. (Archive)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Revelations of Former US Secretary of Defense Confirm Illegality of the Extradition and Arrest of Venezuelan Diplomat Alex Saab
  • Tags: ,

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It wasn’t that long ago that Mitt Romney was threatening former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for suggesting the US was funding biolabs in Ukraine.

Back in March, RINO Senator Mitt Romney accused former Democrat Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of spreading ‘treasonous lies’ for simply talking about the US-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

Russian Defence Ministry briefing showing US-sponsored biolabs on Ukraininan territory. Photo : Russian Ministry of Defence

“There are 25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine which if breached would release and spread deadly pathogens to US/world.” Gabbard said on Sunday.

“We must take action now to prevent disaster. US/Russia/Ukraine/NATO/UN/EU must implement a ceasefire now around these labs until they’re secured and pathogens destroyed,” she added.

VIDEO:

Tulsi Gabbard made her statement based on testimony from the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in Eurasia, Victoria Nuland.

Victoria Nuland admitted during testimony before a US Senate committee the existence of biological research labs in Ukraine.

Less than 24 hours later, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that reports of biolabs in Ukraine were fake news propagated by Russia.

The Democrat-fake news-media complex then attacked anyone who brought up the biolabs in Ukraine.

Mitt Romney lashed out at Tulsi Gabbard, saying, “Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.”

Then this happened– Russia released alleged captured documents from Ukraine exposing evidence of US Military Biolabs in Ukraine.

Russia made the accusations in front of the United Nations General Assembly.

Now this–

The Pentagon on Thursday finally admitted in a public statement that there are 46 US-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

This is after months of lies and denials by Democrats, the Biden regime and their fake news mainstream media!

The Pentagon FINALLY came clean.

The United States has also worked collaboratively to improve Ukraine’s biological safety, security, and disease surveillance for both human and animal health, providing support to 46 peaceful Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and disease diagnostic sites over the last two decades. The collaborative programs have focused on improving public health and agricultural safety measures at the nexus of nonproliferation.

Here is a screengrab from the US Department of Defense website.

*

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

Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.

All images in this article are from Gateway Pundit

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Ghosts will be haunting Windsor Castle today. The hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, the 179 British soldiers sent to die for a lie will be in attendance.

The occasion is Tony Blair turning up to officially be knighted by the Queen. He may arise as Sir Tony, the victims of his warmongering cannot arise at all.

But it is their memories that should be recalled today, as this most fraudulent of bourgeois politicians collects his accolade from the supreme symbol of that British imperialism he has served.

Tony Blair served as prime minister for 10 years, and leader of the Labour Party for 13. He won three consecutive general elections, albeit by severely diminishing margins.

His record in office encompassed the Good Friday agreement, the introduction of a national minimum wage, and devolution for Scotland and Wales.

It also included the full embrace of neoliberal principles of economic management, creeping privatisation and marketisation of public services and the deregulation of financialised capitalism. Inequality widened and the rich were allowed to let rip.

But in the end, Blair’s record in politics comes down to one word: Iraq. In the 19 years since he joined George W Bush in his war of choice, that single word has come to stand for so much.

An illegal act of aggression. Fighting a war based on nothing more than faulty intelligence and moral piety. Ignoring public opinion and the United Nations alike. Ruthless and bloody occupation. Torture. Defeat.

It has often been said that for this record Blair belongs in the war crimes tribunal answering for his crimes. Instead, he is to be further rewarded.

That is no aberration. Just about every atrocity committed by British colonialism and imperialism down the centuries has had as its lead perpetrator someone with “Lord” or “Sir” before their name. And if they didn’t they acquired one pretty soon afterwards.

First the crime, then the loot, then the knighthood is how it has gone for Blair. The years in between invading and occupying Iraq and trotting off to Windsor Castle have been filled by brazen and grotesque projects of self-enrichment, more-or-less unique in an ex-premier.

Today’s ceremony is, however, a studied insult to the suffering people of Iraq first of all, whose country has still far from recovered from what Blair and Bush wrought.

It is also a slap in the face to the millions in Britain and around the world who mobilised against the war in an anti-war movement of unprecedented size and scope.

Included in those millions are people like Rose Gentle and Peter Brierley who lost their sons in Blair’s war and yet found the strength to speak up against the lies that sent them to their death.

That strength, that mobilisation is needed once more. The knighthood for Blair is a step towards rehabilitating the Iraq war, and legitimising lawless aggression.

It gives a green light to present and subsequent occupants of Downing Street that their crimes will be rewarded given sufficient passage of time.

With the present British government seeking to escalate war in Ukraine there could not be a more dangerous message to send.

And with the present leader of the Labour Party seeking to ape his benighted predecessor and swaddle himself in pseudo-patriotic and militarist posturing, it holds out the prospect of still further calamities.

But as for Blair himself, a tap on the shoulder with a sword will not alter the historical record. To paraphrase Karl Marx he is already nailed to that eternal pillory from which all the artifice of his spin doctors will not avail to redeem him.

*

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

Featured image: Tony Blair in 2009. Center for American Progress / Flickr

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Tony Blair’s Premiership Can be Summed Up in One Word
  • Tags:

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

During the first year of the Third World War, because the nature of that war was so unlike any war that had come before, most citizens mistook military operations for individual crimes and incidents, flaws of character of specific politicians.

This was no accident, of course. It was the strategy from the beginning to deceive the public by launching silent offensives invisible to the naked eye.

The billionaires assumed that the little people would be so frightened by the unfamiliar, so busy taking care of relatives sick from vaccines, so distracted by social media and sexually-laden music and videos, so dumbed down by the foolish and juvenile television news, and so indoctrinated by an educational system detached from human experience, that they would not be able to grasp what was happening in any terms more complex than vague fear and free-floating anxiety.

If the citizens wanted salvation, it was assumed, they would turn to the false saviors and fraudulent revolutionaries that had been prepared for them in advance, the tame Donald Trumps and Bernie Sanders of the world.

The experts employed by the billionaires assumed, following the scenarios they had conducted over and over on their supercomputers, that this blitzkrieg of the mind and soul, this warfare that first takes apart the institutions that determine what is truth, what is real, would be too overwhelming. Citizens would not be capable of conceiving that a class of people lied about everything, and planned to isolate everyone, and eventually to eradicate everyone—or so it was assumed.

The Great Reset was supposed to be like rape of the Americas in the 17th and 18th centuries, like the rape of Africa in the 18th and 19th centuries, or like the rape of India, Bangladesh and China in the 19th and 20th centuries. In other words, it was to be a massive transfer of wealth and a massive enslavement of the population made possible by the destruction of not only governments and economic systems, but of the civilization itself.

At first, because the billionaires hid themselves behind third parties, politicians, CEOs, and authority figures, they assumed that the little people would only go after those that they had set up to be the villains.

They anticipated that the little people would not even start to grasp who really ran the show until they were subject to vaccine passes at every financial transaction, locked in smart cities by geo fencing, and subject to 24/7 monitoring by robots and drones that would make it impossible for them to meet with others, or to organize.

But the billionaires made a few miscalculations. They did not figure that some people would go entirely off the grid so quickly. Moreover, their hubris was so great that they forgot they were not gods.

Their emotions led them to give the wrong orders to their banks of supercomputers calculating how to ease humanity into this new prison planet.

More importantly, the billionaires discovered that they, as humans, could not sever themselves completely from their society, from the civilization that they had poisoned as part of the Great Reset.

They thought they could wipe out analogous sapiens, following the model for the extermination of the Neanderthals that Yuval Noah Harari, their spiritual leader, discussed at the World Economic Forum.

But the children of the billionaires, and even they themselves, found that they were addicted to that same social media; that they had friends among the damned, and that they were drawn into the same psychological operations that were meant to subdue their victims.

The billionaires grew sloppy, and they pushed for big changes too early, too rapidly, because fear was creeping into their guarded chalets at Davos.

They started to lose the loyalty of the factions they had cultivated in the military, in intelligence, and in the corporate world because it became obvious that, like the engineers who built the pyramids, those overpaid technicians constructing the smart cities were themselves targeted for extinction.

This truth the billionaires could not hide so easily because those with the most money are not always the smartest.

As the stakes went up, as blatant operations like destroying food processing plants to create food shortages, or running dozens of false flag operations to stir up racial division, when those operations grew stale and predictable, when too many people wrote about these events on Facebook, more people than the private intelligence firms could shut down, then even those blinded by the endless propaganda started to awaken from their slumber.

Small numbers of committed citizens, in defiance of the supercomputer calculations, rose to the occasion and wrote powerful articles, inspired rather than intimidated by the oppression that they faced. Those writings overwhelmed the insipid mush fed to the people by the corporate media and started, bit by bit, to turn the tide.

The second stage of the war had started. The digital Wehrmacht of the World Economic Forum had bogged down at its Stalingrad.

That is to say that a substantial resistance emerged that could not be resected using either the carpet bombing of corporate journalism, nor the precision hits of classified operations.

Cracks started to appear in the previously solid front. Billionaires started second guessing other billionaires. And green started to spring up in a desert of profit-driven post-human AI governance.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. 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 images in this article are from USPG

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Meditations” at the “Start of World War Three”: “Great Reset”. Massive Transfer of Wealth, Blitzkrieg of the Mind and the Soul

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The history of Ukraine is long and rich. For millennia, the fertile lands of Ukraine with their black earth and rich seas have been highly contested. From the Scythians of antiquity, the Varangians who would eventually become the Rurukids and the first Tsars, to the Mongols, the Hetmanate and the Ukrainian SSR, it is impossible to truly understand the situation in Ukraine today without some historical background.

Out of all those who have lived, fought and died in Ukraine, one group stands out for their importance to the events of today. The fascist terrorists, bandits and collaborators known as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

I do not intend for this to be a comprehensive history of the OUN. Rather, I want to pull on one thread that directly links the terrorists of the past to those of the present. For this, some background is needed.

The beginning: Yevhen and the UVO

“Terror will be not only a means of self-defense, but also a form of agitation, which will affect friend and foe alike, regardless of whether they desire it or not.” -UVO brochure from 1929

Yevhen Konovalets, a former Austro-Hungarian Army Lieutenant, founded the OUN in 1929 in Vienna, Austria, from the ashes of his previous organization, the Ukrainian Military Organization (UVO). The UVO emerged in 1920 from groups of right-wing Austro-Hungarian veterans of WWI who had fought for the short-lived Ukrainian People’s Republic in the early interwar period. The UVO operated mostly in western Ukraine, at the time occupied by Poland, and waged an extensive terrorist campaign against the Polish and Soviets.

Here, in the interest of fairness, it should be mentioned that the Polish regime at the time was a far-right government which had implemented an unpopular series of land reform and language laws. That said, the UVO’s genocidal response to that cannot be justified. The UVO attacked and killed far more innocent Polish civilians than it ever did soldiers or police. The group carried out numerous bombings, assassinations (both attempted and successful) and in 1921 even invaded the Ukrainian SSR, in an ultimately failed “liberation raid.”

The same year, Konovalets would begin official collaboration with German intelligence, meeting with Weimar military intelligence commander Friedrich Gempp. From 1921 to 1928, the UVO would receive several million marks in aid from Weimar Germany. Pressure from the Polish and Soviet governments led to the relocation of UVO leaders to Berlin, where Weimar intelligence would begin their training. After the Nazis came to power, nothing changed, with Konovalets and the Abwehr continuing their collaboration.

The UVO viewed terrorism as an integral part of their struggle to such an extent that they even killed moderate nationalists such as Ivan Babij for not being extreme enough. They operated mostly as bandits, a tactic which they would never abandon. For example, in 1922, the UVO launched about 2,300 attacks on Polish farms, and only 17 on Polish military and police. The UVO would raid farms for supplies, kill the owners and workers if present, and burn the crops when they were finished. Later, flying brigades were founded to “expropriate” Polish property, often turning to bank robbing to finance the organization.

The UVO would continue along the same lines for years, carrying out terrorist attacks and bandit raids with varying levels of success (they were nearly wiped out by Polish police on several occasions) until, in 1929, a merger of five Ukrainian nationalist groups led to the foundation of the OUN.

Stepan Bandera takes charge: How the OUN got its B

“The OUN values the life of its members, values it highly; but—our idea in our understanding is so grand, that when we talk about its realization, not single individuals, nor hundreds, but millions of victims have to be sacrificed in order to realize it.” -Stepan Bandera

After the merger, Konovalets would fall to the wayside as younger, more radical members would take the reins of the OUN. The UVO would technically continue to exist, but its role was drastically diminished in the new organization. One of these young leaders was Stepan Bandera. Bandera was the son of a Catholic priest from Lviv and a long-time fascist, starting as a boy in the Plast movement (a fascist scouting group) before moving on to the OUN.

Bandera would quickly climb the ranks and become chief propaganda officer in 1931, before being named head of the national executive in 1933.

Bandera was a dedicated yet psychotic fascist who tortured himself from a young age to build up resilience and a rabid, violent anti-Semite, anti-communist, anti-Hungarian and anti-Polish. He was also a revanchist, seeking to reclaim even lands Ukrainians had not held for centuries, and purge them of all non-Ukrainians. Bandera would quickly radicalize the OUN even further, and his eye for talent meant the OUN could become both larger and more effective. This would become apparent in 1934, when the OUN-B carried out its most brazen attack yet, assassinating Polish foreign minister Bronisław Pieracki at close range with a pistol.

A picture containing text, old Description automatically generated

Pieracki lying in state. [Source: Polish National Archives]

The Polish authorities eventually caught Bandera and sentenced him to death along with other OUN leaders. The death sentence was commuted to life, and Bandera would remain in prison until he was released in 1939 when the Nazis invaded Poland. It is unclear who exactly released him, the Nazis themselves, or his comrades after the jailers fled the invading Nazis. I do not believe the distinction is important: His release was because of the Nazis even if not by them.

After his release, the Nazis would begin to prepare for Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the USSR with Bandera and the OUN set to play a major role.

On the instructions of top Nazi brass, including Hitler, Abwehr Chief Wilhelm Canaris and Generals Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl, the Abwehr would actively employ Bandera and the OUN starting in 1940. The goal of this collaboration was not only to attack the Soviets, but also to have a brutal and efficient force to carry out reprisals and atrocities against civilians.

GettyImages-96830811-scaled

German tanks advancing toward a Soviet village during Operation Barbarossa. [Source: coffeeordie.com]

To quote from the testimony of General Erwin von Lahousen at the Nuremburg trials:

“COL. AMEN: In order that the record may be perfectly clear, exactly what measures did Keitel say had already been agreed upon?

LAHOUSEN: According to the Chief of the OKW, the bombardment of Warsaw and the shooting of the categories of people which I mentioned before had been agreed upon already.

COL. AMEN: And what were they?

LAHOUSEN: Mainly the Polish intelligentsia, the nobility, the clergy, and, of course, the Jews.

COL. AMEN: What, if anything, was said about possible cooperation with a Ukrainian group?

LAHOUSEN: Canaris was ordered by the Chief of the OKW, who stated that he was transmitting a directive which he had apparently received from Ribbentrop since he spoke of it in connection with the political plans of the Foreign Minister, to instigate in the Galician Ukraine an uprising aimed at the extermination of Jews and Poles.

COL. AMEN: At what point did Hitler and Jodl enter this meeting?

LAHOUSEN: Hitler and Jodl entered either after the discussions I have just described or towards the conclusion of the whole discussion of this subject, when Canaris had already begun his report on the situation in the West; that is, on the news which had meanwhile come in on the reaction of the French Army at the West Wall.

COL. AMEN: And what further discussions took place then?

LAHOUSEN: After this discussion in the private carriage of the Chief of the OKW, Canaris left the coach and had another short talk with Ribbentrop, who, returning to the subject of the Ukraine, told him once more that the uprising should be so staged that all farms and dwellings of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed.

COL. AMEN: Who said that?

LAHOUSEN: The Foreign Minister of that time, Ribbentrop, said that to Canaris. I was standing next to him.

COL. AMEN: Is there any slightest doubt in your mind about that?

LAHOUSEN: No. I have not the slightest doubt about that. I remember with particular clarity the somewhat new phrasing that “all farms and dwellings should go up in flames.” Previously there had only been talk of “liquidation” and “elimination.”

Abwehr Col. Erwin Stolz would clarify who Lahousen was talking about:

“In carrying out the above-mentioned instructions of Keitel and Jodl, I contacted Ukrainian National Socialists who were in the German Intelligence Service and other members of the nationalist fascist groups, whom I roped in to carry out the tasks as set out above.

“In particular, instructions were given by me personally to the leaders of the Ukrainian Nationalists, Melnik (code name ‘Consul I’ and Bandera, to organize immediately upon Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union, and to provoke demonstrations in the Ukraine in order to disrupt the immediate rear of the Soviet armies, and also to convince international public opinion of alleged disintegration of the Soviet rear.

We also prepared special diversionist groups by Abwehr II for subversive activities in the Baltic republics of the Soviet Union.”

While there were no objections to collaboration with the Nazis, the OUN was deeply divided about what to do after. The leader of the OUN at this time, Andriy Melnyk, favored a more moderate stance, remaining more subservient to the Nazis.

Bandera disagreed, favoring a revolutionary stance and a declaration of Ukrainian independence. The disagreement turned into a violent schism, with Bandera taking the most radical members to form the OUN-B. Melnyk’s group, diminished by splits and now under attack from Bandera, was quickly overtaken. OUN-M survived the war, but from this point on, Bandera controlled the Ukrainian fascist movement with little dissent.

Soon, the collaboration with the Abwehr would begin to bear its terrible fruit. Under the aegis of the Abwehr’s commando battalion “Brandenburg” but under OUN command, two OUN units were formed, “Roland” and “Nightingale.” The latter was under command of the infamous Roman Shukhevych, a mass murderer who would later plan some of the worst OUN atrocities. There were also other OUN forces attached to both Wehrmacht and Gestapo units, mostly serving as interpreters and guides. Nightingale and Roland, along with Nazi forces, were sent to Lviv to carry out their bloody mission in 1941.

The Bloody Nightingale

“We are all UPA soldiers and all underground fighters in particular, and I am aware that sooner or later we will have to die in the fight against brutal force. But I assure you, we will not be afraid to die, because when we die, we will be aware that we will become a fertilizer of the Ukrainian land. This is our native land that needs a lot of fertilizer so that in the future a new Ukrainian generation will grow up on it, which will complete what we were not destined to complete.” Roman Shukhevych

A close-up of a passport Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Roman Shukhevych on a Ukrainian postage stamp. [Source: wikipedia.org]

By 1943, Lviv had been under Polish or Austrian control since the 1300s. It was a city of around 500,000, over half of them Polish Catholics with a sizable Jewish minority of 100-160,000, with tens of thousands of those being refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe. The Ukrainian population was about 20%. The OUN wasted little time in changing that.

OUN forces entered the city with specific orders to exterminate the Jewish, Polish and Russian populations, a task that they would carry out with aplomb. First blood would go to the interpreters in the late hours of June 30th. Theirs was the dubious honor of the first massacre after the fall of Lviv. Namely, the abduction, torture and murder of suspected anti-Nazi Polish professors.

Working off OUN hit lists, Nazi and Ukrainian forces arrested the professors and their families, holding them in the dorms under torture for hours. All but one of them were executed, and after their deaths, their apartments were looted and occupied by SS and OUN officers.

Not to be shown up, Nightingale would get to work soon after. What happened in Lviv starting on June 30, 1941, should not be understood as one massacre but rather a series of them lasting over a month. Nightingale was one of the first two units to enter Lviv. Accompanied by elite Nazi mountain troops, Nightingale seized the hilltop castle, set up a headquarters and began to round up the local Jews, at first forcing them to clear the streets of bodies and bomb damage. Random murders and looting of Jewish homes and property accompanied this work on the first night.

In the morning, OUN infiltrators, defectors and sympathizers were mobilized and began the systematic violence against Jews alongside the Nazis. In the days preceding the attack, OUN propaganda leaflets were widely proliferated in Lviv telling the residents:

“Don’t throw away your weapons yet. Take them up. Destroy the enemy. … Moscow, the Hungarians, the Jews—these are your enemies. Destroy them.”

It would seem many of them took that advice to heart. In the resulting pogrom, the Ukrainian nationalists brutalized thousands of Jews in broad daylight throughout the city.

They would force many women into the streets, where nationalists would strip them naked, rape and murder them. The men got off only a little better; many were savagely beaten in the streets with clubs and fists, as the throngs taunted and threw trash at them. Nazi reporters filmed and photographed much of this violence as it happened.

A Wehrmacht propaganda company took this image of a local man beating a Jew in the streets, for example. It served the purpose in papers and film broadcasts throughout Germany as evidence that the Nazis would and could carry out their long-planned and well-known extermination plans. On this day, anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 Jews were wantonly slaughtered, virtually all of them by OUN and affiliated forces.

A picture containing text Description automatically generated

Jew being beaten in the streets. [Source: wikipedia.org]

The Einsatzgruppen would arrive soon after. These were the professional killers, the elite squad of fascist executioners who had already “cleansed” countless cities, towns and villages throughout Poland and the USSR.

Going door to door, the Einsatzgruppen hunted and found their priority targets. In a somewhat orderly fashion, Einsatzgruppen men would march them to pre-dug pits, force them to their knees and execute them via gunshot. They would repeat the process for hours until approximately 3,000 Jews were dead. Nightingale, the OUN militias and various other fascist collaborators were involved in every aspect of this massacre. Functioning as police, they would assist in loading Jews into trucks and driving them to stadiums to face mass execution via machine gun.

These extermination operations would continue over days, along with systematically pillaging anything of value from the Jewish population. The Nazi accountants in Berlin demanded that subjugated people be economically exploited to the maximum extent, going so far as to remove fillings from their teeth, with much of the money going directly to German industrialists, who profited enormously from the Nazi labor and extermination programs.

Throughout this process, more than 4,000 were killed, many of them beaten to death with clubs. The value of everything stolen from the victims of this massacre and the many others like it will never be known.

Sadly, Nightingale and company were not yet finished.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SOM6IvF5o58/WAkDbvb7FnI/AAAAAAACarY/SPGopoY297UHNvgNnup9TrqRmc1eB_DiACLcB/s1600/Lviv-pogroms-1941-2.jpg

Nightingale’s victims during the Lviv pogrom. [Source: vintage.es]

On the 25th of July, Ukrainian forces would start another pogrom lasting about three days. Called the Pelitura days, after an assassinated Ukrainian leader, Ukrainian nationalists from the countryside marched into Lviv under the command of the OUN. Working off lists provided by the Ukrainian auxiliary police, nationalist forces would ferret out remaining Jews, Poles, Communists and other “undesirables.”

In three days of bloodletting, about 2,000 were murdered, most of them hacked to pieces with farming tools. This sort of brutality would remain the calling card of Shukhevych and the OUN for its entire existence.

When the Red Army liberated Lviv in 1944, only 150,000 people remained and of those, only 800 were Jews. The OUN, Ukrainian auxiliaries and Nazis either killed the rest or arrested and deported them to Belzec concentration camp. There the Nazis would murder them all as part of “Operation Reinhard.” Belzec was so efficient that fewer than a dozen survivors have ever been identified.

From high above in the castle, the OUN leadership was not idle. As the slaughter continued in Lviv, Yaroslav Stetsko, the second in command of the OUN, a Lviv native and a militant fascist in his own right, declared an independent, Nazi-aligned Ukrainian government. This would lay the groundwork for a more complicated chapter in the OUN’s history.

The question of collaboration

“The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite occupation.

The Ukrainian People’s Revolutionary Army which has been formed on the Ukrainian lands, will continue to fight with the Allied German Army against Moscovite occupation for a sovereign and united State and a new order in the whole world.

Long live the Ukrainian Sovereign United Ukraine! Long live the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists! Long live the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian people – STEPAN BANDERA. GLORY TO UKRAINE!

-Yaroslav Stetsko, from the “Act of Restoration of the Ukrainian State

Around here the nationalists will shoot back: Bandera was arrested! He went to the camps! He wasn’t a fascist, or a Nazi! OUN fought the Nazis!

A picture containing text, building, outdoor, white Description automatically generated

Heil Hitler! Heil Bandera! On the central gate of a town outside Lviv. [Source: wikimedia.org]

I do not find those arguments convincing for a number of reasons. First, Bandera and the OUN can stand on their own as fascists. They were violently and militantly anti-Semitic, anti-Pole, anti-communist and ethno-nationalist. Even if they were not Nazi collaborators, their own terrible atrocities would leave a permanent black mark on their reputation.

Perhaps the most shocking of these was in Volyna, an ethnic-cleansing campaign carried out over two years’ fighting between Polish and OUN forces, reaching its crescendo with “Bloody Sunday.” On July 11, 1943, an attack was launched by Roman Shukhevych on about 100 Polish settlements simultaneously. The UPA murdered some 8,000 Polish civilians that day, many of them shot or burned alive inside their churches while attending mass. The UPA would then spread out into the countryside to hunt down and kill—with axes, hammers and knives—any who had escaped. The OUN would continue to slaughter the local population for more than two years, resulting in around 100,000 deaths, most of them women and children.

A person standing next to a pile of plants Description automatically generated with low confidence

Exhumed remains of OUN victims, Poland, 1990s. [Source: kresky.pl]

This sort of brutality was very typical for the OUN. Moshe Maltz, a Ukrainian Jew in hiding from the Banderites would make note of it in his journal, later published as his memoir.

“Bandera men … are not discriminating about who they kill; they are gunning down the populations of entire villages.… Since there are hardly any Jews left to kill, the Bandera gangs have turned on the Poles. They are literally hacking Poles to pieces. Every day … you can see the bodies of Poles, with wires around their necks, floating down the river Bug.”

Therefore, the OUN does not need Hitler to make them look bad. Secondly, they were Nazi collaborators.

Several months after the declaration of independence, which the Nazis did not accept, tensions would rise to such an extent that the Nazis arrested Bandera, Stetsko and other leaders. After a period of house arrest, they were transferred to Sachsenhausen concentration camp in 1943.

Bandera’s stay was not typical, however. Bandera had a two-room suite with paintings and rugs, was allowed to have conjugal visits with his wife, performed no forced labor, wore no uniform, was exempt from roll call, ate with the guards and did not lock his cell door at night.

The Nazis released Bandera in 1944 after a meeting with Otto Skorzeny, Hitler’s top commando, to carry out a campaign of terrorism against the advancing Red Army. The Nazis could have killed Bandera and Stetsko at any time in the interim, but they did not. Rather, they made a great and successful effort to recruit them.

While the OUN would take some action against the Nazis, they would do so only briefly and half-heartedly. In 1942 there was virtually no fighting at all.

In early 1943 that would change, and there was some fighting in western Ukraine. In keeping with their reputation as bandits, OUN would mostly raid farms and small settlements, burning and murdering as they went. Most of these attacks, carried out with the OUN’s typical brutality, resulted in more civilian dead than military.

In the year of fighting the OUN killed around 12,000 “Germans.” Only 700-1,000 of them were Wehrmacht; the remainder were civilians, either in Nazi administration or simply farmers and peasants in territory under Nazi control. Indeed, according to Soviet partisan reports of the time, the OUN only engaged with Nazi soldiers when necessary: “Nationalists do not engage in sabotage activities; they only engage in battle with the Germans where the Germans mock the Ukrainian population and when the Germans attack them.” 

The Nazis, planning to exterminate both groups eventually, would capitalize on the situation by transferring Polish collaborator units to the region. These, along with Hungarian auxiliaries, did the bulk of the fighting against the OUN.

However, the Soviet victory at Stalingrad scared both the Nazis and the OUN, forcing negotiations and a cooling of tension. At their third council in late 1943, the OUN leadership reaffirmed the Soviets as their primary enemy and ended active efforts against the Nazis. Some skirmishes between the Nazis and OUN would continue until 1944, but it was no longer significant fighting.

To quote historian Russ Bellant:

“The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in 1943 under German sponsorship organized a multinational force to fight on behalf of the retreating German army. After the battle of Stalingrad in ’43 the Germans felt a heightened need to get more allies, and so the Romanian Iron Guard, the Hungarian Arrow Cross, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and others with military formations in place to assist came together and formed the united front called the Committee of Subjugated Nations and again worked on behalf of the German military. In 1946, they renamed it the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, ABN. Stetsko was the leader of that until he died in 1986.”

A picture containing outdoor, tree, grass, old Description automatically generated

Ukrainian auxiliary police executing a mother and child in Miropol, USSR, 1941. [Source: static01/nyt.com]

It is tempting to think of the OUN as only being its leaders, but the reality is the OUN was always comprised of thousands of mostly anonymous rank-and-file fighters. Many of these fighters would drift back and forth from nationalist militias to the Nazis and back.

It was these “police” units which would do most of the dirty work of what the Nazis called “security warfare.” This was little more than a euphemism for the terrorization and mass murder of any who opposed Nazi rule. Abwehr commando units also gave another outlet for OUN fighters to collaborate and were used almost entirely to pacify resistance movements.

The infamous SS Galicia Division was also formed in 1943, and the overlap between this division and the OUN was extensive. Despite extensive attempts to whitewash their reputation, Galicia was as criminal as you would expect for SS. Marches and monuments in honor of this SS unit are common in western Ukraine today.

A picture containing person, child, young Description automatically generated

Ukrainian fascists marching under the logo of the SS Galicia Division, 2018. [Source: ria.ru]

“Russian Ukraine cannot be compared to Austrian Galicia… The Austrian-Galician Ruthenians are closely intertwined with the Austrian state. Therefore, in Galicia it is possible to allow the SS to form one division from the local population.”-Adolf Hitler, 1942.

Most of this debate is pointless, however, as the Ukrainians themselves decisively settled this question in 1993. Under the direction of the Ukrainian government, led by then president Leonid Kravchuk, the SBU (Ukrainian state security) was ordered to investigate the extent of the OUN’s collaboration with the Nazis. Kravchuk intended to begin the rehabilitation of the OUN, and wanted historical justification to do so.

He would not get it.

To quote from their findings:

“The archives contain materials, trophy documents of the OUN-UPA and German special services, which testify only to minor skirmishes between the UPA units and the Germans in 1943. No significant offensive or defensive operations, large-scale battles were recorded in the documents. The tactics of the struggle of the UPA units with the Germans in this period was reduced to attacks on posts, small military units, defense of their bases, ambushes on the road.” –The Security Service of Ukraine, “On the activities of the OUN-UPA,” 7-3-1993

As I have previously outlined, there was no fighting at all in 1942 and by 1944 the OUN had officially ended armed struggle against the Nazis. Therefore, since the OUN hardly fought the Nazis in 1943, that would mean they hardly fought the Nazis at all.

In light of this, perhaps the former comedian Zelensky needs better jokes.

The Trident and the Gladius:

“ABN were the best commercial hitmen you ever heard of.” –L. Fletcher Prouty, Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy

Bandera and the OUN would remain thralls of the Nazis until the end of the war. The clearest evidence of this is that Yaroslav Stetsko was in a Nazi convoy American forces strafed in 1945, very nearly killing him.

The OUN would continue to carry out terrorist attacks in western Ukraine until the 1950s in some form or fashion; however, according to the KGB, the OUN was incapable of replenishing losses. Between this and active measures against it, the OUN was broken as a combat organization around 1954.

Roman Shukhevych’s death in a 1950 raid by Soviet forces represented a major blow to the UPA from which they could not recover.

The OUN was in desperate need of new patrons, and they wasted little time in finding them. In 1944, the OUN along with other nationalist groups would form the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council, or UHVR. Its members were the usual suspects of OUN-affiliated organizations. The President was Ivan Hrinioch, a former chaplain for Nightingale.

The foreign minister was Mykola Lebed, head of the infamous OUN secret police and a man the U.S. Army called a “well-known sadist and collaborator of the Germans” (he would later become a collaborator for the CIA).

These two, along with UPA liaison officer Yuri Lopatinski embarked on a mission to the Vatican that same year, seeking support from Western governments. It is unclear exactly what came of this meeting, but it is proven that the British began to support the group at around this time.

As he had done with the OUN before, Bandera would quickly cause a violent schism within the UHVR. This became open in 1947 between Bandera/Stetsko and Lebed/Hrinioch on the other over the issue of east Ukraine. East Ukraine is mostly Russian, and it had always been a major weakness for the violently anti-Russian OUN.

Bandera insisted upon not only a single-party dictatorship (which he would lead), but also a pure Ukrainian ethno state, purged of any Russian influence. Lebed and Hrinioch believed that in order for the movement to succeed, it was necessary to include eastern Ukrainians.

For this, Bandera would expel them in 1948. This would eventually lead to Bandera’s downfall, as it led the CIA to believe he was far too extreme and too unwilling to compromise to be a useful agent.

Bandera had significant prestige in the fascist underground; however, his years of violently attacking rivals meant many would never work with him. The CIA wanted a united front and understood that could not happen with Bandera at the helm.

There are still some gaps in the timeline of the early post-war period. However, recent document declassifications have led to a better understanding of Bandera and the OUN’s role as CIA and Western agents.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Stetzko.jpg/1280px-Stetzko.jpg

Plaque marking the former home of Yaroslav Stetsko in Munich. [Source: wikimedia.org]

What we can say for sure is this.

Very soon after the war, U.S. Army Counterintelligence found Bandera hiding from the Soviets in the American occupation zone. We know this due to declassified KGB documents detailing a failed special operation to kidnap Bandera in 1946. This was only attempted after a year of failed negotiations to have Bandera extradited for his crimes.

Bandera was living, from at least as early as 1946, in Munich. There, he worked under the protection of and in close collaboration with Reinhard Gehlen, the Nazi spymaster turned CIA agent and future head of West German intelligence.

Gehlen was a totally unrepentant Nazi who covertly operated the infamous “ratlines” which would help countless Nazis escape justice to American-allied countries. He did this with the full support and backing of the CIA, which sought to use the men as assets. In 1946 alone, Gehlen was paid about $3.5 million and employed 50 people, 40 of whom were former SS. Among those Gehlen helped escape were Adolf Eichmann and Otto Skorzeny.

Early on, Bandera and the OUN (or rather, the SB, the secret police formed by Lebed) worked as assassins for MI6 inside the Displaced Persons camps. SB targeted Communists, rival fascists and anyone who knew too much about the OUN’s bloody past. Thousands of refugees met their end at OUN hands in what the West called “Operation Ohio.” They would earn a reputation as frighteningly efficient hitmen, and it was here Lebed earned his codename Devil.

In 1946, Bandera and Stetsko founded the Bloc of Anti-Bolshevik Nations (ABN) in Munich. A sort of fascist international, it combined far-right anti-Communist terrorist groups from around the world into one, well-funded front. Yaroslav Stetsko was the leader; however, his close friendship with Bandera meant that he was not acceptable to the CIA at that time.

While Bandera had some initial contact with the OSS (precursor to the CIA), they quickly came to view him as far too extreme, operationally dangerous (he would often refuse to use encrypted communications) and recalcitrant. Therefore, Bandera primarily worked with MI6 while the CIA backed Lebed. The situation between the two eventually became so tense that the CIA intervened to strong-arm MI6 into dropping Bandera as an agent in 1954.

He was removed from OUN leadership in the OUN conference of that year, to be replaced with “reformists.” That said, the CIA and Germans also protected Bandera against several assassination attempts. At various times he was guarded either by Americans from the Army CIC, or by Gehlen’s SS thugs. The CIA, on at least one occasion, radioed classified information to West German police in order to protect Bandera. While they were no longer willing to throw their full weight behind Bandera, they also did not want him to become a martyr.

The CIA would not get its wish. From 1954 on, their strategy appears to have been simply starving the beast. The Americans wanted Bandera gone, the idea being that he would be removed from leadership and cut off from funding,

Bandera’s career would simply wither and die. Bandera would continue to work in some fashion for Gehlen for the rest of his life; however, his role and profile were intentionally diminished. Throughout all of this, the KGB had never given up. They had repeatedly asked the Americans to extradite Bandera as a war criminal since the end of the war, but were met with complete refusal. Therefore, the KGB made repeated attempts on Bandera’s life. We know of failed attempts in 1947, 1948, 1952 and 1959.

A second attempt in 1959 would finally succeed. On October 15, 1959, KGB agent Bohdan Stashynsky surreptitiously entered Bandera’s home in Munich and shot Bandera in the face using a specially designed poison spray gun.

Bandera collapsed, bleeding from the mouth, and cracked the base of his skull on some stairs. At first, the cause of death was ruled a stroke, resulting in a fall. Further investigation revealed traces of potassium cyanide in Bandera’s system; however, until the defection and arrest of Stashynsky in 1961, it was unclear who had poisoned him. A leading suspect was Theodor Oberländer, a West German politician and ex-Nazi who had served as political officer for Nightingale in 1941.

With Bandera marginalized and then dead, CIA restrictions against ABN were lifted and Yaroslav Stetsko would move into a greatly expanded active role as a CIA collaborator. He would excel at the role for the rest of his life.

A picture containing text, person, person, suit Description automatically generated

Source: twitter.com

In future articles, I will elaborate on the history between Stetsko and the CIA at least as far as the events of the Maidan coup, where a clear link exists.

*

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

Evan Reif was born in a small mining town in Western South Dakota as the son of a miner and a librarian. His father’s struggles as a union organizer, and the community’s struggles with de-industrialization, nurtured Evan’s deep interest in left-wing politics. This, along with his love of history, made him a staunch anti-fascist. When not writing, researching or working, Evan enjoys fishing, shooting, and Chinese cooking. Evan can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Meet the CIA’s eager students—star pupils in the art of terrorizing civilian populations: Organization of Ukrainian Nationalist (OUN) partisans recruited by the CIA to fight against the Soviets. [Source: rbth.com]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Pre-World War II Ukrainian Fascists Pioneered Brutal Terror Techniques; Later Improved By CIA, Now Ironically Taught to Descendants

Donetsk Has Deadliest Day of Ukrainian Attacks Since 2015

June 14th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Once again, Ukrainian forces are bombing civilian regions in Donbass and generating unnecessary casualties. This Monday, June 13, new attacks were reported in commercial areas of the People’s Republic of Donetsk. The brutal assaults leave dead and wounded in places outside the military occupation, which should not be targeted by Kiev’s forces. Facing the humanitarian catastrophe, UN shows concern about Ukrainian crimes, but Western countries remain silent.

In the early hours of Monday, the district of Kirovskyi, Donetsk, was bombed several times by Ukrainian troops, according to information provided by local authorities on official media channels of the Republic. About twenty BM-21 Grad rockets were launched by Kiev’s forces in the region, hitting civilian targets and bringing an uncertain number of dead and injured people.

A few hours later, another attack was reported, hitting Maisky’s central market. At least three people died in the episode, including a child. Also, eighteen injured people have been reported. Images are circulating on the internet showing bodies on the floor and market’s stalls in flames. According to local media, the attack has been made with 155-m artillery shells, typical NATO weapons, indicating that once again Kiev is using Western aid against civilian targets.

In another episode of needless brutality, a maternity hospital was bombed in Donetsk, causing women in labor to be quickly evacuated to the facility’s underground room. The immediate action of the hospital’s employees avoided casualties, but damage was inflicted to the buildings. As a result, there is instability about the future of care for pregnant women in Donetsk in the short term, which puts the lives of many women and children at risk.

Faced with such Ukrainian violence, the UN could not remain silent. In response to the attack on maternity, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric called Monday’s events “troubling” and claimed that any military action against health facilities is a clear violation of international law.

“We’ve seen the media reports about a maternity hospital in Donetsk. This is extremely troubling. Any attack on civilian infrastructure, especially health facilities, is a clear violation of international law”, he said.

According to local reports, June 13 was the most violent day in Donetsk since 2015. Ukrainian hostility in the Republic appears to have reached historic records. This day, attacks were seen in the districts of Proletarsky, Kuibyshevsky, Petrovsky and Kievsky, which in practice means that almost the entire territory of the Republic was hit by Ukrainian artillery in less than twenty-four hours. In all locations, the victims targeted by Ukrainian forces were civilians.

As a consequence of the attacks, the DPR government asked for further Russian help in order to confront the Ukrainian armed forces. The leader of the Republic, Denis Pushilin, said that all help from allied forces is necessary at the moment, mainly from Russia.

“The enemy has literally crossed all boundaries, using prohibited methods of warfare, residential and central districts of Donetsk are being shelled, and other cities and towns of the DPR are also under fire. An understanding was reached that all the necessary additional allied forces will be involved, primarily from Russia”, he said.

Still, it is important to remember that Kiev decided to intensify its attacks against civilian targets precisely some days after it began to receive extra Western aid with long-range equipment and heavy artillery. There is still no concrete data on how much such new weapons were used in Monday’s events, but last week there were already attacks on civilian targets with these weapons, which raises concerns about what the next steps will be for Kiev’s forces. Russian and local officials fear that Western heavy artillery will be used to carry out large-scale massacres of civilians in Donetsk.

In fact, it seems that, with no chance of reversing the scenario of military defeat, Kiev simply wants to “postpone” the success of the Russian special operation by preventing life from returning to normal in the Donbass regions that have already been liberated from Ukrainian occupation. It is an unethical tactic that does not respect the norms of international law.

However, regardless of how international society reacts to Ukrainian crimes, Moscow is expected to follow the Donetsk government’s requests to send additional military aid, which will mean an increase in the intensity with which the Russians are conducting the special operation. So, as a consequence of Western-supported Kiev’s refusal to comply with the peace conditions, inevitably, the conflict will escalate in the coming days.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. 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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Donetsk Has Deadliest Day of Ukrainian Attacks Since 2015
  • Tags: ,

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Persistent rain couldn’t dampen the high spirits of Mamalilikulla First Nation members and their guests on a dark day in May. As lowering clouds played hide-and-seek with soaring mountains, the Nation shared lunch and performed traditional songs and dances in their remote territory on British Columbia’s Central Coast, some 350 kilometers (220 miles) north of Vancouver.

The festive event was to dedicate this place as the Gwa̱xdlala/Nala̱xdlala (Lull Bay/Hoeya Sound) Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area. Chief Councilor John Powell (Winidi) said it was the first time in more than a century that these songs, these dances had been performed here.

The Mamalilikulla people lived in this rugged area and parts of the Broughton Archipelago for millennia before Europeans arrived. Over the course of the 20thcentury, band members, who now number around 441, moved from their land to cities and towns throughout western Canada, including Victoria and Vancouver. In 1972, the last people left the last village of ‘Mimkwa̱mlis on Village Island, about 40 minutes by boat from Gwa̱xdlala/Nala̱xdlala. Meanwhile, the government of British Columbia leased the land to logging companies, which clear-cut forests, causing landslides that silted up streams and harmed salmon. The government of Canada issued fishing permits in the coastal waters, allowing damaging practices such as trawling and long trap lines, which continue today.

The Nation declared the Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area (IPCA) in November at the Royal B.C. Museum in Victoria, British Columbia, proclaiming its intent to take a primary role in planning, use, management and restoration of the land and water. It plans to also reconnect dispersed band members with their land and create economic enterprises for the Nation, such as wildlife-viewing tourism.

This declaration has been acknowledged by federal and provincial officials, but it remains to be seen whether and to what extent those governments might relinquish authority. The province has established a working group to discuss management plans with the Nation.

As we approached the site of the May ceremony by boat, a black bear picked clams along the beach. The designation covers a 10,416-hectare (25,738-acre) area from the top of the mountains down into the sea. The river watersheds are home to western hemlock, yellow cedar and mountain hemlock; chum, coho and pink salmon; grizzly and black bear; and other species. The marine portion contains Hoeya Sill, home to rare shallow sponges and corals that are particularly at risk from fishing practices.

Like many First Nations in British Columbia, the Mamalilikulla never signed a treaty and considers its land and waters unceded. The IPCA site includes evidence of the Nation’s history of occupation, including village sites, fish traps, shell middens, petroglyphs and culturally modified trees. In fact, the Nation petitioned for Gwa̱xdlala/Nala̱xdlala more than a century ago under the Indian Reserve program and was denied. It is currently involved in legal discussions about that decision.

“The IPCA Declaration is a constructive challenge to Canada and B.C. to advance reconciliation efforts with the Mamalilikulla, and to honor … their commitments to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” Chief Powell said. “It is an invitation to commence negotiations on a co-governance agreement for the Gwa̱xdlala/Nala̱xdlala (Lull and Hoeya) watersheds.”

Declaring an IPCA in various forms — tribal parks, Indigenous cultural landscapes, conservancies — is a growing strategy by Nations across Canada to reclaim care for their traditional lands. The big question underlying these declarations is who will actually make decisions and have the authority to enforce them.

