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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The most recent example is a report published by the U.S.’s Department of Defence (DoD) on June 12, which includes indications about what is happening to the military equipment that are sent to Ukraine almost every day, but no one can see the long-waited “improvement of the situation in favour of Ukraine”.

The report is titled “Evaluation of Accountability Controls for Defence Items Transferred Via Air to Ukraine within the U.S. European Command Area of Responsibility (DODIG-2023-084)” and contains a brief survey over “the extent to which the DoD implemented accountability controls for defence items transferred via air to the Government of Ukraine (GoU) within the U.S. European Command area of responsibility, in accordance with the Defence Transportation Regulations (DTR) and DoD instructions.”

Considering the shocking data provided by the report, it could easily be described as a bombshell. And that’s why western mainstream media decided to maintain silence and say nothing.

According to the report’s findings, “DoD personnel effectively and swiftly received, inspected, staged, and transferred defence items to GoU representatives in Jasionka”, but the shock wave pops up as we understand that “DoD personnel did not have the required accountability of the thousands of defence items that they received and transferred”, as the report puts it.

In simple words, an avalanche of weaponry provided by the West and allies elsewhere has been flowing into Ukraine while DoD personnel have not been able to track its final destination!

The report believes the reason for this chaos is that “personnel did not fully implement their standard operating procedures to account for defense items and could not confirm the quantities of defense items received against the quantity of items shipped”.

To better understand what exactly has happened to billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, the report gives frustrating statistics, admitting that out of every 5 shipments surveyed, 3 had ended up somewhere the DoD has no information about. In fact, the DoD and allies have no idea what has happened to three fifth of all the equipment they have sent to Ukraine!

Up to the time of writing the current report for the Tehran Times, the mainstream media has not made any comments about this report as a collective effort to push for accountability of those in charge of supplying Ukraine with military equipment. For those who are familiar with the dynamics of media atmosphere in the West and especially the U.S., it’s not hard to comprehend the presence of a cartel in backstage. But which cartel is running this show? To find the answer, let’s rewind the time a few months back to February, when the American CNBC unwillingly tried to explain to its audience that why the peaceful settlement of the dispute in Ukraine through negotiations and political measures is now far beyond impossible.

On February 24, the CNBC published an article titled “Business is Very Good, Unfortunately: Arms Fair Spotlights Bonanza Year Ahead for Weapons Companies”. Much is said in the title and we don’t have to walk through the paragraph and try to read in between the lines. The war in Ukraine is filling up the pockets of military industry moguls, as the Covid Pandemic filled up the pockets of pharmaceutical industry moguls…

But the most disturbing part of the title, especially for Ukrainians, is where the CNBC says the booming war economy has just started to boom! And to put it nicely, it uses the word “ahead” and simply moves on! So, yes. The bonanza year is “ahead” of the weapons company. And if you are one of those delusional optimistic peace lovers who still hope to see Putin and Zelensky one day sitting behind a table, signing a treaty, and ending a very miserable conflict, keep dreaming.

Now put the DoD’s report and CNBC’s piece next to each other to see the bigger picture. For the next coming years, you will see an endless flow of military equipment flooding into Ukraine without any concern over the final destination.

How, one might ask, the military complex can possibly escape the consequences of what can be considered one of the most skillfully designed deceptions of the contemporary history? The answer is simple: scapegoats!

A few months after Russia’s SMO began, most of the observers were expecting the end of conflict accompanied with a historical defeat for Russia. And the realities of the battlefield were partially strengthening this expectation. But suddenly news broke out about Russia employing new techniques based on new weaponry it received from a third country, resulting in a magnificent change in the course of war in favor of Russia.

Soon, the secret weapon was unveiled, not by Russia, but by Western media. In no time, wherever you looked, you could see someone is talking about an Iranian loitering drone which helped the prolongation of the war!

Someone, some very smart one in the West, had said: let’s feed them with Iranian drones…

This was the first scapegoat the West used to pave the ground for addressing the challenges predicted to pop up. The West used all the capabilities it had at its disposal to inculcate the Iranian drone into its answer for the questions like why the war is still ongoing. Why we should risk direct confrontation with Russia? And, were is all this money and equipment going? They even photoshoped Zelensky into the image of an Iranian Shahed drone without taking into account the dimensions of the drone, claiming the drone was captured over Kiev!

A lot has already been said about why the narrative of “Iran’s military alliance with Russia” keeps being pumped into the global public opinion. But one of the most important functions of this narrative, was justification. It stood shoulder by shoulder with many other scapegoats the warmongers used to keep the flames of war alive in Ukraine and to avoid the consequences of terrible facts like those of the DoD’s report.

Down the road, it’s the ordinary westerners who have to realize the truth and push for the end of the war.

*

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

The Covid Jab. Maybe There’s Hope After All?

June 28th, 2023 by Dr. Emanuel Garcia

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Below is an important article by Dr. Emanuel Garcia focussing on how many deaths are associated with the Covid mRNA vaccine since the outset in December 2020.

Emanuel Garcia rightfully says that the “evidence is there. It is overwhelming”. 

Emmanuel begs the question  “So IS the truth getting out? Or isn’t it?”

Read carefully Emmanuel Garcia’s on the Covid-19 jab campaign. 

****

Just recently another person died in close proximity to having received the Covid jab. As can be expected, we on the freedom front here in New Zealand were unanimous in our horror at yet another needless death, and certain people were urged to ‘go public’, to rail against the transparently conducted programme of murder, to kick up a fuss that would turn the tide.

Except it won’t.

How many deaths have there been already associated with the jabs worldwide, deaths among the young and the old, among the healthy and the medically compromised, how many ‘died suddenlies’ are there?

Plenty. The evidence is there, it’s overwhelming, but those on the other side aren’t moved. Now, there are some ‘ban the jab’ resolutions that have occurred in certain States in the USA, and certain countries have restricted use of certain jabs, but the Big Pharma avalanche continues to gather momentum for mRNA so-called vaccines. There is also some very hopeful data that many people are declining boosters, at least in the United States.

So IS the truth getting out? Or isn’t it?

Judging from the normies I know, it’s not. Anti-vaxxers are nut-jobs and pariahs who are to be shunned by members of the Church of Vaccinology.

The point I wish to make here, psychologically speaking, is that the jab campaign and the propaganda behind it – which has been decades in the marinating – has created a mindset that truth cannot enlighten.

With every asserted jab death or adverse event – particularly among high-profile celebrities like Jamie Foxx and Eric Clapton – the normies dig in with a renewed vigor. In psychoanalytic circles this is known as resistance, and in analytic therapy it is very common to discover that clear demonstrations of the irrationality of defences is met with increasing resistance. In other words, the more you show the truth the stronger the denial of same. It’s as if an army digs deeper trenches the more hopeless their position becomes. Or an ostrich head burrows further down into the sand lest it witness reality.

This has practical consequences for those of us who struggle to win over the masses. Do we continually bludgeon them with examples of the horrific consequences of the jab?

I think not. I think that all this rational and painstakingly clear parade of reality has the effect of stimulating the un-awoke to further anger, aggression and denial. We are, after all, crazy conspiracy theorist anti-vax crazies, and our idea of causality is nothing more than fear-mongering.

You see, they’re already afraid, and unconsciously they already know that they have been deceived, hoodwinked, manipulated and betrayed. But this they can’t admit, because if the light of the little truths about the jab peeks forth, then soon thereafter the floodlights of greater recognition of the house of cards upon which governments have built their fiefdoms will ensue, and with that discovery, with the recognition of State duplicity and State murder – notwithstanding the quaint messages of State concern, as, for example, in their token programs of assistance to fight various cancers, or their support lines for suicidal teens – they’ve got nothing to fall back to.

They bought the materialist ideal, they’ve flaunted their numbers in the complex rat race they’ve accepted, and they’ve got nothing to look forward to except more money, more stuff and more life, even if that life is increasingly hemmed in by their authorities.

So I don’t tell anyone anymore about another drop-dead gorgeous or talented young thing or seasoned celebrity who had recently flaunted his or her jab status on Facebook and now is no more. I live my little life and occasionally, when I see an opening, I make a remark.

Just tonight at a small joint of a Malaysian restaurant which I frequent, I noticed that one of the cooks wasn’t wearing his mask. He had stood out as a masked man and for weeks I had thought to say something when he served me his fine dish of Mee Goreng, but something told me to desist.

Tonight, however, as he rung up my bill – unmasked – I commented on the absence of his disguise and dared to say ‘you know, they don’t work, I’m a doctor’. This, for me, was saying a lot, because these days I am generally close-lipped, as a matter of principle.

He then explained that he wore the mask because he had a lesion on his nose – which I saw – and then he smiled and then I left in great good spirits that maybe some good sense was settling into our crazy world.

Maybe there is hope, after all.

*

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

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

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

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) are people who hold a public function and as a result present a higher risk of being involved in bribery and corruption. Offshore leaks have revealed time and again that PEPs use British finance and British offshore jurisdictions to launder their wealth, hide their wealth and re-invest that wealth back into the global financial system. London is the place where they buy property, where they take legal action against their critics and where they live when they fall from grace.

Behind Closed Doors investigates three developing world families which have for decades been at the heart of power in their respective countries and have during that time grown fabulously wealthy. The Kenyatta’s of Kenya, the Aliyev’s of Azerbaijan, and the Sharif’s of Pakistan.

All three families have been revealed to have made use of offshore financial secrecy to invest in London property. UK financial services companies have been only too happy to offer their services for these transactions. Rachel Davis-Teka of Transparency International reveals that “it’s very hard to pursue large banks and big firms for money laundering offences, because we do not have a ‘failure to prevent money laundering’ offence within UK law,” she further shares that “Companies House is not empowered to check and verify the information that is submitted to it. It’s quite possible to write down, Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck, …. and no one’s going to check that information.”

We released the trailer to Behind Closed Doors on the 17th of October (2022), within a week one of the main contributors to the documentary, the fearless Pakistani investigative journalist Arshad Sharif, who was a fierce critic of the ruling Sharif family, was shot and killed by the Police in Kenya. Ten days later another participant, the former Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan was shot in an assassination attempt. Further to these individuals, the film includes contributions by John-Allan Namu of Africa Uncensored, Tom Stocks of the OCCRP, Emin Huseynov the Azerbaijani journalist who fled to the Swiss embassy in Azerbaijan to escape politically motivated arrest, Shahzad Akbar the former head of the Pakistani Asset Recovery Unit etc…

Behind Closed Doors reveals the barriers that stand in the way when a developing country attempts to have laundered and illicit money returned.

Journalist Phil Miller writes in Declassified UK:

“An important film, coming at a time when Western nations are claiming to crack down on dirty money and oligarchs. It highlights how much more work British authorities need to do if their anti-corruption drive is to go beyond rich Russians.”

Transparency International UK called the documentary “A very timely film that highlights well the key issues with Britain’s role in facilitating corruption overseas.”

Watch the documentary below.

*

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

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Sometimes you wake up from a dream to realize it is telling you to pay close attention to the depth of its message, especially when it is linked to what you have been thinking about for days. I have just come up from a dream in which I went down to the cellar of the house I grew up in because the basement light was on and the back cellar door had been opened by a mysterious man who stood outside.

I will spare you additional details or an interpretation, except to say that my daytime thoughts concerned the media spectacle surrounding the Titan submersible that imploded two miles down in the ocean’s cellar while trying to give its passengers a view of the wreck of the Titanic, the “unsinkable” ship nicknamed “the Millionaire’s Special.” The ship that no one could sink except an ice cube in the drink that swallowed it.

Cellar dreams are well-known as the place where we as individuals and societies can face the flickering shadows that we refuse to face in conscious life. Carl Jung called it “the shadow.” Such shadows, when unacknowledged and repressed, have a tendency to autonomously surface and erupt, not only leading to personal self-destruction but that of whole societies. History is replete with examples. My dream’s mysterious stranger had lit my way through some dark thoughts and opened the door to a possible escape. He got me thinking about what all of us tend to want to deny or avoid because its implications are so monstrous.

The obsession with the alleged marvels of technology together with naming them after ancient Greek and Roman gods are fixations of elite technologues who have lost what Spengler called “living inner religiousness” but wish to show they know the classical names even though they miss the meaning of these myths. Such myths tell the stories of things that never happened but always are. Appropriating the ancient names without irony – such as naming a boat Titanic or a submersible Titan – unveils the hubristic ignorance of people who have never descended to the underworld to learn its lessons. Relinquishing  their sense of god-like power doesn’t occur to them, nor does the shadow side of their Faustian dreams.

They will never name some machine Nemesis, for that would expose the fact that they have exceeded the eternal limits with their maniacal technological extremism, and, to paraphrase Camus, dark Furies will swoop down to destroy them.

Nietzsche termed the result nihilism. Once people have killed God, machines are a handy replacement in societies that worship the illusion of technique and are scared to death of death and the machines that they invented to administer it.

The latter is not a matter fit to print since it must remain in the dark basement of the public’s consciousness. If it were publicized, the game of nihilistic death-dealing would be exposed. Because power, money, and technology are the ruling deities today, the mass media revolve around publicizing their marvels in spectacular fashion, and when “accidents” occur, they never point out the myth of the machines, or what Lewis Mumford called “The Pentagon of Power.” Tragedies occur, they tell us, but they are minor by-products of the marvels of technology.

But if these media would take us down to see the truth beneath the oceans’ surfaces, we would see not false monsters such as the Titanic or Moby Dick or cartoon fictions such as Disney’s Monstro the whale, but the handiwork of thousands of mad Captain Ahabs who have attached the technologues “greatest” invention – nuclear weapons – to nuclear-powered ballistic submarines.

Trident submarines. First strike submarines, such as the USS Ohio.

These Trident subs live and breathe in the cellars of our minds where few dare descend. They are controlled by jackals in Washington and the Pentagon with polished faces in well-appointed offices with coffee machines and tasty snacks. Madmen. They hum through the deep waters ready to strike and destroy the world. Few hear them, almost none see them, most prefer not to know of them.

But wait, what’s the buzz, tell me what’s happening: the Titan and the Titanic, wealthy voyeurs intent on getting a glance into the sepulchre of those long dead, while six hundred or so desperate migrants drown in the Mediterranean sea from which the ancient gods were born. These are the priorities of a society that worships the wealthy; a society of the spectacle that entertains and distracts while the end of the world cruises below consciousness.

The United States alone has fourteen such submarines armed with Trident missiles constantly prowling the ocean depths, while the British have four. Named for the three-pronged weapon of the Greek and Roman sea gods, Poseidon and Neptune respectively, these submarine-launched ballistic missiles, manufactured by Lockheed Martin (“We deliver innovative solutions to the world’s toughest challenges”), can destroy the world in a flash. Destroy it many times over. A final solution.

While the United States has abrogated all treaties that offered some protection from their use and has declared their right of first use, it has consistently pushed toward a nuclear confrontation with Russia and China. Today – 2023 June – we stand on the precipice of nuclear annihilation as never before.

A single Trident submarine has 20 Trident missiles, each carrying 12 independently targeted warheads for a total of 240 warheads, with each warhead approximately 40 times more destructive than the Hiroshima bomb. Fourteen submarines times 240 equals 3,360 nuclear warheads times 40 equals 134,400 Hiroshimas. Such are the lessons of mathematics in absurd times.

James W. Douglass, the author of the renown JFK and the Unspeakable and a longtime activist against the Tridents at Ground Zero Center for Non-Violent Action outside the Bangor Submarine Base in Washington state, put it this way in 2015 when asked about Robert Aldridge, the heroic Lockheed Trident missile designer who resigned his position in an act of conscience and became an inspirational force for the campaign against the Tridents and nuclear weapons:

Question: “What did the Nuremberg attorneys say about war crimes that had such a deep impact on Robert Aldridge?”

Douglass: “They said that first-strike weapons and weapons that directly target a civilian population were war crimes in violation of the Nuremberg principles. Those Nuremberg principles, which are the foundations of international law, are violated by both by electronic warfare – which is why we poured blood on the files for electronic warfare [at the base] – and also by the Trident missile system, which is what Robert Aldridge was building.”

Robert Aldridge saw his shadow side. He went to the cellar of his darkest dreams. He refused to turn away. He became an inspiration for James and Shelley Douglass and so many others. He was a man in and of the system, who saw the truth of his complicity in radical evil and underwent a metanoia. It is possible.

If those missiles are ever launched from the monsters that carry them through the hidden recesses of the world’s oceans, there will never be another Nuremberg Trial to judge the guilty, for the innocent and the guilty will all be dead.

We will have failed to shed light on our darkest shadows.

Writing in another context that pertains to today’s high-flying nuclear madmen whose mythic Greek forbear Icarus would not listen, the poet W. H. Auden put it this way in “Musée des Beaux Arts”:

About suffering they were never wrong,
The Old Masters: how well they understood
Its human position; how it takes place
While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along

How, when the aged are reverently, passionately waiting
For the miraculous birth, there always must be
Children who did not specially want it to happen, skating
On a pond at the edge of the wood:
They never forgot
That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course
Anyhow in a corner, some untidy spot
Where the dogs go on with their doggy life and the torturer’s horse
Scratches its innocent behind on a tree.

In Brueghel’s Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away
Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may
Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,
But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone
As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green
Water; and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen
Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky
Had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on.

We turn away at our peril.

*

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 author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Featured image: A port bow view of the nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine USS OHIO (SSBN-726) secured in the water during its commissioning. The partially-constructed nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine GEORGIA (SSBN-729) displays a “Good Luck Ohio” banner nearby. Both ships are products of General Dynamics Corp. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Back in mid-January, retired United States Army Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, who previously led the US Army Europe Command and still holds several high-ranking positions within NATO, gave an interview to the CIA front Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where he claimed that Western heavy armor would supposedly give the Kiev regime “an edge” against the Russian military. When asked “how much of a disadvantage has Ukraine had without [Western/NATO armor] and what can Kiev now achieve with it”, Hodges stated the following:

“Well, of course, I wish these decisions to provide ‘Bradley’ and ‘Marder’ and AMX-10RC and other systems would have been made sooner. But the good news is they’ve been made. What I heard last week was the foundation for an armor brigade. Basically, you’ve got self-propelled artillery from the Czech Republic, a battalion; AMX-10RC from France, which is an excellent wheeled vehicle, a lot of mobility with a big gun on it; and then a battalion of ‘Marder’, which is a very good system; and then a battalion of ‘Bradley’, which is the best infantry fighting vehicle in the world. If you get those and then if you put maybe a Ukrainian tank battalion in the middle of it with engineers, you’ve got a lethal combined arms formation that could be the iron fist that would help penetrate these endless lines of Russian trenches…”

It’s hardly breaking news that these “excellent wheeled vehicles” and “very good systems”, including “the best infantry fighting vehicle in the world”, have been anything but as the much-touted counteroffensive of the Kiev regime forces has proven to be a spectacular failure. After weeks of attempts to break through Russian lines, apart from a few small tactical successes that cannot possibly be justified considering the horrendous losses, the “iron fist” of the Neo-Nazi junta troops demonstrated its impotence as it has been unable to achieve any of the stated strategic goals.

By June 21, losses of the Kiev regime forces have been staggering, standing at approximately 13,000 servicemen, 246 tanks (13 of which were NATO heavy armor), 595 armored fighting vehicles (AFVs), 279 artillery guns and mortars (48 sent by NATO), 42 multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), two SAM (surface-to-air) missile systems, 14 aircraft (including helicopters), 264 drones and 424 vehicles. Since then, the losses seem to have escalated dramatically, although precise numbers are yet to be released. As the German daily Handelsblatt described it: “This isn’t a counteroffensive. It is a bloody crash test.

Despite this, the Neo-Nazi junta keeps sending the forcibly conscripted Ukrainians to certain death (or horrendous injuries, at best). On June 24, offensive operations were launched in both Zaporozhye and Donetsk regions (oblasts), but failed, although the Kiev regime claimed there was “progress in all directions“. Video evidence suggests that virtually all assault units engaged in offensive operations were either destroyed or damaged beyond repair, while Russian kamikaze drones neutralized their artillery support composed primarily of US-made M777 howitzers.

The following day, the Neo-Nazi junta forces lost well over 700 soldiers and dozens of pieces of heavy armor and lighter support vehicles. During a failed attack, the 47th brigade of the Kiev regime forces got bogged down in a minefield, resulting in catastrophic losses, including life-altering injuries. War footage suggests there are dozens of critically injured soldiers, with virtually no way to either provide immediate medical assistance or evacuate the wounded. There are numerous instances where soldiers are simply left behind to die.

Expectedly, this has resulted in insubordination from many Ukrainian servicemen, some of whom are openly refusing to follow orders of their superiors, further reinforcing previous claims about a looming mutiny within the Neo-Nazi junta forces. Battlefield reports now even suggest that their commanding officers are often taking extreme measures to ensure obedience. One of the latest videos shows an officer throwing at least two hand grenades at several Ukrainian servicemen standing in a bunker for failing to hold their positions. Presumably, the Ukrainian soldiers (at least three of them) either failed or refused to follow the order of their commanding officer to hold the position they were assigned to.

It’s safe to assume that they were most likely forced to retreat from their post in order not to get overrun, as there were only three of them. Obviously agitated by this, the officer decided that the immediate punishment for insubordination was to throw hand grenades at them. The available footage shows the commanding officer taking at least two grenades from another soldier and throwing them into the bunker where the fleeing soldiers were standing, after which an explosion can be heard. The fate of the unfortunate servicemen is unknown, but given the confined space they were in, it can only be assumed that the best-case scenario is they suffered serious shrapnel wounds.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. 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 button below the author’s name.

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Scandalous incompetence. Profound stupidity. Astounding errors. This is how many analysts – including Dr. Vinay Prasad, Dr. Scott Atlas, and popular Substack commentator eugyppius – explain how leading public health experts could prescribe so many terrible pandemic response policies.

And it’s true: the so-called experts certainly have made themselves look foolish over the last three years: Public health leaders like Rochelle Walensky and Anthony Fauci make false claims, or contradict themselves repeatedly, on subjects related to the pandemic response, while leading scientists, like Peter Hotez in the US and Christian Drosten in Germany, are equally susceptible to such flip-flops and lies. Then there are the internationally renowned medical researchers, like Eric Topol, who repeatedly commit obvious errors in interpreting Covid-related research studies. [ref]

All of these figures publicly and aggressively promoted anti-public health policies, including universal masking, social distancing, mass testing and quarantining of healthy people, lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

It seems like an open-and-shut case: Dumb policies, dumb people in charge of those policies. 

This might be true in a few individual cases of public health or medical leaders who really are incapable of understanding even high school level science. However, if we look at leading pandemic public health and medical experts as a group – a group consisting of the most powerful, widely published, and well-paid researchers and scientists in the world – that simple explanation sounds much less convincing. 

Even if you believe that most medical researchers are shills for pharmaceutical companies and that scientists rarely break new ground anymore, I think you’d be hard-pressed to claim that they lack basic analytical skills or a solid educational background in the areas they’ve studied. Most doctors and scientists with advanced degrees know how to analyze simple scientific documents and understand basic data. 

Additionally, those doctors and public health professionals who were deemed experts during the pandemic were also clever enough to have climbed the academic, scientific, and/or government ladders to the highest levels.

They might be unscrupulous, sycophantic, greedy, or power-mongering. You might think they make bad moral or ethical decisions. But it defies logic to say that every single one of them understands simple scientific data less than, say, someone like me or you. In fact, I find that to be a facile, superficial judgment that does not get to the root cause of their seemingly stupid, incompetent behavior.