Chief Powell speaks before the event dedicating the land as the Gwa̱xdlala/Nala̱xdlala (Lull Bay/Hoeya Sound) Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area. Image courtesy of Erica Gies.

Chief Powell speaks before the event dedicating the land as the Gwa̱xdlala/Nala̱xdlala (Lull Bay/Hoeya Sound) Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area. Image courtesy of Erica Gies.

Chief Powell’s use of the word “co-governance” is significant, conveying sovereignty and self-determination. The province and federal governments instead typically use co-management, a term that retains their authority and that some First Nations view as treating them like one of various stakeholders, on a par with fishing and logging interests, conservationists, and the general public.

“We’re not stakeholders,” Chief Powell said. “We’re the owners.”

More than 240 marine animals to protect

There are imminent fishing threats to the area called Hoeya Sill, home to more than 240 species of ocean animals and rare corals and sponges. On the day of the ceremony, the 40-day prawn season opened, soon to be followed by the longer crab and shrimp seasons. Prawn fishers use long lines studded with traps that can catch on the corals, breaking them. The other fisheries can also cause harm via long lines and trawling.

Although the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has identified Hoeya Sill as a potential area to protect, by several accounts, it seems unwilling to deviate from its slow processes, even to establish a temporary moratorium.

“DFO is still the Britannia that rules the waves,” said John Bones, a consultant to the Nation. “It’s got that feel. This is the way they do things, and they’re not prepared to change their system to accommodate First Nations.”

Chief Powell characterized the DFO as “nonresponsive or even evasive,” citing his multiple meeting invitations extended to Rebecca Reid, the DFO’s director-general for the Pacific region.

Humpback whale off the coast of British Colombia, Canada. Image courtesy of Orcas off the coast of British Colombia, Canada. Image courtesy of Anthony Bucci.

Humpback whale off the coast of British Columbia, Canada. Image courtesy of Anthony Bucci.

The DFO would not make someone available to speak with Mongabay either. In an email, the department said it was aware of the declaration and intends further discussion on measures to protect the Gwa̱xdlala/Nala̱xdlala site.

Meanwhile, fishing continues. And the province of British Columbia retains tenures in Gwa̱xdlala/Nala̱xdlala for logging, commercial recreation, trapping, and fishing.

The Mamalilikulla have created a management plan for both the marine and freshwater areas, with acceptable and unacceptable uses, and want theirs to be the final authority. They are reinstituting their Kwak’wala language place names and conducting baseline measurements for streams, fish, grizzly bears, habitat conditions, culturally important plants, archaeological sites, and traditional foods. The plan withholds support for logging for five years while the Mamalilikulla develop a long-term management strategy.

In the absence of engagement with federal officials, the Nation erected a “No fishing” sign over Hoeya Sill. It also reached out directly to fishing groups, asking them to spare the sill during the current season.

Although the prawn industry organizations are open to possible protections, said Jim McIsaac, coordinator of the B.C. Commercial Fishing Caucus, the Nation’s request, in March, came too late to be implemented for the start of this season.

The Mamalilikulla, like many coastal First Nations, also have a Guardian program, in which Nation members patrol waters where DFO boats are largely absent. They carry moral authority that they hope people will respect — and the possible threat of legal action, if the Nation can afford to bring it.

“It’s one thing to create an IPCA and another thing to enforce it and have some jurisdiction to do so,” said former chief councilor Richard Sumner, who helped begin the process of creating the IPCA. “Our guys can’t arrest people. All they can do is monitor and report. And inform. This is one of the big things we’ve got to do in all of our Nations: let the public know what is acceptable in our territories.”

Sometimes it works. When the Mamalilikulla found out that logging companies planned damaging log dumps near the area of the ceremony, it appealed to them directly.

Chief Powell recounted talking to the forester: “‘Why would we declare an IPCA and after allow a log dump? No, it’s not acceptable. You need to move the log dump.’ And industry agreed to do so.”

Conservation Canadian style

Canada has its own conservation initiatives, including a commitment to the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), that requires protecting 25% of land and oceans by 2025 and 30% by 2030. But some conservationists have questioned the efficacy of its protected areas because various industrial activities are still allowed: fishing, mining, dumping, oil and gas development. In response to public outcry a few years ago, Canada strengthened its criteria but still has a ways to go to effectively protect biodiversity, critics say.

Proponents for Indigenous-led conservation say Indigenous management could yield better results. An international study showed that biodiversity is higher on the 25% of land managed or owned by Indigenous peoples. That may be partly due to Indigenous groups’ tendency to manage whole ecosystems, rather than focus on specific species. This is why groups such as the Mamalilikulla argue that they can help Canada meet its conservation commitments.

Orcas off the coast of British Colombia, Canada. Image courtesy of Anthony Bucci.

Orcas off the coast of British Columbia, Canada. Image courtesy of Anthony Bucci.

“The evidence of how successful [the Mamalilikulla’s laws] were,” Chief Powell said, “is the fact that when Europeans came here, everything was so plentiful. Now we find ourselves in this situation,” alluding to the current degraded state of the land and water.

Along the West Coast, both British Columbia and Canada have consulted with First Nations, including the Mamalilikulla, to plan a network of marine protected areas down the coast and for forest management under the Great Bear Rainforest Land Use Order, a much-touted conservation deal struck in 2016.

However, the DFO paused marine network planning in the fall due to “the complexity and scale” of proposed fisheries management, according to the department, “as they are inconsistent with the Department’s regulatory and policy frameworks.” But before that, the collaboration process left the Mamalilikulla somewhat frustrated, Bones said, because the Nation wasn’t given enough time to make decisions about which fisheries would be acceptable or not, and criteria did not include cultural objectives. At the same time, some of the discussions seemed to indicate support for co-governance and First Nations declaring IPCAs.

Different worldviews

Finding common ground could be difficult due to the cultures’ fundamentally different worldviews. Settler governments see fish, trees and minerals as valuable resources, and their economic system incentivizes overexploitation. For that reason, Western conservation has typically focused on regulating human consumption of a single species at a time to keep it from going extinct.

Many Indigenous worldviews instead look at the ecosystem holistically, focusing on the relationships among water and rock, plants and animals — including humans, who they understand to be part of nature.

Mamalilikulla First Nation shared lunch and performed traditional songs and dances in their remote territory on British Columbia’s Central Coast. Image courtesy of Erica Gies.

Mamalilikulla First Nation shared lunch with guests and performed traditional songs and dances in their remote territory on British Columbia’s Central Coast. Image courtesy of Erica Gies.

Chief Powell said the Mamalilikulla’s management plans for the IPCA are based on the ancient law of Aweenak’ola, meaning, “I am one with the Land, the Sea, the Sky and the Supernatural Ones.” For example, Chief Powell laments how settlers log old cedars, where grizzly bears den, focusing only on the trees’ market value and giving “no consideration of the value to a bear.”

As a 2018 report by the Indigenous Council of Elders puts it, conserved areas are less an assertion of rights than an exercise of responsibility.

Because of this focus on interconnections, Indigenous peoples don’t see the same jurisdictional boundaries that hamstring settler governments’ conservation efforts. For instance, Canada’s federal government manages most ocean waters, while two different provincial departments manage forestry and freshwater streams. It’s difficult to ensure ecosystem health with such siloed management.

“That’s why our MPA [marine protected area] is different,” Bones said. “Ours is marine and watershed, from the depth of water to top of the mountain.”

Former chief councilor Sumner agreed that settler management had left the land and waters in a bad state. “Historically there were tens of thousands of salmon in one of those creeks; now there’s absolutely nothing,” he said. The Mamalilikulla aim to restore the watershed and reintroduce fish to rebuild the runs, “not only for ourselves, but also for the grizzly bears. They’re starving to death.”

Many coastal First Nations consider grizzly bears to be kin, so there’s a spiritual aspect to protecting them — but also an economic one. “The benefits of tourism are huge if we have a pristine area where we can have healthy bears,” Sumner said, “and create jobs for our people.”

Many generations of intimacy with this land give Indigenous people an innate awareness of what the land needs, Chief Powell said. “I know we’re at a tipping point right now” due to settler management that prioritizes tax dollars and licensing fees, he said. “But rather [than] do something to resolve it, they pretend it’s not happening, they keep issuing licenses, and defending it. They could care less if we have salmon here. Most of them don’t eat salmon in Ontario. They could care less if our grizzly bears are starving.”

Working together

The two relevant provincial ministries — land, water and resource stewardship, and forestry — signed a letter of intent at the end of April that would establish a “Collaborative Management Working Group with the Mamalilkulla First Nation.”

Sarah Fraser, an assistant deputy minister at the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, spoke at the dedication ceremony. She invoked the province’s action plan under the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and its engagement with First Nations to defer additional harvests of old-growth forests until partners agree to management plans.

“These commitments point us toward the type of work we’re beginning with the Mamalilkulla today,” she said. “I support the Gwa̱xdlala/Nala̱xdlala Aweenak’ola collaborative management project.”

British Columbia has made financial commitments to the Nation, and Chief Powell said he’s pleased with the province’s openness to working together. But “I haven’t heard them say ‘co-governance.’ I think they’re being directed not to say that.” He added, “In our own minds, that co-governance is a step toward sovereignty.”

According to Charlie Short, executive director of regional operations for the province’s Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship, the province has made big strides in its relationships with First Nations. He points to “joint plans, shared objectives” with the Great Bear Rainforest and the marine spatial planning process. Short studied marine ecology and said he’s excited about the potential to manage the land and sea together.

The province is approaching these discussions with a government-to-government lens, he told Mongabay, working first “with the Nation to then engage with other stakeholders and the public.”

However, an email statement from the provincial Ministry of Forests in response to Mongabay’s request for an interview described an approach to the IPCA that reads as co-management.

“Our preferred approach for creating an IPCA is through the Land Use Planning process, as this process ensures that economic, environmental, social, and cultural objectives are met and that robust consultations with Indigenous peoples, stakeholders and the public are included,” it read.

Bones, who worked for the province for nearly 30 years, said, “We are working with good people, but they can’t get ahead of the government policy. We’re working with them to explore the boundaries.”

Back at the ceremony, a bonfire burned on through the rain, while people chatted and joked with relatives they hadn’t seen in a long while. As Chief Powell thanked community members, elders, hereditary chiefs, elected councilors, chiefs of neighboring nations, supporters, and guests for marking “this symbolic occasion on our collective journey,” he choked up.

Finally, after a century’s separation from Gwa̱xdlala/Nala̱xdlala, the Mamalilikulla have claimed it back and aim to repair the damage it has suffered. Through this work, the Mamalilikulla people will reconnect themselves with land, sea, and sky, he said, and will cultivate a place where the animals can feel safe again.

*

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

Erica Gies is an independent journalist, National Geographic Explorer, and author of the new book Water Always Wins: Thriving in an age of drought and deluge, which follows innovators in what she calls the Slow Water movement, learn more at https://slowwater.world.

Featured image: Humpback whales off the coast of British Columbia, Canada. Image courtesy of Anthony Bucci.

Canada – The Not So Peaceable Kingdom

June 14th, 2022 by Jim Miles

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

***

For a short while, at least as announced by the mainstream media, Canada found itself described as a “peacemaker” among the countries of the world.  This was an image promoted abroad and valued domestically as Canadian troops, war materials, and military equipment worked around the world to maintain peace.  This necessity for peace, when reviewed critically, came from the reality of the Canadian military forces as an extension of the colonial settler mindset of Great Britain, later adopted to US military supremacy, with a few homegrown initiatives of its own.

Canada is essentially a primary part of the US military empire and operates subordinate to – in most cases – and alongside US military operations in all spheres:  actual war fighting, security, interrogation, materials, equipment, research, institutional influences (universities, think tanks –  corporate, financial, and political boards of governance) and on.  At the same time the mainstream media reports in accordance with US military doctrine to the degree that US operations are presented as a positive force for good in the world – a position Canada always says it aspires to but in actuality never practices.

“Stand on Guard for Whom?”

In his series of many books on Canada’s malfeasance domestically and around the world, Yves Engler has covered all these topics, sometimes focussing on relationships with one country (Israel – “Canada and Israel Building Apartheid, 2010), with a region (Africa – “Canada in Africa: 300 years of aid and exploitation”, 2015) or focussing on a variety of mostly domestic political topics, although this latter always spills over into British born, US dominated foreign policy.

His most recent work “Stand on Guard for Whom? A People’s History of the Canadian Military.” (Black Rose Books, Montreal, 2021) brings together all the military elements of Canada’s foreign and domestic policies and actions.

Engler starts the work, as it should, with the British conquest of the indigenous people of North America with the British imperial racism and arrogance giving the genocidal directive, “You will do well to try and inoculate the Indians by means of blankets as well as try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.”  The genocide was successful from the perspective of the “wealthy and the powerful” in order to “build a capitalist economy.  The military was critical for accomplishing these tasks.”

From that beginning, the Canadian military forces have performed domestically in support of the government over certain classes of people, workers, labourers, and the ongoing battle with the indigenous people.  For foreign affairs Canada supported British imperial objectives around the world, supporting the Boer War, and committing a large number of soldiers to World War I and World War II.  After the decline of British military adventurism, Canada willingly became associated with US military practices around the world.

Working with Uncle Sam

All Canadian military activity is operated in liaison with the US military.  Naval, air and land forces are all well integrated through NATO, NORAD, NAFTA (for the corporate-financial sector) and other institutional organizations.  All wars post WW II involving the US – as most wars do – had the support and participation of Canada to some degree or other with the modern military focussed on NATO and Israel.

Engler describes the not so obvious sectors of Canada’s military standing on guard for the US empire.  Canadian special forces operate under secrecy and with a lack of political responsibility.  International aid, the winning of “hearts and minds”, and many different research centers operate in full cooperation with US interests.    Chemical and biological weapons have found a testing ground in Canada, all “…veiled in secrecy.  The intended harm was so great and the idea so distasteful to most that the work had to be conducted in secret.”  Canada belongs to the “Five Eyes” group of intelligence gathering agencies – its budget and size are not public information, “little is known about their operations since there is no external oversight.”

In all areas, Canada is “Subject to Uncle Sam”.  That idea is evident throughout the book, but is emphasized in the chapter of the same title.  Those who are aware of Canada’s foreign policy should also know that both Trudeau and Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland have an American first policy when it comes to defining Canada’s foreign policy.

Other concerns are also looked at more directly:  veterans affairs (or war promotions?), marketing militarism (largest PR machine in Canada), lies and propaganda (in particular with embedded journalism and various corporate-government interactions), and above all a description of Canada’s military industrial complex.  The latter is a “significant economic force” as with the US, and “Few politicians criticize weapons manufacturing, the harm caused to people elsewhere or the corruption often associated with arms sales.”

Solutions to militarization of society

At the end of “Stand on Guard for Whom? A People’s History of the Canadian Military” Engler provides possible solutions.  As the book was published in 2021 and therefore researched before that, perhaps some of the solutions are arriving already, not necessarily in a convenient manner.

As the US is edging into economic decline and possible economic freefall, Canada will follow suit as our economy is fully dependent on the same kind of system as the US and is fully integrated into those systems.   Unfortunately that may well increase the militarism of the state as it strives to retain control of a shrinking sphere of influence, but for the “rest of the world”, the majority – that probably would prefer to live outside US hegemonic domination and destruction (infrastructure and environmental) – may rest easier without Canada operating in its faux role of peacekeeper.

More…

In 2014 Canada was the first NATO country to send ‘advisors’ and ‘trainers’ to Ukraine after the Maidan coup (during which the Canadian embassy served as a safe house for some of the militants involved).  Since WW II and the 1948 nakba in Palestine, Canada has consistently aided and sided with Israel in its colonial settler apartheid endeavours.  Haiti has suffered for centuries under racist domination by colonial settler European initiatives and Canada has played a significant role – a leading role in parts – in keeping Haiti as a colonial enterprise.  Chrystia Freeland led the way with the “Lima Group” now unofficially disbanded in part due to Lima no longer being part of the group, among its many other faults and flaws of anti-democratic actions and propaganda.

Canada is not a peacekeeping country.  It does not care about the democratic rights and sovereign rights of other countries to live without foreign interference.  Yes, “we stand on guard for thee” (from the Canadian anthem) as long as “thee” belongs to the US empire.

*

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

Jim Miles is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from press.uchicago.edu

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada – The Not So Peaceable Kingdom
  • Tags:

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

 

 

 

***

In Corriere della Sera’s dossier on the “Putinians of Italy”- published on June 5 and signed by deputy editor Fiorenza Sarzanini and Monica Guerzoni – Manlio Dinucci also appears.

The first reference to his activities reads as follows: The 2019 Plan / An article of his claiming how “the Anglo-American attack on Russia and Ukraine was planned in 2019” has become a kind of manifesto “of Russian state media and utilities supporting the invasion of Ukraine.”

The newspaper does not indicate the source of the quoted sentences but, in presenting the dossier, speaks of “material collected by the services.”

This is a complete distortion of reality: in the 2019 article, published in the Manifesto on May 21 under the title “Rand Corp: how to bring down Russia,” the author did not support his own thesis but reported the plan published by the Rand Corporation, a powerful US think tank, entitled “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia.”

What is more, it is absurd that the author was writing in 2019 about a plan of “Anglo-American attack on Russia and Ukraine,” when Ukraine had already included in its constitution the decision to be part of NATO (a topic covered by Dinucci himself in the February 12, 2019 manifesto).

Source: Byoblu

The second reference reads as follows: Passages from his book The War – Our Lives Are at Stake, published by ByoBlu Editions – publisher of a digital channel and TV repeatedly accused of “disinformation,” – were quoted by Putin in his May 9 speech for the Victory Day celebrations.

In the Corriere of June 6, Alessandra Arachi reiterates: Among the people who were allegedly part of the network, according to the security apparatus, is Manlio Dinucci, who wrote a book about the war that Putin himself quoted on May 9 for the Victory Day celebrations.

This is a forgery that reaches demented levels, sufficient by itself to demonstrate the nature of the dossier: an example of trash journalism instrumental to a plan aimed at silencing any alternative voice to that of the political-media mainstream.

*

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

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Corriere della Sera’s Dossier on the “Putinians of Italy”. Rand Corp’s 2019 Report: “How to Bring down Russia”

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The media would like to believe the Fed is doing everything in its power to fight inflation, but it’s not true.

Yes, the Fed raised rates by 50 basis points in May and, yes, the Fed is trying to sound as “hawkish” as possible. But these things are designed to dupe the public not to reduce inflation. Let me explain.

The current rate of inflation in the US is 8.6%, a 40-year high.

At its May meeting, the Fed raised its target Fed Funds Rate to 1%. Here’s the scoop:

“The Federal Reserve recently announced that it’s raising interest rates by half a percentage point, bumping the federal funds rate to a target range of 0.75-1.00%.” (The Spokesman-Review)

Got that? So the Fed’s rate is still a measly 1%. That’s what the media is trying to hide from you, and that’s why you might have to read 9 or 10 articles before you find a journalist who provides you with the actual rate.

Why are they hiding the rate?

Because the rate is 7.6% below the rate of inflation, so it doesn’t do a damn thing. It’s another public relations travesty dolled-up to look like serious monetary policy. But it’s a joke, and you can see it’s a joke.

Think of it like this: If I loaned you $100 at 1% interest– but inflation was running at 8%– I would lose 7 bucks per year, right?

Right. And that’s what the Fed is doing. When interest rates are set below the rate of inflation, then the Fed loses money on every loan. In other words, the Fed is providing a subsidy to the banks for borrowing money. Have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous?

How would you like a deal like that? How would you like it if the Fed paid you interest on your credit card debt? You’d probably like that, right? But—if you were honest with yourself—you’d admit that it was a “gift”, because that’s what it is, a gift. The big banks are getting another handout from Uncle Sugar. That’s the whole deal in a nutshell.

Meanwhile, you and I and the other 300 million serfs, continue to pay a hefty 18% to the banks that are being subsidized by the Federal Reserve. Sound fair?

So, how much would the Fed have to hike rates if it really wanted to do its job? Check out this clip from an article at the Chicago Booth Review:

“The usual wisdom says that to reduce inflation, the Fed must raise the nominal interest rate by more than the inflation rate. In that way, the real interest rate rises, cooling the economy.

At a minimum, then, according to the usual wisdom, the interest rate should be above 8.5 percent. Now. The Taylor rule says the interest rate should be 2 percent (the Fed’s inflation target), plus 1.5 times how much inflation exceeds 2 percent, plus the long-term real rate. That means an interest rate of around 12 percent. Yet the Fed sits, and contemplates at most a percent or two by the end of the year.” (“Why Hasn’t the Fed Done More to Fight Inflation” Chicago Booth Review)

So if the Fed was serious about fighting inflation, they would have raised rates to roughly 12%. Instead, they have decided to use their allies in the media to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. That’s what’s going on. It’s another big snow-job. Here’s more from the Chicago Booth Review:

“… the inflationary shock we just experienced, whatever its source, together with today’s low interest rate, gives us a large negative real interest rate. That negative rate is itself additional “stimulus”: it raises output and lowers unemployment. Higher output and lower unemployment, however, raise inflation even more, relative to the large past inflation. Higher inflation means an even lower real interest rate, and more inflation still, in a never-ending spiral—until the Fed gives in, raises interest rates to much above inflation, and contains the mess with a large recession.” (“Why Hasn’t the Fed Done More to Fight Inflation” Chicago Booth Review)

So, when the Fed’s rate is lower than the rate of inflation, then inflation rises, the opposite of what we want to achieve.

Bottom line: Ultra-loose monetary policy fuels inflation and creates gigantic economy-destroying asset bubbles that wipe out trillions and ruin lives. Sound familiar?

It should. We’ve been through this drill many times before.

Here’s something else you should know: The Fed has had its foot on the gas since Lehman Brothers blew up in 2008. That’s when Fed Chair Ben Bernanke dropped rates to zero and put the printing press on “full throttle”. From that point on, the Fed has been flooding the zone with low-price liquidity that has inflated the biggest asset-price bubble of all time.

Why does everyone need to know this?

Because inflationary pressures are forcing the Fed to raise rates, but even the slightest rate-hike can touch-off firesales that impact other shadow lenders that are equally overextended triggering a daisy-chain of defaults that can domino through the system causing another financial crisis. In other words, the asset-price bubble the Fed has created with its low-rate mania is so gargantuan and unstable, that any tightening of policy can ignite a system-wide meltdown. That’s why Powell is so skittish about raising rates. It’s because he doesn’t know who the weak players are and where they are hiding. If one giant investment bank– that is drowning in red ink– suddenly goes belly-up after interest rates rise, then that bank is going to take down 20-or-so counterparties along with him. That’s the problem with today’s grossly-entangled market; the web of debt stretches across the entire system endangering even the stronger players. The last thing Powell wants to do is prick the bubble the Fed has been inflating for the last 14 years.

Did you know the Fed has purchased $9 trillion in mostly US Treasuries and Mortgage-Backed Securities since 2008?

What that means is that stock and bond prices have risen not on their growth-potential or due to basic supply-demand dynamics, but because the Fed has been actively distorting market prices to enrich its investor friends. This is how wealth is transferred to other members of the investor class, not in great bags filled with money, but through the underpricing of credit that is further amplified through dodgy debt instruments. That’s the name of the game.

Recently, the Fed has indicated that it wants to reduce its balance sheet to a more manageable size. The problem is that– just as stock prices rose when the Fed purchased USTs– so too, they will fall sharply when the Fed sells. And, that is precisely what has happened everytime the Fed has tried to shrink its balance sheet; stocks have fallen off a cliff. So, while the Fed has succeeded in pushing stock prices higher, (by purchasing $9 trillion in financial assets), it will not succeed in keeping stocks high while rolling off its prodigious asset-pile. In other words, the Fed will not be able to repeal the laws of physics.

Do you remember The stock market crash of 2020? Do you remember how it ended? Here’s a little background from an article at The Balance:

“The stock market crash of 2020 began on Monday, March 9, with history’s most significant point plunge for the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) up to that date. Two more record-setting point drops followed it on March 12 and March 16.

The stock market crash included the three worst point drops in U.S. history. The drop was caused by unbridled global fears about the spread of the coronavirus, oil price drops, and the possibility of a 2020 recession.

Although the 2020 market crash was dramatic, it didn’t last. The stock market experienced a surprising recovery, even as many areas of the U.S. economy continued to experience trouble…” (“How Does the 2020 Stock Market Crash Compare With Others?“, The Balance)

So, stocks plunged thousands of points in response to a fast-spreading pandemic that was shuddering businesses and decimating economies around the world. The media dismissed the sell-off as a “panic” but that cretainly wasn’t the case. Investors rationally concluded that economic activity was going to be gravely impacted by the virus and simply sold while they could. With no sign of a remedy or vaccine, there was no reason for optimism.

But why did the sell-off stop? That’s what we want to know. What caused investors to rethink their approach and dive back into the market headfirst?

The Fed stopped the selloff. And the announcement that stopped the bleeding was probably the most extraordinary event in the Central Bank’s long and checkered history. Because, in essence, what Fed chairman Powell said was that he would put a bottom under stock and bond prices to prevent them from falling too far. Think about that. Here we had the Fed– who poses as an impartial regulator of market activity– telling us to our faces that he plans to intervene whenever he thinks prices do not align with his expectations? In other words, the Fed promised to prevent the market from functioning according to normal supply-demand dynamics. The free market had to be sacrificed in order to prevent the inevitable losses from the pandemic. Naturally, investors loved hearing that the Fed “had their back” and stampeded back into the market money-in-hand.

And how did the Fed’s announcement impact the market?

Let’s look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average during that period.

On March 16, 2020, the Dow ended the session posting a close of 20,188.

Two years later on Jan 4, 2022, the index closed at 36,799.

In other words, the Fed’s promise to support stock prices triggered a 16 thousand point rise in the Dow in the middle of a pandemic.

Would you call that manipulation?

I would.

At the same time, the Fed expanded the range of its purchases from risk-free” Treasuries and government-backed MBS, to any manner of dodgy corporate debt or ETF that needed propping up to support the broader market. This unprecedented and dramatic intervention dispelled whatever confidence any objective observer might have had in US markets in which the manipulation is so in-your-face, that one cannot avoid the foul stench of corruption that stretches from “sea to shining sea”. The Fed has in fact become a price-fixing agency that has abandoned any restraint whatsoever. Former Fed governor Kevin Warsh anticipated this development years earlier and delivered a warning that was published in the Wall Street Journal. Here’s what he said:

“The Fed’s increased presence in the market for long-term Treasury securities also poses nontrivial risks. The Treasury market is special. It plays a unique role in the global financial system. It is a corollary to the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. The prices assigned to Treasury securities–the risk-free rate–are the foundation from which the price of virtually every asset in the world is calculated. As the Fed’s balance sheet expands, it becomes more of a price maker than a price taker in the Treasury market. And if market participants come to doubt these prices — or their reliance on these prices proves fleeting — risk premiums across asset classes and geographies could move unexpectedly.” (“The New Malaise”, Kevin Warsh, Wall Street Journal)

Once again, the Fed’s balance sheet is currently $9 trillion which means that stock and bond prices are probably inflated by two or three times that amount. Why do you think stocks continued to hit new highs in the middle of a pandemic while employment, production, manufacturing, services and growth were are on life-support?

Answer—The Fed. The Fed promised to support the markets, and investors responded by buying up everything that wasn’t bolted to the floor. The plan worked like a charm.

Here’s something you won’t believe. The New York Fed– which has its own trading desk– released its annual report that includes one eye-popping paragraph “that took our breath away,” says Wall Street on Parade editor Pam Martens. Here’s more from Marten’s article:

“It reveals that the New York Fed’s trading operation … currently owns 38 percent of all outstanding U.S. Treasury Securities with 10 to 30 years remaining until maturity….

There are multiple reasons that this detail takes our breath away. First of all, the U.S. Treasury market is massive – at $22.6 trillion as of year-end 2021. That any one entity controls a big chunk of the market is deeply concerning. (The same report showed that the New York Fed’s trading desk owned 25 percent of all maturities of outstanding Treasury debt.)

The New York Fed’s trading desk owning 38 percent of the 10-30 year Treasuries is also deeply alarming because it is that maturity range that has a dramatic impact on the interest rate of the 30-year fixed-rate residential mortgage, the most popular mortgage among first-time homebuyers historically. It means t hat the New York Fed’s gobbling up of these 10-year U.S. Treasury Notes and 30-year U.S. Treasury Bonds, to the tune of 38 percent of the market, has created artificial demand for these instruments that would not otherwise exist. That, in turn, means that mortgage rates have been artificially held lower – much lower – than they would otherwise have been….” (“New York Fed Stuns with New Report: At Year End Its Trading Desk Owned 38 Percent of All 10-30 Year U.S. Treasuries”, Wall Street on Parade)

So, interest rates are rigged? Is that what she’s saying?

Sure looks like it.

If—as Marten says—“the New York Fed…currently owns 38 percent of all outstanding U.S. Treasury Securities with 10 to 30 years remaining until maturity”, then the rates on those bonds are being suppressed by an entity that is supposed to be a neutral referee not a market participant. And the implications of that are huge because these rates effect everything from buying a house to purchasing a car. But what’s more disturbing is how this activity relates to the Kevin Warsh comment:

“The Treasury market …plays a unique role in the global financial system…. The prices assigned to Treasury securities… are the foundation from which the price of virtually every asset in the world is calculated.”

What happens when Central Banks and investors around the globe realize that the world’s premier risk-free asset—the 10-year UST—is built on a foundation of pure sand? Wouldn’t that put the Treasury market and the US dollar in the crosshairs at the very same time?

It would.

Then why would the Fed engage in such risky activity?

We have to assume that they want to keep interest rates artificially low whatever the cost.

But, why?

The Fed is trying to preserve the zero-rate regime so it can continue its ultra-accommodative credit expansion that allows its wealthy constituents to rake in bigger profits than ever before. That appears to be the goal. But as inflation rises and the massive asset-price bubble grows more unstable, it’s only a matter of time before the bubble bursts and all hell breaks loose. As economist Ludwig von Mises said:

“There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”

​Well said.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

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

It’s Now Crucial to Understand What We’re Up Against. The COVID Pandemic is A Coup d’état, A Global Takeover Referred to as “The Great Reset”

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 14, 2022

Patrick Wood, a repeat guest, has spent decades studying technocracy — an invented economic system that the global cabal is currently trying to implement worldwide. He was recently interviewed by The Defender, the Children’s Health Defense newsletter. You will find that interview below. I would actually encourage you to watch that one first, because it provides a really good background of Wood and his work.

Joe Biden’s Submissive — and Highly Revealing — Embrace of Saudi Despots

By Glenn Greenwald, June 13, 2022

In 2018, President Trump issued a statement reaffirming the U.S.’s long-standing relationship with the Saudi royal family on the ground that this partnership serves America’s “national interests.”

Russia, Ukraine and US Resistance to the Shifting Direction of History

By Jack Dresser, June 13, 2022

Russia, and especially President Putin, has been used as an American political bludgeon and scapegoat for the past six years, and despite our naked interference in Ukraine exposed without apparent embarrassment by Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, US media are awash with proclamations of unilateral Russian guilt for the war.

War in the Middle East, Iran Versus The Emirates? The Insidious Role of Israel. ‘Russia and Ukraine Gulf Edition’ Coming Soon?

By Gavin OReilly, June 13, 2022

Although receiving miniscule media coverage, Thursday’s announcement that Israel had deployed military infrastructure to the UAE and Bahrain in the shape of radar systems, ostensibly to counter an alleged missile threat from nearby Iran, should be a cause for concern amongst onlookers.

Video: Pharma’s Misdeeds. Covid Childhood Vaccines are Dangerous: Andrew Wakefield Interview

By Steve Kirsch, June 13, 2022

Andrew Wakefield was right. I had the honor to interview him for 90 minutes to get clarity on all the misinformation I’ve heard. He challenged the status quo and paid the price for telling the truth. He exposed the fact that all childhood vaccines are dangerous. Kids who are not vaccinated at all are uniformly better off than kids who are.

Shocking – At Least 77,000 Deaths and 7.3 Million Injured Due to COVID Vaccination Across USA, Europe, UK and Australia

By The Daily Expose, June 13, 2022

The latest reports released by medicine regulators around the world reveal that there have been at least 7.3 million injuries reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections up to late May and early June 2022, including 77,068 deaths.

How Monsters Who Beat Jews to Death in 1944 Became America’s Favorite “Freedom Fighters” in 1945—With a Little Help from Their Friends at CIA

By Evan Reif, June 13, 2022

After the end of the Second World War, American intelligence immediately set about the work of rehabilitating the world’s fascists to fight the new war on Communism. From the transformation of the bloody “Devil of Showa” Nobusuke Kishi into the hand-picked Prime Minister of Japan, to Emil Augsburg, the architect of the Holocaust described as “Honest and idealist … enjoys good food and wine…unprejudiced mind…” by the CIA, it seems that Langley never met a fascist it couldn’t do business with.

Globalist Elites Beg for ‘Trust’ Despite an ‘Unending Stream’ of COVID Lies and ‘Massive’ Censorship

By Patrick Delaney, June 13, 2022

Despite enormous evidence to the contrary and in a bid for totalitarian power, globalist health leaders declare the COVID crisis ‘anything but over’ while ignoring sharp challenges from thousands of competent professionals.

US Engaged In “Offensive” Cyber Ops Against Russia in Ukraine: NSA Director

By Zero Hedge, June 13, 2022

The US military has issued a stunning but perhaps not entirely unexpected admission that it has been conducting offensive cyber operations in support of Ukraine. It marks the first ever such acknowledgement, and suggests – as many observers have long suspected – a deeper Pentagon and US intelligence role in Ukraine against the Russian military than previously thought.

Everything the Mainstream Doesn’t Like Is Russian Propaganda

By Manlio Dinucci, June 13, 2022

In this talk, journalist and geographer Manlio Dinucci comments on the desecreted document of the DIS, Department of Security Intelligence. According to Dinucci, the document is number 4, but it is not yet known what is in the first three; it is likely that his name, as well as the others circulated by Corriere della Sera, are in the other documents.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: It’s Now Crucial to Understand What We’re Up Against. The COVID Pandemic is A Coup d’état, A Global Takeover Referred to as “The Great Reset”
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia: Renewable Energy or Reliable Energy — But Not Both

Why Aren’t We Out of Yemen Yet?

June 14th, 2022 by Bonnie Kristian

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

President Joe Biden‘s announcement two weeks after taking office that he would end “all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales,” was welcome. It was also inexcusably ambiguous, and when lawmakers sought clarity into the scope of the policy change, the administration mostly declined to give it. Biden’s announcement “includes the suspension of two previously notified air-to-ground munitions sales and an ongoing review of other systems,” wrote the State Department in a letter. But beyond that, the administration didn’t indicate what military support would continue to flow to the Saudi-led coalition intervening in Yemen’s grueling civil war.

An extensive new report from The Washington Post this week confirms that skepticism of the drawdown was warranted and the specification of “offensive operations” was deceptive. While rightfully decrying Russian aggression against civilian targets in Ukraine, the U.S. government continues to be implicated in the same kind of brutality against civilians in Yemen, the site of the world’s most acute humanitarian crisis. This Post report is fresh evidence that we need to know exactly how the U.S. government is backing the Saudi-led coalition and its war crimes in Yemen—and that this backing needs to stop.

The Post story is not the first to suggest that U.S. involvement in Yemen continues to be significant. We already knew, for instance, that other weapons deals had proceeded during Biden’s tenure. The president and Congress signed off on a $650 million sale of missiles and other arms to Saudi Arabia in late 2021, and the State Department approved millions more in February—using language of rationale copied and pasted from a Trump administration sale completed before Biden’s ostensible policy change, Responsible Statecraft reports.

We also knew the administration had yet to cancel military maintenance contracts which, per the Post article and previous reporting by Vox, are crucial for continuing airstrikes in Yemen. “If we don’t sell [Saudi Arabia a] particular ammunition, they can still fly. They have got a lot of munitions stockpiled. They might be able to find replacements,” Rep. Tom Malinowski (D–N.J.) told the Post. “But there’s no replacement for the maintenance contract and no ability to fly without it.” These “contracts fulfilled by both the U.S. military and U.S. companies to coalition squadrons carrying out offensive missions have continued” since the “offensive operations” announcement, the Post found, even though the air campaign is responsible for most direct civilian deaths and Biden couched his comments in concern for civilians.

And we knew that the Biden administration had not pushed for an immediate end to the Saudi blockade of Yemen, officially intended to intercept Iranian weapons but in practice a major contributing factor to the country’s famine conditions and severe shortages of necessities like medicine and fuel. The State Department letter didn’t answer lawmakers’ inquiry about transfers of naval equipment, which could be used to prolong the blockade, and “the U.S. Navy occasionally announces it has interceptedsmuggled weapons from Iran,” the Brookings Institution notes, “suggesting a more active role [in the blockade] than the administration admits.”

The crucial new information of the Post report, then, is the identification “for the first time [of the] 19 fighter jet squadrons that took part in the Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen.” While the Pentagon had claimed it could not reliably distinguish which units were engaged in the precluded offensive operations, the Post investigation was able to do exactly that. It was also able to determine that the U.S. military conducted training exercises, some of them on U.S. soil, “with at least 80 percent of [coalition] squadrons that flew airstrike missions in Yemen.” These continued after Biden claimed to end offensive operations support. A round of training in March 2022, for example, would “concentrate on three primary themes,” said an Air Force write-up. One of them was “offensive” techniques.

These revelations come, on several counts, at an opportune moment for U.S. policy to change course. The United Nations last week announced a two-month extension of a truce begun in April, the first such nationwide ceasefire since the civil war began in 2014. This truce is not only an immediate relief for Yemeni civilians but also an important step toward a negotiated peace, one which suggests even the partial U.S. drawdown may be having some effect on the coalition’s appetite to continue the war.

Here in the States, a bipartisan resolution introduced in the House this month would direct the president to more comprehensively end “U.S. military participation in offensive air strikes,” including—particularly in light of the Post‘s squadron identifications—canceling maintenance contracts.

Meanwhile, Biden is reportedly considering a trip to Saudi Arabia in July. He’s been widely castigated for the plan, which would mark a major reversal of campaign-era talk about making the regime a “pariah.” But the visit has yet to be formally announced, which means Biden could still cancel or reconfigure it to push the Saudi government toward a more permanent peace in Yemen.

The president doesn’t need to wait for Congress to pass that resolution to wind down U.S. military support for the coalition; constitutional constraints on presidential war powers are all on the side of joining wars, not leaving them. Nor does Biden need congressional permission to give the American people full information on what our government has done in Yemen and how it can—and should—stop working with the Saudi-led coalition going forward. He can speak plainly to the public and Riyadh whenever he likes.

We’ve had weasel words enough about the U.S. role in Yemen for three presidencies now. It’s time for transparency—and peace.

*

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

Bonnie Kristian is the author, most recently, of Untrustworthy: The Knowledge Crisis Breaking Our Brains, Polluting Our Politics, and Corrupting Christian Community.

Featured image is from Lex Villena; Felton Davis, Joe Sohm | Dreamstime.com

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

 

***

June 10 bore witness to a valiant effort on the part of refugee groups and a trade union to stop what promises to be the first journey of many as part of the UK-Rwanda plan.  Their attempt to seek an injunction failed to convince the High Court.  Next Tuesday, the first flight from the UK to Rwanda filled with asylum seekers will, unless the Court of Appeal rules otherwise, take off.  Some 31 people of Iraqi and Syrian background have been told they will be on board with one-way tickets.

The UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, hammered out by the Home Secretary Priti Patel and her counterparts in Kigali, has one central purpose: to deter the arrival of asylum seekers by boat across the English Channel.  Its genesis lies in a range of sources, none more insidious than the Australian model of offshore processing.  At its core is a rejection of international refugee law and its obligations.  In its place is the sentiment of convenience, callousness and cruel stinginess.

This conduct is only appealing to the insecure and the smug.  In a piece by Sam Ashworth-Hayes, a former director of studies at the conservative Henry Jackson Society, we see the old nostalgic refrain that Britain is glorious, people want to travel there, but that, unfortunately, transport has become easier and cheaper in a world where refugee laws simply have not kept up.  Borders needed to be firmed; regulations tightened.  And praise be showered upon Rwanda, who can profit from the refugee industry and market model so maligned by Patel.   The plan had to “surely rank as among the most generous development aid schemes ever devised.”  Apart, of course, for those unfortunates seeking asylum.

The policy has irked a goodly number, and not just the steadfastly committed campaigners.  The Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, has made mutterings about it, expressing the view that the “whole approach is appalling.”

Admittedly, this revelation was spilled by an anonymous source to the Daily Mail and Times.  When asked for comment from Clarence House, a spokesperson said that:

“We would not comment on supposed anonymous private conversations with the Prince of Wales, except to restate that he remains politically neutral.  Matters of policy are decisions for the government.”

Multinationals, on even more slippery ground, have also taken issue with the policy.  Ben and Jerry’s took to Twitter to stormily urge “folks” to “talk about Priti Patel’s ‘ugly’ Rwanda plan and what this means.”  The dispenser of ice cream products took issue with the UK’s “plan to forcibly send people to a country thousands of miles away, simply for seeking refuge in the UK” as “cruel and morally bankrupt.”

In the High Court, various arguments by the legal team representing the charities Detention Action, Care4Calais and the PCS Union were made hoping to block the first flight scheduled to leave on June 14, calling the plan unsafe and irrational.  According to the court submission from Raza Hussain, the barrister representing the three groups, Patel’s “assessment … that the UNHCR [Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees] is giving this plan a green light is a false claim.”

Government lawyer Mathew Gullick countered the criticisms of the UK-Rwandan arrangement.  They were “backward-looking” and did not genuinely take into account the way migrants were to be treated.  Deterring illegal immigration was a matter of “important public interest”.

Husain’s point was confirmed by a last minute intervention from the UNHCR, which argued in its submission to the court that the UK-Rwanda scheme failed to meet the standards of “legality and appropriateness” in terms of transferring asylum seekers from one state to another.  Laura Dubinsky, QC, representing the UNHCR, told the court that the agency believed there were “risks of serious irreparable harm to refugees” inherent in this “unlawful” plan.  The UK Home Office has peddled “inaccuracies” in claiming that the agency endorsed the scheme.

The court document from the UNHCR revealed “serious concerns that asylum seekers transferred from the UK to Rwanda will not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status, with consequent risks of refoulement.”

Refoulement, a term Patel breezily buries when considering asylum seeker claims, remains a canonical precept of refugee law outlined in Article 33 of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.  Contracting states have an obligation not to “expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in a manner whatsoever to the frontiers or territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened on account of his [or her] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

In the agency’s view, there was also a grave risk “that the burden of processing the asylum claims of new arrivals from the UK could further overstretch the capacity of the Rwanda national asylum system, thereby undermining its ability to provide protection for all those who seek asylum.”

The UNHCR was being fleet footed in avoiding any description of Kigali’s less than impressive record on refugees and human rights.  In its 2022 report on Rwanda, Human Rights Watch noted the iron hand of the Rwandan Patriotic Front in stifling dissent and criticism, the detention and disappearing of opposition members and critics, the liberal use of torture, arbitrary detention and a scanty observance of the rule of law.

Disturbingly enough, Rwanda has produced its own refugees and asylum seekers, who continue being threatened, harassed and, in some instances, “forcibly disappeared and returned to Rwanda, or killed.”

None of the arguments were enough to convince Judge Jonathan Swift in his June 10 decision to reject the application to block the removal of the asylum seekers.  There was a “material public interest in the Home Secretary (Priti Patel) being able to implement immigration decisions.”

Resorting to that ancient method of reasoning when faced with a tight conundrum, Judge Swift could only dismiss the concerns voiced by the applicants as insignificant or lying “in the realms of speculation”.  In their submission to the Court of Appeal, and in the fuller judicial review of the plan to take place later in the month, the appellants have much to prove otherwise.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. 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 Conversation

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fighting the First UK-Rwandan Refugee Flight of Iraqi and Syrians with One-way Tickets to Kigali
  • Tags:

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It’s become absolutely crucial to understand what we’re up against, globally, and who’s responsible for the rising totalitarianism and their ultimate intention

The COVID pandemic was a coup d’état by the technocratic cabal that is behind the global takeover agenda, referred to as The Great Reset

The Great Reset was introduced by the World Economic Forum, which is tightly coupled to the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Their agenda is to implement a global type of totalitarianism based on technocratic and transhumanist ideologies. Part of that plan also includes reengineering and controlling all life forms, including humans.