Returning to some specific examples, I would argue that it is irrational to conclude, as Dr. Prasad did, that someone like Dr. Topol, Founder and Director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, who has published over 1,300 peer-reviewed articles and is one of the top 10 most cited researchers in medicine [ref] cannot read research papers “at a high level.” And it is equally unlikely that Anthony Fauci, who managed to ascend and remain atop the highest scientific perch in the federal government for many decades, controlling billions of dollars in research grants [ref], was too dumb to know that masks don’t stop viruses.

There must, therefore, be a different reason why all the top pro-lockdown scientists and public health experts – in perfect lockstep – suddenly started (and continue to this day) to misread studies and advocate policies that they had claimed in the past were unnecessary, making themselves look like fools.

Public health experts were messengers for the biodefense response

The most crucial single fact to know and remember when trying to understand the craziness of Covid times is this:

The public health experts were not responsible for pandemic response policy. The military-intelligence-biodefense leadership was in charge.

In previous articles, I examined in great detail the government documents that show how standard tenets of public health pandemic management were abruptly and secretly thrown out during Covid. The most startling switch was the replacement of the public health agencies by the National Security Council and Department of Homeland Security at the helm of pandemic policy and planning.

As part of the secret switch, all communications – defined in every previous pandemic planning document as the responsibility of the CDC – were taken over by the National Security Council under the auspices of the White House Task Force. The CDC was not even allowed to hold its own press conferences!

 As a Senate report from December 2022 notes:

From March through June 2020, CDC was not permitted to conduct public briefings, despite multiple requests by the agency and CDC media requests were “rarely cleared.” HHS stated that by early April 2020, “after several attempts to get approvals,” its Office of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs “stopped asking” the White House “for a while.” (p. 8)

When public health and medical experts blanketed the airwaves and Internet with “recommendations” urging universal masking, mass testing and quarantining of asymptomatic people, vaccine mandates, and other anti-public health policies – or when they promoted obviously flawed studies that supported the quarantine-until-vaccine biodefense agenda – they were not doing so because they were dumb, incompetent, or misguided. 

They were performing the role that the leaders of the national security/biodefense response gave them: to be the trusted public face that made people believe quarantine-until-vaccine was a legitimate public health response. 

Why did public health leaders go along with the biodefense agenda?

We have to imagine ourselves in the position of public health and medical experts at top government positions when the intelligence-military-biodefense network took over the pandemic response. 

What would you do if you were a government employee, or a scientist dependent on government grants, and you were told that the quarantine-until-vaccine policy was actually the only way to deal with this particular engineered potential bioweapon?

How would you behave if an unprecedented event in human history happened on your watch: an engineered virus designed as a potential bioweapon was spreading around the world, and the people who designed it told you that terrifying the entire population into locking down and waiting for a vaccine was the only way to stop it from killing many millions? 

More mundanely, if your position and power depended on going along with whatever the powers-that-be in the NSC and DHS told you to do – if your job and livelihood were on the line – would you go against the narrative and risk losing it all?

And, finally, in a more venal vain: what if you stood to gain a lot more money and/or power by advocating for policies that might not be the gold standard of public health, but that you told yourself could bring about major innovations (vaccines/countermeasures) that would save humanity from future pandemics?

We know how the most prominent Covid “experts” answered those questions. Not because they were dumb, but because they had a lot to lose and/or a lot to gain by going along with the biodefense narrative – and they were told millions would die if they failed to do so.

Why understanding the motives of public health leaders during Covid is so important

Paradoxically, deeming public health experts stupid and incompetent actually reinforces the consensus narrative: that lockdowns and vaccines were part of a public health plan. In this reading, the response may have been terrible, or it may have gone awry, but it was still just a stupid public health plan designed by incompetent public health leaders.

Such a conclusion leads to calls for misguided and necessarily ineffectual solutions: Even if we replaced every single HHS employee or defunded the HHS or even the WHO altogether, we would not solve the problem and would be poised to repeat the entire pandemic fiasco all over again.

The only way to avoid such repetition is to recognize the Covid catastrophe for what it was: an international counterterrorism effort focused myopically on lockdowns and vaccines, to the exclusion of all traditional and time-tested public health protocols.

We need to wake up to the fact that, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (if not earlier), we have ceded control of the agencies that are supposed to be in charge of public health to an international military-intelligence-pharmaceutical cartel. 

This “public-private partnership” of bioterrorism experts and vaccine developers is not interested in public health at all, except as a cover for their very secret and very lucrative biowarfare research and countermeasure development.

Public health was shunted aside during the Covid pandemic, and the public health leaders were used as trusted “experts” to convey biowarfare edicts to the population. Their cooperation does not reflect stupidity or incompetence. Making such claims contributes to the coverup of the much more sinister and dangerous transfer of power that their seemingly foolish behavior was meant to hide.

*

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

Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

How the Flu “Disappeared” During the COVID Era

June 27th, 2023 by Jordan Schachtel

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

One of the biggest mysteries of “the pandemic” involves the supposed disappearance of the flu. Did the flu really disappear during the covid hysteria era, or is something else afoot?

Here’s the grand mystery, in meme format.

Now, during the confusion and panic of the last few years, there have been lots of explanations advanced about the supposed disappearance of the flu. The lockdowners and their credentialed institutions often claimed that masked worked (lol) to stop the flu, despite not working for covid. Others claimed that covid had some kind of viral dominance effect that defeated influenza strains.

But neither explanation really solves the “where did the flu go” mystery.

The evidence seems to point to two main reasons for the flu’s disappearance: the physical disappearance of flu testing kits and a misunderstanding of what the flu actually means.

  1. The flu tests were not physically available in healthcare systems

The Dossier surveyed several individuals and organizations with access to hospital system records and supply chain management, and we pooled together lots of anecdotal information to paint a greater picture of what happened.

We found that, at least in the United States, there was virtually no access to flu testing during the covid hysteria years, particularly from 2020 to 2021. Virtually all testing manufacturers pivoted to covid testing, leaving the influenza kits behind. According to Pharma and Government Health, Covid was a much bigger priority, both from a healthcare perspective and a business perspective, so the flu industry was no longer lucrative and kicked to the curb.

The second reason, however, is even more important.

  1. The flu is not understood in its proper context

Prior to the establishment of the covid testing industrial complex (which brought in well over $100 billion a year at its peak), flu was almost always diagnosed by symptoms, not by a swab test. And again, covid symptoms are virtually identical to flu symptoms. In the vast majority of cases, what is “the flu” is traditionally understood not as a viral influenza diagnosis but a general diagnosis of countless potential symptoms categorized in a broad category as “flu.” Very few doctor-diagnosed “flu” cases actually come from influenza strains. This is why it is the perfect rationale to understand covid as the flu but with scarier branding. Both flu and covid share the same symptoms, so a potential flu case/illness/death instead was generally diagnosed as a covid case/illness/death.

But enough from your humble correspondent. Let’s read a more detailed response from someone who knows this issue very well.

I also posed this question to Dr Norman Pieniazek (follow him on Twitter), a renowned molecular biologist who worked at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as the head of its molecular diagnostic laboratory for 24 years. Dr Pieniazek is an expert in PCR testing diagnostics and has a fascinating perspective on the shoddy science behind “the pandemic.”

Here’s his reply to my question:

From Dr. Norman J. Pieniazek:

Did the flu disappear during the COVID-19 pandemic?

I will try to answer this question; however, first, I must explain the terms common cold and flu (influenza).

Do you know that over 200 viruses cause colds and that people in the United States suffer from an estimated 1 billion colds yearly (1)? Nonetheless, can we clearly say who suffers from the common cold and the flu? What about PCR, the technique used to monitor the cases of COVID-19? Unfortunately, PCR was found to be impractical for the diagnosis of infections of the respiratory tract for at least two reasons.

The first problem is the diagnostic sample. Mucus samples, taken from deep nostrils (nasal swab), throat (oropharyngeal swab), and nasopharynx (nasopharyngeal swab), in essence, test the human air filter. The nasal passages have ridges that cause the air to swirl, similar to the Dyson vacuum cleaner principle. As the nasal passages and the whole respiratory tract are lined with mucus, it traps viruses, bacteria, pollen, fungal spores, and dust. This layer with trapped particles is moved by ciliated cells out of the airways (2). When the mucus is tested with PCR, detecting a part of a virus in the air filter doesn’t mean that this virus caused the infection. This problem with swabs has been known for a long time (3). The consensus is that broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) is the most appropriate specimen for detecting respiratory tract viral infections. Unfortunately, collecting the BAL sample is complex and may not be approved by the patient (4).

The second problem was signaled above. With more than 200 possible infection causes (etiology), testing for all suspects is not feasible. While in a scientific study (3, 5), no stone would be left unturned to diagnose patients enrolled in a project, surveillance cannot be done this way.

CDC has developed a sentinel system for monitoring colds in the US population. This system monitors visits for respiratory illnesses, including fever, cough, or sore throat. Such visits are classified as Influenza-Like Illnesses (ILI). Please note that this designation doesn’t imply laboratory-confirmed influenza and captures patient visits due to all respiratory pathogens that cause similar symptoms (6). In addition to this system, CDC collects data on confirmed influenza cases (7); however, only about 1% of samples tested are usually positive. The take-home message is that no one knows how many flu cases are in the US annually. The reported number of ILI may be only the tip of the iceberg.

With the arrival of the Wuhan virus in January 2020, all lessons of prior seasons were forgotten. People were forced to be tested even when they showed no symptoms. Despite ample evidence to the contrary, PCR done from swabs was suddenly advertised as the gold standard for diagnosis of infections of the respiratory system. Consider another important fact. In a carefully conducted study (4) of hospitalized pneumonia patients diagnosed on classical X-Ray or CAT scans, the cause of the infection (etiology) could not be established in 62% of cases. How is it possible that during the pandemic in the US, there were 107,201,630 COVID infections and 1,166,899 COVID deaths as of today (8)? Where are infections with other viruses? Where are conditions of unknown etiology?

The answer is straightforward. The results of PCR testing just for one virus are meaningless. This scam should be obvious to anyone versed in diagnosing respiratory infections.

*

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

Notes

1. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/understanding-common-cold-virus/

2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5378048/

3. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1500245

4. https://medlineplus.gov/lab-tests/bronchoscopy-and-bronchoalveolar-lavage-bal

5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11741166/

6. https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/main.html

7. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/

8. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Featured image is from The Expose


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

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

Putin “Shoots Himself in the Head”? Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

June 27th, 2023 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Putin’s latest speech is one that should never have been made. With his ill-considered speech — Putin has lent his weight to US neoconservative propaganda that he is in a weakened and challenged position and that the US can win in Ukraine:. 

“I emphasize that from the very beginning of the events, all necessary decisions were immediately taken to neutralize the threat that arose, to protect the constitutional order, the life and security of our citizens.” — President Vladimir Putin

With the Ukrainian forces essentially defeated, the fake news “mutiny” is precisely what the neoconservatives needed to keep the conflict alive, which is why Scott Ritter thinks Victoria Nuland might have instigated the “coup.”

Even if what Putin said was true –and it is not– he should never have said it. He has verified the US neoconservatives’ propaganda. The consequence will be more provocations against Russia. The danger from these provocations make it ever more important that Russia use sufficient force to end the conflict before the neoconservatives spin it out of control.

Clearly, Putin has third-rate advisors. Instead of verifying neoconservative propaganda about Putin weakened by internal dissent, Putin should have said that Prigozhin’s protest got his attention to the bad relationship between the boots-on-the-ground and the military brass in Moscow and to the desire of the troops doing the fighting for the Kremlin to use sufficient force to end the conflict.  The Wagner troops are tired of dying for a war that doesn’t go anywhere or have an end in prospect.

But this would imply Putin’s mistake, not Prigozhin’s, and thinking they were shielding Putin his advisers actually put him at risk by verifying the neoconservatives’ portrait of Putin as weak and internally opposed.