While the outward expression of technocracy will appear as totalitarianism, the control center is not an individual. Rather than a single person ruling by the decree, technocracy relies on control through technology and algorithm. This is a very important difference. In short, there will be no individual to blame or hold accountable. The “dictator” is an algorithm

Technocracy is an invented and unnatural form of economics that expresses itself as totalitarianism and requires social engineering to work. Technocrats in the past defined technocracy as the science of social engineering. Controlling the populace is crucial for the system to function

*

Patrick Wood, a repeat guest, has spent decades studying technocracy — an invented economic system that the global cabal is currently trying to implement worldwide. He was recently interviewed by The Defender, the Children’s Health Defense newsletter. You will find that interview below. I would actually encourage you to watch that one first, because it provides a really good background of Wood and his work.

This conversation also ties in with an interview I recently did with professor Mattias Desmet, author of “The Psychology of Totalitarianism,” which will air in a few weeks, so be sure to keep an eye out for that one. While technocracy and totalitarianism have many similarities, there are some differences in perspective, which we will unravel here.

“I wish there was something else to talk about, but this is it,” Wood says. “This is the topic of the day. This is what people need to know and understand.

If we are going to fight back against this enemy, which previously has pretty much been unseen, we must recognize who we’re dealing with. Period. We cannot provide any defense or offense to push back on this unless we know who the enemy really is and what they’re thinking, what’s in their head.”

COVID Was Technocracy’s Coup D’état

While the COVID crisis sent most into a state of confusion, Wood was not surprised by the chain of events that eventually took place. He’d been following the climate change alarmism and the sustainable development agenda for a long time, and as soon as the same people who were promoting climate alarmism jumped on the COVID train, he knew they were connected, and that COVID was going to be used to promote the technocratic agenda.

The same flawed computer models used to convince us climate change will kill us all were also used to incite panic about the lethality of COVID. These computer models are basically rigged to say whatever they want them to say. According to climate change alarmists, mankind should have been wiped off the face of the earth 10 years ago. Yet here we are. The COVID models also failed, missing the mark by miles.

“At the time [in early 2020], I said this is technocracy’s coup d’état. They’re finally making their major global move to do what they said they were going to do for a long time. Now, they’re actually putting shoe leather to it and they’re making it happen, so I called it coup d’état early on,” Wood says.

Unfortunately, to quote Wood’s coauthor of previous books, Anthony Sutton, only 2% of people have critical thinking skills, 8% of people think they can think, and 90% would rather die than think. This willful ignorance explains why only 10% of a given population, on average, does not fall into mass formation hypnosis.

Wood, along with Dr. Judy Mikovits and Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, an international lawyer who cofounded the German Corona Investigative Committee — have formed the Crimes Against Humanity Task Force. The first event will be held in Tampa, FL with guest speaker, Michael Yeadon, Ph.D.

“We believe there is a great case to be made that, indeed, crimes against humanity have been committed in the same context and sense that they were discovered at the Nuremberg trials that produced the Nuremberg Code, which is now embedded in the legal system in every nation on earth, [including] our country and every state as well.

Medical experimentation is verboten, period, and yet it has happened anyway, with no informed consent along the way. People are getting sick and dying, the same old drill. What went wrong? We’re presenting this case to the American public in person, and I will say the dynamic of talking to a live audience today is a breath of fresh air for me, personally. I think everybody else would say the same thing.”

Creating a New Normal on Our Own Terms

While many resist this stance, I and Wood agree that the crisis is not over, and it’s not going to right itself. No. It’ll get worse, and things will never go back to the way they were. It’s important to realize that we shouldn’t want things to go back to the old normal, however. Because the old normal is what precipitated the many crises we’re currently facing.

We can fully expect that the partially failed vaccine passport will be replaced by digital identity, which will progress to a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Most central banks in the world will be rolling out CBDCs within the next three to five years.

Digital identity and CBDCs are a disaster racing toward us like a freight train, and it’ll be extremely difficult to get out of harms way. The past two years will seem like a picnic compared to what’s coming.

“If my hypothesis is true, January 2020 was the coup d’état that started this war in earnest, the hot war, if you will, versus the leading up to it. Lots of bad stuff happened from 9/11 through 2020 that we could point to and say, it looks like somebody’s orchestrating this, but it went into a hot war, literally, globally as well, in January 2020. Revolutions never stop with one attack. That’s obvious. I’m sure it’s self-evident.”

By Their Words and Actions, You Can Know Them

So, who instigated this global revolution? Who’s pulling the strings? Who’s the real enemy? It’s not the populace. It’s not even a specific nation. It’s a conglomerate of wealthy and influential people all over the world. But they have a shared philosophy, ideology and agenda. Wood explains:

“What’s going on is called The Great Reset of the planet. The Great Reset has become a catchphrase. Most people don’t have a clue what it means yet, but it’s promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is tightly interlinked and coupled with the United Nations.

This elite group of people represent in mix all of the people that were originally in the Trilateral Commission back in the 1970s. It’s the same kinds of people, the same agenda to transform the world into their vision, the way they think things ought to be. These are the people that have orchestrated this whole thing and they’re the ones that are pushing it right now.

It’s easy to identify most of the people involved in this. You can look at the Klaus Schwabs and the Bill Gateses [of the world], and the thousand companies that belong to the World Economic Forum. They all have CEOs, board members, et cetera, that are part of the World Economic Forum. It’s pretty easy to identify them today.

The idea of The Great Reset is complete transformation of society and individuals that live in this society. The World Economic Forum is boldly talking about both. They talk about this technocratic takeover on one hand, to reform society, that is the structures of society, the institutions, but they also talk about the restructuring of humanity itself.

That is, the merging of technology with the human condition, with the flesh, the changing of genetic code, Humanity 2.0, H+ is another term is used. This is mad scientist type of stuff. The average guy on the street has never been exposed to this.

It’s hard to get your head around how evil this whole thing is, and it’s all uninvited. Nobody asked for it, they just did it. That’s another thing that’s really important to understand: This didn’t just come out of the blue or fall out of the sky from outer space. This has been in the works for a very long time.”

Agenda 21 Laid the Groundwork

In 1992, Agenda 21 was created. That was the genesis of sustainable development. That’s where that doctrine was openly described. The Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Convention that took place at the same time was the agenda for 21st century.

As explained by Wood, Agenda 21 was foundational in the sense that laid out all the events being rolled out and changes being implemented today. It’s just that no one was really paying attention to where things were headed, the ultimate implications of it all. Of course, those who did see the writing on the wall were discredited as “crazy conspiracy theorists.”

“There was a great book released in 1994 called ‘The Earth Brokers.’ The two authors were scholars. They were also the original environmental crowd. They weren’t on our side necessarily, but they went to the Agenda 21 conference in good faith, figuring there was going to be some negotiation to dial back the development that was messing with the Third World and try to get the planet back together.

They went hoping to turn some things around, and they came away from the Agenda 21 conference completely disillusioned … In that book, they criticized the Agenda 21 process. They started out by saying something like this: ‘We argue that USAID — the United Nations conference on economic development — has boosted precisely the type of industrial development that is destructive for the environment, the planet and its inhabitants.

We see how, as a result of USAID, the rich would get richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process.’ What can we say, but ‘amen’ to that. Here we are today. It’s exactly what’s happened.”

The Plan to Own and Control All Life

“The Earth Brokers” also reviewed what they learned from the Biodiversity Convention, which ran parallel with the Agenda 21 conference. It had the same participants, just two different thought tracks brought together at the same conference.

“They wrote about the biodiversity convention, which has become incredibly important today to the United Nations. They said the convention implicitly equates the diversity of life, that is animals and plants, to the diversity of genetic codes. By doing so, diversity becomes something modern science can manipulate. It promotes biotechnology as being essential for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

They redefined the term biodiversity, for one, but they also said the main stake raised by the biodiversity convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity. The major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries. That was their assessment.

To which, today, we can say, ‘Bingo!’ That is exactly what happened back then, and this is exactly the expression today that we see of the genetic takeover of life on planet earth. They’ve gotten the seeds, they’ve gotten the plants, they’ve gotten the animals.”

Today, the technocrats are also moving in on the human genetic code. Chief medical officer of Moderna, Tal Zaks, for example, has stated that Moderna, a developer of the mRNA COVID jab, is “hacking the software of life.” He described the human genetic code as an operating system, and if you can change that operating system by introducing a new line of code, or by changing a line of code, you can change how the operating system functions.

Since 1992, legislation has been created to protect Big Pharma. You could say the 1992 Agenda 21 was a pre-coup. They laid the groundwork back then to protect the pharmaceutical and emerging biotech industries they knew were coming. And, today, the very genetic makeup of mankind is up for grabs.

Origins of Technocracy

Technocracy dates further back than the 90s, however. Handwritten letters dating to the 1930s reveal some of the originators of the technocratic movement had gotten into an argument with the Hearst newspaper empire, and because of that, they forbade journalists to discuss them or the technocratic ideology. Hence, technocracy went underground and got sort of buried for a few decades. Wood explains:

“What happened was, Howard Scott, one of the cofounders of Technocracy Inc., was also the leader of the group at Columbia University when it was housed there in 1932. He had promoted himself as being a certified engineer and one of the intellectual guys that would fit in to Columbia University. He wasn’t from Columbia, but he was heading the [technocratic] movement there.

It was discovered, while he was there, that he was a complete fraud. He had no engineering degree at all. He was just a blowhard. He was a promoter — basically a con man — and Nicholas Murray Butler, the president of Columbia … flipped out, and drop-kicked Scott out of Columbia …

By the same token, Howard Scott was out working in the media like crazy, and he worked the Hearst empire to get articles about technocracy published all across the country.

When Randolph Hearst discovered, as Butler did, that he had been taken for a ride and that his media empire had been manipulated, he freaked out and sent out a telegram-type memo to every newspaper in the country, saying, ‘If anybody ever mentions technocracy again, you’re fired.’

Well, that took care of that. History books have a 25-year lag, typically. Historians don’t go back and analyze stuff from last year to write in history books. They go back 25 years and they look around and they read the newspaper articles and whatever, and try and figure out what happened. That’s how they write history.

Well, there’s this huge hole on the technocracy movement because it just got dropped out. All of a sudden, there’s no newspaper articles. It’s just like they disappeared into thin air. The big, highly credentialed scientist and engineers at Columbia who were crowing about technocracy the year before, now, all of a sudden, would not dare mention the word.”

Wood eventually discovered a major university archive at University of Edmonton in Alberta, where all of the leaders of the Canadian technocracy movement had combined their papers in the ’90s.

The documents were placed in a warehouse where they sat for years on end, until a catalog of them was finally published on the internet. It was a real jackpot. Wood and his wife drove to Edmonton and spent a week sifting through and copying materials. After that, it wasn’t very difficult to break down how the technocratic agenda had been moved forward and was being implemented.

Totalitarianism Versus Technocracy

While the outward expression of technocracy will appear as totalitarianism, the control center is not a dictator. Rather than a single person ruling by the decree, technocracy relies on control through technology and algorithm. This is a very important difference. In short, there are no people behind the curtain pulling strings. There’s no individual to blame or hold accountable.

The “dictator” is an algorithm. Looking at Google over the past couple of years, in particular, we can see this in action. We can also see it in the censorship of social media, and in the social credit system in China.

“The so-called artificial intelligence boom has created the possibility of controlling people by algorithm, rather than by political dictate,” Wood says. “There has been a battle between technocrats and governments ever since technocracy started. Back in the day, they hated government. They wanted to get rid of government. There is still that propensity today.

You see it at the World Economic Forum, you see it at United Nations. They want to dissolve the national governments of the world. Historically, fascism and communism have been instituted by national governments. These entities are on the hit list for technocracy. We saw this, by the way, just recently. There was a conference in Dubai, called the World Government Summit1 [March 29-30, 2022].

It was partly put on by the United Nations and there were a bunch of financial mucky mucks there. There was one in particular, Pippa Malmgren — she’s from America, but she’s in Great Britain — and she does financial wealth management services for the ultra rich.

She talked about the destruction of the fiat currency system, and she said, when it happens, there’s simply going to be a change-over. All the fiat currencies are going to go, and there’s going to be an implementation of digital currency. But she also made point that the nation state structures of the world are declining rapidly now. She saw, I guess, that the nation states are the target of destruction. They must go.”

This has been in the works for some time. Look at the European Union. While Europe has country borders, the EU member states have virtually no power to do anything anymore. They’re subservient to the EU’s wishes. “That’s why a lot of people in Europe call the EU a technocracy, they’re a bunch of technocrat elites — they’re unelected, they’re unaccountable,” Wood says.

Nobody can get to them and they’re making decisions for everybody else. So, while the nation states are still there in name, they’ve stripped of their sovereignty. The World Health Organization is now also in the process of stripping nations of their sovereignty through the so-called Pandemic Treaty, which will grant the WHO unprecedented power and influence to govern behind the veil of “global biosecurity.”

We also see the rule of technocracy in companies such as Google, which is meddling in the affairs of nations, oftentimes wielding more power over people than the state itself. So, it’s important to realize that the enemy is not a nation state.

Today’s enemy cannot be compared to anything that nation states have produced in the past, such as fascism, communism or socialism. This is an altogether brand-new entity. So, while technocracy feels like totalitarianism, today’s totalitarianism is an outgrowth of technocracy, and cannot be compared to any previous totalitarian regime.

“If you look at it in the context of the takeover genetic material on earth, this is the dangerous payload that we face. It’s not just the governance part of it. It’s not just the scientific dictatorship part of it, where people now can be manipulated in doing things that don’t want to do. We’re talking about the direct takeover of the human genome.

This is an incredible thing, because that means, potentially, that our genome of humanity could be changed,” Wood warns.

Unintended Consequences Are Probable

Now, it’s quite possible, and indeed probable, that the orchestrators of this technocratic takeover are in over their heads and will end up self-destructing. They’re playing a game that has never been played before, so there’s no telling what unintended consequences might be initiated.

One such unintended consequence could be a world war, and if that happens, gene editing the human genome will become irrelevant, because the living standards of the whole world will be pushed back hundreds of years. Wood comments:

“No question about it — World War III or a world war is going to be triggered. It’s not in the best interest, for instance, for the World Economic Forum to have a world war. But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen either. So far, I think the Ukraine war is pretty orchestrated and scripted in many ways to the agenda of the World Economic Forum. But it doesn’t mean it couldn’t lose control and the thing just goes nuts.

If that happens, I don’t know where I’d put that on the doomsday clock. I’m not really sure, but it is definitely a possible outcome. If it does happen, it will spoil everything for everyone for a very long period of time. As the Bible says, it’ll take seven years to go through the countryside and bury all the radioactive bones. That’d be very ugly.

It might not be [a nuclear war]. But it could be. They have the technology. I mean, just look what they can do by launching these pandemics and these bioweapons … Another thing that can happen — and again, we’re talking about waves of attacks, things that could bring us down and bring about this Great Reset — is some type of a cyber attack.

This has been in the news a lot lately. A cyber attack could be a false flag operation, but it doesn’t really matter what it is, whether it is or isn’t [a false flag], but some big thing, like taking down the power grid, or taking down JPMorgan Chase and nobody can get their money out for a period of a week.

Something like that would, again, put the fear of God into everybody. We’ll be back to the fear and panic; we’ll do whatever you say to get safety, et cetera. It will perpetuate the takeover, the coup that we’re looking at. These are two possibilities, near-term, that are very real. We’ve got different scenarios right now, but we know where this group of technocrat actors are going.

We understand their mindset, their philosophy, if you will. I hate to even call it that, but what is in their head? There’s no passion, there’s no compassion, there’s no love, there’s no mercy, there’s no grace, there’s nothing like that. It’s a completely inhuman endeavor to capture mankind into a scientific dictatorship, the likes of which the world has never seen before.”

Preparing Can Help Ease Your Anxiety

The Boy Scouts motto is “Be prepared,” and that is what I would encourage everyone to strive for at this time. Another motto to embrace would be “Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.” Prepare as best you can for any and every contingency. If you can, get out of the big cities and big urban areas. Rural areas where you can build community is your safest bet.

Prepare for sustained food shortages with long-term food storage. Secure a potable water source. Stock up on medical remedies. Prepare for supply chains of all kinds to fail and stock up accordingly. Transition out of fiat currency, either by spending it on things you’ll need in the future, or buying physical gold and silver.

Prepare for energy shortages, rolling blackouts and the complete shut-down of the power grid. Importantly, don’t rely on high-tech solutions. Include low-tech manual backups in your preps. If the thought of all of this scares you, remember that taking action is the best remedy. Knowing you’re prepared will ease a lot of anxieties.

Why Free Speech Is on the Chopping Block

Free speech is a universal concept. Everyone, everywhere, have a mind and want to express themselves without being censored or canceled for their views. Free speech is now under attack worldwide, and the truly massive attack on free speech began at the same time as the coup d’état started. This is because silencing dissent is required for the full takeover to occur.

“These technocrat transhumanist revolutionaries must destroy free speech at the same time that they take over the world, because they have to control the narrative,” Wood explains. “The attacks on free speech right now are absolutely legendary, off the charts, everywhere on the planet.

If Mattias Desmet is right, and I feel absolutely certain that he is, because I can read a history book as easy as anybody, when free speech is effectively silenced, that is when the killing of the scapegoat begins. It’s always the scapegoat that gets killed first. There may be other groups that get mixed in, but the people who are the scapegoat are the ones that will be attacked by the mass formation psychosis crowd.”

Eventually, the totalitarian regime will devour its own. It’ll kill its own leaders in the name of the greater good. But in the meantime, it’ll start by culling various scapegoats, one group after another.

“Original technocracy from the 1930s, was defined in their own magazine, which was called ‘The Technocrat Magazine.’ They defined themselves in 1938 as ‘the science of social engineering.’ That was what they said about themselves.

Technocracy is the science of social engineering and they talked incessantly in their literature about Pavlov and BF Skinner and how they could control people and mold people to the economy, to the utopia that they wanted to build.

They’ve had since 1938, at the very least, to think about how to develop the science of social engineering to be used against humanity. I don’t think we need to even think about it any further.

We can feel it today. It’s right in our face, every day. They’re using these techniques against the people of the world to manipulate them, to hypnotize them, to push them into mass formation psychosis. Somebody at the top knows exactly what they’re doing with this. That’s my point.”

And, again, tech companies like Google and Facebook play central roles in that effort. I look at Google as the Skynet of the Terminator series. They’re probably the worst offender of all the technology companies that are accelerating this. They the champions of social engineering. They own DeepMind, the most sophisticated artificial intelligence company on the planet, and they’re clearly using it for nefarious purposes. That said, they’re certainly not alone.

Action Plan Moving Forward

In closing, we need to give careful thought to how we might slow down, block or at least limit the devastation that’s been planned for us. At the top of that list, aside from preparing yourself and your family with the essentials for life, is to buck the narrative.

“Anytime you feel like you’re being given a role to play, just refuse to play that role,” Wood says. “I don’t care what it is, just don’t do it. If they say, ‘You need to wear a mask because blah, blah, blah — don’t wear a mask. Just don’t play the role they give you.’

I know, but there’s a lot of personal choice here. You got to make a personal decision on what it’s worth to you to do it. I personally haven’t worn a mask yet. It’s cost me. I haven’t flown an airplane for a long time. I didn’t go a lot of places.

It’s important to keep your mouth open, not shut. We need to reestablish human connection again. This has been denied us with all the social distancing and lockdowns and everything else. Get in touch with people. It hurts, I realize, for a lot of people, because relationships have been burned between children and parents and brothers and sisters. Get over it, deal with it.

You have to get out and reconnected with people again, because the future of humanity is in those connections.

Just don’t argue with them. If you love them, love them anyway, in spite of where they are. But it’s also important to get with like-minded people and spend time developing deeper relationships with people. Guys have lost the ability to have best friends, almost universally across the country.

Women are better at having best friends, but they’ve been denied best friends because everything’s been broken up. Get embedded in a local church and start going to these home fellowships, whatever, where people are meeting face to face and just talk to them …

We have a lot of answers and a lot of tangible things we can help people with. You need to do it, be prepared to do it. When you have the opportunity, open your mouth and help them out. At least, give them some hope, because right now the other side wants you to have no hope. They want to strip all hope away from you so that you will turn to the government or turn to the technocrats for help.

We need to help people with this whole hope business and not to sell hopium, as some people call it, but to give them some tangible help on what they can do right now to put up a defense around their own body, around their own mind or whatever it might be …

This is where we are as a world today — we, on the non-mass formation psychosis side, we’re all in. Whether anybody else recognizes that as immaterial, but we are all in this. This is the most important civilizational, existential thing that we’ll ever deal with in our lifetime.

It really is that important. It’s not something we can just say, ‘Well, it’s just another problem,’ kind of like, ‘We had problems with Jimmy Carter.’ No, it’s not that kind of problem. This is a bigger existential threat that we’re facing right now.

We must be dead serious. But there’s hope, I will say. And until it’s over, it’s not over. We can make a difference and we need to try. We just can’t throw up our hands and say there’s no point trying, I’m going to go home and get drunk. Klaus Schwab told you, with his own lips, that by 2030 you will own nothing and you will be happy. They’re trying to make it happen. Yes, they are.

One of the reasons, by the way, that the World Economic Forum has met with the United Nations to speed up the agenda, closer on this side of 2030, is because of the mounting resistance around the world to the agenda. I’m convinced of this. I’ve been watching this since the beginning.

Americans can’t have 500,000 people in the street protesting anything, that doesn’t happen here. That’s just not our culture. But not Europe, at the drop of a hat, you’ll get a 100,000 people in the street, all screaming and banging pots and pans and hollering and carrying signs.

I know they see these massive hordes of people that are saying, essentially, ‘Hell, no’… This has to have an impact on them. I think that’s one reason they’re trying to accelerate the program right now and make it happen faster.

To me, that’s just kind of a little bit of a sign of resistance is working, and this to me, this ought to tell the resistance to double down — double down right now on whatever it is you’re doing. Do twice as much as you did last week or last month and continue to put the pressure on it.”

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on It’s Now Crucial to Understand What We’re Up Against. The COVID Pandemic is A Coup d’état, A Global Takeover Referred to as “The Great Reset”

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In 2018, President Trump issued a statement reaffirming the U.S.’s long-standing relationship with the Saudi royal family on the ground that this partnership serves America’s “national interests.” Trump specifically cited the fact that “Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producing nation in the world” and has purchased hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons from U.S. arms manufacturers. Trump’s statement was issued in the wake of widespread demands in Washington that Trump reduce or even sever ties with the Saudi regime due to the likely role played by its Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, in the brutal murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

What made these Trump-era demands somewhat odd was that the Khashoggi murder was not exactly the first time the Saudi regime violated human rights and committed atrocities of virtually every type. For decades, the arbitrary imprisonment and murder of Saudi dissidents, journalists, and activists have been commonplace, to say nothing of the U.S./UK-supported devastation of Yemen which began during the Obama years. All of that took place as American presidents in the post-World War II order made the deep and close partnership between Washington and the tyrants of Riyadh a staple of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Yet, as was typical for the Trump years, political and media commentators treated Trump’s decision to maintain relations with the Saudis as if it were some unprecedented aberration of evil which he alone pioneered — some radical departure of long-standing, bipartisan American values — rather than what it was: namely, the continuation of standard bipartisan U.S. policy for decades. In an indignant editorial following Trump’s statement, The New York Times exclaimed that Trump was making the world “more [dangerous] by emboldening despots in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere,” specifically blaming “Mr. Trump’s view that all relationships are transactional, and that moral or human rights considerations must be sacrificed to a primitive understanding of American national interests.”

The life-long Eurocrat, former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, lamented what he described as Trump’s worldview: “if you buy US weapons and if you are against Iran – then you can kill and repress as much as you want.”

CNN published an analysis by the network’s White House reporter Stephen Collinson— under the headline: “Trump’s Saudi support highlights brutality of ‘America First’ doctrine” which thundered:Refusing to break with Saudi strongman Mohammed bin Salman over the killing in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Trump effectively told global despots that if they side with him, Washington will turn a blind eye to actions that infringe traditional US values.” Trump’s willingness to do business with the Saudis, argued Collinson, “represented another blow to the international rule of law and global accountability, concepts Trump has shown little desire to enforce in nearly two years in office.”

Perhaps the most vocal critic of Trump’s ongoing willingness to maintain ties with the Saudi regime were then-Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. As a recent CNN compilation of those statements demonstrates:

“In the years prior to taking office, President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and many of their administration’s top officials harshly criticized President Donald Trump’s lack of action against Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the 2018 murder of Saudi journalist and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.”

In a 2019 Democratic primary debate, Biden vowed: “We were going to in fact make them pay the price, and make them in fact the pariah that they are,” adding that there is “very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia.” Harris similarly scolded Trump for his ongoing relationship with the Saudis, complaining on Twitter in October, 2019, that “Trump has yet to hold Saudi officials accountable,” adding: “Unacceptable—America must make it clear that violence toward critics and the press won’t be tolerated.”

That Joe Biden was masquerading as some sort of human rights crusader who would sever ties with the despotic regimes that have long been among America’s most cherished partners was inherently preposterous. As Obama’s Vice President, Biden was central to that administration’s foreign policy which was driven by an embrace of the world’s most barbaric tyrants.

So devoted was Obama to the U.S.’s long-standing partnership with Riyadh that, in 2015, he deeply offended India — the world’s largest democracy — by abruptly cutting short his visit to that country in order to fly to Saudi Arabia, along with leaders of both U.S. political parties, to pay homage to Saudi King Abdullah upon his death. Adding insult to injury, Obama, as The Guardian put it, boarded his plane to Riyadh “just hours after lecturing India on religious tolerance and women’s rights.”

The Guardian, Jan. 27, 2015

The unstinting support of the Saudi regime by the Obama/Biden White House was not limited to obsequious gestures such as these. Their devotion to strengthening the despotic Saudi ruling family was far more substantial — and deadly. Obama’s administration played a vital role in empowering the Saudi attack on Yemen, which created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis: far worse than what has been taking place in Ukraine since the Russian invasion on February 24. In order to assuage the Saudis over his Iran deal, “Obama’s administration has offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, other military equipment and training, the most of any U.S. administration in the 71-year U.S.-Saudi alliance,” reported Reuters in late 2016, just months before Obama and Biden left office.

Beyond the enormous cache of sophisticated weapons Obama/Biden transferred to the Saudis to use against Yemen and anyone else they decided to target, the Snowden archive revealed that Obama ordered significant increases in the amount and type of intelligence technologies and raw intelligence provided by the NSA to the Saudi regime. That intelligence was — and is — used by Saudi autocrats not only to identify Yemeni bombing targets but also to subject its own domestic population to rigid, virtually ubiquitous, surveillance: a regime of monitoring used to brutally suppress any dissent or opposition to the Saudi regime.

In sum, no hyperbole is required to observe that the Obama/Biden White House — along with their junior British counterparts — was singularly responsible for the ability of the Saudi regime to survive and to wage this devastating war in Yemen. But that is nothing new. The centerpiece of U.S. policy in the Middle East for decades has been to prop up Saudi despots with weapons and diplomatic protection in exchange for the Saudis serving U.S. interests with their oil supply and ensuring the use of the American dollar as the reserve currency on the oil market.

That is what made the hysterical reaction to Trump’s reaffirmation of that relationship so nonsensical and deliberately deceitful. Trump was not wildly deviating from U.S. policy by embracing Saudi tyrants but simply continuing long-standing U.S. policy of embracing all sorts of savage despots all over the world whenever doing so advanced U.S. interests. Indeed, what angered the permanent ruling class in Washington was not Trump’s policy of embracing the ruling Saudi monarchs, but rather his honesty and candor about why he was doing so. American presidents are not supposed to admit explicitly that they are overlooking the human rights abuses of their allies due to the benefits that relationship provides, even though that amoral, self-interested approach is and for decades has been exactly the foundational ideological premise of the bipartisan U.S. foreign policy class.

But this has been the core propagandistic framework employed by the DC ruling class since Trump was inaugurated. They routinely depicted him as an unprecedentedly monstrous figure who has vandalized American values in ways that would have been unthinkable for prior American presidents when, in fact, he was doing nothing more than affirming decades-old policy, albeit with greater candor, without the obfuscating mask used by American presidents to deceive the public about how Washington functions.

Reuters, Sept. 7, 2016

Beyond the Saudi example, this same manipulative media scam could be seen most vividly when Trump welcomed the brutal Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to the White House. As I reported at the time, the mainstream Washington commentariat depicted Trump’s meeting with and praise for the Egyptian strongman as some sort of shocking violation of bedrock American principles.

In fact, the U.S. has been by far the largest benefactor of Egyptian tyranny for decades. It armed and supported the Mubarak regime up until the very moment it was overthrown. Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, praised the military coup engineered by Gen. Sisi against the country’s first democratically elected leader, as an attempt to protect democracy. And shortly before the Arab Spring began, Kerry’s predecessor, Hillary Clinton, declared her personal affection for Sisi’s predecessor, the monstrous dictator who ruled Egypt for three decades: “I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family, so I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States,” Clinton gushed in 2009, while Obama ensured that the flow of money and weapons to Mubarak never ceased.

While the bipartisan political and media class has spent decades insisting, and still insists, that the core foreign policy goal of the U.S. is to defend freedom and democracy and fight tyranny around the world, the indisputable reality is the exact opposite: propping up the world’s most brutal dictators who serve U.S. interests has been a staple of U.S. foreign policy since at least the end of World War II.

The only attribute that differentiated Trump from his predecessors and the rest of the mainstream D.C. ruling class was not his willingness to do business and partner with despots. There are few policies official Washington loves more than that. It was his honesty about admitting that he was doing this and his clarity about the reasons for it: namely, that the real goal of U.S. foreign policy is to generate benefits for the U.S. (or, more accurately, ruling American elites), not to crusade for democracy and human rights. To the extent that one attempted to isolate any other difference between Trump and official Washington, it was that he was often insistent that “American interests” be defined not by “what benefits a small sliver of U.S. arms manufacturers and the U.S. Security State” but rather “what benefits the American people generally” (hence his eagerness, and his ultimate success, to be the first U.S. president in decades to avoid involving the U.S. in new wars).

In sum, the U.S. always has been, and continues to be, not just willing but eager to support and embrace foreign dictators whenever doing so serves those interests. They are just as willing and eager to overthrow or otherwise undermine and destabilize democratically elected leaders who are judged to be insufficiently deferential to American decrees. What determines U.S. support or opposition toward a foreign country is not whether they are democratic or despotic, but whether they are deferential.

Thus, it was not Trump’s embrace of long-standing U.S. partnerships with Saudi and Egyptian despots that represented a radical departure from the American tradition. The radical departure was Biden’s pledge during the 2020 presidential campaign to turn the Saudis into “pariahs” and to isolate them as punishment for their atrocities. But few people in Washington were alarmed by Biden’s campaign vow because nobody believed that Joe Biden — with his very long history of supporting the world’s worst despots — ever intended to follow through on his cynical campaign pledge. It took no prescience or cleverness to see it as nothing more than a manipulative attempt to demonize Trump for what official Washington, and Obama and Biden themselves, have always done with great gusto and glee.

*

This is why it comes as absolutely no surprise, repellent as it may be, that Joe Biden aggressively abandoned this core 2020 campaign foreign policy vow regarding Saudi Arabia the first chance he got. Far from turning them into a “pariah” state as he pledged, Biden has seamlessly continued — and even escalated — the U.S. tradition of propping up and strengthening what is quite plausibly the world’s single most despotic and murderous regime.

Just one month after Biden’s inauguration, the Director of National Intelligence made public a long-secret report that announced: “We assess that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey to capture or kill” Jamal Khashoggi. Yet the White House, while imposing some mild sanctions on some Saudi individuals, adamantly refused to impose punishments on Crown Prince bin Salman himself, dispatching anonymous officials to friendly media outlets to explain that they were unwilling to jeopardize the significant benefits that come from the U.S./Saudi partnership. That was exactly the argument Trump made in 2018 in defense of his identical decision which caused so much faux indignation. One would, needless to say, be very hard-pressed to find similarly vehement condemnations of Biden for vandalizing sacred U.S. principles by refusing to sever or even meaningfully reduce the American partnership with the Saudis due to their murder of Khashoggi.

But this was merely the start of Biden’s embrace of the Saudi regime. Last November, “the U.S. State Department approved its first major arms sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under U.S. President Joe Biden with the sale of 280 air-to-air missiles valued at up to $650 million.” Just a few weeks later, the U.S. Senate, reported Politico, “gave a bipartisan vote of confidence to the Biden administration’s proposed weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, blunting criticisms from progressives and some Republicans over the kingdom’s involvement in Yemen’s civil war and its human rights record.” A group of dissenters — led by Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Mike Lee (R-UT) — argued that the arms sales would fuel the war in Yemen and embolden the Saudi regime, but they were easily swept aside by a status-quo-protecting bipartisan majority led by the two party’s leaders, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

And it was during that same time — long before the Russian invasion of Ukraine — when Biden had all but abandoned any pretense of weakening ties with the Saudis, let alone turning them into the “pariah” state he promised during the campaign against Trump. “Mr. Biden was already prepared to end the isolation of Prince Mohammed as far back as October when he expected to encounter the Saudi leader at a meeting of the Group of 20 leaders and most likely would have shaken hands,” explained The New York Times last week (bin Salman was a no-show at the meeting).

And now, it appears that Biden is planning a pilgrimage to Riyadh to visit his Saudi partners in person. Last week, The New York Times reported that Biden “has decided to travel to Riyadh this month to rebuild relations with the oil-rich kingdom at a time when he is seeking to lower gas prices at home and isolate Russia abroad.” During the trip, “the president will meet with” bin Salman himself, who Biden’s own DNI said oversaw the murder of Khashoggi. The rationale offered by The New York Times for Biden’s planned trip was virtually identical to the arguments Trump used in 2018: “the visit represents the triumph of realpolitik over moral outrage, according to foreign policy experts.”

Indeed, the explanation offered by Biden’s Secretary of State for the president’s ongoing embrace of the Saudis is virtually indistinguishable from the rationale offered by Trump that sparked so many outraged denunciations about the fall of American ideals supposedly caused by his willingness to do business with undemocratic regimes:

“Saudi Arabia is a critical partner to us in dealing with extremism in the region, in dealing with the challenges posed by Iran, and also I hope in continuing the process of building relationships between Israel and its neighbors both near and further away through the continuation, the expansion of the Abraham Accords,” Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said on Wednesday at an event marking the 100th anniversary of Foreign Affairs magazine. He said human rights are still important but “we are addressing the totality of our interests in that relationship.”

Despite Biden’s clear abandonment from the start of his campaign pledge to distance the U.S from the Saudis, this trip is being justified by the need to plead with the Saudis to make more oil available on the market in order to compensate for U.S.-led sanctions on Russia. As The Times put it: “Russia and Saudi Arabia are close to tied as the world’s second-largest oil producers, meaning that as Biden administration officials sought to cut off one, they concluded they could not afford to be at odds with the other.” After the Times report, Biden officials said the trip had been postponed to July, but did not deny that it was happening.

What cogent moral argument can be advanced that it is preferable to buy Saudi oil as a means of avoiding the purchase of Russian oil? Whatever one’s views are on the extent of autocracy under Putin’s rule in Russia, there is no minimally credible argument that it is worse than the systemic tyranny long imposed by the Saudi ruling family. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to contest that, at least prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, civil freedoms were more abundant in Russia than in Saudi Arabia. And while one can certainly contend that Russia’s three-month war in Ukraine has been more a moral atrocity, there is no basis — none — for arguing that it is worse on any level than the indiscriminate violence and destruction the Saudis have been unleashing for seven years in Yemen (unless one values the lives of European Ukrainians more than non-European Yemenis).

And even if one did insist upon the view that absolutely nothing on the planet is worse than the Russian invasion of Ukraine and that everything must therefore be done to maintain the sanctions regime imposed on Russia, how would that dubious moral claim justify overlooking Saudi atrocities and sending Biden, on his knees, to beg bin Salman for more oil? If suffocating and punishing Russia is the highest moral and strategic priority, why would it not be more prudent and more moral for the U.S. to lift Biden’s restrictions on its own domestic drilling as a means of replacing Russian oil, especially if that would avoid the need to further strengthen the Saudi regime?

But herein lies the unique truth-providing value of the U.S. partnership with Saudi Arabia. Of course U.S. foreign policy is not devoted to spreading freedom and democracy and fighting despotism and tyranny in the world. How can a country that counts the Saudi monarchs, the Egyptian military junta, the Qatari slave owners, and the Emirati dictators as its closest partners and allies possibly claim with a straight face that it opposes tyranny and fights wars in order to protect democracy? The U.S. does not care, at all, whether a foreign country is ruled by democracy or tyranny. It cares about one question and one question only: whether the government of that country serves or hinders U.S. interests. Donald Trump’s sin was admitting this obvious fact.

*

This has been the central deceit shaping the virtually closed propaganda system imposed by the West around the U.S./NATO role in the war in Ukraine. If Western leaders had simply acknowledged from the start the obvious truth about their role — that they regard Russia as a geopolitical adversary and seek to exploit the war in Ukraine to weaken or even break that country — at least an honest debate would have been possible. Instead, they and their corporate media allies did what they always do whenever a new war is newly marketed: they draped it in fabricated moral fairy tales about freedom-fighting and opposition to tyranny.

Thus, the popular Western moralistic narrative imposed a series of claims about U.S. motives that should not have even passed the laugh test, yet became virtually obligatory articles of faith. The U.S. is not involved in this war in Ukraine because it sees an opportunity to advance its own interests by sacrificing Ukraine in order to weaken Russia (a truth they began admitting in private: their goal is not to end the war but prolong it). Nor is the U.S. motivated by an opportunity to enrich the weapons manufacture industry which lost its primary weapons market after the U.S. withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan and which wields enormous power in Washington. Nor does the U.S. government, with its posture of Endless War, seek to justify the ever-increasing budget and power of the U.S. Security State and the sprawling Pentagon bureaucracy. Perish these thoughts.

The massive benefits conferred on those powerful sectors by every new war are always just happy coincidences. Only a deranged conspiracy theorist would believe that profit and power for these factions — whose unrestrained growth was the target of Dwight Eisenhower’s grave warnings when leaving office in 1961: long before their power exploded even more due to Vietnam, the ongoing Cold War and especially 9/11 — is ever a factor in shaping U.S. war policy. Good American patriots view the military-industrial complex as just a chronic lottery winner: they just keep hitting the jackpots purely through immense strokes of luck.

To sustain popular support for the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars in new foreign wars, the population must be fed a morally uplifting framework, a sense of righteous purpose that leads them — at least at the start — to believe these new wars are moral necessities. Thus, rather than self-interest in Ukraine, the U.S. is acting benevolently, with the noblest of motives, with nothing but a desire to help others.

The United States, you see, is a country that cares deeply that the peoples of the world remain free, that they enjoy the right of democratic rule and self-determination, and that they should never suffer under the repressive thumb of despotism — and we are so magnanimously devoted to these values that we are even willing to expend our own vast resources to ensure the prosperity of others. Those kinds of grandiose morality tales are always deployed to secure American support for new wars (hence, the war in Vietnam was about defending our South Vietnamese democratic allies from aggression and invasion by North Vietnamese Communists; the war in Afghanistan would liberate oppressed Afghan women from the Taliban; the first war in Iraq, beyond “liberating” Kuwait, was to stop a tyrant who tore babies out of incubators, while the second war in Iraq, beyond WMDs, was about freeing Iraqis from Saddam’s tyranny; the wars in Libya and Syria would rid their long-suffering populations from the brutal thumb of Gadaffi and Assad, etc. etc.).

It is the great enduring mystery of American and British discourse that the U.S. and UK Governments can still have employees of media corporations genuinely believe that their governments fight wars not to advance their own interests but to defend democracy and fight tyranny — even as these very same media figures watch those very same governments prop up the most repressive tyrannies on the planet and lavish them with weapons, intelligence technologies, and diplomatic protection. Somehow, without the U.S. press batting an eye, Joe Biden can deliver a speech righteously touting his commitment to protect democracy in Ukraine and stop Russian autocracy, and then board a plane the very next minute to go visit Mohammed bin Salman and General Sisi, heralding them as vital American partners, and announce new aid military and intelligence packages to each.

Somehow, this severest cognitive dissonance — watching a government insisting with one hand that it fights wars in order to protect democracy and vanquish tyranny and then, with the other, send aid to the world’s most repressive tyrants — eludes these savvy journalistic gurus. Perhaps this cheap, repetitive, and transparent propaganda works with the journalistic in-group because the officials inside the U.S. Government who disseminate these fraudulent tales are the friends, colleagues, neighbors and vital sources for the country’s wealthiest and most prominent journalists, who therefore see the world the way they see it and want to assume the best about the intentions of their socioeconomic and professional comrades.

Perhaps it is due to the great career benefits that are inevitably conferred on journalists who uncritically cheer and help sell the lies behind U.S. war propaganda (the path that led Jeffrey Goldberg from writing full-on Iraq War agitprop for The New Yorker in 2002 to becoming editor-in-chief of The Atlantic today). Perhaps it is because bolstering U.S. war propaganda fosters widespread elite applause, while doubting it fosters attacks on one’s patriotism, loyalty, competence and sanity. Perhaps American journalists feel a sense of jingoistic pride and psychological pleasure by believing that their government, unlike most in the world, involves itself in an endless stream of new wars due to magnanimity rather than more craven motives. When it comes to the uniquely gullible and herd-like U.S. and British press corps and their unyielding faith in the noble motives of U.S. war planners, all of those dynamics are likely at play.

Notably, this self-evidently manipulative propaganda — U.S. foreign policy is devoted to spreading freedom and fighting despotism — works only in the U.S., the UK and various parts of Western Europe. The rest of the world — especially those regions whose democracies have been on the receiving end of the CIA’s violence and destabilization efforts — react to such claims not with gullible credulity but scornful laughter. This is why, as The New York Times reported this week, the Biden administration has been encountering increasing levels of resistance around the world for his Ukraine war policies, because most countries understand that what the Western press refuses to acknowledge: namely, that the U.S’s motives in Ukraine — whatever they might be — have nothing to do with safeguarding democracy and fighting despotism.

The same dynamic was vividly apparent with Biden’s failed attempt to summon Latin American countries to Los Angeles for his so-called “Summit of the Americas.” After the Biden administration announced the exclusion of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua on the ground that those countries are insufficiently democratic, numerous other Latin American nations, led by Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, announced they were likely to refuse to participate. Mexico ultimately boycotted the event, whereas Brazil attended only after Biden acceded to the demands of its president, Jair Bolsonaro, to hold a one-on-one meeting with him and refrain from criticizing Brazil over environmental policies in the Amazon.

Again, nobody outside of the U.S. and British media takes seriously the claim that the U.S. — loyal patron to the Saudis, Emiratis and Egyptians and countless CIA coups in their region — is so offended by authoritarianism in the three excluded Latin American countries that they cannot abide participating in a conference with them. Such a claim is particularly unsustainable in light of reports that Biden officials were all but begging Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to sell oil on the market to compensate for sanctions on Russia in exchange for the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela (indeed, why is it more moral to buy oil from the Saudis than the Venezuelans)?

The reason for the U.S.’s shunning of those countries has nothing to do with America’s antipathy to autocracy and everything to do with the political importance of rapidly growing immigrant communities in Florida and other key swing states who fled those Latin American countries due to contempt for those governments. What possible cogent moral argument holds that it is permissible to maintain relations with the Saudis and Egyptians due to geo-strategic benefits around oil and international competition but not countries in the U.S.’s own hemisphere such as Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua? If American interests compel the U.S. to “overlook” or even sanction grave human rights abuses in their close Gulf-State-dictatorship-partners, why do the benefits for American citizens from relations with these Latin American countries not compel the same?

The undeniable reality is that Kissingerian realism — the question of what is in the self-interest of the United States, or at least what is in the interests of a small sliver of American elites — is and long has been the core, animating, overarching ideology of U.S. foreign policy, as is true of the foreign policy of all great powers. The bit about crusading for human rights and democracy and battling tyranny and despotism is just the propagandistic packaging for domestic media consumption. That is why both presidents Obama and Trump, and every president before them, were willing to embrace many of the world’s most repressive regimes: because they perceived that doing so would produce tangible benefits for “American interests,” however that might be defined. It is that same mindset that caused both of those presidents, for instance, to view Ukraine as a vital interest of Russia, but not the United States, and therefore not a country worth risking war with Moscow in order to defend.

The core deceit about U.S. foreign policy — that it is designed to spread democracy and vanquish tyranny — serves no purpose other than to manipulate the American public, through the government tool known as the U.S. corporate media, to support whatever new wars, obscene spending packages, or authoritarian powers are demanded in its name. And therein lies the real value of the long-standing U.S./Saudi partnership, the reason that Biden’s immediate abandonment of his campaign pledge to scorn the Saudis, is so illuminating. For any rational person, watching Joe Biden continue and even escalate the decades-long love affair between Washington and the murderous despots in Riyadh should dispel these myths once and for all and illuminate the reality, the actual motivational scheme, that drives the role that the United States plays in the world, both generally and in Ukraine.

Correction, June 12, 2022, 3:02 p.m.: This article was edited to reflect that the Saudi monarch whose death caused Obama to leave India to fly to Saudi Arabia was King Abdullah, not King Salman as originally indicated.

*

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

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Joe Biden’s Submissive — and Highly Revealing — Embrace of Saudi Despots
  • Tags: ,

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Those unwilling to disbelieve in our James Bondian heroes and revered political figures must keep themselves innocently unaware of CIA-engineered coups and assassinations beginning after WWII and throughout the half-century long, now re-ignited Cold War. 

Five violations of others’ sovereignty were targeted soon after WWII by avuncular President Eisenhower among whom only Ho Chi Min survived in office.

Populist and socialist governments that tried to distribute national resources to their own people in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia and the Congo were all ruthlessly destroyed. We concealed elaborate covert warfare by collaboration with dictators committing horrific genocides in Southeast Asia, Operation Condor in South America, Iran-Contra in Central America, widely throughout Africa, and numerous successful and unsuccessful “color revolutions” for regime changes including total destruction of Libya, the most highly developed and uniquely populist nation in Africa with a human development index equivalent to Western Europe.

And most recently of course we orchestrated the 2014 Maidan coup d’etat in Kiev that was quickly followed with attacks by Ukrainian neo-Nazi military formations on the Russian-speaking Donbas republics that had declared independence and requested annexation by Russia alongside Crimea, which Putin declined. Ukraine had killed 14-18,000 of its own dissident citizens before Putin finally took action in 2022. The current war was launched by these 2014 aggressions, not Russia’s eventual intervention.

Demonizing Russia

Russia, and especially President Putin, has been used as an American political bludgeon and scapegoat for the past six years, and despite our naked interference in Ukraine exposed without apparent embarrassment by Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, US media are awash with proclamations of unilateral Russian guilt for the war. All war news published in the US press is provided by the Ukrainian side and disconnected from history.  We need legal scholars to remind the public that criminal guilt is determined by forensic evidence placed by both sides before an impartial panel for judgment.

Regarding the Mariupol massacre of civilians, no such process has occurred and the only credible forensic investigation I’ve seen based on satellite data and analyzed by former Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter shows fresh bodies appearing with no signs of decomposition several days after Russian forces left the area, wearing white armbands signaling their support of Russians for protection, and an intercepted communication from Azov HQ that they were preparing to take punitive measures against collaborators.

Of course the first question of any homicide detective is Cui bono?  This evidence suggests that the Bucha massacre was committed by Azov Nazis for both revenge and propaganda objectives.  This would also be consistent with their psychopathic MO.

CIA and NATO manipulations

The Azov Battalion, Right Sektor and associated military units are unapologetic Nazis, with tattoos, battle flags, and helmets emblazoned with swastikas and SS proclamations of identity.  We need look no farther than the heroic

Lviv statue of Stepan Bandera, whose followers collaborated with Hitler in mass exterminations of Jews, Poles and Russians in WWII. Let’s remember that Russia was our ally then.  Germany therefore had an extensive spy network targeting Russia, which the CIA took over with Nuremberg amnesty and full employment as part of Operation Gladio. This is described by Doug Valentine (above link) who documented our diabolical Phoenix Program for “pacification” in Vietnam and published “The CIA as Organized Crime” in 2017.

The CIA program in Ukraine has been maintained ever since with US/NATO funding, facilitating neo-Nazi insinuation into Ukrainian positions of political and military influence, and generous arming with NATO-compatible weaponry. It’s been done with familiar CIA color revolution patience and methodological efficiency for disproportionate amplification of power by a political minority supporting our predatory neoliberal objectives.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton openly re-ignited the Cold War in 1999 by admitting three new NATO members in violation of the 1990 Bush/Gorbachev agreement, also assured by other Western leaders, that Germany could re-unify as a Western state if NATO pledged to move no closer to Russia than the German border. Documents validating this agreement between heads of state and foreign ministers, which establish it as international law, are published in the National Security Archive at George Washington University and have been detailed by UCLA Political Science professor Marc Trachtenberg.

Our contract betrayal has continued ever since with 10 East European and Balkan states previously aligned with the Soviet Union joining NATO. This reached a boiling point with Georgia’s attempted 2008 takeover of buffer state South Ossetia, which Russia quickly swatted down.

The Ukraine gambit

Western disregard and disrespect boiled into evaporation of all Russian trust with the 2014 US-orchestrated coup d’etat in Kiev, facilitated as well by Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky who owns Burisma Energy that provided Hunter Biden his infamously generous sinecure, and who founded the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion which ignored the Minsk accords and immediately launched attacks against Donbas communities.

Russia lost an estimated 27 million citizens while defeating Hitler. How would we expect them to react to military formations flaunting swastikas and SS regalia on their doorstep?  Unsurprisingly, Russia finally invaded, executed a classic feint operation toward Kiev to freeze Ukrainian forces in a defensive posture away from Russia’s intended target, trapped a large Azov force in the steel works catacombs of Mariupol and has them increasingly surrounded in “cauldron” operations in the Donbas region. These operations provide enemies with opportunities to survive through surrender (unlike U.S. Shock and Awe and Fallujah operations under U.S. Gen. “Mad Dog” James Mattis in a war of choice involving no existential threat whatsoever to us).  Russia established humanitarian corridors and transportation to safety for civilians but is likely to hold Nazis for war crimes tribunals.

Ukraine’s NATO-trained and NATO-equipped military sharing a 1200-mile border is understandably perceived as an intolerable existential threat to Russia – as the Mexican and/or Canadian borders would be to us if either country was controlled by Russia or China. Simply recall our Cuban Missile Crisis. Putin’s efforts since 2014 to negotiate a treaty have been wholly ignored.  He is a leader responsible to protect his own country and is doing so. This has proven possibly prudent in view of U.S. bioweapons labs discovered in Ukraine and acknowledged by Maidan cookie dispenser Victoria Nuland, prior awareness of which is likely in view of Russia’s very effective intelligence.  This may have informed timing of the invasion.

Ending Western arrogance and impunity

To end this war, President Zelensky – although reportedly under mortal threat by Azov et al. and the U.S. for any capitulation – must simply accept Russia’s very reasonable conditions: Guarantee Ukraine will not join NATO; dismantle its NATO-compatible weaponry that provides it de facto NATO membership; voluntarily disarm Nazi units and disempower Nazi leaders not already killed or captured by Russia; protect the Donbas republics and resume the Minsk process in good faith. This could have been settled long before the Russian offensive. It only requires normal human respect and good faith – at long last – from the deservedly failing Western empire before more Ukrainian lives are needlessly sacrificed.

But instead, the U.S. is shipping weapons to Ukraine and sanctioning Russia at the expense of the world economy at large. But I don’t recall any sanctions against the U.S. for any of our brutal wars of choice – “the ultimate international crime” defined by the Nuremberg tribunal – including two genocidal attacks on Iraq, innocent of any crime against us, with sanctions killing at least a half-million children, use of white phosphorous and depleted uranium weapons causing massive pain, death and destruction to civilians, and two ruthless, indiscriminate, genocidal assaults on Fallujah under Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis.  Every U.S. president at least since Jimmy Carter (whose hands are also unclean, having recruited and trained the Mujahideen including bin Laden) should be in prison for life after trial in the Hague.

Let me add Israel’s crimes that we have protected 45 times to date by vetoes of UN Security Council sanctions resolutions – a long history of unabated and unpunished war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel’s brutal 3/4-century of relentless land and property theft, expulsions of Palestinians into dozens of UN-supported refugee camps established in 1948 and still operating, its UN-designated “belligerent occupation” of Palestine with many thousands of political imprisonments including children, murders by both illegal settlers and occupation forces with impunity under martial law, siege entrapment of Gaza by air, land and sea, military assaults and massacres against helpless Gaza populations, and chronic defiance of international law including the Fourth Geneva Convention defining the limits and responsibilities of an occupying power.

Injustice has reigned far too long. Let’s try some empathy.

The U.S. has never faced an existential threat to justify its serial war crimes while Russia is responding to a very real existential threat. Thus it cannot and will not lose this war. By massive weapons shipments to Ukraine the U.S. is needlessly prolonging the conflict at the expense of Ukrainian lives and potential loss of their national sovereignty. Our so-called “peace movement” should demand a halt to this escalation at increasing taxpayer and consumer expense, acknowledge our two decade-long provocation and dishonorable violations of a pledge to Russia, facilitate an immediate treaty incorporating Russia’s rightful demands, and spend our aid money not on weapons but on rebuilding.

And then, quo vadis, NATO?

Nations, like individuals, have their own needs, priorities and identities within their own histories, economies and environments.  NATO is an artificially assembled conglomerate that disrespects their diverse collective identities by promoting paranoia toward an artificially constructed common enemy with which many or most of its members do essential business and have no quarrel.

It is a vestigial political organ that has become hazardous to the collective health of humanity and should be allowed to gracefully dissolve under pressure from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that has been progressively winning over the last 20 years on Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard largely unnoticed by the self-absorbed, self-important North Atlantic imperium.  Russia has now initiated this dissolution, which appears irreversible.

*

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

Jack Dresser, Ph.D. is a retired psychologist and NIH-funded research scientist, and national vice-chair, Veterans for Peace working group on Palestine and the Middle East.

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Although receiving miniscule media coverage, Thursday’s announcement that Israel had deployed military infrastructure to the UAE and Bahrain in the shape of radar systems, ostensibly to counter an alleged missile threat from nearby Iran, should be a cause for concern amongst onlookers.

Coming in the same 24 hour period in which Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett paid a surprise visit to the Emirates, and in which Israeli Forces bombed Damascus International Airport, the announcement that both Abu Dhabi and Manama had agreed to host Israeli military infrastructure should be seen as the first step towards current tensions between Tel Aviv and Tehran being placed on a possibly irreversible path towards conflict in the region.

Indeed, Israeli encirclement of Iran via Tel Aviv-allied Arab states possibly triggering a war between Tehran and both the UAE and Bahrain bears a stark similarity to the nine-year long build-up of provocations which would ultimately led Russia to launch a military intervention into neighbouring Ukraine in February of this year.

In November 2013, following the decision by then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to suspend a trade deal with the EU in order to pursue closer ties with Russia, a CIA-orchestrated regime change operation, known as ‘Euromaidan’, would be launched in order to depose Yanukovych’s leadership and replace him with the pro-Western Petro Poroshenko – whose coalition government would contain rabid far-right sympathisers hostile to Moscow.

Indeed, such was the anti-Russian sentiment amongst the new US-backed Kiev government that the predominantly ethnic-Russian Donbass region in the east of the country would breakaway to form the independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in April 2014, following the previous month’s successful reunification of the Crimean Peninsula with the rest of Russia.

The establishment of these two pro-Russian Republics however, would spark a near eight-year long conflict in the eastern European country, in which Kiev would use neo-Nazi paramilitaries such as Azov Battalion and Right Sector to wage an ethnic cleansing campaign against the inhabitants of the Donbass.

In spite of Western media descriptions of ‘Russian aggression’ however, Moscow had sought to resolve the conflict in Donbass through peaceful mean via the Minsk Agreements – which would see both Republics granted a degree of autonomy whilst still remaining under the rule of Kiev.

With 14,000 dead in the Donbass conflict, NATO failing to honour a post-Cold War agreement not to expand eastwards, and the subsequent confirmation that US-funded labs were developing bioweapons in Ukraine however, Moscow’s hand was ultimately forced in February of this year when a Russian military intervention was launched into Ukraine in order to remove neo-Nazi elements from power and to destroy any military infrastructure that would ultimately have been used by NATO had Kiev gone on to become a member.

This is where the similarities with Iran and the neighbouring Gulf states of the UAE and Bahrain come into play, with both countries having formalised diplomatic links with Tel Aviv via the September 2020 US-brokered Abraham Accords.

Lauded as a ‘peace deal’ by the then-administration of Donald Trump, despite Israel, the UAE and Bahrain never actually being at war, the ‘normalisation’ agreements, coming eight months after the US had nearly triggered a new Gulf war with the assassination of Iranian Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike, were seen by many geopolitical observers as a means to contain Iran within the region, a long-time foreign policy aim shared by both Washington and Tel Aviv.

Indeed, despite the relationship between Israel and both states initially starting off on a purely diplomatic basis, the announcement that Israeli radar systems are to be moved into both the UAE and Bahrain marks a dangerous step towards a scenario were Israeli military infrastructure is placed within striking distance of Iran – a situation that would likely lead to a major regional conflict, one that could reach far beyond the Persian Gulf.

*

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

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

Featured image is from GPO/The Cradle

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on War in the Middle East, Iran Versus The Emirates? The Insidious Role of Israel. ‘Russia and Ukraine Gulf Edition’ Coming Soon?
  • Tags: , ,

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

 

***

Andrew Wakefield was right.

I had the honor to interview him for 90 minutes to get clarity on all the misinformation I’ve heard.

He challenged the status quo and paid the price for telling the truth. He exposed the fact that all childhood vaccines are dangerous. Kids who are not vaccinated at all are uniformly better off than kids who are.

The childhood vaccines are so dangerous that the CDC refuses to collect the data to show how safe they are. No joke. They know the vaccines are dangerous, collecting data wouldn’t change that.

No qualified medical professional has ever agreed to debate RFK Jr. on vaccine safety. The same is true for Andrew Wakefield.

That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the childhood vaccines in a nutshell. They aren’t collecting the needed safety data for the COVID vaccines either. Nobody has a risk-benefit study of these vaccines.

In other words, all your doctors telling you to vaccinate your kids: they are doing that with NO DATA to justify their recommendations. If you don’t believe me, ask your doctor for the risk benefit study tracking all-cause morbidity and mortality in two groups (at least 100,000 people). If you find one, let me know in the comments.

One reader nicely summed it up:

Thank you Steve and God bless Dr. Wakefield. If there’s any justice his name will eventually be cleared as more and more people wake-up to Pharma’s misdeeds.

He’s been a hero to many of us going back a decade and a half. Unlike so many of his peers, he refused to back down when threatened by the pharma cartel. It cost him nearly everything but he has stood firm, an amazingly principled and fearless man.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Here is another comment from one of my readers:

Our first child was born at the hospital where Dr Wakefield worked. We watched on as his reputation was destroyed by the UK Government. BUT because of his stand, we totally changed our view on vaccination and have 3 unvaxxed, healthy kids. Now, since the Covid vax mandates we have also paid a high price for holding our ground. Dr Wakefield led the way as a forerunner who lost so much. We have a lot to thank him for and I’m so glad he is finding kindred people like you Steve who are speaking up in support of him. Bless you both for your incredible work. We are extremely grateful.

And another story, this one tragic:

2001 My son went into convulsions hours after his 4 month old DTap shot. He lived til 13, but the seizures won in the end. I completely agree with Dr. Wakefield. I sued the vaccine compensation program and won in 2010. My lawsuit took 7 years. Since my sons reaction our family has not had any vaccines, including this new gene therapy.

The interview on Rumble

My questions

Topics covered (followed by his answers) include:

  1. Are there any safe vaccines? No.
  2. What do they think your motivation is? They know his motivation is to save lives.
  3. What’s the real story behind this quote from CNN: “An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study’s author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study — and that there was “no doubt” Wakefield was responsible.” It was a setup. All the authors support the study.
  4. Why didn’t your other collaborators stand up for the truth? Do you still talk to them? Some caved to the pressure to admit something that the paper never said.
  5. Will anyone debate you face-to-face, on-camera, for a live discussion? Never happened.
  6. Why is there no risk-benefit data for any childhood vaccine? How can they justify this with a straight face? No. They are never challenged on it.
  7. How old were you when you turned “anti-vaxxer”? About 30 years old.
  8. What was your “red pill” moment when you realized that what you had been told was all a lie? When mothers told him their stories connecting the vaccine with autism. Too many cases where kids were perfectly fine before the vax and changed suddenly after the vax. This sounded just like the COVID vaccines.
  9. What is the best way to convince people that you got it right? He’s made movies.
  10. Do you have any friends in mainstream media? I know the feeling! Not that he knows about.
  11. Are there any doctors who tell you privately they support you, but admit they can’t say so publicly? Plenty. He can’t reveal who they are.

Key takeaways from my interview

  1. You’ll be WAY healthier if you AVOID *ALL* vaccines
  2. Vaccines do cause autism
  3. The CDC, FDA, NIH and drug companies are adept at silencing critics, especially if you lack the funds to properly defend yourself
  4. It’s a rigged system and you pay the price.
  5. There are no risk-benefit analyses for any vaccine
  6. It’s not clear at all that vaccination did anything to eradicate diseases
  7. Wakefield wasn’t born an “anti-vaxxer.” He became one when mothers showed him the direct connection between vaccines and autism.
  8. Vaccines can be quite problematic since unlike recovered immunity, the immunity doesn’t last. You’d have been much better off getting the virus when you were young.
  9. Déjà vu… hearing him relate his story didn’t sound a lot different from the situation we have today with COVID and the vaccines.

From the NY Times

Anti-vaccine demonstrators outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta in June. 

This photo is from the NY Times. Honesty at last!

*

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

Featured image is from Steve Kirsch

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The latest reports released by medicine regulators around the world reveal that there have been at least 7.3 million injuries reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections up to late May and early June 2022, including 77,068 deaths.

However, these horrific figures do not illustrate the true nature of the consequences of Covid-19 vaccination because it is estimated by medicine regulators that just 1 to 10% of adverse events are actually reported.

And further study shows that this is far from expected with data from the USA revealing Covid-19 vaccination is proving to be at least 49x deadlier than Flu vaccination per number of doses administered.

Let’s start by looking at the official figures for the UK. The UK’s medicine regulator is the Medicine and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and since early 2021 they have publishing weekly updates on adverse events reported against the Covid-19 injections.

The latest reports can be found within the ‘Annex 1 Vaccine Analysis Print’ section on this page here. The MHRA notes that they have delayed the publication of their weekly report due to the Jubilee bank holiday period. So their latest reports cover adverse events received up to 25th May 2022.

According to the MHRA, 492657 injuries have been reported in the UK due to the Pfizer Covid-19 injection and these include 778 deaths.

69,324 injuries have been reported as adverse reactions to the AstraZeneca Covid-19 injection and these include 1,277 deaths.

129,406 injuries have been reported due to the Moderna Covid-19 injection and these include 59 deaths.

And finally, 5,295 injuries have been reported where the brand of vaccine has not been specified, and these include 47 deaths.

This means, that as of 25th May 2022, the MHRA has received 1,496,742 injury reports due to Covid-19 injection, and these sadly include 2,161 deaths.

Next up we come to the data published in the USA by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

The CDC hosts a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that is updated weekly and can be found here. The latest data contains VAERS reports processed (not received) as of 3rd June 2022.

According to the CDC, 1,285,329 injuries have been reported due to Covid-19 vaccination.

Sadly, these include 28,714 deaths.

Next up we have Australia. Australia’s medicine regulator is known as the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The TGA hosts an online ‘Database of Adverse Event Notifications’ which can be found here.

The most recent figures cover up to 27th May 2022, and they reveal that the TGA has received 129,923 reports of adverse events against the Covid-19 injections, and the TGA considers 127,282 of these to be a direct cause of Covid-19 vaccination.

Sadly, the TGA has also received 877 reports of death due to Covid-19 vaccination.

Source Data

Finally, we have Europe. The European Union’s medicine regulator is known as the European Medicines Agency (EMA). They host an online database of adverse events known as Eudravigilance which can be found here.

Unfortunately, Eudravigilance is probably the slowest and most difficult system to navigate, so finding the total number of adverse events and deaths is extremely tedious.

However, thanks to the work of ‘Health Impact News‘, we’re able to reveal that the EMA has received reports containing 4,416,778 injuries due to Covid-19 vaccination as of June 4th 2022, and sadly these include 45,316 deaths.

The injuries have been reported against the following Covid-19 injections –

And unfortunately, 1,992,940 of those injuries are considered extremely serious.

21,333 deaths and 2,244,030 injuries have been reported against the Pfizer jab, 12,010 deaths and 732,849 injuries have been reported against the Moderna jab, 9,033 deaths and 1,280,160 injuries have been reported against the AstraZeneca jab, 2,940 deaths and 156,991 injuries have been reported against the Janssen jab, and 2,748 injuries have been reported against the Novavax jab.

This means that throughout Europe, the USA, the UK and Australia, medicine regulators have received reports of 7,338,772 injuries and 77,068 deaths due to Covid-19 vaccination.

Many people may believe this is to be expected due to so many people being vaccinated, but we can assure you it is not, and we can prove it.

Because a study of official US Government data comparing the number of doses administered to the number of adverse events officially reported has found that the Covid-19 injections are at least 49x / 4,800% deadlier than the Influenza vaccines.

The following chart shows the total number of flu vaccine doses administered in 13 full flu seasons all the way from the 2008/2009 flu season to the 2019-2020 flu season. The data has been extracted from the CDC info found here.

In all between the 08/09 flu season and the 19/20 flu season there were a total of 1,720,400,000 (1.7204 billion) doses of the flu jab administered in the USA.

Whereas from the start of the Covid-19 vaccination campaign up to 28th Jan 22 there were a total of 549,915,298 (549.9 million) doses of the Covid-19 vaccine administered in the USA.

The following chart shows the number of adverse event reports made to the CDC’s VAERS database against the Covid-19 vaccines that resulted in death up to 28th Jan 22 in the USA, and the number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against the flu vaccines that resulted in death between 2008 and 2020 in the USA –

The raw numbers alone show that in the space of 14 months there were 15.7 times as many adverse event reports made against the Covid-19 vaccines that resulted in death than what was made against the Flu vaccines in 13 years.

But when we actually work out the rate of deaths per number of doses administered, we find that the Covid-19 vaccines have proven to be even deadlier than they first appear.

The following chart shows the number of doses of vaccine administered per reported death in the USA for both the flu vaccines and the Covid-19 vaccines –

Between 2008 and 2020, the rate of adverse event reports to the flu vaccine resulting in death equates to 1 death per 2,594,871.79 doses administered.

But the rate of adverse event reports to the Covid-19 vaccines resulting in death equates to 1 death per 52,759.79 doses administered.

Therefore, the Covid-19 injections are proving to be at least 49.18 times deadlier than the flu vaccines, and that’s without taking into account the fact the Flu jabs are mainly administered to the elderly who are more likely to die, whereas the Covid-19 injections have been administered to all age groups.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Shocking – At Least 77,000 Deaths and 7.3 Million Injured Due to COVID Vaccination Across USA, Europe, UK and Australia
  • Tags: ,

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

***

“Terror will be not only a means of self-defense, but also a form of agitation, which will affect friend and foe alike, regardless of whether they desire it or not.”  —UVO (fascist Ukrainian Military Organization) brochure from 1929

After the end of the Second World War, American intelligence immediately set about the work of rehabilitating the world’s fascists to fight the new war on Communism. From the transformation of the bloody “Devil of Showa” Nobusuke Kishi into the hand-picked Prime Minister of Japan, to Emil Augsburg, the architect of the Holocaust described as “Honest and idealist … enjoys good food and wine…unprejudiced mind…” by the CIA, it seems that Langley never met a fascist it couldn’t do business with.

Such was the case with Yaroslav Stetsko and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). Stetsko spent the war in the shadow of Stepan Bandera but eventually Stetsko would far surpass his friend in terms of prominence. Before long, the monsters who had beaten Jews to death with hammers just years before became America’s favorite “freedom fighters” and took their business global.

The Principality of Yaroslav

“Therefore, I stand at the establishment of the extermination of the Jews and the expediency of transferring to Ukraine the German methods of exterminating Jews, excluding their assimilation…” —Yaroslav Stetsko

At the direction of Nazi war criminal Alfred Rosenberg, the Committee of Subjugated Nations was formed in 1943, with the idea to unite all anti-Soviet partisans under one banner. In reality, the bulk of its members were OUN soldiers, and its leader was the second-in-command of the OUN, Yaroslav Stetsko. CSN changed its name to the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations or ABN in 1946. The name ABN will be used for the sake of consistency.

Stetsko was a close friend of OUN-B founder Stepan Bandera. Like Bandera he was a militant anti-Semite equating Marxism with Judaism, while calling for the extermination of both. Even after the war, when his American bosses forced him to soften his public statements, he still called for an “ethnically pure” Ukraine, purged of Jews, Poles and Russians.

Stetsko believed that his own Galician Ukrainians were the direct descendants of the Rus, the Norse conquerors who eventually became the first Tsars under Rurik. These Nordic people were Stetsko’s master race, imbued with all the qualities you would expect.

On the other hand, Stetsko considered Russians to be Asiatic rather than European. Russians were seen as the descendants of the Mongols and Huns, making them naturally tyrannical, cruel and deceitful. Stetsko’s ideology would become the foundation on which modern Ukrainian fascists have built their movements. The parallels to Nazism are obvious enough that it is surprising to see this ideology find a home in the Wall Street Journal today.

In 1944, sensing the imminent demise of Nazi Germany, the OUN reached out to British intelligence. The two sides met at the Vatican, not long after which OUN’s leadership surrendered to the Americans. Spirited away to Munich, their Western patrons provided them luxury apartments and SS bodyguards. In the immediate aftermath of Nazi Germany’s defeat, many of OUN’s soldiers worked as hitmen in the vast network of “displaced persons” camps under the command of MI6.

It was the British and Germans who were the primary patrons of the old OUN at this moment. Notorious Nazi spymaster Reinhard Gehlen was not just the handler for Stetsko and Bandera, but also their friend. They met while the OUN was fighting for the Nazis and remained friends for the rest of their lives.

The first significant American support arrived in 1947, and with it a greatly expanded mandate.

As Peter Grose detailed in his book Operation Rollback: America’s Secret War Behind the Iron Curtain (Boston: Mariner Books, 2001), the CIA covertly provided arms, training and support for operations within the USSR itself where many nationalist forces continued to fight against the Red Army as partisans.

The nationalist forces in Ukraine were an amalgamation of SS remnants, OUN/UPA forces, criminals, and various other collaborator militias. Confined mostly to the forests of western Ukraine, they operated as bandits, raiding collective farms, ambushing soldiers, and assassinating Soviet officials. Jews and CPSU members were particularly coveted targets.

The CIA provided not only weapons but also inserted teams of spies and commandos. Fighting continued until the mid-1950s, with the last stragglers killed or arrested in 1960.

The death toll for these operations is unclear, with estimates ranging from 20-50,000. The vast majority of these were civilians, often killed with axes and hammers—which was the OUN’s trademark. The OUN claims that it was NKVD infiltrators in OUN uniforms who killed the civilians; declassified KGB documents, however, have proven that was not the case.

Starting around 1948, the CIA would begin to slowly break from Stepan Bandera (and, therefore, Stetsko), who they saw as a liability from both a political and operational standpoint. The CIA much preferred Mykola Lebed, the chief of the OUN’s SB death squads and a man described as a “well known sadist and Nazi collaborator” by the Army.

Lebed, however, was willing to work with other Ukrainian nationalist groups and allowed all Ukrainians into his organization, while Bandera demanded absolute control of the ABN and an ethnically pure OUN. Bandera also had a cavalier attitude toward security, refusing to use secure communications with the reasoning that the inferior Asiatic Russians were not smart enough to catch him. The KGB would therefore intercept most of his phone calls and correspondences, to the increasing fury of the CIA.

The CIA’s repeated warnings, however, did not dissuade the British and Germans, who remained Bandera’s main patrons. The situation continued to get worse over the years, driving the CIA to issue a burn notice for Bandera in 1954. The CIA not only discontinued all support for Bandera, but also threatened to kill him if his patrons at allied MI6 did not follow suit.

“2. If CIA and the SS are unable to agree upon a formula for coordinated operations along the lines outlined above, the CIA position will be: a. Each side will continue its separate line of action with limited operational coordination at the Washington-London level. b. CIA will take independent action to neutralize the present leadership of the OUN/B.” [SS here refers to the British Security Service, the official name for MI6, not the Nazi SS.]

The British got the message and withdrew their support for Bandera. The same year, the ABN expelled Bandera, leaving him permanently marginalized. Five years later, the KGB assassinated Bandera in his home in Munich.

The CIA’s problem was with Bandera personally and so, with him gone, so too were any restrictions on Stetsko. Rather than feuding with Lebed for funding as before, the U.S. simply doled out twice the money. Stetsko was now in the driver’s seat, and from this moment on commanded the remnants of Bandera’s bandit army with almost limitless Western support.

The Fascist International

“We, the free people gathered here, accuse the Carter administration of betraying humanity.”
—Mario Sandoval Alarcón, Guatemalan death squad leader, at the 1979 World Anti-Communist League (WACL) conference

After the ABN’s military power in Ukraine was spent, the organization grew somewhat listless for a time. Far from the axe-wielding terrorists of a few years past, Stetsko mostly engaged in propaganda and demonstrations. Likewise, the ABN’s rhetoric softened considerably at this time in an attempt to broaden funding appeal, changing from blood and soil to freedom and democracy.

This rebranding was little more than a PR campaign. The ABN remained a virulently anti-Semitic and right-wing organization. For example, we have Stetsko’s relationship with Marvin Liebman, a far-right activist who worked with both the Zionist terrorists in Irgunand white supremacists in Rhodesia. Liebman briefly worked with the ABN in 1958 but found himself so disgusted by Stetsko’s hatred of Jews that he publicly denounced the ABN and refused to work for them again. Liebman received death threats from the ABN for years after.

It wasn’t just Stetsko, either. In 1984, ABN executive director and Nazi officer Nikolai Nazarenko gave a speech at the annual Captive Nations dinner, in which he said:

“There is a certain ethnic group that makes its home in Israel. This ethnic group works with the Communists all the time. They were the Fifth Column in Germany and in all the Captive Nations…They would spy, sabotage and do any act in the interest of Moscow. Of course there had to be the creation of a natural self defense against this Fifth Column. They had to be isolated. Security was needed. So the Fifth Column were arrested and imprisoned. This particular ethnic group was responsible for aiding the Soviet NKVD. A million of our people were destroyed as a result of them aiding the NKVD…You hear a lot about the Jewish Holocaust, but what about the 140 million Christians, Moslems and Buddhists killed by Communism? That is the real Holocaust and you never hear about it!”

After this speech, Nazarenko went back to his role in the Republican Party, campaigning for Ronald Reagan as part of the GOP’s “National Heritage Groups.” The GOP briefly expelled him from the party in 1988 until lobbying from Anna Chennault returned him to his position.

With no war to fight, it seemed as if the ABN was fading into obscurity. This would change in 1966, with the establishment of the World Anti-Communist League (WACL), giving the old OUN the chance to export their brand of terror worldwide.

Initially, the WACL was a merger of the ABN with its Asian counterpart, the Chiang Kai-shek-led Asian People’s Anti-Communist League, but it would expand rapidly, taking in the world’s far-right militants with zeal. An anti-communist united front, there were no ideological restrictions on its members, meaning that terrorists and dictators rubbed elbows with professors and senators. Indeed, over the years WACL’s list of members would include Nazis and collaborators, dictators and death squad leaders, a Yakuza crime boss turned war criminal, Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon and Senator John McCain, among many others.

WACL opened new frontiers for the old OUN stalwarts. They were now involved on four continents and with their intercontinental reach came new business opportunities trafficking drugs and weapons along with their old trades of murder and torture. ABN personnel were in high demand as both hit men and instructors for the world’s death squads.

WACL also served as a conduit for covert funds, disbursing millions to their clients. WACL gave plausible deniability, using an ostensibly private group as a front to fund organizations that governments could not be seen funding.

WACL and ABN set up regional chapters all over the world, some more successful than others. In Chile, the local ABN assisted fascist General Augusto Pinochet’s rise to power and in Argentina the group was involved in the “Dirty War,” a covert anti-Communist campaign resulting in the torture, murder and disappearance of more than 20,000 people.

Since its beginnings in Asia, WACL had been actively supporting anti-Communist groups in Vietnam. Chiang was the primary trainer of South Vietnamese Special Forces at bases in Taiwan, along with providing arms and considerable funding. WACL also made multiple trips to Vietnam, where they armed anti-Communist guerrillas.

It could have been there that WACL first met the infamous U.S. Army Gen. John Singlaub of MACV-SOG. Singlaub was one of the primary overseers of the Phoenix Program, a covert terror campaign carried out by CIA, U.S. Army Special Forces and South Vietnamese police. At least 20,000 Vietnamese were murdered, many thousands more brutally tortured with the assistance of WACL trainers.

In 1981, four years after his dismissal from the Army by Jimmy Carter, Singlaub received a loan from his old friend Chiang. He used it to create the United States Council for World Freedom, the American chapter of WACL. In 1982, the IRS gave the Council for World Freedom tax-exempt status, which made it much easier to solicit donations from the wealthy, a task at which Singlaub excelled.

This private support was only a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly limitless funding from the newly minted Reagan administration. As a fulfillment of Reagan’s bellicose anti-Communist promises, funding for covert operations skyrocketed.

During this era, Stetsko was the belle of the ball, meeting with countless U.S. government officials, including Vice President and former CIA Director George H.W. Bush, and even President Reagan himself. Reagan brought his favorite thugs along with him, and it was at this time that the Latin American narco terrorists came to the forefront in the WACL. Singlaub and WACL wasted little time embracing their new allies, starting support for the Nicaraguan Contras only four days after the CIA in 1981.

When Congress cut off official funding to the Contras in 1984, the WACL’s role expanded to the primary conduit through which U.S. funds flowed to the death squads. Fundraising took place in the open, with the charismatic Singlaub finding great success hustling Texas oil barons for donations. He threw lavish fundraising dinners, raising at least $25 million in 1985 alone. At one of his parties, he even convinced a woman to buy the Contras a helicopter.

Source: twitter.com

A picture containing text, person, person, suit Description automatically generated

Source: twitter.com

Wealth did not make WACL or ABN forget where they came from. They continued to get their hands dirty as arms dealers, assassins and consultants for terrorists and dictators all throughout the world. WACL was Reagan’s “third force,” a team of experts who could be sent anywhere in the world to conjure up a civil war or engineer a crackdown exactly when Washington needed it.

However, Bandera’s deputy could not rule forever. In 1986, at the peak of this golden era, Yaroslav Stetsko died of cancer in Munich. His wife Slava filled his position in WACL and the ABN.

Slava comes home

Anti-semitism: A smear word used by the Communists against those who effectively oppose and expose them.
Fascist: An anti-Communist.
Nazi or Hitlerite: An active anti-Communist”

—Slava Stetsko, in the foreword to The Captive Nations: Our First Line of Defense

Born Anna Yevheniya Muzyka, Slava was a long-time nationalist, joining the OUN in 1938. There, she met her future husband, Yaroslav. During the war she was the head of OUN’s youth and women’s division, and assisted in setting up the UPA medical corps.

After the war, she would become head of the ABN press corps and editor-in-chief of their newspaper, “ABN Correspondence.” After Bandera’s assassination, Slava became deputy chief of the OUN, and was head of its foreign policy from 1968 onward. After the death of her husband, Slava was named head of the ABN.

As you can see from the quote above, Slava was every bit the anti-Semite and fascist her husband was. By the time she took the reins in 1986, the decline of the USSR was terminal. As the USSR fell apart, funding for groups like hers started to dry up, as would political interest. When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, it almost seemed as if history had ended.

It was not the end for Slava Stetsko, however. On June 30, 1991, Slava returned to Ukraine to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the OUN’s declaration of independence in Lviv. It was also 50 years to the day since the Lviv pogrom of 1941. Yaroslav Stetsko broadcast his declaration in Lviv as the pogrom was taking place in the streets. Thousands of Jews were butchered with hammers and axes while Yaroslav pledged allegiance to Adolf Hitler.

Slava must have had fond memories of that day. About a year later, she officially re-founded her political party, this time under the name Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists. CUN was never a large party, but it was canny, recruiting mostly from police and security forces, the purposes for which would be seen after the Maidan. That said, CUN stood in elections, won seats and sat in ruling coalitions. Slava even opened the Verkhovna Rada in 1994 and again in 2002. After her death in 2003, she was eulogized as a hero by the Ukrainian media.

The political situation at the time of Slava’s homecoming was fraught. In 1991, Leonid Kravchuk became President of Ukraine.

As was seen time and time again throughout the old union, Ukraine was looted for all it was worth by the U.S. and NATO. The standard of living plummeted in what was once one of the most prosperous regions of the Soviet Union, and crime ran rampant. Gangs went to war over table scraps, and the situation became so dire that many women were forced into prostitution to support themselves. Many more were simply kidnapped and trafficked from the country.

Inflation spiked by more than 4000%, making savings accounts worthless overnight. Bank defaults meant government employees often went without salary for years. State-owned industries were sold off for pennies on the dollar, and with them jobs vanished with nothing to replace them. This left even highly trained and educated people destitute to such an extent that many died from hunger and exposure. Ukraine became one of the poorest and most corrupt nations in Europe and remains so.

Kravchuk was an acolyte of Yeltsin, and so everything not bolted down was stolen or sold off. One of the more egregious examples was the Black Sea merchant fleet, which was privatized in 1992 and its ships transferred to offshore holding companies beginning in 1993. In 1991, the fleet of 280 ships was the third largest in the world. By 2004, only six remained.

FILE - President Boris Yeltsin, left, shakes hands with Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk during his visit to Ukraine, Yalta, Aug. 3, 1992. Kravchuk, who led Ukraine to independence amid the collapse of the Soviet Union and served as its first president, has died, a Ukrainian official said Tuesday, May 10, 2022. He was 88. (Efrem Lukatsky)

Leonid Kravchuk (right) with Boris Yeltsin. [Source: thumb.spokesman.com]

In the meantime, Crimea was having problems of its own. In 1991, shortly before the fall of the USSR, a referendum passed by a wide margin asking for the return of Crimea’s autonomy. The fall of the union made this impossible, so the Crimean parliament voted in 1992 for full independence. This was set to be confirmed via referendum, which the Ukrainian government prevented.

Crimea tried again in 1994, this time taking it to referendum first. Ukraine responded by dissolving the Crimean parliament, then arresting and deporting Crimea’s President Yuri Meshkov. In 1998, a new constitution was imposed on Crimea, curtailing their autonomy.

Kravchuk’s government became increasingly unpopular during this time. In 1993, crippling mine strikes led to early elections in which, despite his best efforts, Kravchuk was defeated by another Leonid, this time named Kuchma.

Kuchma was no better. Widespread corruption remained the norm and Ukraine’s economy cratered under an even more extreme privatization and austerity regime.

Because of the economic strife, Kuchma faced a resurgence of the Communist party. Banned in 1991, the Communist party was reformed in 1993 after several victories in court. Although it was too late to field a presidential candidate, the CPU was the largest party in the Rada after the 1994 elections.

Due to Kuchma’s continued malfeasance, the Communists gained even more strength during the next four years, winning an impresssive victory in 1998’s parliamentary elections. With presidential elections scheduled for the next year, it was expected that the Communists would regain power. Kuchma, in a panic, rigged the election with American help.

Ukraine’s economy declined every year until 2000. Even as the situation improved with the turn of the millennium, Kuchma’s popularity did not. After Kuchma was caught on tape ordering the death of former right-wing terrorist turned journalist Georgiy Gongadze, street protests erupted throughout Ukraine. Kuchma followed that up by selling advanced Soviet radar units to Saddam Hussein, leading to a Western boycott.

Kuchma tried to stabilize the situation by aggressively playing Russia and NATO against each other. On the campaign trail, Kuchma advocated for improved relations with Russia, but after he won, he went back and forth as the circumstances demanded. Kuchma’s government signed treaties with both the CIS and NATO, and only one year after selling radar to Iraq, Ukraine helped invade Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom to get back in America’s good graces.

Victor Pinchuk Foundation - Yalta European Strategy: Photogallery

Kravchuk (left) with Bill Clinton in 2007. [Source: pinchukfund.org]

Kuchma’s attempts to save the ship failed. After constant protests and political pressure, he agreed to step down after the 2004 election, instead putting forth his protégé and Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovych. It was this election that would begin a nearly 20 year rollercoaster ride of Ukrainian politics, the aftermath of which we can still clearly see today.

Slava Stetsko would not live to see this, dying in 2003 after a short illness. Her political party continued on, however, and would play a vital role in the saga of the struggles of the next two decades. After the Maidan, the children of Bandera and Stetsko, raised at the bosom of the CIA, would get the chance to finally fulfill their purpose as an army of fascist killers.

*

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

Evan Reif was born in a small mining town in Western South Dakota as the son of a miner and a librarian. His father’s struggles as a union organizer, and the community’s struggles with de-industrialization, nurtured Evan’s deep interest in left-wing politics. This, along with his love of history, made him a staunch anti-fascist. When not writing, researching or working, Evan enjoys fishing, shooting, and Chinese cooking. Evan can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from threadreadersapp.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Monsters Who Beat Jews to Death in 1944 Became America’s Favorite “Freedom Fighters” in 1945—With a Little Help from Their Friends at CIA

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is alarmed to learn that Canada’s military exports to Israel increased by 33% in 2021, amid Israel’s 11-day bombing campaign against the occupied Gaza Strip. According to Canada’s newly released annual report on military exports, Canada exported $26,092,288 in military goods to Israel in 2021; up from $19,583,838* in 2020 and approaching the historical high-water mark of $26,893,255[1] in 1987. This puts Israel in 10th place among Canada’s top twelve non-U.S. destinations for military exports. CJPME calls on Canada to put an immediate halt to this worrying trend by immediately suspending all military trade with Israel.

“It is outrageous that Canada’s arms exports to Israel skyrocketed last year, even as Israeli forces were bombing residential buildings in Gaza, assaulting worshippers at the al-Aqsa mosque, and shooting children in the West Bank,” said Michael Bueckert, Vice President of CJPME. “Canadian weapons manufactures should not be contributing to, nor profiting from, Israel’s brutal assault against the Palestinian people,” Bueckert added.

Canada’s annual report also shows that a significant portion of Canada’s exports continue to be categorized as explosives or related components ($6,135,094), while other exports appear to be related to Israel’s space program ($5,692,553) and military aircraft ($4,302,801). Canada also oversaw a huge increase in exports within a category which may include weapon sights, bombing computers, or target acquisition components ($6,785,954). CJPME notes that this further raises the possibility that Canadian-made weapons or components could have been used in Israel’s military offensives in Gaza, including airstrikes on residential targets which may amount to war crimes.

These new revelations follow the publication of CJPME’s report, titled Arming Apartheid: Canada’s Arms Exports to Israelwhich raised concerns about the human rights risk posed by Canada’s accelerating military exports to Israel. In that report, CJPME argued that Israel’s occupation, violence against civilians, and apartheid policies, present a situation of extreme risk in which Canada’s arms exports could be implicated in violations of human rights and international law. The report recommended that Canadian officials take immediate and proactive measures to eliminate the risks associated with its arms exports to Israel, by: 1) suspending all military trade with Israel; and 2) launching a parliamentary study to determine whether past and current Canadian arms exports have been used against civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) or in airstrikes on Gaza.

*

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

Note

1. Values indicated with an asterisk (*) are represented in constant (2021) Canadian dollars.

Featured image: Building housing the offices of Associated Press and other media collapses after Israeli airstrike, Gaza City, May 15, 2021. (Source: Indian Punchline)

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Despite enormous evidence to the contrary and in a bid for totalitarian power, globalist health leaders declare the COVID crisis ‘anything but over’ while ignoring sharp challenges from thousands of competent professionals.

In a May 17 press conference some have called Orwellian, representatives from globalist institutions insisted that the COVID crisis is “anything but over,” demanded higher levels of risk management compliance from every nation, a “seamless” implementation of globalist decisions in health systems, and even more censorship of “conspiracy theories” from Big Tech corporations. 