The Russian military brass have been trying to get rid of Prigozhin, because he refused to put his Wagner Group under their command. The military brass have been paying him back with ammunition shortages and in other ways. It is possible that they did hit one of his camps with a missile in order to light his fuse. Whatever happened, the military brass succeeded in getting rid of him, just as the Democrats and the CIA got rid of President Trump’s National Security Advisor, General Flynn.   

Possibly, Prigozhin succeeded in getting Putin’s attention, but that Putin found the “armed rebellion,” “mutiny” story too set in stone to escape it. If Putin actually regards the events of last Saturday as high treason, why did he give a pass to Prigozhin and the Wagner soldiers?

Would a leader threatened by Wagner troops incorporate them into the military or would he disband and prosecute them?

I have already explained why it was not a coup.

Yevgeny Prigozhin is a long-time close ally of Putin. He formed the Wagner Group at Putin’s request. The Group, as formed, is separate from the Russian Military but was equipped by the Ministry of Defense and used Russian military bases for training. There is speculation that Putin wanted the Group so that he can conduct military operations with plausible deniability. This makes little sense as the Wagner Group is a Russian paid military force that operates for Russia. There is no possibility of denying that.

I don’t know why Putin had Prigozhin form the Wagner Group. I think of the Wagner Group like the French Foreign Legion and as a substitute for a draft.

We will find out if Prigozhin succeeded in getting Putin’s attention if there are changes in the upper ranks of the military and if, finally, Putin authorizes the force to bring the conflict to a conclusion. If Putin does not bring the conflict to a close, nuclear war will be the likely consequence.

Col. Douglas Macgregor sees the situation as I do except I am unsure he appreciates the damage Putin has done to himself in the West by proclaiming that Russia was on the verge of civil war and a major internal armed conflict, and in Russia by his denunciation of the Wagner commander and his troops as traitors who wanted Russians to kill one another. The video below is valuable not only for Col Macgregor’s explanations, but also for video clips showing the enthusiasm and high regard shown by the Russian population of Rostov to Prigozhin and his soldiers on their arrival in the city last Saturday. Russians are proud of the Wagner troops and to hear them denounced by Putin has probably damaged Putin more than it has damaged Prigozhin.

The video also has clips of Secretary of State Blinken claiming that Putin is being rejected by his own people and clips of a Biden Navy admiral promising ever more weapons for Ukraine. Clearly, Washington’s response to the false news “coup” is as I described. So sad Putin was so naive as to jump into the trap.

It is not only Prigozhin and his soldiers who want the war brought to a quick end. It is what the Russian people want. Victory is important to them as a statement of their sovereignty and prowess. There is no excuse for Putin’s go-no-where-war that makes Russia look ineffectual. All Putin has achieved is a great widening of the conflict with NATO and US involvement. Russians are dying for no progress. The deaths are pointless.

Remember, the Russian winter offensive did not happen. The excuse was it never got cold enough to freeze the ground so tanks, artillery, and troop convoys wouldn’t get stuck in the mud. Now it is almost July and still no summer offensive. If Putin continues to sit out his war, the US and NATO will have time to create another Ukrainian army, maybe with Polish troops, perhaps with one of the CIA’s jihad armies.

Putin is also harming combat effectiveness by giving in to the military brass and breaking up the Wagner Group into sections and integrating them into Russian Army groups. The Russian soldiers will be envious because they have not had the Wagner troops’ successes. The Wagner troops are older and hardened men and will not tolerate snide remarks. It might not work well, and the fighting prowess of the Wagner troops might suffer from the loss of cohesion. In effect, the Wagner Group is an army-sized special forces unit. Its demise would be a large victory for the West.

It is very easy to understand the Wagner Group’s frustrations that erupted in a protest. It is the duty of a commander in chief to bring a war to a quick and victorious conclusion. Putin has failed his responsibility.

I attribute the fake news “armed rebellion” to Putin’s failures.

He failed to address the smoldering dispute between Prigozhin and the generals, and he presented the soldiers and the country with an endless war that demoralized the Russian people  

If Russia cannot defeat pitiful Ukraine, how can Russia stand up to the West?

The fact that the Russian media and the Western media agree on a fake news narrative, now set in stone, further removes the conflict from a truthful understanding, thus maximizing the chances for an explosion that adversely affects the entire world.

*

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

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is under the Public Domain

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, said on Monday that Moscow’s intelligence services were investigating whether Western spy agencies played a role in the short-lived insurrection by Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin.

Lavrov said in an interview with state broadcaster RT:

“I work in a government ministry that is not engaged in gathering evidence of unlawful acts being committed, but we do have such agencies and, I assure you, they are already looking into it.”

Moreover, he said that when the US ambassador to Russia Lynne Tracy spoke with Russian officials she tried to send “signals” conveying that Washington was not involved in the uprising.

“When US ambassador Tracy spoke with Russian representatives [regarding the situation with Prigozhin] yesterday, she conveyed signals. These signals were, first of all, that the US had nothing to do with it, that the US very much hopes that nuclear weapons will be fine, that American diplomats will not suffer, and it was especially emphasized: the US proceeds from the fact that everything that happened is an internal affair of Russia,” Lavrov said.

Lavrov went on to accuse American intelligence agencies of hoping that the aborted uprising would succeed. He specifically pointed to CNN reports which stated that US intelligence officials saw signs of Prigozhin’s planned rebellion ahead of time but chose not to weigh in.

“This was probably wishful thinking,” Lavrov said, accusing the US of being an enthusiastic supporter of regime change when it can benefit from the process and claimed there had been numerous attempts at regime change around the world in recent years that were “met with a different response on the part of the US, depending on who was in power and who was trying to carry out the coup.”

He added:

“Where the West is happy with the current government, in such situations no protest can be legitimate. But where the government doesn’t reflect the interests of the hegemon and is pursuing the national interests, in those cases we see various unlawful forces are being stimulated [to attack the authorities].”

This comes two days after top mercenary Yevgeny Prigozhin started a brief but impactful insurrection over the weekend. The rebellion ended by him calling off his Wagner forces’ march on Moscow after agreeing to a deal, mediated by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, which would see him exiled in Belarus without any legal action taken against him in Russia.

*

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


Annex: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RT television, Moscow, June 26, 2023

Source: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Question: What is the international reaction to the failed mutiny?

Sergey Lavrov: It makes no sense to go over everything that has filled the media in the last few days.  Everyone can see and hear the international reaction. Every adult can assess it. 

Question: Did Russia’s allies express support?

Sergey Lavrov: In their numerous phone calls to President Vladimir Putin, our colleagues voiced solidarity, support and confidence that the situation would be under control and return to the constitutional framework. And it did.   

I also held several telephone conversations initiated by our foreign partners. Many of them expressed the same ideas: solidarity, confidence that we would not allow any attempt to undermine the unity of our state, and [certainty] with the success of the special military operation.  But they asked [me] not to mention their calls in public. We comply with their requests.

Question: How do you assess Minsk’s role in defusing the crisis?

Sergey Lavrov: The assessments of Minsk’s role were given to President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko in person. President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, has repeatedly explained in detail that during the two leaders’ telephone conversation on the morning on Saturday, June 24, Alexander Lukashenko called for a peaceful solution to the crisis to avoid the bloodshed that would have inevitably taken place if the mutineer units had continued their advance towards Moscow. President of Russia Vladimir Putin supported this proposal. You know the result. A Kremlin spokesman announced it yesterday.

Question: There were reports that the United States suddenly thought better of introducing sanctions against PMC Wagner lest it found itself “on Putin’s side.” Is this a change in the US’ approach? Earlier, after all, there were loud calls to declare Wagner a terrorist organisation.

Sergey Lavrov: This is not a change of approach. It is further confirmation that this approach depends on what Washington wants of this or that outside player at a certain specific juncture, be it on the international stage as a whole or in a certain country. The United States has repeatedly displayed an absolute bias and vested interest in connection with the Ukrainian crisis. It is waging a war against the Russian Federation using the Ukrainians as proxies.

A few years ago, before the signing of the Minsk agreements, the US Congress marked the Azov regiment and similar units as terrorist organisations. It was written in black and white that US aid to Ukraine should not extend to them. Now all of that is forgotten, with Azov having been rehabilitated a long time ago. Following Big Brother’s suit, the Japanese National Diet passed the decision to remove Azov from its list of extremist organisations. 

Everything succumbs to the “rules” that the West obeys itself and wants others to do the same. These rules have nothing to do either with international law or the laws of any country, the Western countries included.

Question: Can a failed mutiny create difficulties in relations with our foreign partners?

Sergey Lavrov: Not with our partners and friends. It may with everyone else, but it does not bother us. Relations with the collective West were destroyed by them. They are no more. One incident more, one incident less, it does not really matter.

President Putin has said more than once: when and if they come to their senses and come up with proposals to restore relations in a particular form, then we will look into what they are asking for and what each of their roles was in unleashing a hybrid war against the Russian Federation.

Question: Is there any evidence that neither Ukrainian nor Western intelligence services were implicated in the so-called rebellion?

Sergey Lavrov: I work at a place that does not collect evidence of wrongdoing. We do have agencies that engage in this kind of work, and I can assure you they are already looking into this.

Question: American websites have posted reports saying that the leaders of some African countries, including the CAR, were panic stricken after Saturday’s events since the Wagner PMC’s activities in Africa could be terminated. How realistic is the termination of the private military company’s activities in Africa? Could this weaken Russia’s image as a stabilising force in Africa?

Sergey Lavrov: If reports of “panic” in the Central African Republic and the rest of Africa were posted on American websites, I strongly encourage you to think about who they are working for and how little they care about being bearers of true facts as opposed to their being keen on gaining favour with their bosses and the forces that are behind the collective West’s ideology and practical actions.

We discussed Russia’s role in Africa earlier. The CAR and Mali are the countries whose respective governments officially requested the private military company to offer its services. This was at a time when the CAR and Mali had been abandoned by the French and other Europeans who withdrew their anti-terrorist contingents and closed down military bases that were supposed to sustain the fight against terrorism.

At a time when they were left face to face with thugs, Bangui and Bamako asked Wagner PMC to provide security for their authorities. In addition to relations with this PMC, the governments of the CAR and Mali have official contacts with our leadership. At their request, several hundred military personnel are working in the CAR as instructors. This work will continue.

There is an important aspect to this situation. The CAR, Mali and other countries from the Sahara-Sahel region found themselves under direct attack by terrorist units after the “fighters for democracy and freedom” represented by France and other NATO members, in their bid to eliminate Muammar Qaddafi (he knew too much about how the presidential campaign in the French Republic was funded), unleashed an open aggression against Libya. They violated the UN Security Council resolution which prohibits such actions. They broke up the Libyan state, of which the entire international community is still picking up the pieces and has so far been unable to finish this job.

Libya was turned into a huge black hole. Thugs carrying smuggled weapons, terrorists of all kinds, extremists and drug traffickers flowed southward into the Sahara-Sahel region across Libya. They continue to terrorise certain African countries to this day. Let’s not forget the fact that those who destroyed Libya and gained fame for similar aggressive actions against other countries in the region (including Iraq and Syria), turned that country into a black hole in the opposite direction as well, with countless numbers of illegal migrants pouring into Europe. Now Europe is seriously impacted by them and, as they say, does not know how to get rid of them.

Now, regarding who is “panicking” and the causes of panic. I did not see any panic or any change in relations between the African countries and the Russian Federation. On the contrary, I received several solidarity phone calls, many of them coming from my African friends. We believe no opportunistic considerations can exist in Russia’s strategic relations with our African partners.

Question: I take it from your answer that preparations for the Russia-Africa summit are still underway?

Sergey Lavrov: Not “still,” they are in full swing. The summit’s agenda is being supplemented by new and engaging items which will be announced soon. I am sure everyone stands to learn something from these events.