The occasion was a document release from the International Science Council (ISC) titled “Unprecedented and Unfinished: COVID19 and Implications for National and Global Policy. 

The organization’s president, Dr. Peter Gluckman, explained the purpose of the project was to contest the notion that experimental gene-based vaccines in some way would end the COVID crisis allowing nations to “return to some form of normality.” But this “clearly was not going to be the case,” he exclaimed. 

Gluckman, who formerly served as Chief Science Advisor to the prime minister of his home nation of New Zealand, lamented the lack of trust afforded to “elites” from citizens with regards to the imposition of COVID response measures over the last two years, including lockdowns, school closures, mask requirements and gene-based “vaccine” mandates as even a condition of employment. 

Without defining the term, or providing any examples, he expressed a special concern over the dissemination of “conspiracy theories” during the COVID phenomenon and how such matters were especially problematic in democratic nations.  

“I think one of the deep existential threats for all countries, but particularly for democratic countries, is how is trust sustained between citizens and the elite parts of society,” he said.  

“The first defense against conspiracy theories is undoubtedly trust in societies. And trust in societies is a hard thing to build. It requires trust to be built between those who govern and those who are governed,” said the trained pediatrician. 

And making a hard distinction between citizens and “elites,” he said, “and I think where we saw vaccine resistance is often related to the fact there was not trust in the elite, even political, scientific, or academic, but it was then reinforced or the excuse that was given was those of conspiracy. 

And so, does a register of conspiracy theories help or not? I’m not sure,” he said. “But as the experts on conspiracy theories would suggest, just trying to confront conspiracy theory with rationality does not work. And there’s strong evidence of a strong correlation between distrust in the elites of society and a willingness to believe conspiracy theories. 

Trust undermined by an ‘unending stream’ of ‘official lies’ proceeding from govt, international agencies, medical organizations, and media

Whether Gluckman and his colleagues would consider Dr. Robert Malone a “conspiracy theorist” is unknown as there is no such registry which would naturally have to specifically identify such individuals and theories, and then attempt to exercise rationality in demonstrating why they are erroneous.  

But with regard to citizens trusting the “elites,” Malone suggests it would be helpful if there was not such a well-documented track record of those in power issuing so many “lies” over the last couple of years and he provided the following sample of such blatant falsehoods in a May 19 column 

  • SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has a far higher fatality rate than influenza virus by several orders of magnitude. 
  • Everyone has a significant risk of death from COVID-19. 
  • No one has immunity, because this virus is new (“novel”) and so expedited vaccine development and deployment is essential. 
  • Everyone is dangerous and spreads the infection. 
  • Asymptomatic people are major drivers of the spread of disease. 
  • Locking down- closing schools and businesses, confining people to their homes, stopping non-COVID medical care, and eliminating travel will stop/eliminate the virus. 
  • Masks will protect everyone and stop the spread. 
  • Immune protection can only be obtained with a vaccine.  
  • Natural immunity conferred by infection and recovery is short lived and inferior to vaccine-induced immunity. 

The elites Malone identifies as being responsible for these lies include present and former U.S. federal COVID-19 Response officials Drs. Deborah Birx, Anthony Fauci, and Francis Collins. 

In a peer-reviewed Surgical Neurology International paper published April 22, neurosurgeon Dr. Russel Blaylock also compiles a generous selection of “official lies” regarding the COVID-19 eventwhich also had the effect of destroying public trust. These lies proceeded “in an unending stream led by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies such as the ISC and WHO. 

In his section titled “Tools of the indoctrination tradeBlaylock provides a description of the “‘fact-check’ scam” listing a sample of 17 propositions which were identified by such outlets as “misinformation” or “conspiracy theories” but which were later proven to be true. Five examples of these include the following: 

  • Early treatment could have saved the lives of most of the 700,000 who died [in the U.S.]. 
  • The vaccines cannot protect adequately against new variants, such as Delta and Omicron. 
  • The unvaccinated will be denied employment. 
  • Hundreds of thousands have been killed by the vaccines and many times more have been permanently damaged. 
  • The spike protein from the vaccine enters the nucleus of the cell, altering cell DNA repair function. 

“Today, extensive evidence has confirmed that each of these so-called myths were in fact true,” Blaylock wrote. 

Indiana AG shows how govt disinformation was used to violate intrinsic human rights and alsoshattered trust 

To cite another example of lies from “elites” that destroyed public trust, in early May, Todd Rokita, Attorney General of the State of Indiana, replied to a public solicitation from Biden Administration Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy requesting “stories and research on #HealthMisinformation.” 

With epidemiologists Jay Bhattacharya, Ph.D., a professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, and Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., senior research fellow at the Brownstone Institute and former professor at Harvard University School of Medicine, Rokita issued a formal response detailing examples of misinformation proceeding from the CDC itself and other official health organizations.  

The letter included the following nine areas of government disinformation, inaccuracy, and harmful policy which the authors assert “have shattered the public’s trust in science and public health and will take decades to repair. 

  • Overcounting COVID-19 
  • Questioning Natural Immunity 
  • COVID-19 Vaccines Prevent Transmission
  • School Closures Were Effective and Costless
  • Everyone is equally at risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19 infection
  • There was no reasonable policy alternative to lockdowns
  • Mask mandates are effective in reducing the spread of viral infectious diseases
  • Mass testing of asymptomatic individuals and contact tracing of positive cases is effective in reducing disease spread
  • The eradication of COVID-19 is a feasible goal 

Such government misinformation also provided a pretense for authorities to violate intrinsic human rights by mandating injections of experimental gene-based vaccines and the use of “vaccine passports,” not to mention the imposition of disastrous lockdowns, school closures, and other policies that “were themselves harmful,” the authors wrote. 

Rokita and his colleagues also accused the public health officials of ignoring obvious data and evidence regarding the transmissibility and lethality of COVID-19 in an effort to precisely impose these harmful public health policies. 

‘Elites’ hide behind implicit conspiracy theories to dismiss contrary judgement of thousands of medical experts 

Lacking any specifics to support his sweeping assertions, it remains unclear if Gluckman would consider these presentations as part of what he called “the misinformation world,though they sharply challenge the messages proceeding from his agency, the WHO, and what he refers to as many other “elites.” 

It’s also unclear what his assessment would be of the Global Covid Summit (GCS), a coalition of over 17,000 doctors and scientists who in mid-May released a statement and hosted a press conference outlining ten foundational principles which generally affirm the critiques aboveincluding the following declarations:  

  • The COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end.  
  • Doctors should not be blocked from providing life-saving [early] medical treatment.  
  • The state of national emergency, which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic, should be immediately terminated.  
  • Medical privacy should never again be violated, and all travel and social restrictions must cease.  
  • Masks are not and have never been effective protection against an airborne respiratory virus in the community setting.  
  • Funding and research must be established for vaccination damage, death and suffering.  
  • No opportunity should be denied, including education, career, military service or medical treatment, over unwillingness to take an injection.  
  • First amendment violations and medical censorship by government, technology and media companies should cease, and the Bill of Rights [in the U.S.] be upheld.  
  • Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, and their enablers, withheld and willfully omitted safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians, and should be immediately indicted for fraud.  
  • Government and medical agencies must be held accountable.  

These thousands of medical and scientific professionals, who claim to represent many more, call the COVID enterprise an “orchestrated catastrophewith officials generating an illusion of scientific consensus by substituting truth with propaganda, all of which, and more, constitute nothing less than crimes against humanity. 

Such a presentation, one may assume, Gluckman and his colleagues would include in theircondemnation of the misinformation world. Yet it would seem for such a charge to be plausible one would have to accept the theory that these thousands of medical professionals are not sincere in their conclusions but are rather colluding (or “conspiring”) against actual scientific truth.  

In other words, instead of addressing such arguments directly, or better yet, accepting even a lucrative million-dollar payment from entrepreneurturnedjournalist Steve Kirsch to demonstrate how these researchers are part of the “misinformation world,” Gluckman and his colleagues themselves ironically and implicitly advance conspiracy theories. 

Globalist Orwellian doublespeak: ‘Dialogue’ and ‘social listening’ actually mean censorship  

But the Orwellian nature of the ISC presser came into even greater relief when WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan assessed the situation calling for a greater degree of “dialogue,” which, upon her description, really meant censorship. 

“I think as scientists we need to think about how we communicate. We have to adapt. We are used to speaking with each other. We don’t often have a conversation with the public at large,” reflected the pediatrician and native of India. “So, I think rather than speaking one way, it has to be a dialogue. 

“And one of the things we’ve started at the WHO is something that we call ‘social listening,’” she said. “So, we are monitoring all of these [social media] platforms to see what people are talking about. So that very early on you can pick up maybe the start of a new conspiracy or some misinformation that started circulating.” 

“And we are addressing it in two ways: One is working with all these big technology platforms … to make sure that they have in their algorithms a process whereby they direct people to credible sources of information rather than to conspiracy theory websites,” she said. 

“Secondly, we also flag them when we find misinformation so that they can take down those videos. And that’s happened over the last two years. And I think there’s been a very good response from the technology companies. So, I think that’s the first thing: to learn how to communicate and use modern technology to do that,” concluded Swaminathan. 

Many representatives of the GCS have been censored by big tech companies over the last two years. Early in the pandemic, the highly credentialed internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough had a video describing his peer-reviewed paper on treatments of COVID-19 pulled down from YouTube. Dr. Richard Urso with America’s Frontline Doctors also had their viral July 2020 press conference removed, and Dr. Robert Malone was banned from Twitter late last year. 

For these reasons, the thousands of physicians and medical scientists of GCS declared point eight above, that “first amendment violations and medical censorship by government, technology and media companies should cease, and the Bill of Rights be upheld.”

Speaking on their behalf, physician-scientist and neuroendocrinologist Dr. Fady Hannah-Shmouni, MD, FRCPC of Canada, condemned (44:33) the “medical censorship” which was inflicted upon medical professionals “that wanted to speak the truth about various medical information and research pertaining to the pandemic.” He called this a violation of medical “ethical standards” which remains a disservice to patients and communities as it undermines their ability to exercise genuine informed consent.  

Yet the ISC globalist panel appears committed to advocating for much more censorship. A seemingly exasperated Gluckman lamented the “huge challenge” of “the increasingly digitally embraced world where the ability to spread disinformation is so easy.” Confronting this challenge requires “massive work,” he said, between “scientists and the policy community.” 

WHO aims for ‘seamless’ authority over global health systems, civil society, nations 

In focusing on their work to expand globalist power, Swaminathan advocated for authorities to reform the whole architecture, the global architecture” of “the multilateral system.” Looking ahead toward an upcoming session of the World Health Assembly (WHA) which happened on May 22-28, she said “it’s important that the multilateral system continues to be strong, that the WHO is further strengthened and given the power, as well as the accountability and the financing to do its job properly.” 

The WHA with its 194 member states is the governing body of the WHO. On their agenda last month were amendments offered by the Biden Administration which, in the words of journalist James Roguski, would “take away limitation on [the powers of the] WHO. Such an arrangement would turn their Director-General into a “Dictator-General with the legal power to declare a global state of emergency merely on his own authority, with regional directors being able to do the same in their seven respective regions around the world. 

Such designations could trigger impositions of any or all of the draconian measures imposed on societies over the last two years, including lockdowns, masking, testing the uninfected, social distancing, use of the inaccurate PCR test, contact tracing, etc., which have been shown to be of little or no use in preventing spread of the virus while causing immeasurable damage to populations worldwide.  

Along these lines, Swaminathan appeared to advocate for the WHO becoming the legal decision-maker with regard to pandemic response for health systems across the world as well. Utilizing delicate language, she said the health industry’s emergency response should be “seamlessly coordinated at the national level, but also at the regional and global level” while such “coordination” naturally renders national and regional levels subservient to the higher-order global organization when it comes to so-called mitigation efforts. 

Mami Mizutori, another panelist at the presser, from the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, expanded this concept touting the necessity of global authority to direct this “comprehensive risk management where we break down silos of government sectors, and we all work together.” And not just national and local governments, “but also the civil society, the private sector, the media and ultimately each individual that we work together to tackle risk.” 

Vice president of the ISC, Salim Abdool Karim, echoed this sentiment as well declaring that every single nation, without exception, must “as a global society … stand together. There is no scenario in this world that sees a few countries or some countries mitigating and suppressing the virus while it is spreading rampantly in others. We have to be able to come together in … supporting each other in a common goal of suppressing, mitigating and ultimately controlling this virus.” 

‘Dynamic silence’ utilized to suppress massive evidence and experts, victory at the WHA

As Blaylock wrote, this messaging in favor of such global totalitarian impositions remains unchanged by these agencies regardless of any level of evidence exposing their futility against the virus and their catastrophic consequences on populations. The neurosurgeon wrote 

 Some states ignored these draconian orders and had either the same or fewer cases, as well as deaths, as the states with the most strictly enforced measures. Again, no amount of evidence or obvious demonstration along these lines had any effect on ending these socially destructive measures. Even when entire countries, such as Sweden, which avoided all these measures, demonstrated equal rates of infections and hospitalization as nations with the strictest, very draconian measures, no policy change by the controlling institutions occurred. No amount of evidence changed anything. 

The strategy of these global and otherwise governmental health and media organizations is evidently one of “dynamic silence”: simply pretending massive evidence against their narrative doesn’t exist, nor do the voices of the tens of thousands of competent medical and scientific professionals who publicly repudiate their agenda as damaging, massively deadly, and as thus, “crimes against humanity.” 

The other aspect of this strategy is to suppress and censor these voices in public discourse, or within institutions, even through intimidation in the medical systems themselves and by threatening, firing, or suspending the medical licenses of doctors who present compelling evidence contradicting the authoritative narrative. 

Yet, former high-tech entrepreneur turned journalist Steve Kirsch has attempted to propose several solutions to the impasse between the globalist health authorities and the many groups of thousands of other physicians and scientists who have presented enormous amounts of evidence which sharply contradicts the position of the public health establishment.  

On numerous occasions Kirsch has even offered to pay qualified individuals of standing, including the likes of Gluckman, Swaminathan, Karim, Mizutori, Fauci, Birx and Collins millions of dollars to come and explain to a team of experts, including Malone, McCullough, and former Pfizer vice president, Dr. Michael Yeadon, why their understanding of the data on these several subjects is erroneous.  

Needless to say, thus far “they [have] all refused,” Kirsch wrote in January. “It’s so hard to give away a million dollars nowadays.”  

In correspondence with an ISC spokeswoman, LifeSiteNews (LSN) asked if Dr. Gluckman would be willing to put together a group of experts to correct and / or debate such a team, including GCS members, assembled by Kirsch. LSN also asked if the ISC would go on record alleging any of these individuals challenging their narrative, mentioned above, to be “conspiracy theorists” or spreaders of “misinformation.” 

Despite Gluckman’s stated insistence on prioritizing “plurality to input” when “discussing a crisis like this,” and his touting the “extraordinarily inclusive process” which brought about the newly released document of his organization, a response was not received from the ISC by the deadline for publication. 

If and when a response is received, we will provide an update here. 

In the meantime, due to the initial intervention of the landlocked nation of Botswana in Southern Africa, followed by several other nations, the Biden Administration’s proposed amendments offered at the WHA late last month were defeated by several countries, including Brazil, Brunei, Namibia, Bangladesh, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and Iran, with Brazil stating they would exit the WHO altogether rather than allow its citizens to be subjected to the hostile new powers of such a “dictator-general.” 

*

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

Featured image: Dr. Peter Gluckman of ISC (Source: World Climate Research Programme/YouTube)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Globalist Elites Beg for ‘Trust’ Despite an ‘Unending Stream’ of COVID Lies and ‘Massive’ Censorship
  • Tags: ,

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The US military has issued a stunning but perhaps not entirely unexpected admission that it has been conducting offensive cyber operations in support of Ukraine. It marks the first ever such acknowledgement, and suggests – as many observers have long suspected – a deeper Pentagon and US intelligence role in Ukraine against the Russian military than previously thought.

National Security Agency (NSA) and US Cyber Command Director Gen. Paul Nakasone told the UK’s Sky News on Wednesday,

“We’ve conducted a series of operations across the full spectrum: offensive, defensive, [and] information operations.” This includes “offensive hacking operations” he said.

Without offering specific details, he continued, “My job is to provide a series of options to the secretary of Defense and the president, and so that’s what I do.” Importantly, Gen. Nakasone gave the interview from allied Baltic country Estonia, from which other supporting operations including weapons transfers for Ukraine have come.

He spoke of major attempts of the Russians to launch infrastructurally devastating cyberattacks on Ukraine, saying, “And we’ve seen this with regards to the attack on their satellite systems, wiper attacks that have been ongoing, disruptive attacks against their government processes.”

“This is kind of the piece that I think sometimes is missed by the public. It isn’t like they haven’t been very busy, they have been incredibly busy. And I think, you know, their resilience is perhaps the story that is most intriguing to all of us,” he said, describing the Ukrainian response.

As for support the US has given Ukraine in the lead-up to the Russian invasion, the NSA director referenced the following:

Nakasone previously said his agency deployed a “hunt forward” team in December to help Ukraine shore up its cyber defenses and networks against active threats. But his latest remarks appear to be the first time that a U.S. official said publicly that the U.S. has been involved in offensive cyber operations in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

And like any powerful deep state insider of the intelligence community, he referenced alleged Kremlin attempts to influence US elections. “We had an opportunity to start talking about what particularly the Russians were trying to do in our midterm elections. We saw it again in 2020, as we talked about what the Russians and Iranians were going to do, but this was on a smaller scale.”

“The ability for us to share that information, being able to ensure it’s accurate and it’s timely and it’s actionable on a broader scale has been very, very powerful in this crisis,” he added in the interview.

Despite the whole Russian military and intelligence machine being currently entrenched and busy executing the over 3-month war in Ukraine, the American public is further being told Moscow is now eyeing ‘interference’ in the upcoming midterms next Fall.

According to The Hill: “Experts have warned that Russia will likely deploy its cyber operations in the 2022 midterm elections, which may take different forms, including disinformation campaigns and election hacking. The experts also said that Russia’s playbook is to divide the U.S. along party lines and suppress voter turnout.” However, it’s laughable to think that somehow it takes a foreign actor to “divide” the US “along party lines” – as if this is some new phenomenon.

*

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Of significance, there is a draft Resolution in the US Congress to impeach President Biden. Most Americans are unaware of this initiative. It was first introduced in the House on January 21, 2021,  referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary (01/21/2021).

On March 5, 2021, it was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. No relevant actions have sofar been taken. Below is the Summary as well as the complete text of H. Res 27 as well as links to Congressional documents.

***

Summary

This resolution impeaches President Joseph Robinette Biden for abuse of power by enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Specifically, the resolution sets forth an article of impeachment stating that, in his former role as Vice President, President Biden abused the power of that office through enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors by allowing his son Hunter Biden to influence the domestic policy of a foreign nation and accept benefits from foreign nationals in exchange for favors.

The article states that, by such conduct, President Biden

  • endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government;
  • threatened the integrity of the democratic system;
  • interfered with the peaceful transition of power;
  • imperiled a coordinate branch of government; and
  • demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.

The article also states that this conduct warrants immediate impeachment, trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

To access US Congress H.Res 57 document, click here

To access full text of H. Res 57 draft resolution, click here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on H.Res.57 – Impeaching Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, for Abuse of Power by Enabling Bribery and Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Virginia Water Lake in Surrey is an idyllic country setting on the southern edge of Windsor Great Park, about an hour by train from central London.

The beautiful lakeside surroundings, with its abundant flora, shrubs and cascading waterfall, were originally built as a royal playground and provide visitors and residents alike with a welcome respite from the bustle of modern life.

On any given day, the park is full of people enjoying the bucolic setting – young families picnicking on benches; dog walkers taking a leisurely stroll; joggers grabbing their morning exercise – the majority oblivious that right in front of them, set opposite the lake, are ancient columns from what is now Libya.

Leptis Magna, an ancient city founded by the Carthaginian Empire, once stood tall at the opening of the Wadi Lebda valley, close to the Tunisian border.

The flourishing city was founded in the seventh century BC by the Phoenicians, and its towering columns formed part of what was a major trading centre.

Today, the ruins, known as the Temple of Augustus, are on the other side of the world. Anyone taking a walk in Surrey’s Great Windsor Park can see the ruins, disassembled and fenced off amidst greenery.

In the royal park, there are 22 granite columns, 15 marble columns as well as over 20 pedestals and other inscribed artefacts and fragments of sculptures.

Now a Libyan lawyer is battling it out with the Crown Estate Commissioner to try to repatriate the ruins to their country of origin.

From Libya to England

More than 1,000 years after Leptis Magna turned into ruins, the site caught the eye of European colonialists, who took the columns to furnish stately homes and gardens and present them as gifts.

During the 17th century, 600 columns from the ancient city were taken to France to decorate Louis XIV’s palaces at Versailles in France.

Britain also claimed some of the historic artefacts. In 1816, in what was then called Tripolitania, Lord Warrington, a British officer, and the head of the Royal Navy Lord Smyth convinced the Ottoman ruler Pasha Karamanli to let them take parts of the ancient site, including marble and granite columns.

The haul was presented to King George IV as a gift. However, he, along with the British government and peers, was evidently underwhelmed with the relics from this ancient city.

Upon seeing their less than satisfied reaction, Lord Smyth went on to exhibit the ruins at the then newly built British Museum until 1826, before transferring them to where they stand today in Virginia Water Lake.

King George IV’s chief architect, Sir Jeffry Wyatville, used the stones from Leptis Magna and assembled them into a site, which he named “The Temple of Augustus,” in the royal estate of the grounds of Windsor Castle, in close proximity to Virginia Water Lake.

Divided opinion

At the site of the ancient ruins, all of those Middle East Eye spoke to had no idea what they were or where they were from, despite many of those people being asked had lived in the area for decades.

“I can see that these are ruins but I had no idea where they were from,” one lady told Middle East Eye. “I don’t think we would have them here if there wasn’t a good reason for them being here. I just don’t think the British would have taken them if there wasn’t a good reason.”

“It would be wrong to have them sent back or repatriated,” said another man, who didn’t want to share his name. “I’ve been here since I was a kid, I’ve been coming here 63 years.”

“We’d need to see proof really that this does belong to the Libyans because I can’t see why Savill Garden [nearby garden in Windsor] or Virginia Water would have them here if it’s not theirs,” another woman told Middle East Eye, while walking her dogs.

leptis magna ruins

Some locals believe that the ruins should stay in the UK (MEE/Nadda Osman)

Many of those going past the ruins said they had never paid much attention to them.

“I don’t know anything about them, so I don’t really have an opinion,” one lady said, while jogging past. “I’m pretty indifferent about it.”

Not all the locals hold the opinion that the ancient ruins should stay in their current location, with some agreeing that they should be returned to Libya.

One mother, who was walking in the park with her young child, said that the ruins belong in their rightful place of origin.

“I guess if we just took them without asking, then they should go back. If these were built in Libya and were part of their previous civilisation, then they should be able to have the opportunity to put them back together and have that history on their doorstep where it was originally,” she said.

“The locals here would get upset, but people always get upset don’t they? But these should be where they belong.”

The struggle to repatriate

London based Libyan lawyer Mohamed Shaban is trying to convince the Crown’s lawyers that the ancient ruins, which he says were illegally transferred, should be returned to Libya.

“We have requested from the Crown’s lawyers any evidence of the legal transfer of the title [of the artefacts] from the Ottoman rulers to King George IV,” he told Middle East Eye.

“So far the Crown have provided no evidence at all, and so we conclude that they were illegally transferred.”

Shaban took on the case after being asked to by the Libyan embassy in London. The Libyan Ministry of Culture asked him to investigate the possibility of repatriating the artefacts, following the successful repatriation of other historical artefacts, such as the statue of the Goddess Persephone and the Donatella Flavia to Libya.

Shaban says the experience of trying to resolve the case has been tiresome and complex so far. The lawyer’s client is the State of Libya, and he receives instruction from the Libyan embassy in London, the Ministry of Culture and the Libyan State Litigation Directorate.

“Dealing with the Crown’s lawyers has been a frustrating experience. Despite sending detailed and polite letters requesting answers to various questions, principally relating to the transfer of the title, the Crown has simply been stalling,” he said.

However, some progress has been made.

“A few days ago, I received a letter of apology from the CEO of the Crown Estate, who accepted the importance of my enquiries and stated that he is dealing with the matter, which is complex and requires input from various government departments.”

Brutal history

Shaban explained that many people are unaware of the brutal history behind the ancient ruins, and that locals had risked their lives to save them.

Although Karamanli had agreed to give them to Lord Warrington and Lord Smyth, they were not his to give, as he had massacred a local Arab tribe to get the ruins.

The tribe, known as al-Jawazi, saw the columns and other parts of their heritage as an irreplaceable piece of their history.

On 5 September 1816, over 10,000 members of the tribe were killed by Karamanli, who was one of the longest reigning Turkish military pashas of Tripolitania.

The massacre was in retaliation for a revolt that broke out against the rule of the Karamanli dynasty and the fact that they refused to pay imposed taxes.

Karamanli ordered his soldiers to loot the tribe’s property, which included ancient artefacts and the sought after Leptis Magna columns, as well as tens of thousands of livestock, cash and captives.

The al-Jawazi tribe defended the columns with their lives, something that Shaban says shows how important they were to the tribe’s cultural heritage.

“Blood was spilled to get these artefacts, it shows that people were willing to sacrifice their lives to save them,” Shaban said.

A complex case

“The case is legally complex, but morally simple, because the ruins are on Crown and not state land,” said Shaban, describing how the case is far from straightforward.

One matter that has posed a further challenge for Shaban is the fact that the ruins predate all of the UN conventions requiring the return of cultural heritage.

Despite Shaban’s efforts to emphasise that even laws post-1945 apply to these items, and that you cannot gift items of national heritage because they relate to the identity of people, he hasn’t got far with the British courts.

leptis magna ruins

The artefacts date back to the Phoenician colonisation of North Africa more than 2,700 years ago (MEE/Nadda Osman)

Shaban said that he has been instructed by his client to try and resolve the case through negotiation and mediation under Unesco.

“The Crown Estate has recently demonstrated some receptiveness to our enquiries through their latest correspondence.

“I hope that this will lead to a constructive dialogue which may result in the Crown upholding their own high standards of integrity by returning to the Libyan people what is rightfully theirs,” he said.

Fate of the artefacts

As the legal battle continues to play out, one question that has continued to crop up is the fate of the ancient ruins.

The subject has continued to rage on in the British media, which has only further intensified the debate surrounding the artefacts.

“One of the Crown Estate’s representatives recently told the Evening Standard that the Leptis Magna columns should stay where they are because they’re enjoyed by millions of tourists each year.

“They seem to be using that as an excuse not to return the artefacts,” said Shaban, who called the comments “nonsensical, comical and insulting”.

“Using their logic, we can take some stones from Hadrian’s Wall, plonk them in another country and refuse to return them because ‘millions’ are enjoying them,” he said.

A spokesperson for the Crown Estate told Middle East Eye that the columns are now an intrinsic part of the area and its heritage.

“The Leptis Magna columns were installed at Virginia Water in the early 1800s. They remain on public display and are an important and valued feature of the Virginia Water landscape.

leptis magna ruins

The potential repatriation of the ruins has divided opinion among locals (MEE/Nadda Osman)

“They continue to be enjoyed by the millions of visitors to Windsor Great Park each year.”

Despite the lengthy process of repatriating artefacts, some have been returned to their place of origin voluntarily by non-governmental organisations.

Some examples of this include The Wellcome Trust returning 93 Himyartitic objects to the Yemeni Museum Service and the National Army Museum agreeing to return the Abyssinian Emperor Tewodros II locks of hair to Ethiopia.

Although the legal battle continues, Shaban said that it is an issue that Libyans will not let go of lightly, describing the artefacts as part of his country’s “DNA”.

*

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

Featured image: A Libyan lawyer is trying to repatriate the ancient ruins to Libya (MEE/Mohamad Elaasar)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Queen’s Gambit: The Battle to Return the Ancient Libyan Ruins in Windsor’s Great Park
  • Tags:

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

For several days, the Ukrainian army has been intensively shelling several towns in Donbass (Donetsk, Gorlovka, Makeyevka, Stakhanov) in the middle of the day, causing numerous victims among civilians.

On 4 June 2022, Donetsk was heavily shelled. After the bombardment of the Petrovski district, during which we found ourselves trapped for five hours under the shelling (see the article by my colleague Laurent Brayard), the Ukrainian army shelled the city centre in the evening with Grad multiple rocket launchers. The day’s toll: five civilians dead and 24 injured, including a five-year-old child.

These intensive terror bombings against previously relatively unscathed areas became the norm in the days that followed.

On 5 June 2022, Donetsk was shelled again, as well as Gorlovka. As in the previous day’s shelling of the Petrovsky district, the entire arsenal available to the Ukrainian army was used against residential areas in Donbass: 82 mm and 120 mm mortars, 122 mm, 152 mm, and 155 mm (NATO standard) artillery and multiple rocket launchers. One civilian was killed and six wounded as a result of the fire.

The massive appearance of 155 mm artillery shells (fired by American and then French guns) during these bombardments proves that, contrary to what Kiev’s propaganda tells us (taken up by the Western media), it is not the Russian army but the Ukrainian army that is bombing the residential areas of these Donbass towns.

Indeed, the 155 mm is a NATO standard, and there are no weapons of this calibre in the Russian armament. The use of these NATO weapons to bomb residential areas where there are no military targets makes the supplier countries (United States and France) complicit in war crimes, since they supply these weapons to Ukraine knowing full well how the Ukrainian army will use them in the Donbass.

On 6 June 2022, the Ukrainian army again intensively shelled the Petrovsky district of Donetsk, targeting the TV relay antenna there. Ukrainian soldiers also shelled the Leninski and Kievski districts of Donetsk, as well as Yassinovataya, Makeyevka, Gorlovka and Volnovakha. Nine civilians were killed and 18 wounded as a result of the shelling.

On 7 June, the Ukrainian army particularly shelled the Kievski and Petrovski districts of Donetsk, as well as Krasny Partizan, Makeyevka, Yakolevka, and Gorlovka. One civilian was killed and six injured as a result of the shelling.

On 8 June, Donetsk city centre was targeted by the Ukrainian army, which fired six 155 mm shells at the area around the DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic) government building and Lenin Square. Gorlovka and Makeyevka were also heavily shelled that day. In total, the Ukrainian army’s shelling left one civilian dead and 11 injured, including a six-year-old girl.

On 9 June 2022, the Ukrainian military again shelled the Kalininski district of Donetsk (in the east of the city), firing nine 155mm artillery shells, killing one woman and wounding two other civilians. Two civilians were wounded in the firing on two other districts of Donetsk, and three civilians were wounded in the firing on Gorlovka, which is now a daily occurrence. In Verkhnetoretskoye, one civilian died as a result of shelling by the Ukrainian army. At the time of writing, two civilians had died and seven were injured in the DPR.

In just five days, 19 civilians have died and 72 have been injured by the Ukrainian army’s terror bombardment of DPR towns.

And just today, the Ukrainian army shelled the town of Stakhanov in the LPR (Lugansk People’s Republic) with Ouragans multiple rocket launchers, killing 15 civilians and wounding 10.

It is clear that Ukraine is seeking with these terror bombings to divert the attention of the allied forces now approaching Slaviansk, while at the same time avenging itself for its defeats by terrorizing the civilian population with random bombings that destroy a large number of infrastructures that Russia will have to rebuild at its own expense. One stone, three blows.

But Moscow has understood the purpose of the firing, and nothing will distract the Russian army, and the troops of the DPR and the LPR, who are advancing inexorably.

Because of this terrorist tactic of Kiev, the civilians of Donbass are living a day in hell without end under the shells and rockets of the Ukrainian army, in the deafening silence of the Western media, which praise the qualities of the guns that are used to deliberately assassinate these same innocent civilians.

*

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

Featured image is from Internationalist 360

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukrainian Army Shelling of Donbass Civilians: A Day in Hell Without End
  • Tags: , ,

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Investigative reporter and author Kelly O’Meara, who was the first national journalist to expose the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence, and who has covered school shootings for more than twenty years, talks about the ongoing efforts to ignore this fact, including after the recent mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

O’Meara also discusses other odd, unsettling details she has uncovered about various school shootings over the years and why she thinks they are ongoing.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Whistleblower Newsroom.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

People don’t trust the CDC. Here’s one example illustrating why. Two weeks ago, with no outcomes data on COVID-19 booster shots for 5-to-11-year-olds, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) vigorously recommended the booster for all 24 million American children in that age group. The CDC cited a small Pfizer study of 140 children that showed boosters elevated their antibody levels—an outcome known to be transitory.

When that study concluded, a Pfizer spokesperson said it did not determine the efficacy of the booster in the 5-to-11-year-olds. But that didn’t matter to the CDC. Seemingly hoping for a different answer, the agency put the matter before its own kangaroo court of curated experts, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

I listened to the meeting, and couldn’t believe what I heard. At times, the committee members sounded like a group of marketing executives. Dr. Beth Bell of the University of Washington said “what we really need to do is to be as consistent and clear and simple as possible,” pointing out that the committee needed “a consistent recommendation which is simple.”

Other committee members similarly emphasized the importance of a universal booster message that applies to all age groups. Dr. David Kimberlin, editor of the American Academy of Pediatrics Red Book, speaking on his own behalf, said “Americans are yearning for, are crying out for a simpler way for looking at this pandemic.” He suggested that not recommending boosters for young children would create confusion that “could also bleed over to 12-to-17-year-olds, and even the adult population.”

The committee also debated how hard to push the booster recommendation, discussing whether the CDC should say that 5-to-11-year-olds “may” get a booster versus “should” get it.

Exhibiting classic medical paternalism, committee member Dr. Oliver Brooks of the Watts Healthcare Corporation said “I think may is confusing and may sow doubt,” adding “if we say should more people will get boosted versus may, then we may have more data that helps us really define where we’re going.” Dr. Brooks was essentially suggesting that boosting in this age group would be a clinical trial conducted without informed consent.

That doesn’t sound like following the science to me.

ACIP’s medical establishment representatives were on hand for the meeting. They included members of the trade association Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the American Medical Association (AMA). Dr. Sandra Fryhofer, an internist representing the AMA, summarized the tone of the many legacy stakeholders present with a passionate plea: “I urge the committee to support a ‘should’ recommendation for this third dose.”

The committee promptly approved the booster for young children by an 11-1 vote, with one obstetrician abstaining because he missed some of the discussion.

The one dissenting vote came from Dr. Keipp Talbot of Vanderbilt University, who courageously said vaccines, while extremely effective, “are not without their potential side effects.” She questioned the sustainability of vaccinating the population every six months. Many experts agree with her, but they don’t have a platform to speak. In fact, nearly 40 percent of rural parents say their pediatricians do not recommend the primary vaccine series for children. Those pediatricians were not represented on the committee.

The CDC has a history of appointing like-minded loyalists to its committees. Last year, it dismissed a member of its vaccine safety group, Harvard professor of medicine Dr. Martin Kuldorff, for dissenting from its decision to pause the J&J vaccine. A year ago, Joe Biden appointed party devotees to his COVID-19 task force. Reaching a consensus is easier that way.

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) vaccine advisory committee, comprised of the nation’s top vaccine experts, have made similar public statements as Dr. Talbot. But the committee was not involved in approving boosters for children. The FDA actually bypassed it days prior—the third time over the last year that the FDA made sweeping and controversial authorizations without convening its vaccine experts.

Most remarkably, it didn’t seem to matter to the CDC that 75.2 percent of children under age 11 already have natural immunity, according to a CDC study that concluded in February. Natural immunity is certainly much more prevalent today, given the ubiquity of the Omicron variant since February. CDC data from New York and California demonstrated that natural immunity was 2.8 times more effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times more effective in preventing COVID infection compared to vaccination during the Delta wave. These findings are consistent with dozens of other clinical studies. Yet natural immunity has consistently and inexplicably been dismissed by the medical establishment.

When the CDC voted, director Dr. Rochelle Walensky declared that the booster dose is safe for kids ages 5-11. Yes, the complication rate is very low, and we think it’s safe, but how can anyone know from only a short-term follow-up of 140 children? The more appropriate assessment is that we believe it’s safe but we can’t be sure yet from the data we have so far. Unfortunately, the strength of the CDC recommendation to boost all children 5 and up will trigger some schools and summer camps to blindly mandate a third dose for healthy children who don’t need it.

Instead of pushing boosters on healthy children who are already immune, public health officials should focus on recommending the primary COVID vaccine series to high-risk children who don’t have any immunity.

Public health officials are expected to recommend COVID vaccines for children under 5 as soon as June 21st, despite the fact that the vast majority of children already have natural immunity. In a recent Kaiser survey, only 18 percent of parents said they were eager to vaccinate their child in that age group.

If the CDC is curious as to why people aren’t listening to its recommendations, it should consider how it bypassed experts to put the matter before a Kangaroo court of like-minded loyalists. The Biden administration should insist that we return to the standard process of putting all major vaccine decisions before a vote of the FDA’s leading vaccine experts.

The Biden administration promised to listen to the scientists. But the truth is, it only seems to listen to the ones who say what it wants to hear.

*

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

Marty Makary M.D., M.P.H. (@MartyMakary) is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and author of The New York Times Bestselling Book, The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care and How To Fix It.

Featured image: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. (Raed Mansour/Flickr)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why America Doesn’t Trust the CDC. COVID-19 Booster Shots for 5-to-11-year-olds”. 24 Million American Children
  • Tags: ,

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The conversations between Julian Assange and his lawyers illicitly recorded by the Spanish security company UC Global at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder took refuge for years, could have been delivered to agents of the US secret services, according to Santiago Pedraz, the judge at Spain’s High Court, the Audiencia Nacional, in charge of the espionage case.

Delivery to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or to US authorities of details about the defense strategy of the cyberactivist, whom the US wants to have extradited from the UK, is reflected in a court order issued by Pedraz to which EL PAÍS has had access. In this document, which deals with procedural issues, the judge explains to the British authorities why he needs to take witness testimony from the British lawyers and Assange’s doctors who were spied on at the embassy. These individuals include Gareth Peirce, 82, the famous British lawyer who was played by actress Emma Thompson in the 1993 movie In the Name of the Father.

Proving that US intelligence services learned about Assange’s defense strategy by spying on his lawyers could annul the extradition by questioning the illegal methods used by the US to get Assange tried there, according to legal sources. If Spain is allowed to take testimony, as victims of US espionage, from lawyers and doctors who are now defending him in the extradition case, the British justice system would be left in an embarrassing situation, according to the same sources. It could be argued that the process was flawed because the right of defense was violated by the country requesting the extradition.

Read the full article here.

*

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

Featured image: Julian Assange was secretly recorded while living at the Ecuadorean embassy in London. (Source: EPV)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Julian Assange Spying Case: Judge Suggests CIA May Have Received Illicitly Recorded Conversations
  • Tags: ,

Weapons of Faith: The Arming of American Schools

June 13th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The United States remains a country of tenacious faith.  The nature of that faith stretches from the digital pulpits of Silicon Valley, where cool technology occupies the seat of majesty, to the hot Bible Belt of spiritual endurance and suffering, where the good Lord holds sway in stern disapproval.  In between, market fundamentalists take time to worship the invisible hand of business and capitalism.

The symptoms of that faith can be extraordinary, almost to the point of caustic neuroses.  Faith in the sanctity of guns permits a form of tolerable urban warfare, a type of assimilated frontier violence characterised by high death tolls.  For all the rage and mourning that takes place after each massacre, be it in school or in places of worship, the slain are merely the tax paid for exercising a constitutional liberty.  As with all freedoms, exercising them comes at a cost.

As a sacred totem, the gun, like ancient god figures drawn from verdant groves and sun-bleached deserts, is an idol to be replicated in displays, shows, and performances.  Any chinks in this system of idolatry are put down to the nature of the worshipper, weak of character, questionable of principle.  The Uvalde shooter was, in keeping with this view, a mental basket case, detached, isolated, estranged.  He was lobotomised by the cruel workings of social media, an outcast, a social vegetable.  A suburban family with 50 assault weapons salivating over their next purchase is, by contrast, sanely functional, good citizens going about their business under the double blessing of the Second Amendment and the marketplace.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s understanding of this issue is typical and unblemished by complexity.  In the language of a sweetly crafted, and predictable fairy tale, Cruz sees a morality tale in the business of owning guns.  To the 19 children and two adults who perished at Robb Elementary School, he had this response: “What stops bad guys is armed good guys.”

Garden gnome psychology is never far from such reasoning.

“We know that many of those who commit the most heinous crimes they’re isolated from human contact,” Cruz told members of the National Rifle Association in an address last month.  “They’re living a virtual life in the absence of community and faith and love.”

Addressing the medical, pathological aspect – to de-psycho, as it were, the field of ownership – is seen as one answer from the pro-gun fraternity.  The other is counter-intuitive and, in its way, truly a matter of faith.  To solve the gun problem, more weapons, not fewer, are needed.  Spread the fetish, proliferate the means of mass lethality.  As certain theorists of security and international relations regard the issue of addressing nuclear weapons, the more countries have them, the more secure the world will be.  Terror binds us; terror deters us.  If you cannot abolish weapons, then partake of its fruits.

In such mind-numbing logic, schools can solve shootings by flooding the administrative system with guns, arming teachers, militarising the spaces and places of learning.  In a 2021 Pew Research poll, 43% of those surveyed favoured allowing K-12 teachers and school officials to carry guns.  Of the percentage, 66% of them were Republicans; 24% Democrats.  63% of gun owners supported the measure; 33% of non-gun owners did not.

In response to Uvalde, Senator Cruz, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, are stirring their base.  Their suggestions of arming schools are of uneven quality, childish and resoundingly doltish.  But they point to a central understanding of acceptable carnage and military permissiveness.

Attorney General Paxton has been true over the years to the view that a citizenry armed to the teeth, even when going about mundane tasks, is a safe one.  In December 2017, he issued an opinion claiming that licensed handgun owners could legally carry loaded weapons into Texas churches with no posted signs banning them.  As for what could have been done in Uvalde, the theme is familiar.  The key was to make it “more difficult for people even to get in that point of entry” by having “teachers and other administrators who have gone through training and who are armed.”

Such a measure, Paxton argued, was to be encouraged as law enforcement authorities tended to be late on the scene, failing to prevent the shooting.

“The reality is,” he explained to Fox News, “we don’t have the resources to have law enforcement at every school.”

Patrick’s statement of June 3 could just as well apply to a discussion about violent insurgencies US foreign policy has tended to foment over the years.

“If every member of law enforcement across the state, approximately 80,000 officers, had a bulletproof shield in their vehicle, their ability to respond to an active shooter situation would be greatly enhanced.”  (Does he envisage police driving into the active shooter in class?)

He notes that “more training is needed”, but the urgency of having measures in place before the start of the new school year to “better equip our police who respond to these attacks” was paramount.  As with any planning for a military campaign, having the appropriate material in stock might be a problem.  “There could be a supply-chain issue at present, but we should try to buy every quality shield we can find and order the rest so we are at the front line when more become available.”

Not that these matters solve the problem.  To equate armed teachers with safety is a false equation.  The Uvalde shooter could still go about his business even in the face of a heavily armed response unit.  The “good guys” seemed rather ineffectual to stop the “bad guy” at Uvalde.  The National Education Association President Becky Pringle’s statement in response to shootings could only seem peculiar in an environment of gun fetishists.  “Bringing more guns into schools makes schools more dangerous and does nothing to shield our students and educators from gun violence.”

Dispirited about such responses, Daniel Siegel, a 23-year-old middle-school teacher from Houston, suggested something disturbingly radical.  Give schools more resources, not in terms of weapons and defences but on matters of learning and the nurturing of students’ emotional wellbeing.  Sadly, that horse, saddled by the Second Amendment, bolted some time ago.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. 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 NPR

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In this talk, journalist and geographer Manlio Dinucci comments on the desecreted document of the DIS, Department of Security Intelligence.

According to Dinucci, the document is number 4, but it is not yet known what is in the first three; it is likely that his name, as well as the others circulated by Corriere della Sera, are in the other documents.

“Everything that the mainstream does not like is Russian propaganda,” Dinucci says.

In fact, the document mentions personalities and media that allegedly dared to criticize Mario Draghi and his policies, as if this was to be considered an object of attention by the security services. To download the DIS document, click here.

Click here to watch the video.

*

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

This article was originally published on byoblu.