Question: How do you assess the landslide of statements from Western analysts that the Wagner-related crisis revealed the fact that the Russian authorities were losing control over the situation and a civil war would break out?

Sergey Lavrov: This is their wishful thinking. It is something that our Western colleagues were overwhelmed with yesterday and on Saturday evening. I looked at how the events in Russia were being covered. In particular, CNN (if memory serves) reported that US intelligence knew about the impending mutiny several days before, but chose not to tell anyone, clearly hoping that the mutiny would succeed. Another piece of news reported by CNN just yesterday with reference to US intelligence analysts corroborates this theory. It said Prigozhin’s march on Moscow was expected to be met with much more resistance and be much bloodier than it actually was. This indirectly answers your question about what they expected and why they commented exactly as you said. Representatives of the Ukrainian regime, including Vladimir Zelensky and his henchmen Mikhail Podolyak and Alexey Danilov, expressed quite openly, in a Freudian manner, these kinds of “expectations,” that is, the disintegration of Russia as a state. They all lamented that they had not been able to use this situation to “break up the regime.”

A representative of European democracy – President of France Emmanuel Macron – who defends Europe’s “strategic autonomy” from the United States and everyone else, also had something to say. But he did not stray far from US rhetoric. Emmanuel Macron said they were contemplating the situation with caution. Allegedly, it is unfolding quickly, but, most importantly, they saw a split and a frail and weak regime and the army, which fully justifies their actions to continue to provide military support to Ukraine. Even an eighth grader will know what kind of position Emmanuel Macron is advocating, who clearly saw the current developments as a chance to follow through on the threat (which is being repeated by NATO leaders like a mantra) of Ukraine inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. I am talking not so much about Ukraine, but the entire Western camp, as President Putin said in his speech on Saturday: “The entire military, economic and informational machine of the West is directed against us.” Clearly, CNN, the Ukrainian regime leaders and politicians such as Emmanuel Macron are part of this machine.

Yesterday, US Ambassador Lynne Tracy spoke with Russian representatives to pass on signals (they are not secret) that the United States had nothing to do with it and hoped that things would be good with the nuclear weapons and that American diplomats would not be impacted. She emphasised that the United States saw the developments as the domestic affair of the Russian Federation.

Here, it is also possible to cite some recent and not-so-recent examples where attempts were made to stage a mutiny or a coup d’état in various countries. Each time, the United States reacted differently, depending on who was in power and who attempted to stage the coup. Take, for instance the sadly memorable 2014 – the Kiev Maidan, bloody provocations against defenceless law enforcement officers, and a government coup against the legitimate President. Meanwhile, an EU-backed agreement was signed just several hours before these events. Neither the US, nor its European allies protested against that mutiny. They admitted in a way that this zigzag was produced by a democratic process, as one German leader put it at that time.

A coup also took place in Yemen in 2014 and the country’s President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia. During all these long years that we tried to steer the situation with regard to Ukraine back into a political vein, we were told that Viktor Yanukovych had left Kiev. As for the fugitive leader Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, the entire West told us in chorus that no, he was the lawful President and ought to be returned to Yemen – only after he had returned could the process of settlement start.

Also in 2014, there was an attempt to stage a coup in The Gambia. When the first reports about the putschists taking up arms appeared, the US Department of State instantly announced that the US would never recognise forces that came to power by non-constitutional means.

A couple of recent examples. The US adamantly refused to urge dialogue with the puppet government of Moldova, when President of Moldova Maia Sandu went so far in her Russophobia that thousands of people staged peaceful protests. Recall how the West responded – it described this as an attempted coup – that it would never support. At the same time, some processes were taking place in Georgia where the West disliked the government. Supporters of Mikhail Saakashvili (who was brought to power in a West-backed coup and suited the West completely) protested against that government, organising a Georgian Maidan.

These examples show that any protests are ruled out by definition when the West is interested in keeping a corrupt government. But where the authorities are trying to proceed from the national interests of their country and people rather than the hegemon, all kinds of hoodlums are incited to act against them. These are American “rules” – pax americana. This is what they want to see and strengthen.

Question: For the past month, Ukrainian and American officials have been warning almost every day that Russia is obviously going to blow up the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. Doesn’t this insistence mean that there is probably a plan for an attack that would be blamed on Russia? Could this give NATO an excuse to get directly involved in the hostilities?

Sergey Lavrov: This is nonsense. We have commented on this many times. Describing this, we usually refer to a certain animal, calling it an old mares’ tale. This is what it is.

The fact that this trite threat and warning have already appeared in the media many times (primarily voiced by representatives of the Kiev regime) points only to one thing. All these people have been trained, including in information warfare, primarily by the Anglo-Saxons, the Poles and even by the Balts (who have become senior comrades of the Ukrainians). If the results of these “training sessions” are so deplorable and unconvincing, I feel sorry about the money that Western taxpayers are spending to pay the “teachers” of such incapable and irresponsible “pupils.”

Russo-Ukrainian War: The Wagner Uprising

June 27th, 2023 by Big Serge

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The events of the past weekend (June 23 – 25, 2023) were so surreal and phantasmagorical that they militate against narration and defy description.

On Friday, the infamous Wagner Group launched what appeared to be a genuine armed insurrection against the Russian state. They occupied portions of Rostov on Don – a city of over 1 million people, regional capital, and headquarters of Russia’s Southern Military District – before setting off in an armed column towards Moscow.

This column – replete with heavy military equipment including air defense systems – came within a few hundred miles of the capital – virtually unmolested by Russian state forces – before abruptly stopping, announcing that a deal had been brokered with the aid of Belarusian President Aleksandr “Uncle Sasha” Lukashenko, turning around, and heading back to Wagner bases in the Ukrainian theater.

Needless to say, the spectacle of a Russian mercenary group making an armed march on Moscow, and of Wagner tanks and infantry cordoning off Ministry of Defense buildings in Rostov, sparked widespread confidence among the western commentariat that the Russian state was about to be toppled and the Russian war effort in Ukraine would evaporate.

There were confident and outlandish predictions pushed out in a matter of hours, including claims that Russia’s global footprint would disintegrate as the Kremlin recalled troops to defend Moscow and that Russia was about to enter a state of Civil War. We also saw the Ukrainian propaganda machine kick into overdrive, with characters like Anton Gerashchenko and Igor Sushko absolutely bombarding social media with fake stories about Russian army units mutinying and regional governors “defecting” to Prigozhin.

There’s something to be said here about the analytic model that prevails in our time – there’s a machine that instantly springs to life, taking in rumors and partial information in an environment of extreme uncertainty and spitting out formulaic results that match ideological presuppositions. Information is not evaluated neutrally, but forced through a cognitive filter that assigns it meaning in light of predetermined conclusions. Russia is *supposed* to collapse and undergo regime change (Fukuyama said so) – therefore, Prigozhin’s actions had to be framed in reference to this assumed endgame.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we saw some similar measure of aggressive model-fitting from “Trust the Plan” Russia supporters, who were confident that the Wagner uprising was just an act – an elaborate ruse concocted in concert by Prigozhin and Putin to fool Russia’s enemies and advance the plan. The analytic error here is the same – information is parsed only for the purpose of buttressing and advancing a pre-concluded endgame; except it is Russian omnicompetence which is assumed instead of Russian state collapse.

I took something of a middle view. I found the idea that Russia faced civil war or state collapse to be bizarre in the extreme and completely unfounded, but I also did not think (and I feel that events have vindicated this view) that Prigozhin was acting in collaboration with the Russian state to create a charade. If indeed the Wagner uprising was a Psyop (Psychological Operation) to trick NATO, it was an extremely elaborate and convoluted one which hasn’t yet shown any clear benefits (more on this in a moment).

My broad belief is that Prigozhin was acting of his own volition in an extremely risky way (which risked both his own life and a destabilizing effect on Russia). This presented the Russian state with a genuine crisis (albeit one which was not sufficiently severe to threaten the state’s existence) which I think they handled quite well on the whole. The Wagner uprising was quite clearly bad for Russia, but not existentially so, and the state did a good job containing and mitigating it.

Let’s get into it, starting with a short look at the timeline of events.

Anatomy of a Mutiny 

The amount of disinformation (particularly propagated by the Ukrainians and by Russian liberals residing in the west) that flew around throughout the weekend was extreme, so it might be prudent to review the progression of events as they actually happened.

The first sign that something was amiss came with a few explosive statements by Wagner head Yevgeny Prigozhin on the 23rd (Friday). In a rather long and erratic interview, he made the shocking claim that Russia’s pretext for the war in Ukraine was an outright lie and that the war had been fraught with corruption and the murder of civilians.

Things then got even crazier when Wagner claimed that the Russian army had struck their camp with a missile. This was extremely weird – the video which was released (purporting to show the aftermath of this “missile strike”) did not show an impact crater, debris, or any wounded or killed Wagner personnel. The “damage” from the missile consisted of two campfires burning in a trench – apparently Russia has missiles that can start small controlled fires without destroying the surrounding plant life?

The video obviously did not show the aftermath of a missile attack, but Prigozhin’s rhetoric escalated after this and he soon announced that Wagner would begin a “march for justice” to gain redress for his various grievances.

It was not clear exactly what he wanted, but it seemed to center on personal grudges against Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov.

Shortly thereafter, a few videos came from the Russian authorities (including one featuring General Surovikin) apparently pleading with Wagner to “stop the movement of their columns” and return to their posts, to prevent bloodshed and destabilization. This validated some of the rumors that Wagner was leaving the theater in force. News that Russian National Guard had been activated in Moscow and elsewhere seemed to vindicate the fear that an armed clash in Russia was imminent.

By the end of Friday, armed Wagner convoys were in Rostov (bearing the red Z mark) and had taken control of several military offices in what amounted to a bloodless coup of the city. The scenes were a bit outlandish – tanks on the city streets and security cordons around key facilities, but seeming indifference from the population. People mingled among the Wagner troopers, street sweepers went about their work, Wagner bought cheeseburgers, and people took pictures with the tanks.

A T-72 is the ultimate accessory

That evening, Prigozhin had a tense but civil face to face meeting with two high level MOD officials – Yanus Evkurov (Deputy Defense Minister) and Vladimir Alekseev (Deputy Head of the military intelligence directorate).

Things really got heated the next day (Saturday the 24th) with the news that two substantial armed bodies were on the move within the prewar Russian borders.

One was a column of Wagner personnel and weapons who left Rostov for Moscow, and other was a Chechen force dispatched by the state to Rostov.

Amid the news that Russian state forces were establishing roadblocks and defensive positions outside of Moscow, it looked like two separate battles might have been imminent – one by the Wagner column fighting state forces outside Moscow, and another fought between the Chechens and the Wagner remnants for control of Rostov.

It was at this point that Ukrainian disinformation really began to run wild, with claims flying around that Russian military units and regional administrations were defecting to Prigozhin – in effect positing that this was not just an uprising by Wagner against the state, but a wholesale revolt of the Russian system against Putin’s government. In fact (and this is a key point to which I will return later) there were no defections in any regular Russian military units or regional governments and there was no civil unrest. The mutiny was confined to the Wagner Group, and even so not all of Wagner participated.

Be that as it may, by the early evening hours on Saturday there were real reasons to worry that shooting might start outside Moscow or in Rostov. Putin issued a statement denouncing treason and promising an appropriate response.

The Russian Ministry of Justice opened a criminal file on Prigozhin for treason. Two Russian MoD aircraft were shot down (an Mi-8 helicopter and an IL-22) by the Wagner column. The global atmosphere became notably more humid from the volume of salivation flowing from Washington.

Can’t park there, buddy

Then, the Wagner column stopped. The government of Belarus announced that a settlement had been negotiated with Prigozhin and Putin. Lukahsenko’s office claimed “they came to agreements on the inadmissibility of unleashing a bloody massacre on the territory of Russia.” The column turned aside from the road to Moscow and returned to Wagner’s field camps around Ukraine, and the Wagner forces left in Rostov packed up and left. Aside from the crews of the two downed aircraft, nobody was killed.