Switzerland’s Secretive Banking System and the WEF’s “Great Reset”: First in “You’ll Own Nothing and You’ll be Happy”?

By Peter Koenig, June 11, 2022

It has often been said, Washington is the Belly of the Beast and Switzerland is the Head of the Beast. Considering a variety of dimensions, it is probably not far from the truth. Switzerland is home to a number of highly dubious institutions and organizations.

Sri Lanka’s Principled Neutrality Ensured Its Survival in the Economic Crisis Thus Far

By Andrew Korybko, June 13, 2022

There’s a lesson to be learned from Sri Lanka’s experience, which is that the pursuit of strategic autonomy and the enhanced sovereignty that it leads to enables countries to keep the largest number of options open during times of crisis.

Washington’s Failed Push for Anti-Russian Global Consensus

By Ted Galen Carpenter, June 13, 2022

Biden administration officials treat Russia as an international pariah and push the global community to unite behind Washington’s leadership to compel the Kremlin to withdraw its forces from Ukraine. The administration’s strategy has been just partially successful.

Russian Ambassador Claims US Asked Him to Defect

By Morning Star, June 13, 2022

Russia’s ambassador to Washington has claimed that US spooks encouraged him to defect and denounce the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Anatoly Antonov told Russian state television on Wednesday that he had refused a request from US authorities to publicly criticise President Vladimir Putin.

New Bill to Boost Missile Defense for Israel & Arab Partners, Citing Alleged Iran Threat

By Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter, June 13, 2022

Lawmakers with the bipartisan Abraham Accords Caucus have introduced a bill in the House and Senate that will require the Pentagon to coordinate missile defense upgrades for Israel and several newfound Arab allies, pointing to potential “attacks from Iran.”

182 New Reports of Deaths After COVID Vaccines, CDC Data Show

By Children’s Health Defense, June 13, 2022

VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 1,295,329 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 28,714 deaths and 236,767 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 3, 2022.

Global Food Crisis: Ukraine Is Demanding Weapons in Exchange for Resuming Wheat Exports

By Andrew Korybko, June 12, 2022

The so-called “deadlock” over resolving the global food crisis is just as artificially manufactured as its origins since Kiev has now officially declared that it won’t resume wheat exports by sea to the Global South unless it receives anti-ship missiles first.

US Cyberattacks on Russia Could Escalate to Real-world Conflict

By Drago Bosnic, June 12, 2022

Carl von Clausewitz, a prominent Prussian general described war as “merely the continuation of policy by other means.” This perfectly describes the political West’s relationship with the world. However, against Russia, it is unable to conduct what the late Donald Rumsfeld euphemistically called “kinetic force.” The phrase differentiates conventional warfare from “soft” force, limited to diplomacy, sanctions and cyber warfare. The latter is usually overlooked, despite often taking center stage in geopolitics.

Millions of Tons of Ukrainian Grain Exports: Zelensky’s Delay In Opening A Sea Corridor Threatens the World with A Global Food Crisis

By Paul Antonopoulos, June 12, 2022

Hundreds of Ukrainian mines floating in the Black Sea threaten to halt tens of millions of tons of grain from being exported. Ukrainian officials claim it would take six months to clear the mines, something which directly contradicts the long-held claim that Russia’s naval blockade is preventing the export of wheat.

The Eight Stupidest Things About Nuclear Weapons

By David Swanson, June 12, 2022

Investing in children’s welfare and education costs less and reduces more crime than “tough on crime” policies which are often counterproductive, but voters in San Francisco just obeyed a bunch of corporate advertising and recalled a District Attorney because he had reduced crime rather than being “tough on crime.”

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Switzerland’s Secretive Banking System and the WEF’s “Great Reset”: First in “You’ll Own Nothing and You’ll be Happy”?

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Author’s Note:

A century ago exactly (12 June 1922) occurred the death from cancer, at age 63, of Dr. Wolfgang Kapp, the far-right German politician and civil servant. Kapp was well-known to Erich Ludendorff, dictator of Germany during World War I, and to a lesser extent Adolf Hitler, dictator of Germany during World War II.

The below article may serve as a timely reminder against extremist tendencies, with neo-Nazism having re-emerged strongly this century in prominent European countries like Germany, France and the Ukraine; and also further afield in powerful states such as America and Brazil.

Over the past century, Kapp’s name has been most closely associated with the coup d’état that bears his name and which he nominally led, in mid-March 1920, titled the Kapp Putsch. This attempt, to install a de facto military dictatorship in Berlin, had the strong support of among others General Walther von Lüttwitz, General Ludendorff, Colonel Max Bauer and Lieutenant-Commander Hermann Ehrhardt. In an attempt to join the conspirators, the 30-year-old Corporal Hitler landed in Berlin by airplane 4 days following the implementation of the coup.

After disembarking from his aircraft Hitler, by now an anti-Semite, was reputedly disconcerted and amazed by the presence of the Jewish Hungarian-born Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln, Kapp’s Foreign Press Censor in the regime. Hitler later recalled having seen Trebitsch-Lincoln, though it is doubtful that they actually spoke to each other; and Trebitsch-Lincoln never made any mention of being in Hitler’s company. Trebitsch-Lincoln already had a remarkable and varied career behind him as an evangelical preacher, a German spy and a Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) in Britain.

The fact that someone of Jewish heritage had a central role in the new autocracy in Berlin suggests that Kapp, at any rate, was not particularly anti-Semitic. Military historian Donald J. Goodspeed wrote that, by associating himself with the Kappists, Trebitsch-Lincoln had “at last found men who appreciated his talents”.

Once installed in power in the Reich Chancellery, Kapp would by no means prove to be as brutal as other autocrats. When his coup began to flounder after mere days, he refused to let loose the German paramilitary forces (Freikorps) on the people of Berlin. Goodspeed observed of how the putsch unfolded, “The predominance of von Lüttwitz, Ehrhardt, Ludendorff and Colonel Bauer over such weak civilian figures as Kapp and Schnitzler [Kapp’s Press Chief] needs no underlining”.

Kapp had not, in fact, been raised in Germany. He was born in New York City on 24 July 1858, and spent the first decade of his life in America. His father Friedrich Kapp (1824-1884), born in the town of Hamm in western Germany, was a noted journalist, politician and lawyer who had emigrated to the United States in March 1850. Kapp’s mother was Luise Kapp (née Engels, 1825-1916), the daughter of a decorated Prussian general named Friedrich Ludwig Engels, who in the mid-19th century was the military commander of Cologne, one of Germany’s biggest cities today.

After 20 years in America, Friedrich Kapp returned to Germany with his family in April 1870. They settled down in Berlin and Wolfgang Kapp, now aged 12, was sent to the secondary school called the Friedrich Wilhelm Gymnasium. This was the same institution in which Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898), the famous German chancellor, had received part of his education. Kapp then studied law at the University of Tübingen, in southern Germany, and shortly before graduating he married Margarete Rosenow (1853-1929), who came from a well-connected conservative family and which would have influence on Kapp’s political views.

After leaving university, Kapp worked in the German Finance Ministry and the East Prussian Lands Offices. It seems that, during the First World War, Kapp’s political outlook became more extreme as the tide gradually turned against Germany. After the war ended in November 1918, he started to mix with those who possessed similar radical thoughts such as Ludendorff and Captain Waldemar Pabst. Together they, and others with them, formulated a plan to re-instore rightist and military control over Germany at the Weimar Republic’s expense.

The failure to do so, however, would force Kapp and a number of his close associates to flee Germany in the spring of 1920, though Ludendorff was able to remain in the country. The humiliation surrounding this closing chapter of Kapp’s life may have seriously affected his health. In April 1922 Kapp, maybe because he knew he was dying, returned to Germany from Sweden in order to stand trial in Leipzig for his leading part in the coup. Two months later he died in prison before he could enter court, an inglorious end for someone who had dreams of ruling Germany only 2 years before.


First published in March 2022

Just over a century ago, on 13 March 1920 a far-right coup d’état was implemented against the nascent Weimar Republic in Berlin, known as the Kapp Putsch, which stood as an early warning signal for the rise of the Nazi Party. 

The Kapp Putsch was an attempt to destroy Social Democratic governance in Germany, and to replace it with an outright dictatorship. The new regime would be led, on paper, by Dr Wolfgang Kapp, a reactionary 61-year-old Prussian civil servant and politician. The reality on the ground suggests otherwise. Partaking in this coup from the outset were some leading German military men, including General Erich Ludendorff, one of the major figures in 20th century European history.

Image on the right: Wolfgang Kapp, the leader of the Putsch (Public Domain)

During the First World War, Ludendorff had been the dictator of Germany for a two year period, from the autumn of 1916 until the conclusion of hostilities. In subsequent years Ludendorff was positioned at separate times on the right, but mostly at the far-right, of the political spectrum. He disseminated the stab-in-the-back legend and, as he got older, became increasingly militaristic and anti-Semitic. Ludendorff also strongly criticised the “terrible inroads” and pernicious effects that Roman Catholicism was having on the German people.

It has been claimed that Ludendorff was “the first Nazi”, but there is little evidence to provide substance to this assertion. While lauded for his victories in warfare, it can be recalled that in the field of politics he was inexperienced at best; like so many military commanders, Ludendorff would lack the temperament and judgement to make a successful transition to the political arena.

At war’s end, following a three month exile in the southern Swedish town of Hässleholm, Ludendorff returned to Berlin at the end of February 1919. The 54-year-old general continued to don his World War I uniform. As a consequence, Ludendorff was quickly recognised by some of his supporters in Berlin who, astonished to see him walking down the street, began cheering effusively. Richard J. Evans, the English historian, wrote of Ludendorff, “Such was the prestige he had gained in the war, that he quickly became the figurehead of the radical right” (1). The Ludendorff biographer, Donald J. Goodspeed, acknowledged that he “commanded considerable respect throughout the country”. (2)

In March 1921, General Ludendorff was introduced to the little known extremist politician Adolf Hitler, when the latter had by then been a Nazi Party member for around a year (3). Ludendorff and Hitler would be on close terms during the mid-1920s. In late 1924 Ludendorff, largely because of his famous name, was elected to the Reichstag as an MP with the pan-Germanic association, the National Socialist Freedom Party (NSFP). Ludendorff co-founded the NSFP with Albrecht von Graefe, a fascist German politician and landowner who was an early associate of Hitler. In February 1925 the NSFP was absorbed into the Nazi Party, two months after Hitler’s release from Landsberg Prison. Ludendorff became a fully-fledged Nazi Party MP and would remain so until 1928.

By the beginning of the 1930s, Ludendorff was issuing public warnings against Hitler (4). Lee McGowan, senior lecturer in European Politics at Queen’s University Belfast, wrote that “Ludendorff, one of Hitler’s initial but temporary rivals, was one of the few individuals to register doubts” about the Nazi leader. McGowan highlighted that Ludendorff’s “concern” regarding Hitler “was ignored” by those who later put him in power. Ludendorff described Hitler as “one of the greatest demagogues of all time” who would “cast our Reich into the abyss and bring our nation to inconceivable misery”. (5)

Ludendorff had been possessed with great energy, intelligence and ruthlessness. These character traits, blended with a rare talent for tactical organisation, made him a formidable leader in war. Lieutenant-Colonel Goodspeed called him “the guiding genius of the German Army” (6). By early 1920 Ludendorff’s ambition, or rather his megalomania, was sky high. Appalled but not surprised by the Treaty of Versailles signed in late June 1919, his aim was to reassume the dictatorship of Germany as soon as possible, restore her lost territories, and thereafter grant his nation the “place in the sun” she deserved.

Ludendorff stated more than once, “The greatest blunder the revolutionaries made was to leave us all alive. If I once get back to power there will be no quarter” (7). For the time being, recognising Germany’s unfavourable international position, Ludendorff proceeded with some caution.

The nominal leader of the impending putsch, Dr Kapp, was elected to the Reichstag in January 1919 as a monarchist. In September 1917 he had been a leading founder of the far-right German Fatherland Party (Deutsche Vaterlandspartei). Kapp was a firm backer of Ludendorff’s expansionist programs in the war, including the hawkish strategy of unrestricted U-boat attacks. Kapp gained a reputation in Germany of being a civilian who was more militant than the militarists (8). This publicity had so inflated Kapp’s sense of his own self-importance, that he truly came to believe he was the man to restore Germany’s greatness.

Goodspeed noted that Kapp was “a portly intriguer who for many years had been a hard-working but obscure civil servant in the East Prussian Lands Offices. During the war, Kapp had won some notoriety as a leader of the opposition to the relatively moderate policies of Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg”. (9)

By August 1919 Kapp sought out Ludendorff, and became acquainted with him in person. In October 1919 they established the right-wing National Association (Nationale Vereinigung), an organisation considered the “crystallisation core” of the Kapp Putsch. The National Association received major funding from Hugo Stinnes, the wealthy German industrialist, after he had been persuaded by Ludendorff (10). Stinnes’ influence extended beyond the Reich. He would, for example, feature on the front page of the American news magazine, Time.

Another key member of the National Association was Captain Waldemar Pabst, a high-ranking German officer who in following years made contact with Hitler and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Pabst gained infamy for ordering the executions of the revolutionary socialists, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, on 15 January 1919 (11). The loss in particular of Luxemburg, one of the most remarkable women in modern times, was a real blow to the socialist movement.

In the opening weeks of 1920 the Freikorps, German paramilitary groups comprising mainly of ex-World War I soldiers, were openly debating a move that would overthrow the Weimar Republic. The 39-year-old Pabst, commander of the Freikorps Guards Cavalry, was one of the first to be drawn into the scheme. He rented an office in central Berlin, and rallied those who were convinced that a coup was needed to save the Fatherland. Colonel Max Bauer joined the plotters. He was a decorated soldier and Ludendorff’s Chief of Operations from 1916 to 1918.

Kapp still required a sword with which to wield his putsch. He looked inevitably to Ludendorff but Germany’s former autocrat advanced with due care and would not consent to lead it. Ludendorff, however, allowed the conspirators to convene regularly at his luxuriously furnished apartment in the Victoriastrasse, in the centre of Berlin, which had a view of the Tiergarten park across the street. Among the visitors to see Ludendorff at his apartment were Kapp, Colonel Bauer and Captain Pabst. Ludendorff was kept informed of the coup’s organisation and he enjoyed some sway over its development but, while for years he had been one of the best staff officers in Germany, the general left the staff work of the coup to others. (12)

To serve as the military head of his putsch, Kapp had to settle for General Walther von Lüttwitz. He was a diminutive and fiery Prussian aged in his early 60s, dubbed the “Father of the Freikorps”. Von Lüttwitz, a commander of some note in the First World War, had been scheming since July 1919 to topple the government.

Image below: Hermann Ehrhardt during the Putsch (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

Von Lüttwitz first met Kapp on 21 August 1919, and he realised that the civil servant was not exactly the man to rule Germany. Once the coup succeeded, the German Army would take over as von Lüttwitz and others had planned. The putsch was to be executed with the Freikorps Marine Brigade, a force of about 5,000 troops led by the fanatical Lieutenant-Commander Hermann Ehrhardt. Goodspeed observed that Ehrhardt was “a young, daring and ruthless soldier of fortune” and regarding the unit he led “it would have been hard to find a more formidable body of troops” (13). Ehrhardt’s soldiers had an unforgiving reputation. At different times in 1919, they stamped out a number of leftist developments in Germany, including the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic.

The Ehrhardt Brigade was first photographed, in March 1920, with swastikas emblazoned on their helmets and armoured vehicles. It was with the Marine Brigade that the swastika symbol experienced widespread notoriety, before it was then appropriated by the Nazi Party a few months later, in the summer of 1920 (14). One could argue these men were among the first Nazis, and indeed many of them became followers of Hitler. A youthful Hitler initially looked favourably on the Kapp Putsch, and he belatedly flew to Berlin from Munich to meet the conspirators. Kapp had arranged Hitler’s flight. (15)

Under the Versailles Treaty’s conditions, the Freikorps were to be dissolved and the Ehrhardt Brigade was first up to be axed, on 10 March 1920. On hearing this, a panic-stricken Ehrhardt approached von Lüttwitz, who reassured the younger man by saying, “Don’t do anything and keep quiet. I won’t permit the troops to be disbanded”. The coup was originally expected to take place some time in April 1920 but, because of the above demobilisation order, it was brought back for early or mid-March.

On 9 March 1920, Ludendorff’s right-hand man Colonel Bauer went to see Major-General Neill Malcolm, Chief of the British Military Mission to Berlin. From the shadows we can see Ludendorff’s influence over events. Bauer wanted to know if the English, with an ambivalent attitude towards Germany, would acquiesce to their putsch. Bauer remarked to Malcolm that a resurgent Germany “would be a useful counterpoise to France on the continent”. Malcolm responded that undertaking a coup in Germany would be “sheer madness” (16). Bauer was unperturbed by this frank encounter, and he went away telling everyone that the British government had assured the plotters its friendly neutrality.

On 10 March 1920 Gustav Noske, the Weimar Republic’s defence minister, became alarmed when he heard that the Ehrhardt Brigade was not dismantled as scheduled. General Hans von Seeckt, the effective leader of the German armed forces (the Reichswehr), told Noske that von Lüttwitz had resisted the demobilisation command. Von Seeckt, a cunning operator who was disliked by people like Ludendorff, sat on the fence over coming days. It was only late on the 12th of March – within hours of the coup starting – that defence minister Noske discovered by chance the Ehrhardt Brigade was leaving its base at Döberitz, 15 miles from Berlin, and marching on the capital. Noske did his best to nip the coup in the bud, by relaying orders over the telephone, but it was too late.

Noske knew that the German Army would not defend the Weimar Republic against the Freikorps. Von Seeckt told Noske just before the putsch that German troops do not fire on each other, particularly past comrades in war. To compound matters, Berlin’s Security Police were on the side of the rebels too. Noske informed the government hierarchy, President Friedrich Ebert and Chancellor Gustav Bauer, that they would have to flee Berlin post haste, along with the rest of their cabinet colleagues. At 5 am on Saturday the 13th of March they escaped southward in a fleet of motor cars, travelling to Dresden and then Stuttgart, declaring that city the temporary capital of the Reich. The government politicians had got out of Berlin just in time.

Ehrhardt and his men, armed with rifles and stick grenades, entered Berlin just before dawn at 6 am on the 13th of March. They rested briefly in the Tiergarten park in central Berlin, adjacent to the Unter den Linden boulevard, and less than a kilometre from the Reich Chancellery. The weather was unusually mild and calm. After a few minutes in the Tiergarten, some members of the Ehrhardt Brigade saw Ludendorff, in full military attire, striding across the park from the direction of Victoriastrasse (17). Ludendorff spotted them also, in fact had expected to see them, and he stopped near the Unter den Linden to talk to von Lüttwitz and Ehrhardt. A flustered Dr Kapp arrived – the ceremonial dictator was suitably dressed for the occasion in morning coat, top hat, striped trousers and spats.

Ludendorff walked over to greet the Ehrhardt Brigade, which fell into formation. With the clock fast approaching 7 am, the Imperial colours of black, white and red were unfurled. A brass band was organised. Goodspeed wrote, “Ludendorff, von Lüttwitz and Kapp took up their positions in front of the troops; the brass band struck up Deutschland über Alles; and away they went, goose-stepping through the great arch of the Brandenburger Tor, up Unter den Linden with the Quadriga of Victory looking down on them, and so on to the Government quarter of Berlin”. (18)

With it being a Saturday some Berliners, up early for grocery shopping and entirely unaware of what was unfolding, stared in amazement as Ludendorff and company marched past them. Other residents of Berlin, awakened by the brass band, gazed out of their windows and from balconies. Kapp, von Lüttwitz and Ludendorff went straight to the Reich Chancellery and entered the main door, but they found the place deserted; apart from, that is, the presence of the liberal vice-chancellor Eugen Schiffer, who agreed to stay behind as a representative of the legal government.

Demonstration in Berlin against the putsch. The caption reads: “A quarter million participants” (Public Domain)

Lieutenant-Commander Ehrhardt, on learning that the Weimar leadership were allowed to escape, reacted angrily. He felt at the least that they should have been apprehended and thrown in jail. General von Lüttwitz, believing they were merely a rascally bunch of politicians, had been content to let them go and it would prove a serious tactical mistake (19). On this occasion Ehrhardt was right to protest. Throughout Saturday, the Freikorps paramilitary formations surrounded Berlin and took control without a shot fired.

War weary Berliners reacted to the coup for the most part with indifference or contempt, but large street demonstrations against the conspirators did not unfold. When news spread across Berlin that Ludendorff was directly involved, and present in the Reich Chancellery, some hundreds of his supporters – monarchists and rightists – gathered outside the building, waving Imperial flags and hoping to catch a glimpse of him. The Reich Chancellery was filling up with an assortment of people: From his holiness Gottfried Traub, a Lutheran Pastor and former Court Chaplain to the Kaiser, now to be the Minister of Culture, to Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln, jack of all trades and Kapp’s Foreign Press Censor. Colonel Bauer and Captain Pabst were there, jovial and enthusiastic.

It was, nevertheless, becoming clear that neither Kapp nor von Lüttwitz had the first notion of how to govern. Kapp was having trouble in finding a typewriter and typist, so as to compose his proclamation to the German public. He remembered at last that his daughter had taken a typing course during the war, and he immediately summoned her to the Reich Chancellery. Even so, Kapp did not complete his manifesto in time for it to feature in the Sunday newspapers. To his extreme irritation Kapp could not locate the new Press Chief, Hans Schnitzler, and he roared down the corridor “Where is Schnitzler? I cannot govern without Schnitzler!” (20). Unknown to Kapp, Schnitzler had earlier been refused entry to the Reich Chancellery by the storm-troopers, who did not know him.

Von Lüttwitz, arguing demonstratively into the telephone, was busy dealing with a case of insubordination from his son-in-law, Colonel Kurt von Hammerstein. The colonel courageously refused to send his troops into Berlin to bolster the coup. General von Seeckt upon hearing this commented drily, “How can you expect von Lüttwitz to run the country, when he can’t control his own son-in-law?” (21)

Sunday the 14th of March was a beautiful spring day in Berlin. As usual in such weather, crowds thronged the Unter den Linden and many Berliners, temporarily forgetting about the putsch, travelled to Mariendorf in the south of Berlin to watch the horse races. Special buses ran from central Berlin to the race track. By Sunday evening, the coup was beginning to crack as the trade unions turned against the dictatorship. Moreover, Kapp was having difficulty in finding men to accept portfolios, and a number of cabinet posts were in fact never filled (22). In Stuttgart the exiled Weimar government signed a proclamation for a nationwide general strike, which was duly obeyed by the workers in Berlin on Monday the 15th of March. No essential services were exempt and the capital ceased to function.

Elsewhere the industrial Ruhr was paralysed. Also on Monday some of the locals, discerning the conspirators’ incompetence, were becoming restless and antagonistic. The Freikorps responded with brutality, not for the last time, in opening fire on unarmed civilians (23). During Monday evening Kapp was informed that the British High Commissioner, Lord Kilmarnock, said Colonel Bauer’s story of British support was “a damned lie”. Kapp turned pale when he heard this (24). Ludendorff now personally interceded, urging Kapp to hold his ground while reminding the civil servant that, as Germany’s military ruler during the war, he had been in worse predicaments than this and had survived.

Yet the putsch could really not have succeeded under any circumstances, because the Allies would not have allowed it so shortly after the war’s conclusion. The ink was barely dry on the Versailles Treaty documents. France especially would have relished a chance to march deeper into a weakened Germany’s territory.

On Tuesday afternoon, Major-General Malcolm outlined to von Lüttwitz that the British government, led by David Lloyd George, would not recognise the Kapp regime. That night, the beleaguered putschists gathered in the heavily guarded Reich Chancellery. Since they could think of no humane action to rescue their coup, they started arguing bitterly among themselves. When it became clear that von Lüttwitz was not going to be present, they blamed all of their problems on him. Ehrhardt had stated the previous day that, to solve the crises afflicting their regime, they should shoot the trade union leaders and strike pickets, and force the striking workers back to work under threat of the same fate.

Kapp and von Lüttwitz had both rejected Ehrhardt’s demand. To their credit, they were not prepared to unleash the Freikorps on German non-combatants (25). The recriminations in the Reich Chancellery continued until dawn. Bauer, with tears streaming down his cheeks, requested that Ludendorff replace von Lüttwitz. Ehrhardt strongly supported this suggestion, but Ludendorff wisely declined the offer with thanks.

By the morning of Wednesday the 17th of March, Kapp learned that the Berlin Security Police had reversed their position and were demanding his resignation. With further unrest breaking out through Germany, the writing was on the wall. Badly losing his nerve, Kapp decided it was time to resign in favour of von Lüttwitz, which he did in the early afternoon of Wednesday. Kapp then fled with his daughter by taxi from the Reich Chancellery and drove to the Berlin Tempelhof Airport, where they boarded a plane to Sweden (26). Remarkably, even after Kapp had departed, von Lüttwitz, Ludendorff, Ehrhardt and Bauer continued to insist the coup had not failed and that they were determined to carry on.

The Reichswehr hierarchy, regardless, had decided that the putsch should be brought to an end to avoid a civil war, and to maintain the military command’s unity. When told that he must resign, von Lüttwitz did not take the news at all well; his face turned purple, he repeatedly banged the hilt of his sword on the ground and shook his fist, berating the Reichswehr leadership. After these amusing histrionics had passed, von Lüttwitz was compelled to write out his resignation in the early evening of Wednesday. The putsch officially ended at 6 pm on 17 March 1920, lasting in all for less than 5 days (27). Von Lüttwitz after a brief period fled to Hungary.

While it has been claimed that the Kapp Putsch was an unmitigated disaster for the far-right, a closer examination suggests this is not entirely accurate. Had Kapp and von Lüttwitz been able to secure their military dictatorship for a longer period of time, the Allies would have intervened with force of arms into the heart of Germany. In that case the Kappists, men such as von Lüttwitz and Ehrhardt, would undoubtedly have fought back, and they would have suffered a routing, which would have led to their utter discrediting. (28)

As events showed, the fascists had simply suffered a reverse with the Kapp Putsch, which was by no means a fatal check. Even more serious, the Nazis would eventually learn from the Kappists’ errors. After the French and British did not decisively interfere in March 1920, the extreme German militarists and politicians rediscovered their composure, and for the next decade and more their ideas flourished darkly in the German soil before bursting forth.

Hours after the Kapp Putsch had disintegrated, Ludendorff shook hands with his former Chief-of-Operations and said, “Bauer, we are the richer for a bitter experience” (29). Berlin was becoming too hot to hold Ludendorff. Only 2 years before, his dominion had stretched across much of continental Europe, now his position in the German capital was again untenable. In late March 1920 Ludendorff went off on another journey, disguising himself by wearing a hat and blue spectacles, while having adopted the rather comical alias of “Herr Lange”. The general relocated by train southward to Bavaria, a region which the Weimar Republic could scarcely claim to control. In Bavaria, Ludendorff was granted refuge on the rural estate of Baron von Halkett, near the town of Rosenheim.

Meanwhile by 1933 the international and domestic situation had changed so dramatically, that Hitler was able to grab power for himself early that year. Goodspeed realised, “Worst of all, Hitler and his supporters had learned something from Kapp’s failure… once they formed a government they knew how to consolidate their power. There was nothing aimless about them. They had pondered the set-back of 1920 and had drawn the obvious Freikorps conclusion – everything would be all right if only they shot more people”. (30)

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums, etc.

Notes

1 Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich (Penguin Publishing Group, 25. Jan 2005) p. 176

2 Donald J. Goodspeed, The Conspirators: A Study of the Coup d’Etat (Macmillan, 1 Jan. 1962) p. 116

3 Michael Kellogg, The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Emigres and the Making of National Socialism (Cambridge University Press; First Edition, 2 Feb. 2001) p. 128

4 Walter Otto Julius Görlitz, “Erich Ludendorff, German General”, Britannica

5 Lee McGowan, The Radical Right in Germany, 1870 to the Present (Routledge, 1 edition, 14 Feb. 2003) p. 64

6 Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 108

7 Donald J. Goodspeed, Ludendorff (Houghton Mifflin Company; First Edition, 1 Jan. 1966) p. 280

8 Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 116

9 Ibid.

10 Goodspeed, Ludendorff, p. 283

11 Wolfram Wette, The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality (Harvard University Press, 2 Nov. 2007) p. 44

12 Goodspeed, Ludendorff, p. 282 

13 Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 117

14 David Luhrssen, Hammer of the Gods: The Thule Society and the Birth of Nazism (Potomac Books, Inc., 26 April 2012) p. 131

15 Kellogg, The Russian Roots of Nazism, p. 105

16 Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 120

17 Goodspeed, Ludendorff, p. 284

18 Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 127

19 Ibid.

20 Frank E. Smitha, “Coup Attempts and Violence, 1920-21”, Fsmitha.com

21 Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 129

22 Ibid., p. 131

23 Adriana Popa, “German citizens defend democracy against Kapp Putsch, 1920”, Nvdatabase.Swarthmore.edu, 27 November 2011

24 Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 134

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid., p. 136

27 Ibid., p. 137

28 Ibid., p. 143

29 Goodspeed, Ludendorff, pp. 288-289

30 Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 143  

Featured image: Memorial for the suppression of the Kapp putsch, railway station of Wetter. The sign reads: “For peace, freedom and democracy — in memory of the suppression of the Kapp putsch in March 1920” (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sri Lanka’s Principled Neutrality Ensured Its Survival in the Economic Crisis Thus Far

Washington’s Failed Push for Anti-Russian Global Consensus

June 13th, 2022 by Ted Galen Carpenter

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Biden administration officials treat Russia as an international pariah and push the global community to unite behind Washington’s leadership to compel the Kremlin to withdraw its forces from Ukraine. The administration’s strategy has been just partially successful. Criticisms of Russia’s actions are relatively easy to find among foreign leaders, but when it comes to outright condemnations—much less endorsements of NATO’s position that the war was unprovoked and entirely Moscow’s fault—governments around the world demur.

They are even less inclined to sign on to the U.S.-led campaign to impose extraordinarily severe sanctions on Russia. Indeed, outside of NATO and the string-of-pearls U.S. bilateral security alliances in East Asia, the support for sanctions is notable for its absence. That was true even during the first month of the war, and it has become even more pronounced since then.

Hudson Institute scholar Walter Russell Mead provides an apt summary of Washington’s lack of success in broadening the anti-Russia coalition beyond the network of traditional U.S. allies.

“The West has never been more closely aligned. It has also rarely been more alone. Allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization plus Australia and Japan are united in revulsion against Vladimir Putin’s war and are cooperating with the most sweeping sanctions since World War II. The rest of the world, not so much.”

Signs of trouble surfaced almost immediately. On March 2, 2022, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and calling for the immediate withdrawal of Russian military forces: 141 countries voted for the resolution, and as U.S. officials were fond of emphasizing, only five voted against.

However, a surprising 35 countries—including 17 African nations—opted to abstain, even though a favorable vote to placate the United States would have been the easy choice. The resolution was purely symbolic, since it did not obligate U.N. members to take any substantive action, yet a significant number of countries in Asia, the greater Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa, opted to snub Washington. More than 20 percent of the General Assembly’s membership refused to embrace a purely feel-good measure the Biden administration emphatically wanted passed. From the outset, the U.S.-sponsored global coalition against Russia looked fragile and unenthusiastic. It has become more so with the passage of time.

African countries especially fail to see any advantage for themselves in supporting the West’s policy. Although Washington insists that repelling Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is essential to preserve the “rules based, liberal international order,” governments and populations in Africa see matters differently. To them, the war looks more like a mundane power struggle between Russia and a Western client state. As one African scholar put it:

“many in Africa and the rest of the Global South do not regard—and never have regarded—the liberal international order as particularly liberal or international. Nor do they consider it to be particularly orderly, considering how much their countries were turned into spheres of influence and arenas for geostrategic competition.”

More tangible economic interests also push Africa toward neutrality. A June 3 New York Times analysis concluded succinctly:

“A meeting on Friday between the head of the African Union and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia highlighted the acute needs each one hopes the other can fill: Africa needs food, and the Kremlin needs allies.”

Indeed, the head of the African Union, President Macky Sall of Senegal, has explicitly called for the lifting of sanctions on Russia.

Even portions of Latin America have balked at waging economic war against Russia. Most troubling for the U.S.-led anti-Russia strategy, both Brazil and Mexico—the region’s two most important political and economic players—continue to dissent. Indeed, the tensions have broadened to negatively impact Washington’s overall relations with those two governments. Mexico’s president even refused to attend the Biden administration’s much ballyhooed “Summit of the Americas” in June. It was an ostentatious snub.

It is especially ominous for U.S. objectives that both China and India have stayed on the sidelines with respect to the West’s showdown with Russia. True, Xi Jinping’s government has also resisted Moscow’s calls for greater solidarity and tangible support. PRC leaders have instead sought to remain on the tightrope of trying to pursue a generally neutral course with a slight tilt toward Russia’s position. But most important, both Beijing and New Delhi have remained firm in their refusal to impose economic sanctions on Russia.

The Biden administration has not reacted well to any country’s attempt to maintain a neutral posture. That annoyance even has been directed at major powers such as China and India. U.S. officials have exerted increasingly insistent pressure on both governments to embrace the West’s sanctions strategy. Some of Washington’s statements have amounted to outright threats. On multipleoccasions, the administration warned India that there would be “consequences” for failing to impose sanctions on Russia. The unsubtle message was that India itself could become a target for sanctions from the United States and its allies, if New Delhi failed to cooperate.

Despite the much more extensive bilateral economic links to the PRC, Washington has even threatened Beijing with sanctions if it supported Moscow’s actions in Ukraine. Moreover, “supporting” increasingly became an implicit synonym for “failing to oppose.” Beijing did not respond passively to such pressure. Instead, the PRC warned that it would impose retaliatory sanctions against the United States and its allies.

Washington’s bullying behavior is not playing well internationally. For example, the Biden administration’s threats to sanction China over Beijing’s relations with Moscow immediately spooked Thailand, Indonesia, and other smaller powers in East Asia. However, the reaction was not one of capitulating to Washington’s demands. Instead, the abrasive U.S. approach seemed to harden the resolve of those nations to remain neutral with respect to the Russia-Ukraine war. South Africa and other countries in the Global South also complained loudly about heavy-handed U.S. pressure, and refused to alter their positions.

The Biden administration clearly overestimated the extent of international outrage at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Given the track record of multiple Western military actions against sovereign countries, including Serbia, Iraq, and Libya, it is hardly surprising that other governments might view the West’s stance regarding Moscow’s behavior as the epitome of self-serving hypocrisy. U.S. leaders also overestimated the extent of U.S. leverage to compel nations not in Washington’s geopolitical orbit to participate in a punitive policy toward Russia. It should be a sobering experience, but the administration and the members of the U.S. foreign policy blob that populates it show no signs of learning anything worthwhile. Instead, U.S. arrogance and the inflated sense of Washington’s power continues undiminished.

*

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

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, is the author of 12 books and more than 1,100 articles on international affairs.

Featured image is by Gints Ivuskans/Shutterstock

Russian Ambassador Claims US Asked Him to Defect

June 13th, 2022 by Morning Star

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Russia’s ambassador to Washington has claimed that US spooks encouraged him to defect and denounce the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Anatoly Antonov told Russian state television on Wednesday that he had refused a request from US authorities to publicly criticise President Vladimir Putin.

“I recently received a letter by mail, with a call to denounce my motherland and condemn the Russian president’s actions,” he said.

“And I was recommended to make an inquiry to the office of US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman if I am ready to accept the proposal.”

Mr Antonov said that staff at the Russian embassy had also been asked to “communicate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

“When I see US media publications calling upon Russian servicemen and diplomats to betray their homeland, I have no words to describe my rejection of such moves,” he said.

The diplomat described Moscow’s relations with Washington as at an unprecedented low, with dialogue between the two sides “limited to the discussion of technical issues.”

*

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

Featured image: Anatoly Antonov (left) at a press conference when he was Russia’s Deputy Minister of Defence in 2015 Photo: Russian Ministry of Defence / Mil.ru.

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Lawmakers with the bipartisan Abraham Accords Caucus have introduced a bill in the House and Senate that will require the Pentagon to coordinate missile defense upgrades for Israel and several newfound Arab allies, pointing to potential “attacks from Iran.”

Unveiled on Thursday, the Deterring Enemy Forces and Enabling National Defenses (DEFEND) Act would instruct the secretary of defense to “develop an acquisition approach” to improve anti-air weapons for a number of Middle Eastern states, among them Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council.

The legislation will aim to “implement an integrated and missile defense capability to protect the people, infrastructure and territory of such countries from cruise and ballistic missiles, manned and unmanned aerial systems and rocket attacks from Iran and groups linked to Iran.”

If passed, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will be required to submit a report to Congress within 180 days on the current defense capabilities of the states in question and how they could be improved.

Announced by Republican Senator Joni Ernst, the bill marks the first piece of legislation brought by the Abraham Accords Caucus, a bipartisan bloc within the House and Senate created to “build on the success” of a series of agreements struck between Israel and Arab nations starting in 2020. The senator claimed the law would help to contain Iranian proxy groups, which she said were targeting innocent civilians and “pose a persistent threat to our homeland.”

Though Ernst acknowledged most Americans are fed up with decades of armed intervention in the Middle East, she argued that “radical Islamic terror” continues to menace the United States, saying terrorism “can only be deterred and denied if American allies and partners in the Middle East step up and take on the threat posed by Iran.”

According to Democratic Senator Jacky Rosen, the bill has the endorsement of several pro-Israel groups and hawkish think tanks, including the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, CUFI Action, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the American Jewish Congress, the Atlantic Council and the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA).

In backing the legislation, the neoconservative-leaning FDD said Washington should “continue to initiate, develop and enhance military to military relationships between the US, Israel and other US allies and partners in the region” as an “extension” of the Abraham Accords.

Kicked off with a US-brokered normalization deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates in 2020, the Accords have since been joined by Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco and Sudan, each agreeing to establish diplomatic and economic ties with Tel Aviv after decades of enmity.

Though the new bill is largely concerned with Iran, some countries slated to receive increased US military assistance have been accused of backing jihadist militant groups in the past, chief among them Saudi Arabia. Few of the 10 states named in the law could qualify as democracies, moreover, putting it at odds with President Joe Biden’s frequent lip service to the importance of ‘democratic values.’

*

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

Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com and news editor of the Libertarian Institute.

Will Porter is the assistant news editor of the Libertarian Insitute and a staff writer at RT.

Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter host Conflicts of Interest along with Connor Freeman.

Featured image is from TLI

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Bill to Boost Missile Defense for Israel & Arab Partners, Citing Alleged Iran Threat
  • Tags:

182 New Reports of Deaths After COVID Vaccines, CDC Data Show

June 13th, 2022 by Children’s Health 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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 1,295,329 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 28,714 deaths and 236,767 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 3, 2022.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,295,329 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 3, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). That’s an increase of 7,734 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 28,714 reports of deaths — an increase of 182 over the previous week — and 236,767 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 1,726 compared with the previous week.

Of the 28,714 reported deaths, 18,638 cases are attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, 7,524 cases to Moderna and 2,483 cases to Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 829,329 adverse events, including 13,225 deaths and 83,801 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 3, 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 13,225 U.S. deaths reported as of June 3, 16% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 20% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 59% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 588 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of June 3, including 347 million doses of Pfizer, 222 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

vaers data vaccine injury june 10

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 June 3, 2022, for 6-month-olds to 5-year-olds show:

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to June 3, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

  • 11,133 adverse events, including 292 rated as serious and 5 reported deaths.
  • 22 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis.
    The Defender has noticed over previous weeks that reports of myocarditis and pericarditis have been removed by the CDC from the VAERS system in this age group. No explanation was provided.
  • 43 reports of blood clotting disorders.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to June 3, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to June 3, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

U.S. government diverts $10 billion in funding for more COVID vaccines

The Biden administration this week said it is diverting more than $10 billion in COVID-19 testing and relief funds to buy more COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, The Associated Press (AP) reported.

The money was diverted from plans to buy COVID-19 tests and personal protective equipment, reported NBC, as well as funding for research and development of new COVID-19 vaccines, according to AP.

The redirected funds will be used to start negotiating contracts with vaccine-makers to make new doses for the fall, including “next-generation” vaccines that pharmaceutical companies are developing to target new COVID-19 variants.

Roughly $5 billion will go to support the purchase of new COVID-19 vaccine doses for a fall immunization campaign and $4.9 billion will be used to procure about 10 million remaining courses of Pfizer’s Paxlovid COVID-19 antiviral pill, a White House official who asked not to be named told Bloomberg.

The administration’s move to divert funding to buy more COVID-19 vaccine doses comes just days after the Center for Disease Control (CDC) shared data with NBC News revealing the U.S. wasted 82.1 million COVID-19 vaccines from December 2020 through mid-May 2022.

Studies suggest link between fatal brain disease and COVID vaccines

A French pre-print paper published in May on Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and COVID-19 vaccination identified a new form of sporadic CJD that occurred within days of receiving a first or second dose of Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

CJD is a degenerative brain disorder that leads to dementia and, ultimately, death.

Researchers believe the prion region from the original Wuhan COVID-19 variant’s spike protein was incorporated into mRNA vaccines and adenovirus vector vaccines — given to hundreds of millions of humans — and that it can cause a new type of rapidly progressing sporadic CJD.

Researchers analyzed 26 cases of CJD and found the first symptoms appeared on average 11.38 days after injection with a COVID-19 vaccine.

Of the 26 cases, 20 had died by the time the study was published and six were still alive. “The 20 deaths occurred only 4.76 months after the injection. Among them, 8 of them led to a sudden death (2.5 months),” researchers wrote.

Biden administration secures 10 million doses of COVID vaccine for kids under 5 

The Biden administration Thursday said it made available 10 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines for children under age 5 to states and healthcare workers with “millions more available in the coming weeks.”

The White House unveiled its “Operational Plan” for vaccinating the youngest age group — one week before advisors to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are scheduled to meet to decide whether to grant Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna pediatric vaccines for babies as young as 6 months old.

Children under 5 could begin receiving the vaccines as early as “the week of June 20th — with the program ramping up over time as more doses are delivered and more appointments become available,” the White House said.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. called on parents and physicians “now more than ever” to “step into the breach to protect our babies from our government.”

Kennedy said the COVID-19 countermeasures, including the vaccines, were “never about science or public health,” adding, “Now they have departed from common sense and into naked cruelty and barbarism.”

Severe COVID-19 ‘rare’ in people who didn’t get vaccine

A survey of 300,000 people who didn’t get the COVID-19 vaccine revealed the unvaccinated didn’t place a disproportionate burden on health systems — in fact, they experienced very low rates of hospitalization and severe COVID-19.

The international Control Group project — also known as the Vax Control Group — conducted the survey.

The survey data offer important revelations, including:

  • The unvaccinated “control group” participants have experienced very low hospitalization rates and severe COVID-19 disease rates.
  • They are more likely to rely on self-care, using natural products such as vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc and quercetin.
  • Many have used ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
  • Women have suffered menstrual and bleeding abnormalities despite being unvaccinated, possibly due to spike protein exposure and shedding.
  • Their mental health burden has been considerable, possibly aggravated by stigmatization by the mainstream, “vaccinated” society.
  • They have been heavily discriminated against because of their decision to exercise their right to informed consent and refuse the administration of “genetic vaccines.”

Canadian government approves vaccine-injured man’s compensation claim

A Canadian man last month learned the government approved his request for compensation for a COVID-19 vaccine injury.

Ross Wightman, a 40-year-old husband and father of two, said it took years of submitting paperwork before the government approved the claim. Wightman was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a rare condition affecting the nervous system that left him partially paralyzed, soon after receiving his first and only dose of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in April 2021.

Wightman did not divulge the exact amount of the payout. However, he said he did not qualify for the program’s maximum payout of $284,000. He said he plans to appeal the payout amount to the program’s medical review board, which he said failed to take into account all his symptoms.

There have been 46,149 officially recorded adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines reported in Canada, but only a handful of claimants have received compensation.

CHD asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

*

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

Featured image is from CHD

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The so-called “deadlock” over resolving the global food crisis is just as artificially manufactured as its origins since Kiev has now officially declared that it won’t resume wheat exports by sea to the Global South unless it receives anti-ship missiles first.

Ukrainian Ambassador to Turkey Vasily Bodnar officially demanded weapons in exchange for resuming wheat exports by sea in what amounts to the blatant blackmailing of the Global South in the midst of the artificially manufactured food crisis.

He said that “Effective security guarantees are required for maritime shipments to resume. These guarantees must be provided through the supply of appropriate weapons to Ukraine to protect its coasts from maritime threats and the involvement of the navies of third countries in protecting the relevant part of the Black Sea.” This comprehensively debunks the US-led Western Mainstream Media’s (MSM) fake news that Russia is the one that’s supposedly holding the Global South hostage by allegedly blockading Ukrainian ports.

The background context is that Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya already explained the artificially manufactured origins of the global food crisis late last month. In short, he blamed it on the economic consequences caused by the West’s response to COVID (particularly with respect to spiking inflation and influencing food demand); Ukraine’s mining of its own ports; and the anti-Russian sanctions.

President Putin later reiterated these causes in a TV interview that he gave a little over a week later on the same day that he met with Macky Sall, the Chairman of the African Union. His guest extended credence to the Kremlin’s explanation by declaring that “Anti-Russia sanctions have made this situation worse and now we do not have access to grain from Russia, primarily to wheat.”

All the while and in spite of the artificially manufactured origins of the food crisis that lie entirely beyond Russia’s control, Moscow has been doing its utmost to encourage Kiev to at the very least resume its wheat exports to the Global South. To that end, it proposed four potential corridors: the Azov Sea; the Black Sea; overland through Belarus en route to Baltic ports; and across Western Europe. Suffice to say, Kiev has flat-out refused to employ any of these means, though it’s also worth noting that Nebenzya mentioned in his speech late last month that Russia has “reasonable suspicions” to believe that Kiev is exporting wheat to those Western European countries that already have copious reserves of this commodity in exchange for arms exactly as happened with the Central Powers near the end of WWI.

This suggests that the EU is stockpiling wheat that it doesn’t even need in order to keep it off the global market, perhaps in order to later “reward” compliant governments across the Global South with a few scraps in exchange for them offering it privileged access to their natural resources that the bloc is scrambling to replace from Russia after the US coerced it into unilaterally “decoupling” from that country. Be that as it may, Kiev could still in theory simply export its wheat via the newly Russian-controlled Azov Sea but refuses to do so unless it receives anti-ship missiles. The reason why it’s making that demand at this particular moment in time is because talks between Russia and Turkey on creating a so-called “grain corridor” in the Black Sea seem to be making progress.

The reported plan that hasn’t yet been officially confirmed is for Turkey to help Kiev demine the waters near Odessa and will then escort its vessels with grain to international waters, after which Russian warships will escort them to the Bosporus. In fact, many believe that it was precisely this plan that prompted Foreign Minister Lavrov to visit Turkey on Wednesday in order to more intimately discuss its most sensitive details. After their talks concluded, he said that Russia agreed to ensure the security of Ukrainian grain vessels but expressed pessimism about Kiev’s willingness to go through with this proposal. Nevertheless, it’s intriguing to point out that the Turkish Agriculture and Forestry Minister announced just the day prior that Kiev agreed to give his country a 25% discount on wheat.

This hints that Kiev might indeed be seriously countenancing this proposal, though its unexpected public demand for weapons in exchange for resuming the export of wheat by sea could mean that it believes that the deal is close enough for someone in the US-led West to give it what it wants in order to make that happen. It should be said, however, that there’s no objective connection between anti-ship missiles and resuming the export of wheat by sea since the proposed plan calls for NATO-member Turkey to escort Kiev’s ships to international waters, after which they’ll be escorted by Russian warships to the Bosporus. There’s no credible scenario wherein Russia would attack Turkey, especially not after cooperating with it to reach this deal, so Kiev doesn’t actually need anti-ship missiles for its security.

The takeaway is that the so-called “deadlock” over resolving the global food crisis is just as artificially manufactured as its origins since Kiev has now openly declared that it won’t resume wheat exports by sea to the Global South unless it receives anti-ship missiles first. Everything that the US-led Western MSM had claimed about Russia holding developing countries hostage is actually true for its proxies in Kiev, which African Union Chairman Sall had already realized, hence why he extended credence to the Kremlin’s claims that it isn’t responsible for this crisis. Now that Kiev is officially holding the Global South hostage, those countries have no reason to ever trust its Western patrons again after they approved their proxy weaponizing food exports to developing countries.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. 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 from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Food Crisis: Ukraine Is Demanding Weapons in Exchange for Resuming Wheat Exports
  • Tags: ,

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Carl von Clausewitz, a prominent Prussian general described war as “merely the continuation of policy by other means.” This perfectly describes the political West’s relationship with the world. However, against Russia, it is unable to conduct what the late Donald Rumsfeld euphemistically called “kinetic force.” The phrase differentiates conventional warfare from “soft” force, limited to diplomacy, sanctions and cyber warfare. The latter is usually overlooked, despite often taking center stage in geopolitics.

The advent of the Digital Age gave rise to cyber warfare. While it was applied even during the 1990s, it became more prominent in the last 20 years. With nearly all organizations on the planet now being online, we got unprecedented access to information. However, this has its downsides, particularly in the form of hackers, who aren’t necessarily just “lone wolves” motivated by money (or ideology). The data on hackers is questionable at best. However, there’s publicly available information, especially that coming from state structures openly talking about the military usage of cyberspace.

General Paul Nakasone, the head of US Cyber Command, stated the US is conducting offensive operations in “support of Ukraine.” In an exclusive for Sky News, he explained: “‘Hunt forward’ operations are allowing the US to search out foreign hackers and identify the tools they use against America.” Nakasone, who is also director of the NSA, stated he is “concerned every single day about the risk of a Russian cyberattack” and that the “hunt forward” activities were an “effective way of protecting America.” He confirmed for the first time the US is conducting offensive cyber-ops against Russia. “We’ve conducted a series of operations across the full spectrum; offensive, defensive, [and] information operations,” he stated. The general didn’t give any specifics, but he claimed the activities of US military hackers were allegedly “lawful, conducted with complete civilian oversight of the military and through policy decided at the DoD.” His job is to “provide a series of options to the secretary of defense and the president, and so that’s what I do,” he said, declining to give any further details.

“We had an opportunity to start talking about what particularly the Russians were trying to do in our midterm elections. We saw it again in 2020, as we talked about what the Russians and Iranians were going to do, but this was on a smaller scale. The ability for us to share that information, being able to ensure it’s accurate and it’s timely and it’s actionable on a broader scale has been very, very powerful in this crisis,” the general said.

When asked about counterattacks in response to US offensive operations, Nakasone said: “We remain vigilant every single day. I think about it all the time. This is why we’re working with a series of partners to ensure we prevent that.” He delivered a speech at CyCon, a conference on cyber conflict, hosted by NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence (CCDCOE) in Tallinn, and praised the cooperation as a “key strategic benefit.”

“Hunt forward is a key aspect of the Cyber Command’s partnerships. It is so powerful… because we see our adversaries and we expose their tools. Cyber Command specialists have been deployed abroad to 16 other nations where they can seek intelligence from the allies’ computer networks – always on a consensual, invitation basis,” General Nakasone said.

“Crucial to how hunt forward works is Cyber Command sharing the intelligence they find with the host nation. If you’re an adversary, and you’ve just spent a lot of money on a tool, and you’re hoping to utilize it readily in a number of different intrusions, suddenly it’s outed and it’s now been signatured across a broad range of networks, and suddenly you’ve lost your ability to do that,” the general said. “In one such hunt forward deployment, US military specialists had been present in Ukraine very close to the date of the invasion. We went in December 2021 at the invitation of the Kiev government to come and hunt with them. We stayed there for a period of almost 90 days,” he added.

A spokesperson confirmed this team left in a hurry after Russia intervened. There aren’t many details regarding US cyber-ops, but what we know 100% is what Nakasone himself admitted – the US is actively conducting offensive cyber-ops against Russia. This may very well explain the strange blackouts in some Russian regions, as well as other unexpected disruptions of its key infrastructure. The issue is not just that Russia could respond to these attacks with its own cyber-ops, but also with “kinetic force”, as Rumsfeld defined it. This is especially true as the consequences of cyber-ops aren’t only limited to cyberspace. Blackouts result in very real damage. Schools, hospitals, state institutions, etc. all rely on critical infrastructure. If the result of these attacks is similar to armed aggression, Russia would be compelled to respond.

After all, the political West itself has been contemplating this approach. NATO is considering including cyber warfare in Article 5. The clause is the focal point of the “defensive alliance.” Expanding its scope to cyber-ops could lead to uncontrollable escalation. It also reveals yet another instance of glaring hypocrisy of the political West – while the US and its satellites conduct offensive cyber-ops against Russia, and then openly brag about it, they’re saying those same cyber-ops in response to US/NATO cyberattacks would trigger its infamous “collective defense” clause.

If the US/NATO insist(s) that Article 5 could be invoked, why doesn’t the same apply to Russia? Well, as far as Russia goes, the “purely defensive alliance” doesn’t get to decide what Russia defines as a security threat.

Thus, the political West might not only be facing Russia’s cyber counteroffensive, but an actual, physical response. As Huntington defined it, “the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

Russia can also “apply organized violence” in a way superior to anyone else’s. It hopes it won’t need to, but it most certainly is capable of it. If the political West wants to prevent a world-ending conflict, it will stop its cyber, bioweapons or other operations against Russia. Otherwise, the “purely defensive alliance” will finally get the taste of its own medicine, facing the full might of the “defense” it has been conducting against the world. Only radioactive.

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Introduction

East Asia had the opportunity of witnessing the diplomacy of one of the most seasoned diplomats of the United States — Joe Biden, President of the U.S. He spent five days in Korea and Japan from May 20 to May 24.

The world was expecting to see real professional diplomacy which did not seek only the interests of the U.S.; The world was hoping to see a diplomacy which promoted also the interests of the partner countries, especially, Japan and Korea. 

However, to the great disappointment of many, Biden was repeating Washington’s old foreign policy determined by the warmongering CIA, the National Security Council and the Department of State.

As a matter of fact, Biden came to East Asia with the chilly wind of war and for the recruitment of soldiers who will fight for Washington.

This paper discusses two outcomes of Biden’s East Asia visit, namely, intensification of regional security risks and the recruitment of countries which will be asked to conduct proxy war against China.

Biden’s North Korea Policy and the Trilateral Japan-US- Korea  Military Alliance

The regional security risk had increased due to the following decisions of Biden: the North Korea Policy, the trilateral military alliance of Japan-ROK-US and Biden’s declaration of American military intervention in a possible Taiwan-China war.

Biden’s North Korea policy offered nothing new. Instead, he has made two commitments which will surely further intensify the North-South tension; it may bring even possible armed conflict.

First, he accepted the request of the new conservative government of Yoon Suk-yeul to beef up the striking power of the ROK army by promising the deployment of strategic military assets such as, for instance, the strategic nuclear weapon.

Second, Biden reiterated Washington’s favourite nuclear rhetoric:

“If Kim Jung-un denuclearizes North Korea, the U.S. might engage with Pyongyang for peace!”

What he was really saying is this:

“We have no intention of establishing peace on the Korea Peninsula.”

These two declarations of Biden have further alarmed North Korea which had been quite annoyed by Yoon’s previous declaration of his intention of pre-emptive attack against North Korea.

Now, the Japan-Korea-US trilateral military alliance (JKUS military alliance) in practice means a de facto Japan-Korea military alliance.

The military relation between Korea and the U.S. is more than a military alliance, because Washington can command the ROK army in case of war. In fact, South Korea is a part of American armed forces as long as Washington has the OPCON (the right of Washington to command the ROK armed forces in war involving South Korea).

What is worrisome regarding the Japan-Korea military alliance is the possibility of the presence of the Japanese military on Korean soil.

For Koreans, such a possibility is a nightmare, because they know that Japan’s ambition of ruling Asia again — especially Korea — is still alive. In particular for North Koreans, this military alliance could lead to a possible participation of the Japanese Armed Forces in an attack against North Korea.

North Korea is already reacting violently. Recently, it launched 13 missiles including 4 missiles simultaneously to show that it can hit several targets at the same time. These missiles are short-range or medium-range missiles threatening South Korea and Japan.

There is no doubt that the election of Yoon as president representing the anti-North Korean pro-Japan South Korean conservatives combined with the warmongering Washington establishment and the Japanese ambition to restore the glory of the Meiji Era are enough to threaten North Korea.

February 2022 ROK Elections

Under such circumstances, North Korea might decide to join the Russia-China bloc in a global “East-West shooting war” and the reunification will be no more; South Korea will meet its death. Yoon will remain the worst traitor to the Korean Nation.

Biden’s Reckless Taiwan-China Diplomacy

What is even more terrifying is Biden’s declaration of military intervention in the event of Taiwan-China war. This is surely an intervention into China’s internal affairs.

The world knows that the U.S. has recognized the One-China policy by virtue of the three joint statements (1972, 1979 and 1982) and the Taiwan Relation Act (1979). In fact, Biden admitted the One-China policy only a few months ago.

However, Washington has been violating the One-China principle for decades through the policies of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). In accordance with the 1982 Agreement with China (the 6 Assurances of Donald Reagan), Washington can provide only “defensive weapons” to Taiwan. But I wonder if there is such thing as defensive weapon. For decades, Washington has been pouring billions of dollars worth of weapons. Trump gave Taiwan 4 billion USD every year. Can we believe that all these weapons are only for defensive purposes?

In a way, the contradictory Taiwan policy of Washington is understandable for Taiwan is in fact the American fixed aircraft carrier threatening China at its front door.

It is said that if U.S. loses Taiwan, its regional interests in East Asia will be seriously damaged. This is the worst kind of imperialist attitude. How can a country claim its interest by arming a foreign sovereign country?

But, for China, a Taiwan armed to the teeth by the US is an intolerable threat. So, Washington is provoking a collision course with China.

By inciting China’s PLA to invade Taiwan, Washington is intent upon breaking one of the conditions which could justify such an invasion.

There are five conditions which would allow Beijing to intervene in Taiwan:

  • Taiwan’s declaration of independence,
  • Internal turmoil in Taiwan,
  • Taiwan’s military alliance with a foreign country,
  • Taiwan’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) such as strategic nuclear weapon and
  • Violation of the Taipei-Beijing Consensus for 1992 One-China principle.

Washington can ask Japan to provoke a situation in which one of these conditions can be broken even without the declaration of Taiwan independence.

The easiest thing to do is to send a WMD to Taiwan such as a strategic nuclear weapon or organize internal turmoil within Taiwan or form a Japan-Taiwan military alliance.

Japan will be happy to accommodate such a request by Washington because it is the dream of the Neo-Meiji Restoration Group (NMRG) led by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to beat China with Washington’s help and become once again the ruler of Asia, if not the world.

Thus, to be sure, Biden was successful in making the war drum to sound louder in East Asia.

Recruitment of Proxy War Soldiers 

The Japan-Korea bilateral military alliance is intended to recruit proxy-war soldiers. As pointed above, if Washington decides to attack North Korea, the ROK army and the Japanese army are likely to fight for the hegemony of Washington and for Japan’s re-conquest of Korea.

What is more important for Biden is the recruitment of soldiers to fight against Chinese forces in US sponsored Taiwan-China war. The same ROK soldiers and the Japanese soldiers are expected to do the shooting on behalf of Washington. It is possible that Washington would not join the shooting match; it will just provide more weapons as it is doing in the Ukraine-Russia war.

One puzzling aspect of this dangerous security dynamics of East Asia initiated by Washington is the “harakiri” — security strategy of the pro-Japan conservative South Korean government led by Yoon.

South Korea’s participation in the attack against North Korea will bring nothing positive. In fact, millions of South Koreans may lose their lives and its economy will be ruined.

Furthermore, the participation of the Japanese army in this attack against North Korea could end up with a permanent presence of the Japanese military on Korean soil and even the 1910 treacherous drama of annexation of Korea with Japan may repeat itself. It is likely that the pro-Japan conservative Koreans will support it like their ancestors did in 1910.

This may sound absurd. But do not forget one thing. The core of the pro-Japan South Koreans is composed of the descendents of former Korean elite who collaborated with the Japanese colonial government and those Japanese who did not return to Japan to protect their wealth and adopted Korean names to hide their identity. To be frank, this group is more Japanese than Korean.

Moreover, the participation of the South Korean army in the Taiwan-China war would create a situation in which South Korea will have to endure China’s trade reprisal and even direct military bombardment on  Korean soil.

About a quarter of South Korean exports go to China. A simple deployment few years ago of THAAD near Seoul made South Korean pay a heavy price in terms of loss of income from tourism, the campaign of “No Korean Products” in China, the forced closing of Korean companies in China and other forms of retaliation. The U.S. cannot and will not compensate for such a huge loss.

For Korea, the only wise way of surviving in the Sino-American hegemonic confrontation is to be neutral and maintain friendly relations with both the U.S. and China. This is what Moon Jae-in did. Alas, Yoon blew away what Moon has accomplished. This is tragic, indeed.

The liberal government of Moon Jae-in was able to maintain reasonable good relations with both superpowers. Korea, being the 10th global economic power and the 6th military power, could bargain to Korea’s advantage with Beijing and Washington.

Now, as for Japan, the Japanese imperialist conservatives led by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are more than happy to be legionnaires in the Taiwan-China war. For Abe and his friends, the Taiwan-China war can be a God-given gift.

Remember that the Abe group has the dream of restoring the might and glory of pre-1945 Japan. This group denies Japan’s surrender in 1945; it does not accept the Tokyo War Criminal Court. It has the illusion of being the predestined ruler of the world.

To realize its dream, Japan has to destroy China. To destroy China, Japan needs a regular army, not just the so-called self-defence army. To do this, Japan has to modify the 1948 Peace Constitution, especially the controversial Article 9. However, the materialization of Abe’s dream needs Biden’s support.

Biden is aware of the danger that Japanese have not forgotten the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombing. The Americans do remember the massacre of Pearl Harbor. It is more than possible that Biden does not want see Japan too powerful.

But to “Kill China”, Biden Needs Military Japan

Biden’s declaration of military intervention in the Taiwan-China war was intended to recruit the Japanese army as proxy army fighting for the U.S. The same goes for the ROK army.

For Biden, the Japanese army is the best legionnaire to fight against China. To force China to attack the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands or Taiwan, Japan might provoke incidences leading to war. In fact, Japan is good at it.

The Mukden incidence in Manchuria in 1931 leading to Japanese invasion in Manchuria and the Marco Polo Bridge incidence provoking an all-out war with China in 1937 started because of faked incidences prepared by the Japanese army.

In short, Biden did well in recruiting the armed forces of the two major military powers in the region as legionnaires in the case of a possible Taiwan-China proxy war.

Biden and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF)

In addition to the recruitment of the two military powers, Korea and Japan, Biden was successful in producing another China containment organization comprising of 13 countries through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF).

This is composed of 7 ASEAN member countries (Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei) and the U.S., India, Japan, ROK, Australia, New Zealand.

 

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, left, President Joe Biden and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, May 23, 2022 (Thanks to AP /Evan Vucci)

The purpose of this new organization is to contain China. The IPEF gives itself four areas of regional cooperation including realignment of the production chain, renewable energy, trade and fight against corruption. However, the ultimate role is to contain China intensified by the restriction of exchanges of goods, ideas and services especially exchange of technology.

Most of the experts in Korean trade and international politics argue that this could bring disaster to Korea due to possible retaliation on the part of China.

Japan looks very excited to be a part of IPEF for it will provide opportunities to play a leadership role with help of the ROK as a cheer leader.

The assurance of investments of USD 27 billion in the U.S. by Samsung and Hyundai is a big gain for Biden. And these investments will strengthen America’s competitiveness in electric cars and semi-conductors. They will be a part of US’ China containment policy China.

The Indo-Pacific Economic Forum (IPEF) is, in fact, an additional China containment policy in order to strengthen the effectiveness of anti-China strategies. Up to now, the previous strategies have not been effective.

Since the time of Obama, Washington has been trying to contain China through several strategies, but none of them has yielded expected results.

The deployment of the U.S. Naval task force in the South China Sea led to the militarization of the Chinese reefs.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

The TPP went nowhere, because it had two contradictory objectives, namely trade promotion and China containment.

If the objective was regional trade promotion, China should be included.

If the objective is China containment, China will retaliate and the member countries’ trade with China will fall.

The ensuing loss of trade with China could be greater than the gain of trade with its TPP member countries. So, it is a deficit game for member countries unless Washington compensates the deficit.

The question is: “Can Washington afford it?” No wonder why Trump decided to withdraw from it.

TPP has now become CPTPP also known as TPP-11 (The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership of eleven countries including Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam), which seems to be more than trade. But, to the extent that Japan leads it, it could become a China-containment weapon, because Japan still has the ambition of ruling Asia.

The Exclusive “Anglo-American-Ozzie”AUKUS Military Alliance.

The effectiveness of AUKUS as a military alliance remains to be proven. The new Prime Minister of Australia may have different ideas about Australia-China relations. The new Foreign Minister of Australia, Penny Wong, is known to be pro-China and her boss Anthony Albanese, the new Prime Minister of Australia, proposed a softer approach to China policy.

Source: Financial Express

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad)

The effectiveness of Quad depends on how India would react in case of war with China. India belongs to several multinational organizations such as BRICS, SOC, RCEP where India maintains good relations with China.

India PM Narendra Modi, US president Joe Biden, Japanese PM Fumio Kishida, Australian PM Anthony Albanese, Quad summit in Tokyo on May 24.

India is not sure of Washington’s security guarantee in the long run. India is disappointed of being excluded from AUKUS. India is fearful of Chinese retaliation. For all these reasons, India’s membership in Quad does not seem to be as strong as that of Japan.

The IPEF is Biden’s idea of containing China. This replaces the TPP and it is supposed to be trade-oriented with the hidden objective of destroying China. Therefore, it has the same dilemma as TPP. Whether its objective is for trade or China containment, the probability of success is low. Remember that all the member countries depend heavily on China for trade and investment.

Galloping Inflation: Economic and Social Crisis in America

However, the most serious stumbling block to the U.S. global hegemony are the worsening internal problems within the United States.

The inflation which could become galloping, intensifying street killings, decaying infrastructure, increasing number of people suffering from hunger, crowed city streets by the homeless and the jobless, soaring medical care cost preventing millions of people from getting medical care and rising number of school kids who starve due to ugly income inequality are all the sign of declining Pax Americana.

It appears that the priority should be given to the solution of the internal problems.

Some people may say that Biden, the great expert of diplomacy, has harvested rich rewards from his Asian tour. I do not share such praise.

I think that he has demonstrated what might be described as the diplomacy of a falling empire.

There are three ways of dominating the world: economic domination, ideological domination and military domination. But the military domination is powerless without economic domination and ideological backing.

America’s Global “Harakiri”. Diplomacy of a Falling Empire

The America’s economic domination is weakening due to its endless economic war;

its ideological domination is fading due to wrong management of democracy.

What is left is military domination.

Biden is resorting to the military domination without strong economic support and ideological backing. This is the symptom of a falling empire.

Biden’s diplomacy is, perhaps, the desperate efforts to save the falling empire through military might.

But, Biden’s pursuit for military domination will inevitably lead to global suicide of humanity and its shameful end.

*

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

Dr. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics, and member of the Research Center on Integration and Globalization (CIEM) of University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM). 

He is 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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Hundreds of Ukrainian mines floating in the Black Sea threaten to halt tens of millions of tons of grain from being exported. Ukrainian officials claim it would take six months to clear the mines, something which directly contradicts the long-held claim that Russia’s naval blockade is preventing the export of wheat.

Markiyan Dmytrasevych, an adviser to Ukraine’s Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food, said that regardless of any agreement with Russia, thousands of mines would remain floating around the port of Odessa, making the export of wheat difficult. According to Dmytrasevych, it will take until the end of the year to clear out all the mines, thus making a mockery of the months-long disinformation campaign that Russia was blockading Ukrainian wheat shipments and therefore responsible for any global food shortage.

Russia and Ukraine collectively supply about 40% of the wheat consumed in Africa, and due to the war and consequential anti-Russia sanctions, prices have already risen by about 23% across the continent. The two countries also account for about 33% of the world’s grain supply, and wheat prices have skyrocketed by a third since February 24.

To derail a global food crisis, Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline will have to be demined. However, demining efforts require specialized equipment to scour wide swaths of open water, something Kiev was fully aware of when it began mining the Black Sea.

NATO issued a warning on June 1, stating:

“Drifting mines have been detected and deactivated in the Western Black Sea by coastal nation’s authorities. The latest statement of regional authorities, confirming another sighting of a mine, shows the threat of drifting mines in the Southwest part of the Black Sea still exists.”

Along with the obvious problem associated with traversing mine-laden waters, shipping insurance for vessels heading to the region has skyrocketed.

“There is clearly a growing nervousness around the region in the insurance market, especially in relation to the Black Sea,” Marcus Baker at insurance broker and risk adviser Marsh told Reuters.

Ukraine President Volodomyr Zelensky told the Financial Times that while, in theory, he supports a maritime corridor, no Russian vessels should be allowed access.

“On UN-led talks to restore access to Ukrainian Black Sea ports, Zelensky was willing to back the idea of a maritime corridor to enable grain exports from Ukrainian ports as long as no access was given to Russian ships,” the paper reported. “There was no need for a dialogue with Moscow to resolve the blockade given that the only threat to world food supplies was coming from Russia.”

However, despite Kiev now acknowledging that demining efforts could take up to six months, Zelensky is still attempting to blame Russia’s naval blockade as the reason why 75 million tons of grain could be stuck in Ukraine after the summer season.

Latvian Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš is also disingenuous to the situation, questioning to the Atlantic Council on June 8 whether “a US or French warship [should] go through the Bosphorus and dock in the port of Odesa?”. Of course, his suggestion completely omits that US and French warships would not only have to break the Russian blockade, but also traverse mined waters.

None-the-less, Ukraine is in a difficult position. As the country unrelentingly refuses to negotiate an end to the war with Russia on the open orders of Washington and London, Ukraine does not want to weaken its coastal defenses around Odessa. However, at the same time, it has been exposed that Ukraine’s Black Sea mines are responsible for halts in the export of wheat, and not Russia’s naval blockade as Western leaders, officials and media led to us to believe for months.

Despite offering a way out of the emerging food crisis by calling for the demining of the Black Sea and the creation of a maritime safe corridor, Ukraine Foreign Ministry spokesman Oleg Nikolenko tweeted on Wednesday that the words of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov “are empty.”

“Ukraine has made its position on the seaports clear,” Nikolenko tweeted. “Military equipment is required to protect the coastline and a navy mission to patrol the export routes in the Black Sea. Russia cannot be allowed to use grain corridors to attack southern Ukraine.”

As Kiev stubbornly continues to carry out the demands of the US and UK, it appears that the establishment of a safe corridor for the export of grain from Ukraine will not emerge anytime soon, thus artificially creating a global food crisis that can be relatively easy to resolve, despite the inevitability of high wheat prices. Most disingenuously though is the continued portrayal that Ukraine is not responsible for the halt of exports, however, even this has been exposed to the point that Western media cannot ignore Kiev’s refusal to demine its coast.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Millions of Tons of Ukrainian Grain Exports: Zelensky’s Delay In Opening A Sea Corridor Threatens the World with A Global Food Crisis
  • Tags: ,

The Eight Stupidest Things About Nuclear Weapons

June 12th, 2022 by David Swanson

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

1. Nukes are the “tough on crime” of foreign policy

Investing in children’s welfare and education costs less and reduces more crime than “tough on crime” policies which are often counterproductive, but voters in San Francisco just obeyed a bunch of corporate advertising and recalled a District Attorney because he had reduced crime rather than being “tough on crime.” Nuclear weapons cost tens of billions of dollars a year, plus the costs of the airplanes, submarines, bases, and troops. Claiming that nuclear weapons in Ukraine could have prevented a Russian invasion requires ignoring the fact that not putting missile bases into Poland and Romania and not threatening to put them into Ukraine could also have prevented a Russian invasion — and requires ignoring all the nations that have given up their nukes or passed up having nukes and not been invaded. But the important point is that there are less costly, less destructive, more effective means of protecting a country — even if they aren’t all generally thought of as relevant at all. Just as schools are not understood as crime prevention even though they are the very best crime prevention tool in existence, the tools of diplomacy, cooperation, disarmament, the rule of law, and unarmed civilian protection are not thought of as capital d “Defense” even though they are the very best protection available.

2. Nukes are the “we’re aware of climate change” of foreign policy

It’s generally considered well-educated to acknowledge the existence of climate collapse but to go on with all the practices and industries that are driving it, and to claim that there are endless ways in which you can undo the damage later. Similarly, one can get an op-ed into the New York Times or Washington Post by admitting that your proposals could cause nuclear apocalypse but proposing them anyway. For example:

“[W]e cannot aim for total victory over Putin’s Russia, because that could trigger a nuclear war — yet something like total victory may be the only way to stop Putin from just bleeding Ukraine forever.” —Thomas Friedman

“But if a cornered and delusional Mr. Putin were to instead use a nuclear weapon — whether via a tactical strike or by weaponizing one of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants — we would have several options. There are some who would argue for a nuclear response. But there is a wide range of options and they need not be mutually exclusive. For example, NATO could engage in Ukraine.” —Mitt Romney

“Any use of nuclear weapons in this conflict on any scale would be completely unacceptable to us as well as the rest of the world and would entail severe consequences.” —Joe Biden

When Henry Kissinger is arguing that the universal consensus is reckless warmongering, you just might have a problem.

3. The nuclear deterrence theory depends on threatening and seeming to mean it without meaning it, which challenges the mental abilities of many believers in nuclear deterrence theory.

Not only does pretending to mean it without meaning it or causing others to mean it require great acting talent and mental discipline, but it also requires fooling only particular audiences. Getting Vladimir Putin to believe you mean it, while counting on Marjorie Taylor Greene’s superior intellect to recognize that you don’t mean it is one hurdle. Getting Putin to believe you mean it but that you don’t mean it too immediately or definitely (so that he doesn’t launch them first) is another trick — dependent principally on the idea that you’re sufficiently insane to do it while completely capable of holding off. The fact that you may believe that very thing about Putin because your own propaganda has pushed it for years may mislead you about the ease of getting him (and the numerous people who actually run a government) to believe it of you.

4. One of the downsides of nukes is the serious risk of eliminating all life on Earth.

There are plenty of minor downsides, like radiation and cancer around facilities, and waste that will last for millennia, and plenty of dubious upsides like getting to name government programs after cool stuff in Star Wars movies. But it’s all overshadowed by the super big enormous downside that the Doomsday Clock tells us is more likely than ever, and that the mere passage of time virtually guarantees given the record of near-miss incidents and accidents. The concern about it is lower than ever. The absurd belief in powerlessness to do anything about it is higher than ever. But we have the history, including that of the rally in New York City on June 12th 40 years ago, of people making each other aware, acting, and moving utterly cynical politicians to do a significant portion of what was needed. If only anyone knew history.

5. Apocalypse is becoming acceptable.

According to Pew, 36% of Republicans and 35% of Democrats favor U.S. warmaking even if it risks nuclear war with Russia. Huge majorities support measures guaranteed to increase the risk of nuclear war with Russia — a risk already acknowledged by 69% in the U.S. Three years ago another poll found that a third in the U.S. supported not just a risk of nuclear war but actually launching nuclear weapons at North Korea even if it killed a million people; and a full half of the U.S. public said it would happily set aside its own capacity for independent thought and support a nuclear attack on North Korea after it had happened (but before their own demise from direct hits or nuclear winter). Meanwhile, there’s been an increase in admitting that climate change exists, but not in support for doing anything about it. In fact, support for addressing climate collapse is declining. The only category of people in the United States who support serious action on the environment in large numbers, according to Pew, are people who believe that this world is the only world, that when you die you die. But it’s not polite for me to say that, and some 99% of people are often bothered more by impoliteness than by the nuclear threat.

6. People believe nukes are concerning if you show them pictures.

I kid you not. A recent study summarized at Peace Science Digest found that it’s easy enough to get a majority in the U.S. to support nuclear war, unless you give them a “vivid description” — unless you show them a picture. Just as one must “humanize” every particular little subgroup of people in order to get other people to care about them as humans, you have to apocalypsize every particular type of apocalypse to get people to care about avoiding it as an apocalypse. People have to have details like eyebrows and favorite flavors of ice cream to be human. Then they have to have burned eyebrows and vaporized ice cream to become troubling. Here are some nuclear apocalypse videos you might spread around as a means of preventing them becoming nonfiction:

7. We’re paying people piles of money for this, and they’re buying our elections with it.

The owners of these sociopathic corporations are getting stinking rich putting all life on Earth at risk:

1. Aerojet Rocketdyne (United Kingdom, United States);
2. Airbus (France);
3. BAE Systems (France, United Kingdom, United States);
4. Bechtel (United States);
5. Bharat Dynamics (India);
6. Boeing (United Kingdom, United States);
7. China Aerospace Science and Technology (China);
8. Constructions Industrielles de la Méditerranée (France);
9. Fluor (United States);
10. General Dynamics (United Kingdom, United States);
11. Honeywell International (United States);
12. Huntington Ingalls Industries (United States);
13. Jacobs Engineering (United States);
14. L3 Harris Technologies (United States);
15. Larsen & Toubro (India);
16. Leidos (United States);
17. Leonardo (France);
18. Lockheed Martin (United Kingdom, United States);
19. Northrop Grumman (United Kingdom, United States);
20. Raytheon Technologies (United States);
21. Rostec (Russian Federation);
22. Safran (France);
23. Textron (United States);
24. Thales (France), and;
25. Walchandnagar Industries Limited (India).

8. The solutions are painfully obvious

There’s no great mystery what to do, how governments could do it, or how people could compel governments to do it. Yet it’s not being done.

If you are the U.S. government:

  • You commit to not using nukes ever.
  • You join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
  • You immediately begin complying with it and with other treaties you’re violating, so that people take it seriously.
  • You remove your nukes from other countries you’ve put them in.
  • You take the weapons off the missiles.
  • You dismantle and destroy the weapons, beginning with the land-based ones.
  • You facilitate the de-nuclearization of other countries by de-funding militarism in general and by investing in actually green energy.

If you are the U.S. public:

  • You work on divestment, education, agitation, and organization, learning from and building on the history of successful popular actions against nuclear madness.

*

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

Featured image is from ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons)

US Government Admits Participation in Ukrainian Biolabs

June 12th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In a recent statement, US government officials finally admitted that the country helped to build and maintain biolaboratories on Ukrainian soil over the last two decades. The declaration comes from the Pentagon, which reinforces the military importance of the program of biolabs abroad. However, US officials still insist on the evidently fallacious narrative that the laboratories were intended for “peaceful” use.

In an online statement on Thursday, June 9, US Defense Department’s representatives  said that Washington has been involved in the activities of 46 biolabs within Ukrainian territory, whose objectives, according to them, would be to act cooperatively with local experts in order to improve Ukraine’s biological safety and human and animal health.

“The United States has also worked collaboratively to improve Ukraine’s biological safety, security, and disease surveillance for both human and animal health, providing support to 46 peaceful Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and disease diagnostic sites over the last two decades (…) “This work, often conducted in partnership with outside organizations, such as the WHO and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), has resulted in safer and more effective disease surveillance and detection (…) Ukrainian scientists have acted consistent with international best practices and norms in publishing research results, partnering with international colleagues and multilateral organizations, and widely distributing their research and public health findings”, Pentagon’s spokespersons said.

The representatives also emphasized that there was no research being carried out in Ukraine involving the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. In this sense, the use of the biolabs would be restricted to activities related to the search for peaceful medical knowledge and without any military purpose, which seems contradictory, considering that there were US military personnel operating in these facilities, such as in all US biolaboratories in other countries.

In fact, if the function of the biolabs really existed only in a non-military way, the units could be managed by civilian institutions of the US government, instead of having the active participation of the armed forces and intelligence agencies. Furthermore, in this case, the American health authorities would be the ones called upon by the government to provide public clarification on the case, not the Pentagon. In the current conjuncture, the American authorities seem to contradict themselves successively, unable to hide the obvious truth that the country was producing biomedical research of a military nature in Ukraine.

In addition, the security policy surrounding the research carried out there raises suspicions about its possible peaceful use. Although in the statement it is claimed that the US acted in partnership with Ukrainian and international organizations, there was no publicity of data on the results of research in these units. In fact, the very existence of the laboratories had previously been denied by some American authorities – although some specific people, such as the Undersecretary Victoria Nuland, have also admitted, showing how there are continuous contradictory statements by the US government.

It seems that in the current situation, after Russia has exposed so much data about the clandestine activities of such labs and their supporters, there is no longer any way Washington can deny the existence of the activities, so it tries to maintain damage control through a “partial confession”, admitting the existence but denying the use for production of biological weapons.

Furthermore, even if we consider all the Pentagon’s statements true, many questions will remain unanswered. The sources of funding for the laboratories, according to data presented by the Russians, involved a wide network of private agents, including Big Pharma companies, such as Pfizer and Moderna, and Hunter Biden himself, son of the US president, known worldwide for carrying out illegal activities in Ukraine. None of this has been clarified by the Pentagon or any other American authority so far.

In addition, by not answering about private funding sources, the US government raises even more suspicions on the possible biological weapons research. It is true that there was American public money applied in the operations of the biolabs, but Russia denounces the existence of private investments that have not been recognized by the US so far. This means that there were at least two sources of funding for such activities. One of these sources was the US government itself, which supposedly financed peaceful biomedical research, while the other source, which involves pharmaceutical companies and corrupt agents, remains unofficial and, consequently, without clear purposes. Certainly, it was the private source that financed illegal research with bioweapons, which could not be included in official US state accounting documents. There are many questions Washington has yet to answer.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is 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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

***

On Friday, NATO Deputy Secretary-General Mircea Geoana said that he expects the Western military alliance to establish permanent bases in Eastern Europe in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Under the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, the alliance agreed not to build permanent bases east of Germany, but Geoana suggested that the deal is now “void” because of Russia’s invasion.

Geoana said that as part of NATO plans, the alliance is working on a “state of the art, permanent” presence in Eastern Europe. At an upcoming NATO summit in Madrid scheduled for later this month, Geoana said alliance leaders will be working on a “fundamental transformation of NATO’s posture, presence and deterrence” in the region, which will include “more of a presence on the ground.”

Last month, The Washington Post reported that Poland and the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are seeking a significant increase in NATO’s presence on their territory. But other NATO members, including France and Italy, are hesitant to do so. NATO members are also divided on whether or not to abandon the NATO-Russia Founding Act.

Earlier in the year, the US deployed tens of thousands of additional troops to Europe, many of which deployed to Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. US military leaders are looking to make the deployment more permanent.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told Congress in April that US allies in the region are “very, very willing” to build new bases where US troops can be deployed. He suggested that the bases should be permanent, but that the US troops would rotate through them.

“My advice would be to create permanent bases but don’t permanently station, so you get the effect of permanence by rotational forces cycling through permanent bases,” Milley said.

*

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

Featured image: Mircea Geoana (Source: NATO)

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Is it anything positive when mainstream media starts to admit that Ukraine is losing the war with Russia?  Not necessarily.  While when she is losing – we should send her help even more!

You know, Rohan – Gondor, that is very serious…  So better let us be extremely watchful.  The Third World War option is still on the table.  And please remember: even when they lie less – they still cheat all the time.

Silences and hidden costs. This war is based on a lie

On lying to the World that it has not lasted since 2014, that there was no mass murder by the Nazi Banderites in Odessa, on 2nd May 2014, that the Ukrainian Nazi-battalions did not shoot the civilian population of Donbas, that the Kiev junta did not bomb residential areas of Donetsk, that drinking water supplies in Crimea were not cut off by Ukrainians, that the opponents of Anglo-Saxon domination over Ukraine were not assassinated.

And finally, that there was no plan of Ukrainian attack against the Donbass People’s Republics and Crimea in February 2022.

They lied and still lie, and even when they are silent, it is also only to cheat and hide the facts, such as Kiev attempts to produce dirty nuclear bombs and American biological weapons laboratories working in Ukraine.

They are also silent about the true costs of this war.

Both the direct ones, related to sending budget money, fuel, and weapons, as well as those resulting from the trade war with Russia, from the forced withdrawal of companies from the Russian market, and above all from a suicidal energy policy, which is at the same time inflationary and condemns millions of households to energy exclusion and misery.  We live in a time of multiplied lies on a strategic scale, and it can be summarised in several very expressive pictures.

De-falsification of Ukraine

Let’s take one of the many photos distributed a few weeks ago on the Western Internet as evidence of the allegedly unprecedented criminal nature of Russian aggression.

The photograph shows the body of a little boy in rompers lying in a coffin. Icons are placed next to his calm face and in the background a crying woman holds an older man in the deepest despair.

Commentaries explained that this a funeral of four-year-old Artiom, killed in a Russian artillery fire in the suburbs of Donetsk.  It is this last detail – the location – that should make viewers cautious. 

Why would the Russians attack the Donetsk suburbs, when this area has been under the control of pro-Russian People’s Republic of Donesk for eight years, and the front line is now many kilometres west of the capital of the independent Donbass?

However, the observers’ attention was focused on a boundless tragedy of the entire scene, so instead of geographical deliberations, bellow this photo we could find only hundreds of insults against the Russian aggressors allegedly killing innocent children. Well, it is hardly surprising, isn’t it?

Genocide of Donbass Civilians: Children - 11.04.2022, Sputnik International

Source: Sputnik News

Not at all.  Although the truth is different in a hard to imagine manner.  Artiom Bobryshev is really dead.

And he was really only 4 years and 4 months old at the time of his death.

And he lived with his family in the Kirov region of Donetsk.  

The point is that he was killed on the 15th January 2015. SEVEN YEARS AGO. 

During one of the hundreds of Ukrainian firings on Donetsk.  KILLED FROM UKRAINIAN MISSILES fired by the Kiev junta on the civilian city districts of the Donbass People’s Republics. 

Because this war has been going on for eight years. Donetsk children were really murdered there.  And the truth is still murdered.

The same deadly propaganda laboratory prepared and distributed photos and videos from the UKRAINIAN missile attack on Donetsk – as evidence that … the Russians are bombing civilian targets in Kiev.

If it was not about the human life dimension, that would be almost satirical Internet humbug, when Ukrainian propaganda calls “Let’s save Odessa from crazy Putin who comes to destroy it!

Odessa, a wonderful, internationalist city where Ukrainian Nazis tried to burn its local Russian-speaking identity with live fire, the same as they murdered 42 victims in the House of Unions! Odessa awaiting Russian liberation to be saved from Putin!

Nazi trail vs. return of normality

Even those who are blinded by some bizarre feelings towards the current authorities in Kiev or fascinated by Ukrainian pointless resistance, imposed by the Anglo-Saxons, with time will have to see that normal life is really returning to the areas under the Russian and Donbas control, reconstruction begins, civil administration acts and people are just alive and want to live on.

Whether someone in the West likes it or not – to live in Russia, in Novorossiya, also in a changed, denazified Ukraine, but to live normally.

Because what alternative do fanatics present?  Endless war, “the aid” half stolen on its way to Ukraine by the oligarchs and half sent immediately back to the Anglo-Saxon “donors” and memes, a lot of memes based on Kiev fakes?

Another systemic lie is also the hurried, alleged denazification of the AZOV Battalion.

The Nazi symbols of this gang are quietly removed and hidden.  And for the most distrustful there is a version, that this is a different, more friendly kind of Nazism”. 

Besides, Zelensky’s sponsors just follows the Banderites predecessors, acting the same as UPA (Nazi Ukrainian Insurgent Army) which when came under British control at the turn of 1946/47 forbade to expose swastikas and ordered to change popular nicknames like “Killer of the Jews” or “Throat Cutter”.

However, of course, Nazis are Nazis even with replaced badges and slogans, whenever we think about historical UPA or the present AZOV and other pro-Western Kiev forces.  And this is playing around with the forces, ideology and practice responsible for genocide.

Displace the facts

Unfortunately, many people, having shown Kiev and Anglo-Saxon lies in black and white, react with unacceptance and anger.  Instead of reflection and self-awareness – what unfolds is escalation and further self-deception.

Of course, lying is an inherent feature of the falsehood known as liberal democracy, but succumbing to it now equals to the global suicide.  That is why it is so important not to repeat the lies of Kiev propaganda. To keep the rational view and thinking.  To check the sources and verify the facts before copying news, memes and pictures.

Sure, the punishment for thinking can be painful. We know it seeing more and more scholars and thinkers abused in universities and blacken in the mainstream media simply for academic analysis of the current conflict.  So even more it is high time to understand this greatest lie.  It is not that we say SUCH things, “because we are Russian agents”. Just the opposite.  They call us “Russian agents, Kremlin supporters, Putin’s influencers” – just because we refute the lies: we say and write simple and basic things, namely the truth.