Of course, speculation immediately turned to the terms of the deal between Prigozhin and the state. Some speculated that Putin had agreed to remove Shoigu, Gerasimov, or both from their posts (perhaps this was the point all along?). In fact, the terms were relatively lame and anticlimactic:

  1. The treason case against Prigozhin was dropped and he was to go to Belarus
  2. Wagner fighters who participated in the uprising would not be charged and would return to operations in Ukraine
  3. Wagner fighters that did not participate in the uprising would sign contracts with the Russian military (essentially exiting Wagner and become regular contract troops)
  4. A vague reference to “security guarantees” for Wagner fighters

So, this is all very weird. A genuine armed insurrection with tanks and heavy weapons (not a man in a buffalo headdress) with a takeover of military facilities brought to a sudden resolution by Lukashenko, and all that Prigozhin seems to have gotten out of it was… free passage to Belarus? Odd indeed.

So let’s try to parse through what happened here using an analytical framework that is not pre-deterministic – that is, let us assume that neither Russian omnicompetence nor Russian regime change and neoliberal cuddliness are guaranteed.

I’d like to start by addressing precisely these two ideologically predetermined theories. On one side we had those claiming that Russia was about to be plunged into civil conflict and regime change, and on the other those who think the whole thing was a pre-planned psyop by the Russian government. The former have already been discredited by virtue of the fact that all their dramatic predictions collapsed in 24 hours – Prigozhin did not, in fact, lead a metastasizing mutiny, overthrow Putin, and declare himself Tsar Eugene I. The other extreme theory – the psyop – remains viable, but I think extremely unlikely, for reasons I will enumerate now.

Psyop Scenarios

It’s relatively easy to simply say “the mutiny was a psyop” without elaborating. It’s trivially obvious that the Wagner uprising “fooled” western analysis – but this isn’t ipso facto evidence that the uprising was staged for the purpose of fooling the west. We have to ask for something more specific – to what end might the uprising have been scripted?

I’ve identified what I think are four discreet theories that at least merit examination – let’s take a look at them and talk about why I think they all ultimately fail to explain the uprising to satisfaction.

Option 1: Live Bait 

One potential explanation – which I have seen suggested quite frequently – is the idea that Prigozhin and Putin staged the uprising for the purpose of drawing out theoretical networks of seditionists, foreign agents, and disloyal elements. I suppose the thinking was that Prigozhin would create a controlled, but cosmetically realistic sense of crisis for the Russian state, making Putin’s government appear vulnerable and coercing treacherous and enemy parties across Russia into revealing themselves.

Conceptually, this amounts to little more than Putin’s government pretending to be a wounded animal for the purpose of drawing out the scavengers so they can be killed.

I think this theory has appeal to people because it posits Putin as an extremely crafty, Machiavellian, and paranoid leader. This is also why I think it’s wrong. Putin has derived a great deal of legitimacy from his ability to fight the war without disrupting day to day life in Russia – there’s no rationing, no conscriptions, no restrictions on movement, etc. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of Putin has been from the war party, who allege that he’s fighting the war too timidly for fear and is too preoccupied with maintaining normalcy in Russia.

It seems incongruous, then, that a leader who has taken great care to avoid putting Russian society on a war footing would then do something as destabilizing as staging a fake uprising. Furthermore, if indeed the Wagner revolt was a charade to smoke out other treacherous and terroristic elements, it failed badly – there were no defections, no civil unrest, and no denunciations of Putin. So for several reasons, the live bait theory does not pass the sniff test.

Option 2: Masking Deployments

A second theory is the idea that the Wagner uprising was essentially a giant smokescreen to enable the movement of military forces around Russia. I suppose the thinking here is that if armed columns are seemingly flying around wildly, people might not notice if Russian forces moved into position to, say, attack Sumy or Kharkov. This take was cosmetically bolstered by the news that Prigozhin would be going to Belarus. Was this entire thing a ruse to mask the redeployment of Wagner for an operation in Western Ukraine?

The problem with this line of thinking is three fold. First, it misunderstands the complexity of staging a force for operations. It’s not just about driving a line of trucks and tanks into position – there are enormous logistical needs. Ammo, fuel, rear area infrastructure all need to be staged. This can’t be done in 24 hours under the temporary cover of a fake mutiny.

Secondly, the “distraction” effect is mostly directed at media and the commentariat, not at military intelligence. Put another way – CNN and the New York Times were definitely fixated on the Wagner uprising, but American satellites continue to pass over the battlespace and western ISR is still functioning. Prigozhin’s antics would not stop them from observing staging to attack a new front.

Third and finally, it doesn’t appear that much of Wagner will be accompanying Prigozhin to Belarus – his journey to Lukashenko Land looks more like an exile than a redeployment of the Wagner Group.

Option 3: Engineered Radicalization 

This is the usual “false flag” sort of theory that circulates any time anything bad happens anywhere. It’s become rather blasé and trite: “Putin staged the uprising so he could escalate the war, increase mobilization, etc.”

This doesn’t make any sense and is pretty easy to dismiss. There have been real Ukrainian attacks inside Russia (including a drone attack on the Kremlin and cross-border forays by Ukrainian forces). If Putin wanted to intensify the war, he could have used any of these opportunities. The idea that he would choose to orchestrate an internal uprising – running the risk of widespread destabilization – rather than focusing on Ukraine is ridiculous.

Option 4: Consolidation of Power

Of all the psyop theories, this is the one that probably has the most merit. There were two different strains to this, which we’ll treat in turn.

At the beginning, some speculated that Putin was using Prigozhin to create a pretext to force out Shoigu and Gerasimov. I thought this was unlikely for a few reasons.

First, I don’t think there is a valid case to be made that these men deserve to be fired. There were uneven elements of Russia’s war in the beginning, but there is a clear arc of improvement in the armaments industry with key systems like the Lancet and Geran becoming available in ever increasing quantities, and right now the Russian armed forces are making mulch out of Ukraine’s counteroffensive.

Secondly, if Putin wanted to remove either Shoigu or Gerasimov, doing so in response to a faux-uprising is the worst way to do it, because this would give the appearance of Putin bowing to the demands of a terrorist. Keep in mind, Putin has not publicly criticized either Shoigu or Gerasimov for their handling of the war. Publicly, they appear to have his full backing. Could the president really remove them in response to Prigozhin’s demands without appearing incredibly weak? Far better if Putin simply fired them of his own volition – making himself, and not Prigozhin, the kingmaker.

Sure enough, it does not appear at this point that either Shoigu or Gerasimov will lose their posts. This led the “power consolidation” theory to pivot to a second line of thinking, that Putin wanted to use Prigozhin to essentially stress-test the Russian political system by seeing how regional administration and army leadership would respond.

The objects of Prigozhin’s wrath?

This treats the uprising like a fire drill – turn on the alarm, and see how everyone responds, and take notes on who followed instructions. To be sure, Russian political figures came crawling out of the woodwork to affirm their support for Putin and denounce Wagner – complete with some trademark Russian flair, like the Governor of Tver calling on Prigozhin to commit suicide. This perhaps lends credibility to the idea that Putin wanted to test his subordinates.

Again, however, I think this theory misses a few key points. First off, Russia appeared to be internally very stable. Putin was facing no opposition or pushback, no civil unrest, no mutinies in the army, no criticism from high profile political figures – it’s not clear why he would feel the need to rock the country just to test the loyalty of the political apparatus. Perhaps you think he’s a hyper-paranoid Stalin figure who feels driven to play mind games with the country, but this really does not square with his operating pattern. Secondly, the trajectory of the war is overwhelmingly in Russia’s favor at the moment, with victory at Bakhmut fresh in the public memory and Ukraine’s counteroffensive looking more and more like a world historical military bust. It makes little sense why at this time in particular, when things are going very well for Russia, Putin would want to drop a grenade just to test reaction times.

Ultimately, I think that all of these “Psyop” theories are very weak when evaluated in good faith in their own terms. Their errors share a common thread. Things have been going very well for Russia, with the army performing excellently in the ongoing defeat of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, no internal disorder or unrest, and a growing economy. The psyop line of thought presumes that, in a time where things are going well, Putin would take an enormous risk by staging a fake mutiny for negligible gains, risking not only civil unrest and bloodshed but also marring Russia’s image of stability and dependability abroad.

The presumption is that the Putin team is omnicompetent and is able to game out a highly complex deception scheme. I don’t think the Russian government is omnicompetent. I think they are simply a normal level of competent – too competent to pull a high risk, low reward stunt like this.

What Prigozhin Wants 

I sometimes like to think of western “end of history” predeterminism (in which all of history is an inexorable march towards global neoliberal performative democracy and the final liberation and happiness of all mankind is announced when the victorious pride flag flies in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang) as being essentially a geopolitical corollary to Jurassic Park – a poignant story of hubris and ruin (and one of my favorite movies).

The analytic model of Jurassic Park’s creators presumed that the dinosaurs – creatures about whom they knew practically nothing – would over time submit to control routines like zoo animals. Blinded by the illusion of control and the theoretical stability of their systems (presumed to be stable because it was designed to be stable), there was no appreciation for the fact that the Tyrannosaurus had an intelligence and a will of its own.

I think that Yevgeny Prigozhin is a bit like the Tyrannosaurus in Jurassic Park. Both the western neoliberal apparatus and the Russian four dimensional plan-trusters seem to think of Prigozhin as a cog that exists to execute the function of their world model. Whether that model is the long march of history towards democracy and the last man or a brilliant and nuanced master plan by Putin to destroy the unipolar Atlantic world, it does not matter much – both tend to negate Prigozhin’s agency and turn him into a slave of the model. But perhaps he is a Tyranosaurus, with an intelligence and will that has an internally generated direction indifferent to our world models. Perhaps he tore down the fence for reasons of his own.

Image: A would-be Lenin? Or just a man with his back at the wall?

We have to return to who Prigozhin is, and what Wagner is.

To Prigozhin, Wagner is first and foremost a business which has made him a huge amount of money, particularly in Africa. Wagner’s value (in the most fundamental sense) comes from its high degree of combat effectiveness and its unique status as an independent entity from the Russian armed forces. Any threat to either of these factors represents a financial and status catastrophe for Prigozhin.

Recently, developments in the war have evinced an existential threat to the Wagner group as a viable PMC. These are, namely:

  1. A concerted push by the Russian government to force Wagner fighters to sign contracts with the Ministry of Defense. In effect, this threatens to liquidate Wagner as an independent organization and subsume it wholesale into the regular Russian military.
  2. Wagner is losing the manpower surge from last year’s conscriptions (including convicts). These conscripts provided an enormous manpower buffer that allowed Wagner to shoulder the large-scale fighting in Bakhmut, but many have completed their tours of duty.

This means that Wagner faces potential destruction from two fronts. Institutionally, the Russian government wants to essentially neutralize Wagner’s independence by folding it into the MoD. From Prigozhin’s point of view, this essentially means the nationalization of his business.

Furthermore, a slimmed down Wagner (having shed much of the conscripts that fleshed it out to Army Corps size) is not something that Prigozhin wants to send into combat in Ukraine. Once Wagner is stripped down to its core of experienced wet work operators, casualties in Ukraine will begin eating directly into Wagner’s viability.

In other words, Prigozhin and the authorities were at an impasse. What Prigozhin probably wanted most of all, to put it bluntly, was to use the fame won in Bakhmut to take Wagner back to Africa and start making lots of money again. What he did not want was to have his PMC absorbed into the Russian military, or to have his core of lethal professionals attrited in another major battle in Ukraine. The MoD, on the other hand, very much wants to absorb Wagner fighters into the regular army and use them to defeat Ukraine on the battlefield.

So, we have a clear conflict of interests.

But what can Prigozhin do about it? He has absolutely no institutional power, and Wagner is dependent on the Ministry of Defense for equipment, supplies, ISR, and so much more. Furthermore, Prigozhin’s personal wealth and his family are under the jurisdiction of the Russian state. He has very limited leverage. There are really only a few things he can do. He can record videos to embarrass, harass, and degrade the Ministry of Defense. Of course, it’s probably unwise to directly attack Putin in these rants, and it might not play well to insult ordinary Russian soldiers, so these attacks have to be properly targeted at precisely the sort of bureaucratic higher ups that the Russian public is predisposed to dislike – men like Shoigu and Gerasimov.

Apart from these video tantrums, Prigozhin really had only one other play to stop the institutional absorption of Wagner – stage an armed protest. Get as many men as he could to join him, make a move, and see if the state could be rocked enough to give him the deal he wanted.

It sounds weird, of course. You’ve heard of gunboat diplomacy – now we get to see tank-based contract negotiations. Yet it is clear that the dispute over Wagner’s independence and status vis a vis Russian military institutions was at the heart of this. Earlier this month, Prigozhin announced his intention to disobey a presidential order that required his fighters to sign MoD contracts by July 1.

Prigozhin’s statement this morning (Monday, June 26), however, was extremely instructive. It focused almost exclusively on his central grievance: Wagner was going to be absorbed into the institutional military. He doesn’t take this to its conclusion and note that this would nationalize his highly profitable business, but his comments leave no doubt as to his motivation. Here are a few key points that he makes:

  • Wagner did not want to sign contracts with the Ministry of Defense
  • Absorption into the MoD would mean the end of Wagner: “This unit was supposed to cease its existence on July 1.”
  • “The goal of our campaign was to prevent the destruction of Wagner Group.”

But what did Prigozhin think would happen? What was his optimistic scenario? Likely, he hoped that general anti-bureaucratic and anti-corruption sentiments, combined with Wagner’s popularity and fame, would lead to an upswell of support for the group which would put the government in a position to acquiesce to Wagner’s independence.

It was a bold decision. Facing institutional absorption, Prigozhin gambled on a measured destabilization campaign that would rock the country just enough to spook Putin into cutting him a deal. Prigozhin might have convinced himself that this was a clever and decisive roll of the dice that could turn things in his favor. I rather think that they were not playing dice at all. They were playing cards, and Prigozhin had nothing in his hand.

Russia’s Crisis Management 

This is the part of the article that I suspect will ruffle feathers and earn me accusations of “coping” – so be it. Let’s just get this out in the open:

Russia handled the Wagner uprising extremely well, and its management of the crisis points to a high degree of state stability.

Now, what I am not saying is that the uprising was good for Russia. It was clearly a net-negative in several ways. Russian aircraft were shot down by Wagner and Russian pilots were killed. Prigozhin was then allowed to walk away after causing these deaths – a stain on the government. There was widespread confusion which does nothing good for morale, and operations in the Southern Military District were disrupted by Wagner’s occupation of Rostov.

On the whole, this was not a good weekend for Russia. It was a crisis, but it was a crisis that the state handled quite well overall and mitigated the downsides – perhaps even making a glass or two of lemonade out of Prigozhin’s lemons. It’s a bit fitting, perhaps, that Shoigu used to be Minister of Emergency Situations (essentially disaster relief). Disasters are never good, but it’s always better to handle them well when they happen.

The state response was actually pretty straightforward: call Prigozhin’s bluff.

Prigozhin drove toward Moscow with his column – but what was he going to do if he got there? Russian national guard was preparing to block them from entering the city. Would Wagner attack Moscow? Would they shoot national guardsmen? Would they assault the Kremlin or shell Saint Basil’s? Doing so would lead to the inevitable death of every man involved. Wagner, with no supply or procurement of its own, cannot fight the Russian armed forces successfully and probably could not supply itself for more than a day or two.

The problem with Prigozhin’s approach is that pantomiming a coup doesn’t work if you aren’t willing to actually attempt a coup – and a coup only works if institutional authorities side with you. It’s not as if Prigozhin could drive a tank up to Lenin’s mausoleum and begin issuing orders to the federal ministries and armed forces. Coups require control over institutional levers of power – regional governorships, government ministries, and the officer corps of the armed forces.

Prigozhin not only lacked all of these things, but in fact the entire apparatus of power denounced him, scorned him, and branded him a traitor. Having mutinied his way into a dead end, his only choices were to either start a firefight outside Moscow and guarantee that he would die and be known to history as a traitorous terrorist, or to surrender. It is probable that the Wagner column shooting down Russian aircraft (which Prigozhin later claimed was a “mistake”) spooked him and confirmed that he was going too far and did not have a good way out. When your opponent calls and you have nothing in your hand, there is nothing to do except fold.

Consider then, for a moment, the actual scene in Russia. An armored column was driving towards the capital. What was the response from the Russian state and people? Authorities at all levels publicly denounced the uprising and stated support for the president. There were no defections, either from military units or civilian administration. There was no civil unrest, no looting, no loss of even basic government control in the country. Compare the scenes in Russia during an armed rebellion to the United States in the summer of 2020. Which country is more stable, again?

In the end, the government managed to dissipate a crisis situation, which could easily have spiraled into substantial bloodshed, without any loss of life apart from the crews of the two downed aircraft (deaths that we should not minimize, and must be remembered as victims of Prigozhin’s ambition).

Furthermore, the terms of the “settlement” amount to little more than surrender by Prigozhin. He himself seems to be bound for a sort of semi-exile in Belarus (potentially awaiting a Trotsky ice-pick moment) and it seems that the majority of Wagner will sign contracts and be absorbed into the Russia institutional military. Based on the speech that Putin gave this evening (fifteen minutes ago as of this writing), Wagner fighters have only three options: sign MOD contracts, disband and go home, or join Prigozhin in Belarusian exile (presumably without their gear). As it relates to the institutional status of Wagner, Prigozhin lost and the state won. Wagner as an independent fighting body is finished.

We must be honest, of course, about the damages of the uprising.

Prigozhin killed Russian servicemembers when his column downed those aircraft, and then had his treason charge dropped. One can say, of course, that bringing a peaceful resolution prevented further bloodshed, but this doesn’t change the fact that he killed Russian soldiers and gets to walk away. This is a failure with both a moral and an institutional legitimacy dimension.

Additionally, this entire episode ought to serve as a poignant lesson about the inherent instability of relying on mercenary groups who operate outside of formal military institutions. There are many such groups in Russia, not just Wagner, and it will be malpractice if the government does not move decisively to liquidate their independence. Otherwise, they are simply waiting for something like this to happen again – potentially with a far more explosive outcome.

On the whole, however, it seems rather undeniable that the government handled an extreme crisis rather competently. Contrary to the new western spin that the Wagner revolt revealed the weakness of Putin’s government, the unity of the state, the calmness of the people, and the coolheaded strategy of de-escalation suggest that the Russian state is stable.

Conclusion: 1917

One of humanity’s most universal and beloved pastimes is making bad historical analogies, and that process was certainly in high gear this past weekend. The most popular comparison, naturally, was to compare Prigozhin’s uprising to the fall of the Tsar in 1917.

The problem is that this analogy is a perfect inversion of the truth.

The Tsar fell in 1917 because he was at army headquarters far away from the capital. In his absence, a garrison mutiny in Petrograd (Petersburg) led to a collapse of government authority, which was then picked up by a new cabinet formed from the state Duma. Coups are not achieved through mindless bloodshed. What matters most is the basic question of bureaucratic authority, for this is what it means to rule. When you pick up a phone and give an order to shut down a rail line; when you summon a military unit to readiness; when you issue a purchasing order for food or shells or medicine – are these instructions respected?

It was trivially obvious that Prigozhin lacked either the force, the institutional support, or any real desire to usurp authority, and the idea that he was attempting a genuine coup was absurd. Imagine, for a moment, that Wagner managed to bash its way through the Russian National Guard into Moscow. Prigozhin storms the ministry of defense – he arrests Shoigu and sits in his chair. Do we really believe that the army in the field would suddenly follow his orders? It’s not a magic chair. Power only comes up for grabs in the event of total state collapse, and what we saw in Russia was the opposite – we saw the state closing ranks.

So in the end, both the neoliberal commentariat and the Russian plan trusters are left with an unsatisfactory view of events. Prigozhin is neither the harbinger of regime change nor a piece in Putin’s four dimensional chess game. He’s simply a mercurial and wildly irresponsible man who saw that his Private Military Corporation was going to be taken away from him and decided to go to extreme and criminal lengths to prevent this. He was a card player with nothing in his hand who decided to bluff his way out of a corner – until his bluff was called.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

I conclude from the evidence that will here be presented, that a well-coordinated plan appears to be forming within the U.S. Government,

first, to choke-off and thoroughly censor-out from U.S.-and-allied news-media any information that might reduce the willingness of their publics to support going to a full-fledged all-out war against Russia and/or China;

second, to commit the U.S. Government to demanding nothing less from Russia than capitulation to Ukraine, and for the U.S. to invade Russia if Russia refuses to do that;

third, for the U.S. to supply to Ukraine the means and training to destroy Europe’s largest nuclear-power plant, which is in a Russian-controlled part of Ukraine, and thereby to cause a release of radiation from it which will immediately be blamed on Russia, so that the U.S. Government will then invade Russia in order to ‘protect’ Europe against Russia; and,

fourth, for NATO ultimately to expand also into the Asia and Pacific region, in order to defeat China.

The authority for each of the allegations in this article is its sources that can immediately be seen and checked by simply clicking onto the relevant link in the article:

There are a number of proposed new laws (called “Bills”) that are pending in the U.S. Congress for the U.S. Government to initiate WW III — a nuclear invasion against Russia and/or China.

BILL #1:

On April 6th, I headlined “How the U.S. Government Is Now Secretly Instituting Martial Law”, and reported that:

The U.S. Congress is now about to pass into law something called “The Restrict Act” that is being promoted as aiming to empower the Government to protect children from being influenced by foreign “adversaries” but would basically enable the Government to control all media in order to protect everyone in America from having access to allegations that come from a “foreign adversary” which it defines as “any foreign government or regime determined by the Secretary, pursuant to sections 3 and 5, to have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.” (All of the clauses in that determination are judgmental on the part of that “Secretary,” not necessarily based upon any proofs or even on any allegations about facts — and not at all based upon the finding by any court or by any independent scientific body.) This dictate, that there will be censorship against the “foreign adversary,” will be targeted against, but not be limited only to, the following countries, which are specifically identified as being “foreign adversaries,” in this Act to be passed by Congress and signed by President Biden (if that happens): China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. Those 6 countries are specifically named as being “foreign adversaries,” but the Act also allows the “Secretary” to add others that are, as yet, unidentified. (The Act specifically names Venezuela’s leader as being the reason why that country is on that list of 6 — essentially as being targeted by the U.S. for regime-change. Each of the other 5 countries on it is a “foreign adversary” irrespective of the identity of any of its leaders.)

Without Congress having to comply with the section of the U.S. Constitution that requires a congressional passage of a declaration of war in order for the President to be authorized to order U.S. troops to invade a foreign country, this Act, if it becomes passed into law, will already institute martial law of strict censorship to prevent, in America, whatever the “Secretary” declares to be allegations from a “foreign adversary” to be published or publicized in the United States. The result, of course, will then be that the U.S. Government will be legally enabled to censor-out and ban whatever the U.S. Government wants to ban, and will need only to claim that the information that is being banned comes from a “foreign adversary.” …

BILL #2:

On May 3rd I headlined “Pending U.S. Congressional Resolution on War Against Russia”, and opened:

The Ukraine Victory Resolution, which was introduced in the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate on April 25th, now appears likely to become passed in both houses of the Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden. The Resolution says that, “It is the policy of the United States to see Ukraine victorious against the invasion and restored to its internationally recognized 1991 borders,” which means that unless Russia will return to Ukraine all of the land that it now is controlling within what had been the 1991 borders of Ukraine (Crimea, Donbass, Kherson, and Zaporizhia), America will declare war against Russia. …

In a separate article on the same day, I headlined about “The Pending WW III Resolution in Congress to Defend Ukraine Against Russia”, reporting that:

On April 25th, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Joe Wilson(SC-02) and Ranking Member Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-09) introduced the Ukraine Victory Resolution in the House of Representatives. Then, U.S.Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), introduced the same resolution in the Senate. It states that U.S. policy is to assure Ukraine’s victory against the Russian invasion, and that, if Ukraine fails to defeat Russia there, then the U.S. Government will guarantee that Russia will be defeated in Ukraine.