*

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

Konrad Rękas is a renowned geopolitical analyst and a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Falsehoods of the Ukraine War: Multiplied Lies. Children Murdered by Ukrainian Missiles
  • Tags: , ,

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch

**
First published on December 5, 2021

.

.

This video by the late Dr. Andreas Noack pertains to graphene hydroxide contained in the Covid vaccine vial.

Dr. Noack explains the devastating impacts of graphene hydroxide on the cardiovascular system.

“These nanoscale structures can best be described as razor blades.

These razor blades are injected into the body”

The video was recorded on the 23d of November 2021.

Shortly thereafter Dr. Andreas Noack was reported to have been murdered.

His wife made a video presentation confirming that he had been assassinated. See video below.

The mainstream media has remained totally silent as if nothing had happened.

No police investigation? The circumstances of his assassination have not been disclosed.

Our thoughts today are with Andreas Noack, his wife and his family.

The Legacy of Andreas Noack will Live.

Michel C, Global Research, December 5, 2021

***

Video, November 23, 2021

Dr. Noack’s research was a followup of that conducted by the Spanish team Quinta Columna

For further details on this project see the preliminary summary report by  Prof. Pablo Campra Madrid, entitled Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension, Observational study in Optical and Electron Microscopy.

Graphene has electromagnetic properties which have been detected in people who have been vaccinated. These effects have been amply documented and confirmed. See the study conducted by the European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance

***

Video: Andreas Noack has passed away, confirmed by his wife.

 

The November 2020 Video

There has been confusion and disinformation regarding Dr. Andreas Noack.

To clarify matters, last year in November 2020, the police entered his home and brutally arrested him.

The video below has recently been re-posted and misinterpreted without mentioning that it was recorded in November 2020.

Video, November 2020

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.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

First published on January 28, 2022

***

Please recall our November 23, 2021 post titled “The FDA and Pfizer are a Match Made in Hell”.

There we described how the FDA took only 108 days to approve Pfizer’s injection, but wanted 55 years to produce the documents!

Thankfully Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency filed a lawsuit after the FDA denied their request to expedite the release of the records, and the records are being released, albeit still too slowly.

Among the first reports handed over by Pfizer was a ‘Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports’ describing events reported to Pfizer up until February 2021. You can download this entire report here.

Look at table 6 from this Pfizer report. It is titled “Missing Information”. Its first heading under the topic “Missing Information” is “Use in pregnancy and lactation”. It includes this paragraph:

“Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies (note that 2 different outcomes were reported for each twin, and both were counted).”

On the surface this states that of 270 pregnancies, there were 23 spontaneous abortions, 5 “outcomes pending”, 2 premature birth with neonatal death, 2 spontaneous abortions with intrauterine death, 1 spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and 1 normal outcome. But note also “no outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies”.

So really we have no idea what happened with 243 (5 + 238) of the pregnancies of these injected women; they have just not been included in the report. What we do know is that of 27 reported pregnancies (270 subtract 243), there are 28 dead babies! This appears to mean that someone was pregnant with twins and that 100% of the unborn babies died.

Here is an excellent article by LifeSite News which goes into greater depth about these shocking revelations. LifeSite News cuts Pfizer some slack on the 5 “outcomes pending” which creates  the possible impression that 87.5% of the babies of the injected women died. With all respect to LifeSite, I feel correct in not counting the 5 “outcomes pending” and hence arrive at the conclusion that 100% of the unborn babies died in the injected women for whom results are presented.

The LifeSite News article also reveals deceptive number games in another article titled “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine”, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on December 31, 2020. These deceptive practices attempted to cover up the fact that in first trimester pregnancies, the Pfizer injection produced 82% miscarriages.

On January 12th we shared the excellent analysis by the Canadian Covid Care Alliance of this same “Safety and Efficacy” article from the New England Journal of Medicine. This Pfizer-friendly study is a complete sham; it is replete with misrepresentation and deceptive methods. The deception and truth is revealed in detail in this video and article by the CCCA.

Dr Trozzi’s brief and Dr Nagase’s excellent interview discussing this sham article is here.

They’re killing babies; what can we do?

These injections are criminal; period. Help us serve the Cease and Desist Declaration of the World Council for Health, to any and all governments, clinics, hospitals, medical regulatory bodies, doctors, nurses, politicians, or anyone participating in any way in the manufacture, shipping, distribution, promotion, or administration of these injections. The message to anyone involved in these injection campaigns is “Stop now. This is a crime. You will be criminally and civilly responsible. The cat is out of the bag. Justice is coming.”

The Declaration can also be found here along with information and instructions for serving it.

Please keep photos and notes of to whom, when and where the declaration and notice is served. We are finalizing more resources on the World Council for Health web site to upload these photos and details. These resources will be fine tuned and found here very soon.

There are at least five million Canadians, and billions of global citizens who have resisted the injections. We, as well as many coerced injection victims who are waking up with buyer’s remorse, must be the army that stops this, and return human rights and real health care to our society.

Do not submit; unite!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on May 15, 2022

***

The time is now. As most readers of this substack are now well aware, this is not just about COVID. The constitution hangs in the balance. Please help us to get these messages spread far and wide. The 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists in our organization, who are not financially conflicted and remain committed to the Hippocratic Oath, are doing our part. Now we ask that you help us to help you. We need your help.

Global COVID Summit, Declaration IV

A Joint Statement, representing 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists 

To Restore Scientific Integrity

17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists Declare that the State of Medical Emergency must be lifted, Scientific integrity restored, and crimes against humanity addressed.

We, the physicians and medical scientists of the world, united through our loyalty to the Hippocratic Oath, recognize that the disastrous COVID-19 public health policies imposed on doctors and our patients are the culmination of a corrupt medical alliance of pharmaceutical, insurance, and healthcare institutions, along with the financial trusts which control them. They have infiltrated our medical system at every level, and are protected and supported by a parallel alliance of big tech, media, academics and government agencies who profited from this orchestrated catastrophe.

This corrupt alliance has compromised the integrity of our most prestigious medical societies to which we belong, generating an illusion of scientific consensus by substituting truth with propaganda. This alliance continues to advance unscientific claims by censoring data, and intimidating and firing doctors and scientists for simply publishing actual clinical results or treating their patients with proven, life-saving medicine. These catastrophic decisions came at the expense of the innocent, who are forced to suffer health damage and death caused by intentionally withholding critical and time-sensitive treatments, or as a result of coerced genetic therapy injections, which are neither safe nor effective.

The medical community has denied patients the fundamental human right to provide true informed consent for the experimental COVID-19 injections. Our patients are also blocked from obtaining the information necessary to understand risks and benefits of vaccines, and their alternatives, due to widespread censorship and propaganda spread by governments, public health officials and media. Patients continue to be subjected to forced lock-downs which harm their health, careers and children’s education, and damage social and family bonds critical to civil society. This is not a coincidence. In the book entitled “COVID-19: The Great Reset”, leadership of this alliance has clearly stated their intention is to leverage COVID-19 as an “opportunity” to reset our entire global society, culture, political structures, and economy.

Our 17,000 Global COVID Summit physicians and medical scientists represent a much larger, enlightened global medical community who refuse to be compromised, and are united and willing to risk the wrath of the corrupt medical alliance to defend the health of their patients.

The mission of the Global COVID Summit is to end this orchestrated crisis, which has been illegitimately imposed on the world, and to formally declare that the actions of this corrupt alliance constitute nothing less than crimes against humanity.

We must restore the people’s trust in medicine, which begins with free and open dialogue between physicians and medical scientists. We must restore medical rights and patient autonomy. This includes the foundational principle of the sacred doctor-patient relationship. The social need for this is decades overdue, and therefore, we the physicians of the world are compelled to take action.

After two years of scientific research, millions of patients treated, hundreds of clinical trials performed and scientific data shared, we have demonstrated and documented our success in understanding and combating COVID-19. In considering the risks versus benefits of major policy decisions, our Global COVID Summit of 17,000 physicians and medical scientists from all over the world have reached consensus on the following foundational principles:

  1. We declare and the data confirm that the COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end.
  2. We declare doctors should not be blocked from providing life-saving medical treatment.
  3. We declare the state of national emergency, which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic, should be immediately terminated.
  4. We declare medical privacy should never again be violated, and all travel and social restrictions must cease.
  5. We declare masks are not and have never been effective protection against an airborne respiratory virus in the community setting.
  6. We declare funding and research must be established for vaccination damage, death and suffering.
  7. We declare no opportunity should be denied, including education, career, military service or medical treatment, over unwillingness to take an injection.
  8. We declare that first amendment violations and medical censorship by government, technology and media companies should cease, and the Bill of Rights be upheld.
  9. We declare that Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, and their enablers, withheld and willfully omitted safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians, and should be immediately indicted for fraud.
  10. We declare government and medical agencies must be held accountable.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global COVID Summit Declaration Representing 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists
  • Tags:

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

 

 

 

***

Understandably, emotions run high in a war. However, prominent German philosopher Jürgen Habermas calls on us: “let’s not allow ourselves to be guided by warmongering or a politics of fear”. He insists on reasonableness and “comprehensive consideration”.

The end of German pacifism

One of the most remarkable and unexpected events of this war is Germany’s radical turn regarding armaments and war efforts. The country has no real war industry, in the past it spent relatively little on armaments and in military conflicts the government has generally been very moderate. Just think of Iraq in 2003 or Libya in 2011.

From a historical point of view, that is more than understandable and sensible. In the past, the militarization of Germany has twice led to a global conflagration resulting in tens of millions of deaths. Therefore, it is better not to go back to that situation.

There is a second reason for the German reluctance to be involved in the current conflict. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, German capital was poured into Eastern and Central Europe. Strong economic ties were forged with Russia, among others.

Outside the European Union, Russia was until recently the fourth most important country for German imports and the fifth most important country for the export of German goods. The Germans are particularly dependent on the Russians in terms of energy: for gas that dependency is 32 percent, for oil it is 34 percent and for coal it is 53 percent.

German capital therefore has nothing to gain from a protracted conflict, let alone from an escalation, on the contrary. Conversely, it is especially the US that has an interest in this. At least that’s how Willy Claes, a former NATO-boss, sees it. According to him, this conflict is essentially about a “confrontation between Russia and America” in which “Europe is not involved”. He notes that the US it “will not mind it taking a while”.[1]

At the outset of the invasion, for the two reasons cited, the Federal Government was particularly reticent, much to the chagrin of countries such as the US, UK and the eastern states of the European Union. They put pressure on Chancellor Scholz to shake off this reticence.

The pressure exerted by the media was even greater. Due to the fact that almost everyone now has a smartphone, this is the most mediatized war in world history. We are able to follow the appalling suffering in this war online with the most horrific details, so to speak, and that arouses a lot of emotions, even far away from the battlefield.

In addition, the mainstream media use the Hollywood framing of ‘the good versus the bad’. Such a framing is excellent for viewing and reading figures, and moreover it raises the emotions in public opinion. Such reporting however, leaves no room for nuance or for balanced approaches such as those of the German government at the outset of the conflict.

Eventually, Olaf Scholz gave in to the great pressure and that was the end of a pacifist foreign policy that had lasted for the past 75 years. Germany will spend no less than 100 billion euros extra on armaments in the coming years and promises have also been made for arms supplies to Ukraine.

An ugly dilemma

It is against this pressure on the German chancellor and the break with the pacifist past that Jürgen Habermas has written a noteworthy op-ed piece in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Habermas is Germany’s most prominent and respected philosopher, pretty much the Noam Chomsky of Germany.

The 92-year-old philosopher outlines the ugly dilemma facing the West: either a defeat in Ukraine or the escalation of a limited conflict that could turn into a Third World War. In this “space between two evils”, the West has chosen not to participate directly in this war.

For Habermas, this is a wise decision because “the lesson we have learned from the Cold War is that a war against a nuclear power can no longer be reasonably ‘won’, at least not by military force”.

The problem with this is that Putin then determines

“when the West crosses the threshold set by international law, beyond which he will also formally consider military aid to Ukraine to be the start of a war by the West. This gives the Russian side an asymmetrical advantage over NATO, which does not want to become a war party because of the apocalyptic proportions of a world war involving four nuclear powers.”[2]

On the other hand, the West “cannot accept being blackmailed randomly. If the West simply left Ukraine to its own devices, this would not only be a scandal from a political and moral point of view, it would also not be in its own interest.” The scenario of what happened in Georgia and Moldova[3] could then repeat itself and, Habermas wonders, “who would be next”?

Within this uneasy setting, Habermas is glad that the German chancellor is not guided by a “politics of fear” and that he is pushing for a “politically responsible and comprehensive consideration”.

Scholz himself summarized his policy in Der Spiegel as follows:

“We confront the suffering that Russia is causing in Ukraine by any means necessary without causing an uncontrollable escalation that causes immeasurable suffering across the continent, perhaps even the entire world.”

Warmongers

But Scholz is under a lot of pressure. He faces a “fierce battle of ideas, fuelled by press voices, over the nature and extent of military support to a ravaged Ukraine.” In addition, the main protagonist, President Zelensky, is a talented actor, “who knows the power of images and delivers powerful messages”. The “political misconceptions and wrong decisions of previous German governments” are thus easily weaponized for “moral blackmail”.

Habermas here refers on the one hand to the continuation of the policy of detente after the fall of the Soviet Union, even when Putin had become unpredictable, and on the other hand to dependence on cheap Russian oil.

This moral blackmail has

“ripped the young away from their pacifist illusions”. He explicitly refers to Annalena Baerbock, the young foreign minister of the Greens, “who has become an icon, who immediately after the start of the war gave authentic expression to the shock with credible gestures and confessional rhetoric”.

Three days after the invasion, Baerbock gave an emotional speech to the German parliament. As in other countries, the German Greens have strong roots in the peace movement. It was therefore more than significant that it was mainly the German Greens who insisted within the government for more and faster arms deliveries.

Habermas is particularly irritated by the “belligerent rhetoric” and “the self-assuredness with which the morally indignant accusers in Germany act against a thoughtful and reticent federal government”. They are hounding the chancellor with “short-sighted demands”.

“The conversion of the former pacifists” according to Habermas “leads to mistakes and misunderstandings”, and he perceives a “confusion of feelings”. These “agitated opponents of the government line… are inconsistent in negating the implications of a policy decision they do not question.”[4]

Scholz has kept a cool head for the time being. He has had to make concessions, but he continues to steer a cautious and moderate course, especially when compared to the bellicose stance of the US or Britain. Germany has promised to increase its arms supplies to Ukraine, but these are promises and their implementation has been slow.

Unlike hawkish countries such as the US, UK and the Baltic States, France, Germany and Italy maintain an open dialogue with Russia. For example, Scholz and Macron had a telephone conversation with Putin to negotiate, among other things, about unblocking Ukraine’s food exports.

Putin

Habermas also resents the “focus on Putin as a person”. That “leads to wild speculation, which our leading media spread today, just as in the heydays of speculative Sovietology.”

The media portrays “an erratic visionary” who sees “gradual restoration of the Great Russian Empire as his political life’s work”. “This personality profile of an insanely driven historical nostalgic contrasts with a track record of social progress and the career of a rational and calculated strongman”.

Habermas interprets the invasion of Ukraine “as a frustrated response to the West’s refusal to negotiate Putin’s geopolitical agenda”.

For Habermas, Putin is “a war criminal” who deserves having to appear before the International Criminal Court. But at the same time, he notes that the Russian president still has veto power in the Security Council and that he can threaten his opponents with nuclear weapons.

Like it or not, it will be with him that we will “need to negotiate an end to the war, or at least a truce”.

*

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

Translated by Dirk Nimmegeers.

Source

Jürgen Habermas unterstützt abwägende Haltung des Bundeskanzlers, Der Spiegel.

Notes

[1] Willy Claes in Belgian TV programme De Afspraak of 24 May: “If I may say it a little boldly, it is about a confrontation now between Russia and America. With all due respect and sympathy for the Ukrainians, and by the way, Europe is not playing along. … In conclusion, the Americans will not object it taking a while. … It’s a golden age for the war industry, which is by definition American.”

[2] The US, France, Great Britain and Russia.

[3] In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia to support the self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia it backed in their conflict with Georgia’s central authorities. After a ceasefire, the Russians withdrew but maintained a security zone in the conflict zones. A similar scenario had previously occurred in Moldova in the period 1990-1992.

[4] NATO’s choice not to be directly involved in this war.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY 2.0

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Jürgen Habermas on the War in Ukraine: “The conversion of former pacifists leads to mistakes and misunderstandings”
  • Tags: ,

Ucraina: La Disinformazione Del Sistema Informativo

June 10th, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

Nel primo riferimento alla sua attività si legge quanto segue: Il piano del 2019 / Un suo articolo che sostiene come «l’attacco anglo-americano a Russia e Ucraina era stato pianificato nel 2019» è diventato una sorta di manifesto «di mezzi di informazione statali russi e utenze che sostengono l’invasione dell’Ucraina».

Il Corriere non indica la fonte delle frasi virgolettate ma, nel presentare il dossier, parla di “materiale raccolto dai servizi”. Si tratta di una completa distorsione della realtà: nell’articolo del 2019, pubblicato sul Manifesto il 21 maggio col titolo “Rand Corp: come abbattere la Russia”, l’autore non sosteneva una sua tesi ma riportava il piano pubblicato dalla Rand Corporation, potente think tank USA, intitolato “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia”. Per di più è assurdo che l’autore scrivesse nel 2019 di un piano di “attacco anglo-americano a Russia e Ucraina”, quando già l’Ucraina aveva incluso nella sua Costituzione la decisione di far parte della NATO (argomento trattato dallo stesso Dinucci sul manifesto del 12 febbraio 2019).

Nel secondo riferimento si legge quanto segue: Passaggi del suo libro La guerra – È in gioco la nostra vita, pubblicato dalla ByoBlu Edizioni — editrice di un canale digitale e tv più volte tacciato di «disinformazione», — sono stati citati da Putin nel discorso del 9 maggio per le celebrazioni del Giorno della vittoria.

Sul Corriere del 6 giugno, Alessandra Arachi ribadisce: Tra i personaggi che avrebbero fatto parte della “rete”, secondo gli apparati di sicurezza, c’è Manlio Dinucci che ha scritto un libro sulla guerra che lo stesso Putin ha citato il 9 maggio per le celebrazioni del giorno della Vittoria. Si tratta di un falso che raggiunge livelli demenziali, sufficiente da solo a dimostrare la natura del dossier del Corriere: un esempio di giornalismo trash strumentale a un piano mirante a mettere a tacere qualsiasi voce alternativa a quella del mainstream politico-mediatico.

VIDEO :

https://www.byoblu.com/2022/06/10/grandangolo-pangea-la-rassegna-stampa-internazionale-di-byoblu-51-puntata/

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Ucraina: La Disinformazione Del Sistema Informativo

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Pakistan must decide between the US-controlled IMF and China with respect to which of those two can most realistically help it avert bankruptcy and accordingly become its top economic-financial partner across what’s thus far been the most chaotic decade since World War II.

Pakistan’s reputable Express Tribune cited “highly placed sources” on Thursday when reporting that the US-controlled IMF demanded that the country renegotiate energy deals connected to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the flagship project of Beijing’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), as part of an implied prerequisite for receiving a bailout from that global financial body. This comes precisely at the moment that Pakistan’s economic crisis continues to comprehensively worsen and the new authorities who scandalously replaced former Prime Minister Imran Khan in early April on the pretext of resolving these problems have yet to come up with any sustainable solution.

It also deserves mentioning that Pakistan and China agreed last September not to alter tariff and tax policies connected to CPEC energy deals so the new authorities would be going back on the former government’s word if they tried to revise these terms under the US-controlled IMF’s pressure. The optics of them attempting that could extend credence to the former premier’s claims that they came to power as part of a US-orchestrated regime change against him as punishment for his independent foreign policy. China is Pakistan’s top strategic partner and one of the dual engines of the emerging Multipolar World Order alongside Russia so Islamabad must tread very carefully in this respect.

Any sudden moves in the direction of simultaneously presenting themselves as having complied with US pressure following accusations that they were brought to power by America in order to flip Pakistan’s grand strategic reorientation away from the multipolar conservative-sovereigntist (MCS) direction of former Prime Minister Khan and towards Washington’s self-interested unipolar liberal-globalist one could irreparably harm the reputation of the new government. Of relevant concern, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa opined just a few days back that China’s interest in South Asia seems to be fading, including in Pakistan, which hosts BRI’s flagship project.

According to him,

“My analysis is that China has shifted their strategic focus into Southeast Asia. They see more strategic interest in Philippines, Vietnam and Cambodia, that region, and Africa. They have less interest in this region. I don’t know whether I am right or wrong, even the focus on Pakistan has gone down. That shows that their interest here is not like earlier. Their interest has shifted to two other areas.”

While this remains the realm of his personal opinion for now since it hasn’t been objectively confirmed, it’s nevertheless a reasonable observation since recent economic and political tumult in top Chinese partners like Sri Lanka and Pakistan might have led Beijing to recalibrate its grand strategy.

Instead of concentrating on South Asia like before, the People’s Republic might indeed be redirecting its BRI focus to neighboring ASEAN and Central Asia, the first of which has a much larger and stable market while the second can connect China to Iran and Turkey. Africa, as always, remains a priority focus of China’s comprehensive global engagement efforts since neither can sustainably rise across this century without the other, meaning that there’ll be neither an African Century nor a Chinese Century but most likely an Afro-Sino Century if their efforts are successful. Even though South Asia is important for China, and especially Pakistan’s CPEC, recent uncertainty there might have comparatively reduced its interest.

Should this observation be even partially accurate, then it would suggest that Pakistan has been forced onto the horns of a dilemma by the US-controlled IMF whereby it must make a zero-sum choice.

Simply put, Pakistan must choose between complying with Washington’s indirectly conveyed demands via that global financial body and thus risk complicating relations with China or rebuff the same country that its new government is laser-focused on improving relations with, possibly ruin the opportunity for a rapprochement, but reassuringly retain its excellent strategic relations with the People’s Republic.

The stakes couldn’t be higher considering former Prime Minister Khan’s earlier warning about the sequence of events that could spell the end of his country in the worst-case scenario. In his words,

“If the establishment doesn’t make the right decisions then I can assure in writing that they and the army will be destroyed because what will become of the country if it goes bankrupt. Pakistan is going towards a default. If that happens then which institution will be [worst] hit? The army. After it is hit, what concession will be taken from us? Denuclearisation. If the right decisions aren’t made at this time then the country is going towards suicide.”

For as worrying as this scenario might sound, it certainly seems credible, especially considering the dilemma that Pakistan has reportedly just been forced into by the US-controlled IMF. This places immense pressure on the country’s military and intelligence structures, which are collectively referred to as “The Establishment” in Pakistani parlance, to soon decide which course of action to take. The problem, however, is that The Establishment recently decided to abandon its former role in stewarding the country by unexpectedly taking a position of “neutrality” ever since the scandalous no-confidence motion against former Prime Minister Khan that he alleges was orchestrated by the US.

This newfound stance might not be the best to practice at such a pivotal juncture in Pakistani history since The Establishment had previously claimed that CPEC was an initiative of grand strategic interest that had the full support of all the country’s stakeholders. With this in mind, their continued “neutrality” might be interpreted by some observers – and particularly those in China – as tacit approval of whatever the new government decides to do regarding the US-controlled IMF’s reported demand to renegotiate CPEC energy deals. By failing to intervene and letting them possibly comply with Western pressure, The Establishment might inadvertently send a very troubling signal to China.

The People’s Republic might immediately suspect that there’s credence behind former Prime Minister Khan’s claims that his successors came to power as part of a US-orchestrated regime change to reverse his independent foreign policy if they suddenly went back on the former government’s agreement to retain the terms of CPEC energy deals under indirect American pressure via the IMF. That could signal to the Chinese that the new government aligns more with the US-led Western ULG worldview than the jointly Russian- and Chinese-led MCS one. Furthermore, Beijing might also come to believe that The Establishment tacitly supports this grand strategic reorientation too.

Should this scenario come to pass, then Sri Lankan President Rajapaksa’s observations about China’s allegedly decreased interest in South Asia might become a fait accompli, at least with respect to Pakistan. The People’s Republic would in all likelihood regard the new Pakistani government and their Establishment backers as unreliable, thus potentially redirecting its BRI focus away from that country and towards Central Asia like it’s already seemingly in the process of doing in order to pioneer connectivity with more economically and politically stable Iran and Turkey. Pakistan and CPEC will always undoubtedly remain important, but they’d no longer be the “first among equals” in BRI.

Reflecting on the strategic insight shared in this analysis, it’s clear that Pakistan has been thrust by the US onto the horns of a dual dilemma. It must first most urgently avert its impending bankruptcy in order to preserve the integrity of its nuclear program per former Prime Minister Khan’s wise warning, but it must also decide between the US-controlled IMF and China with respect to which of those two can most realistically help it do so and accordingly become its top economic-financial partner across what’s thus far been the most chaotic decade since World War II. This means that Pakistan is forced to make a pivotal zero-sum choice whose grand strategic consequences will reverberate for years to come.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. 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 from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington Pressures Pakistan to Renegotiate the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)
  • Tags: , , ,

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Journalists who receive some funding from foreign governments are at risk of committing offences under a bill that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The risk also applies to individuals working for civil society organisations such as human rights groups. 

It would be an offence to disclose leaked information that would prejudice the “safety or interests of” the UK. What constituted such prejudice would be entirely a matter for ministers to decide and there would be no defence to argue that the publication was in the public interest.

The sweeping new threat to freedom of expression is contained in the National Security Bill which MPs are due to vote on for the first time today. The Bill is being championed by home secretary Priti Patel.

Although the government has claimed the measure is designed to prevent new types of spying, the bill is much broader, wider even than the much criticised section 1 of the 1911 Official Secrets Act it would replace.

The 1911 Act refers to the obtaining or communication of information “calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy” (emphasis added).

Also under the bill, ministers and spies would be given immunity from collusion in serious crimes overseas.

Military chiefs of the Five Eyes countries (US, UK, New Zealand, Australia and Canada) met Johnson last week. (Photo: Andrew Parsons / No 10)

Life imprisonment

The Freedom of Information (FoI) Campaign and Article 19, the global campaign for free expression, describe the bill as a major extension of the scope of offences in the 1911 Act.

They say: “A civil society organisation engaged in legitimate activities which has some funding for work on environmental, human rights, press freedom, asylum, aid or other issues from a friendly government could commit an offence under the bill.”

The prosecution would need to show only that such organisations had made use of leaked information “which they knew or should have known was restricted to avoid prejudicing the UK’s safety or interests and that its use did prejudice the UK’s safety or interests.”

The organisations add: “The decision on what constituted the UK’s safety or interests would be the government’s and could not be challenged in court. If the government decided that the UK’s energy situation required an immediate expansion of fracking or the building of coal fired or nuclear power plants, the use of leaked information which could undermine that policy could be a criminal offence under the bill.

“The prosecution would only have to show that the information prejudiced the attainment of the government’s policy in the UK’s interests and that the person who used the information received funding from a foreign government.”

On conviction, that person could face life imprisonment.

Overseas funding

The FoI Campaign and Article 19 point out that the same would be true if an organisation with overseas government funding to confront the problems of asylum seekers used leaked information to oppose the UK government’s asylum policies.

The government could assert that these were necessary in the UK’s interests.

A journalist working for another government’s state broadcaster – including that of a friendly state – who reports on a leak of protected information which is held to be prejudicial to the UK’s interests, would also commit an offence under the bill if they knew or ought to have known that the broadcast would prejudice the UK’s safety or interests.

The fact that the journalist was paid by the funds of a foreign government department or agency and that the broadcasting organisation itself was financed by such funds would satisfy the foreign power condition.

They would also face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Yet a journalist working for a UK news organisation responsible for an identical report based on the same leak could not commit this offence because the foreign power condition would not apply.

*

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

Featured image: Priti Patel leaves St Paul’s Cathedral with other ministers after the Platinum Jubilee service on Friday. (Photo: Andrew Parsons / No 10)

Who Owns the World?

June 10th, 2022 by Peter Koenig

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

What does it mean “Owning the World”? Can anybody, even the richest individual or the richest institution – rich defined as in mucho-mucho money – own the world? That would include, “owning” nature in all its infinite multitude, plants, insects, mammals, all the seas, the water under and above ground and the air we breathe – everything, trees, grass, flowers, bees, summa-summarum, the World.

That’s not possible. And hopefully will never be possible. But, as Klaus Schwab would say

“We – mankind – have now a unique opportunity to end the ambition and the drive of a few dystopian minds to pursue this goal which, if reached, might destroy the planet, our Mother Earth. We must join together now and with an awakened conscience exit this sick-to-the-bone matrix.”

*

This one-hour video provides a comprehensive picture of who controls everything we buy, eat, read, travel in, clothe ourselves with, how and about what we communicate with each other – and, yes, they also control the climate.

Please watch the documentary and spread it around as far and wide as you can. Click image below to watch.

Finally, they control also our banking system. The “controllers”, those who enslave us with monetary handcuffs – inflation, interest rates, debt, credit, digital money, digital spending control – eventually they can make us or break us. Or in a better term: They wish they can make or break us. We can stop it. And we must.

For the safety of Mother Earth and for our own salvation.

As it stands today, the majority of the world – the food we eat, the transportation we use, the news we read – it’s all owned by the very same people. Combined, they are like an octopus stretching its tentacles around the world.

Their agenda is almost endless, but complete; well thought out for the last at least hundred years. They can make plandemics, provoke wars, climate change, cause supply chain disruptions, famines and massive death.

The term “plandemic” is used instead of pandemic, so that all understand that the pandemic was planned.

“They” are the levers and hands, the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and algorithmic tools of some extremely powerful financial corporations, the names of which are, by now, almost household words – BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – are everywhere. There are others, like Morgan-Stanley, Bank of America, Chase and so on. They also own a small piece of the pie.

Black Rock and Vanguard and to some extent State Street, are intertwined, linked together with mutual shareholdings, inter-changes of management and, thus, joint policy decisions.

Their individual asset holdings count as a single cumulative leverage power, currently as an estimated US$ 20 to US$ 25 trillion, as compared to the 2021 US GDP of some 23 trillion dollars, or the world GDP of 95 trillion US$ equivalent (2021 statistictimes.com). The combined leverage strength of 25 trillion dollars is at least 1.5 times the value of the world GDP.

So, every country of the world, every government, does their bidding. Any exception was “neutralized”.

That’s what we have been experiencing for the last two years. The worldwide, generalized, lockstep approach to covid management, measures, restrictions, testing and finally, the vaxxing tyranny – all is part of a massive public oppression; control of 7.9 billion people.

Shifting of assets from the lower 20% to 30% to the top one percent. Oxfam says, the world’s 1% gets 82% of the world’s wealth.

Forbes claims that by March 2020, here were some 2075 billionaires in the world. According to Oxford, two thirds of them obtained their fortunes through inheritance and monopolies.

Bill Gates alone, increased his pre-plandemic fortune from 96.5 billion dollars by about 33 billion to 129 billion in 2022 (Forbes). Increasing one’s fortune by a third (34%) during a plandemic he helped create, which decimated the income and livelihood of billions of people and caused tens of millions of deaths, is quite an “achievement”. Maybe one day it will be ripe for Nuremberg 2.0.

So, the powerful become even more powerful.

They can buy up huge areas of prime-farmland, dictating the meet production is bad for the environment, that we, humans, should eat artificial plant-made meat, bugs, GMO-vegies, and leave the rich farmland to nature and to the oligarchs, of course.

Who owns the new food production? Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the Soros Open Society Foundation, and the same giant financial institutions, we have seen before, operating through smaller corporations, companies and banks.

The same huge financial corporations, BlackRock, Vanguard, Sate Street, et al, are also the financial backbone of the World Economic Forum, or the WEF.

Two months before the corona plandemic “broke out”, in January 2020, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WEF and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, hosted the Event 201, a simulation of a corona virus plandemic.

Just by chance, a corona virus plandemic broke out at the beginning of 2020, simultaneously, around the entire world. All governments worldwide applied the same stern measures – in lockstep – lockdowns, mask wearing, social distancing, isolation; a scenario already illustrated in the 2010 Rockefeller Report, as Chapter I “The Lockstep Scenario”.

So-called gene-modifying mRNA injections, wrongly called vaccines, were prepared in advance, but they were rolled out only in December 2020.

They were immediately “emergency approved” by all the health agencies throughout the world. The injections of these vaxxes caused immediately large numbers of “side-effects”, injuries and death. Nobody was responsible. All vaxx-companies were transferring the liability for vaxx-injuries to the governments, who bought – were forced to buy – their vaxxes.

Klaus Schwab, the founder and CEO of the WEF, said about the corona outbreak, Covid-19, this was a historical opportunity to Reset the world – what translated into the slogan that was in every politician’s mouth, “we are going to build back better”.

Finally, Schwab says in his book, The Great Reset, that by 2030, we will own nothing but we will be happy. Meaning we, the survivors at the end of the decade of the 2020s, will live in a fully digitized world as transhumans, owning nothing, but chipped and mind-controlled by 5G, to believe we are happy.

Happy Humanity!

***

There is hope. We can wake up and break loose from this matrix. We are many. They are few.

Please watch the documentary and spread it around as far and wide as you can. Click image below to watch.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who Owns the World?

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It isn’t every day that an elite group of more than 120 high level political leaders, corporate CEOs, and representatives from the worlds of finance, academia, and the media meet to discuss global affairs. But when such a top-level gathering does take place, you might imagine it would receive extensive media attention. In the case of meetings of the ultra-secretive Bilderberg Group, however, this is not what generally happens. Instead, the vast majority of the mainstream media simply avoids making any mention of them. This year’s Bilderberg meeting, held between 2-5 June at the luxurious Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington D.C., was no exception.

Established in 1954, meetings of the Bilderberg Group are invitation-only and normally take place once a year. Around two-thirds of the participants come from Europe, with the rest coming from North America. Publicly, Bilderberg likes to claim that its meetings are simply a forum for ‘informal discussions’. In reality, however, they wield enormous global influence.

The appointment of former Belgian Prime Minister Herman van Rompuy as the first President of the European Council in 2009 famously took place within days of him attending a special Bilderberg dinner meeting that was seemingly organized for the sole purpose of considering his candidacy. Many other Bilderberg alumni, such as Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Angela Merkel, have similarly gone on to assume senior political roles after attending its meetings. For this reason, Bilderberg’s participant lists are often seen as a good indication of where future power may lie.

Notable attendees

Notable attendees from the world of politics at this year’s meeting included the 99-year-old Henry Kissinger; Mark Rutte (Prime Minister of the Netherlands); Sanna Marin (Prime Minister of Finland); Charles Michel (President of the European Council); and Margaritis Schinas (Vice President of the European Commission). Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was also tipped to be contributing this year via a video conference link.

Attendees from the corporate world included Albert Bourla (Chairman and CEO of Pfizer); Emma Walmsley (CEO of GlaxoSmithKline); Ben van Beurden (CEO of Shell); Bernard Looney (CEO of BP); Eric E. Schmidt (former CEO and Chairman of Google); Yann Lecun (Vice President and Chief AI Scientist of Facebook); Kevin Scott (CTO of Microsoft); and José Manuel Barroso (Chairman of Goldman Sachs International).

Other stand-out names appearing on the participant list included the King of the Netherlands; Jens Stoltenberg (Secretary General of NATO); William J. Burns (Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency); Jake Sullivan (Director of the United States National Security Council); and Jeremy Fleming (Director of the British Government Communications Headquarters).

Bilderberg expects global instability to continue

The list of key discussion topics at this year’s meeting suggests Bilderberg expects the current period of global instability to continue. Top of the discussion list was the subject of ‘Geopolitical Realignments’. This was followed by discussions on ‘NATO Challenges’, ‘China’, ‘Indo-Pacific Realignment’, ‘Sino-US Tech Competition’, and ‘Russia’.

Just as concerning as these opening topics was a discussion on ‘Continuity of Government and the Economy’. Frankly, we can only but guess exactly what this might have been referring to. Continuity after what, in other words. Another global pandemic and a breakdown of public order? Economic collapse? An escalation of the war in Ukraine? While a possible indication can arguably be found in the discussion topic that followed (‘Disruption of the Global Financial System’), Bilderberg’s overall message seems to be that the world will not be returning to normal anytime soon.

A further thought-provoking topic came in the form of a discussion titled ‘Disinformation’. Given the growing worldwide controls on freedom of speech over the past two years, particularly online, and the Biden administration’s attempt to set up a so-called ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ with the stated goal to “coordinate countering misinformation related to homeland security”, the participation of several heavyweight representatives from big tech in the meeting suggests Bilderberg has decided that achieving ‘Continuity of Government and the Economy’ is dependent on gaining still further control of the online world.

Following a discussion on ‘Energy Security and Sustainability’ in which we can assume the CEOs of Shell and BP played prominent roles, next up on the agenda was an item titled ‘Post Pandemic Health’. With Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine having recently become the most lucrative medication in history, the participation of its CEO this year can be interpreted as a sign that Bilderberg is betting on the company’s dominance of pharmaceutical medicine to continue.

Other topics covered (or at least, those we have been told about) included discussions on the ‘Fragmentation of Democratic Societies’ and ‘Trade and Deglobalization’. The meeting apparently closed with a discussion on Ukraine.

And there you have it. Aside from a well-written article penned by long-time Bilderberg observer Charlie Skelton that was published in the Guardian, mainstream media coverage of the 4-day meeting was virtually non-existent. It wasn’t as if big media didn’t have anyone present, however, as the participants included senior representatives from Axel Springer, The Economist, The Financial Times, and others. It’s simply that they – and Bilderberg – don’t want you to know about it.

*

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

This article was originally published on Dr. Rath Health Foundation.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor

Featured image is from Dr. Rath Health Foundation

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 2022 Bilderberg Meeting in Washington DC: Geopolitical Realignments and Disruption of the Global Economy in the Post-Pandemic World
  • Tags:

U.S. Out of Africa: Voices from the Struggle

June 10th, 2022 by Black Alliance for Peace

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The United States Department of Defense has carved up the earth into eleven unified combatant commands. The U.S. Africa Command, or AFRICOM, and the U.S. Southern Command, or SOUTHCOM, are two of these combatant commands. While AFRICOM encompasses the African continent with the exceptions of Egypt, which is under the jurisdiction of CENTCOM, and Eritrea, SOUTHCOM incorporates the Caribbean and South and Central America and claims to be protecting human rights in the region as a long-term responsibility through the development of “regional militaries,” controlled and facilitated by the U.S. Its mission includes contingency planning, operations (including disaster response and “crisis action”), security cooperation, “the force protection” of U.S. military resources in the region, and “ensuring the defense” of the Panama Canal, a critical geographic node for U.S. commerce and security across both the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Like AFRICOM does on the African continent, SOUTHCOM works to extend and protect U.S. political and economic interests in the Americas region. And like AFRICOM, the military-first strategy has become the tool to maintain U.S. regional domination, despite SOUTHCOM’s spurious claims of “humanitarian assistance/disaster relief” and counter-narcotics operations. U.S. “Full Spectrum Domination” is SOUTHCOM’s real objective in our region.

Both SOUTHCOM and AFRICOM are extensions of NATO and the militarized assault on the democratic and human rights of Africans by the U.S. with the support of neocolonial forces, as well as an attack on the self-determination of African peoples and nations in the Americas, the African continent, and the world. Domestic and international repression by the U.S. security state are linked. Our oppression crosses borders; so must our solutions. All who support the right of the people to authentic democracy and human rights should stand in solidarity against neo-colonial rule and the imperialism that it protects.

The Black Alliance for Peace stands against the growing influence and power of SOUTHCOM and AFRICOM, and the ever-increasing militarization of the regions that they operate in. We call for international “Zones of Peace” in the Americas and on the African continent. Informed by the Black radical peace tradition, we understand that peace is not the absence of conflict, but the achievement, by popular struggle and self-defense, of a world liberated from nuclear armament and proliferation, unjust war, and global white supremacy.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Out of Africa: Voices from the Struggle
  • Tags:

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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

***

Oleksandra Koval, director of the Ukrainian Book Institute (part of the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture), has claimed that they will begin working towards withdrawing over 100 million so-called ‘propaganda’ books from public libraries in Ukraine. The books – including the works of the world-renowned writers and poets Dostoyevsky and Pushkin – may be sent to paper recycling centres according to the Minister of Culture and Information Policy, Oleksandr Tkachenko.

The first round of withdrawals, which Koval expressed a desire to complete by the end of the year, will target what she called in an interview with Interfax Ukraine, “ideologically harmful literature” published when Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union, as well as Russian literature with so-called “anti-Ukrainian content”. The second round of withdrawals is intended to include all books published in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union: “they will probably be of different genres, too, including children’s books, and romance novels, and detective stories,” Koval explained.

After the disposal of such ‘harmful’ literature, Ukrainian Public and School libraries will be left with about 100 million books, or half of their current total volume, according to Koval’s estimate. But not all copies of Russian books ought to be removed, says Koval: some should be kept in university and scientific libraries, where Soviet-era children’s fairy tales and romance novels will be preserved “for specialists to study the roots of evil and totalitarianism”.

The removal of Russian books must be seen in the greater context of the ‘decommunisation’ of Ukraine. Since 2015, all communist parties and symbols have been banned, and the war has only been used to further ramp up political repression: the Zelensky regime has banned another eleven parties, and has placed all TV stations under government control.

This is not the first time in recent years Russian books have been banned by the Ukrainian government. In 2015, 38 books published in Russia were banned. More books have been added to the list since, including two books by the popular contemporary Russian detective-novel author, Boris Akunin, and a memoire of the beloved Soviet actor and musician Vladimir Vysotsky.

In 2018, the Russian language edition of ‘Stalingrad’ by British historian Antony Beevor was banned, although the ban was later lifted due to pressures from the British embassy. The reason for the ban? A passage describing the murder of 90 Jewish children by the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, of which Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera was a leading figure.

This is the same Bandera who in 2021 was honoured by the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory through inclusion in a ‘Virtual Necropolis’ commemorating important historical figures – alongside two commanders of SS battalions (Smovsky Konstantin Avdiyovych, deputy commander of the 118th Battalion of the Schutzmannschaft and Ivan Omelianovycha-Pavlenko, commander of the 109th Schutzmannschaft) who carried out pogroms against Jews! But monuments to Stepan Bandera are not limited to the virtual realm. In recent years statues have been constructed in honour of the pogromist, while statues of Lenin and Pushkin have been torn down. And in Chernihiv, a monument to the Soviet partisan and anti-fascist martyr Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya was demolished.

On 21 May, a picture was shared on social media allegedly showing the burning of Ukrainian history books, organised by Russian forces. This image was given wide circulation by the British ambassador to Ukraine, as well as the ex-prime minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt (who, among other shady dealings, has been implicated in war crimes in Sudan as a member of Lundin Group’s board of directors).

The picture was later proven by the France24 fact checking site ‘the Observers’ to have been taken during a protest in Crimea in 2010. Regarding whether the Russian forces have generally engaged in the destruction of books, the France24 article goes on to say that “Ukrainian authorities have claimed that Russian soldiers have destroyed books in the occupied areas… However, our editorial staff did not find any photos showing this destruction.”

It is hardly novel for governments to crack down on free speech in times of war. But this attack is just the latest of many attacks against the status of the Russian language in Ukraine that long precede this war. One third of Ukrainians regard Russian as their native tongue. Yet in 2017, a law was tabled stating that Ukrainian must be the language used at all levels of education, with Russian and other minority languages only recognised for instruction at pre-school and primary school levels. Before his election in 2019, Zelensky had promised to throw this law out but soon reneged on his promises. This is just a continuation of the chauvinist policies of Ukrainian governments since the 2014 Maidan coup, which have repeatedly clamped down on the democratic rights of Russian speakers, whilst glorifying historical Nazis and Nazi collaborators, and permitting fascist gangs free reign across the country for years.

This is the same government which is supposedly fighting for ‘democracy’ – a fight for which it is receiving billions of pounds worth of support from western governments. All Progressives must stand on the side of the international working class in opposition to these attacks from the Ukrainian government; in opposition to the crocodile-teared imperialists in NATO; and in opposition to Putin’s invasion. War will always bring horror, and capitalism will always bring war.

*

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