It is not yet a formal U.S. declaration of war against Russia, but commits the U.S. to going to war against Russia if Russia wins its war in Ukraine. In other words: it says that there will be WW III if Russia wins in Ukraine. If this Resolution becomes U.S. law, then there will be only two possibilities: either Ukraine will defeat Russia in Ukraine, or else America will go to war against Russia thereby producing WW III.

Original cosponsors of the resolution in the House of Representatives also include: Mike Lawler (NY-17), Richard Hudson (NC-09), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Mike Quigley (IL-05), Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Bill Pascrell (NJ-08), Maria Elvira Salazar (FL-27), Brendan Boyle (PA-02), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Deborah Ross (NC-02), Jim Costa (CA-21), David Trone (MD-06), Joe Morelle (NY-25), Susan Wild (PA-07), and Marcy Kaptur (OH-09).

The Resolution says: “it is the policy of the United States to see Ukraine victorious against the invasion.” …

U.S. Executive decisions for war against both Russia and China:

On May 5th I reported the fact of, and then on May 15th I reported the news-censorship regarding, “Evidence U.S. Plans a WW III Against Both Russia and China”, and stating:

On May 3rd, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told C-Span in an interview, that there will be no objection by the U.S. Government if Ukraine’s Government attempts to or does assassinate Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin. He said: “These are decisions for Ukraine to make, how it’s going to defend itself, how it’s going to get its territory back, how it’s going to restore its territorial integrity, and its sovereignty.” America has supplied over a hundred billion dollars to Ukraine in order for it to defeat Russia, and now says that if Ukraine uses some of it to assassinate Putin, that’s okay. This is unprecedented. (Even Hitler wasn’t as bad as that.)

Also on May 3rd, Japan’s Nikkei Asia news service headlined “NATO to open Japan office” and reported that “NATO is planning to open a liaison office in Tokyo, Japan, the first of its kind in Asia.” The North Atlantic Treaty Organization aims now to become not only America’s anti-Russian military alliance but also America’s anti-Chinese military alliance, which will support the breakaway of China’s province of Taiwan (which since 1972 the U.S. Government has formally recognized Taiwan to be) from China, just as it refuses to support the breakaway of Crimea and three other provinces of Ukraine from Ukraine. (In other words: though the U.S. regime supports the breakaway of Taiwan from China, it rejects the breakaway of Donbass, Crimea, etc., from Ukraine.)

America and its NATO deny that they are either anti-Russian or anti-Chinese and insist that they instead seek merely regime-change in both countries so that both Russia and China will come to provide democracy and human rights like America’s Government (the one that perpetrates far more invasions and coups than all other Governments in the world collectively do) provides (which it actually does not provide). …

BILL #3:

On June 26th, I headlined “Two U.S. Senators Propose Nuclear War Against Russia”, and reported that,

U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced on June 22nd a Resolution which if passed and signed by President Biden (whom both Senators praised for his resolute hostility toward Russia), would commit the U.S. as the head of NATO to launch, on behalf of NATO, war directly against Russia, if (regardless of the reason) Russia uses even the smallest tactical nuclear weapon (for example, to destroy a command-center deep underground) in Ukraine (which isn’t a NATO country), and which Resolution alleges that the reason why America would do this for NATO (even though Ukraine isn’t a member) is that there might be some nuclear fall-out that might reach a NATO member nation from such an attack by Russia against Ukraine. In other words: they want to enable the U.S. President to launch a U.S. invasion of Russia if Russia becomes forced to use a nuclear device in order to be able to prevent Ukraine from joining America’s anti-Russian military alliance, NATO.

At the press conference introducing their Resolution, Senator Graham said,

“Our message is to those around Putin: If you do this and follow his order, should he give it, you can expect a massive response from NATO. You will be at war with NATO.”

The video of that press conference is here.

Their Resolution will allegedly be for “NATO” instead of for just the U.S. Government, and so if it becomes U.S. law, then — if the U.S. Government subsequently alleges that Russia has violated it — America will invade Russia and will expect all NATO countries to be on its side in the resulting World War Three. America would be in this War for NATO — not merely for America.

The Resolution furthermore says that the U.S. Senate:

“(2) views the use of a tactical nuclear weapon by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory causing significant harm to human life, as an attack on NATO requiring an immediate response, including the implementation of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty,” which is the Treaty Article that obligates each member-nation to support NATO’s war.

That’s the core passage in this entire proposed document. In other words, not ONLY would Russia’s use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine trigger WW III under the Graham-Blumenthal Resolution, but ALSO an attack against Europe’s biggest nuclear electric-power plant, which is in Zaporozhia in Ukraine and which nuclear-power facility Ukraine’s government has several times aimed missiles at but not yet successfully hit, would trigger a NATO invasion of Russia, even though Ukraine, and not Russia, had done it. Russia has, in fact, been protecting that nuclear power plant, which is in territory that Russia controls, and this is the reason why none of Ukraine’s missiles against it has yet succeeded at hitting it. (Well, there was one that barely did, but not badly enough to cause any release of radiation from the plant.) The Resolution’s key clause is the sub-clause “or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory.” That’s the clause which (if this Resolution passes) could empower Ukraine’s government to spark a U.S. invasion of Russia — i.e., then a successful Ukrainian attack against that nuclear facility would “immediately” produce  a U.S. nuclear attack against Russia (since the hypothesis of this Resolution is that in any such case, Russia had already entered a nuclear war against NATO, since a NATO member received some downwind radiation from that plant). …

Essentially, what Bill #3 aims to establish is the congressional authorization for the U.S. President to launch WW III against Russia if Ukraine’s government succeeds in hitting the Zaporozhia nuclear power plant hard enough for that plant to leak some radiation which might reach a NATO country. Interestingly: Bill #3 is written so as to authorize only an “immediate” invasion of Russia, and not to wait the perhaps months that might be necessary for an independent investigative commission to rule on whether it had been Ukraine or Russia that had perpetrated this attack. Also, “immediate” means NOT even to wait until there is any verification that a NATO member had received fall-out from that hit. “Immediate” means immediate.

Since, on May 3rd, U.S. Secretary of State Blinken already has made clear that the U.S. Government will have no objection if Ukraine kills Russia’s President, America has already made clear that whatever Ukraine’s Government might do in order to provoke Russia’s Government to a full-scale WW III will be acceptable to the U.S. Government.

On 3 August 2022, I had headlined “Ten Truths that Can’t Be Published Under the U.S. Regime”, and documented the history that had led up to this U.S. Government obsession ever since 1945 to ultimately conquer the entire world. This is solidly documented real history, no mere conspiracy-‘theory’ or hypothesis — and it is documented there in the article’s links to its online sources; so, you can check it out for yourself.

Only one U.S. Presidential candidate is campaigning against censorship, and against the U.S. Government’s and press’s hate-Russia and hate-China campaigns, and that person is leading in the approval ratings among the U.S. public, and is being treated by the American press as being a kook and a “conspiracy theorist.” What? — are all conspiracy theories false? None of them is true? Really? No conspiracy ever succeeds? Really? Is the U.S. major media’s overwhelming hostility toward that candidate evidence for intelligent persons to seriously consider possibly voting for that person? Or, has the U.S. Government been doing such a superb job for the American people as to instead foreclose considering to vote against it — to vote against the existing officials, in both Parties?

*

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

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Tech Viral

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pending U.S. Congressional Resolutions to Initiate WW III

Babbling About Prigozhin

June 27th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

A lot of nonsense is being spouted by a bevy of spontaneous “Russian experts” in light of the Prigozhin spray, a mutiny (no one quite knows what to call it), stillborn in the Russian Federation. It all fell to the theatrical sponsor, promoter and rabble rouser Yevgeny Prigozhin, a convict who rose through the ranks of the deceased Soviet state to find fortune and security via catering, arms and Vladimir Putin’s support.

In the service of the Kremlin, Prigozhin proved his mettle. He did his level best to neutralise protest movements. He created the Internet Research Agency, an outfit employing hundreds dedicated to trolling for the regime. Such efforts have been apoplectically lionised (and vilified) as being vital to winning Donald Trump the US presidency in 2016.

His Wagner mercenary outfit, created in the summer of 2014 in response to the Ukraine conflict, has certainly been busy, having impressed bloody footprints in the Levant, a number of African states, and Ukraine itself. Along the way, benefits flowed for the provision of such services, including natural resource concessions.

But something happened last week. Suddenly, the strong man of the mercenary outfit that had been performing military duties alongside the Russian Army in Ukraine seemed to lose his cool. There were allegations that his men had been fired upon by Russian forces, a point drawn out by his capture of the 72nd Motorised Rifle Brigade commander, Lieutenant Colonel Roman Venevitin. Probably more to the point, he had found out some days earlier that the Russian Defence Ministry was keen to rein in his troops, placing them under contractual obligations. His autonomous wings were going to be clipped.

The fuse duly went. Prigozhin fumed on Telegram, expressing his desire to get a number of officials, most notably the Defence Minister, Sergei Shoigu, and Chief of the General staff Valery Gerasimov, sent packing. A “march for justice” was organised, one that threatened to go all the way to Moscow.

President Vladimir Putin fumed in agitation in his televised address on June 24, claiming that “excessive ambition and personal interests [had] led to treason, to the betrayal of the motherland and  the people and the cause”. Within hours, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, whose diplomatic skills are threadbare, had intervened as mediator, after which it was decided that the Wagner forces would withdraw to avoid “shedding Russian blood”.

This all provided some delicious speculative manna for the press corps and commentariat outside Russia. Nature, and media, abhor the vacuum; the filling that follows is often not palatable. There was much breathless, excited pontification about the end of Putin, despite the obvious fact that this insurrection had failed in its tracks. John Lyons of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was aflame with wonder. Where, he wondered, was the Russian President? Why did the Wagner soldiers “get from Ukraine to Rostov, take control of Ukraine’s war HQ then move to Voronezh without a hint of resistance”?

John Lough of Chatham House in London claimed that Putin had “been shown to have lost his previous ability to be the arbiter between powerful rival groups.” His “public image in Russia as the all-powerful Tsar” had been called into question. Ditto the views of Peter Rutland of Wesleyan University, who was adamant in emphasising Putin’s impotence in being “unable to do anything to stop Prigozhin’s rogue military unit as it seized Rostov-on-Don”, only to then write, without explaining why, about uncharacteristic behaviour from both men in stepping “back from the brink of civil war”.

Then came the hyperventilating chatter about nuclear weapons (too much of the Crimson Tide jitters there), the pathetic wail that accompanies those desperate to fill both column space. The same degree of concern regarding such unsteady nuclear powers as Pakistan is nowhere to be seen, despite ongoing crises and the prospect of political implosion.

Commentators swooned with excitement: the Kremlin had lost the plot; the attempted coup, if it could even be called that, had done wonders to rattle the strongman. Those same commentators could not quite explain that Prigozhin had seemingly been rusticated and banished to Belarus within the shortest of timeframes, where he is likely to keep company with a man of comparatively diminished intellect: Premier Lukashenko himself. Prigozhin, for all his aspirations, has a gangster’s nose for a bargain, poor or otherwise.

As Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov put it, the original criminal case opened against Prigozhin for military mutiny by the Kremlin would be dropped, while any Wagner fighters who had taken part in the “march for justice” would not face any punitive consequences. Those who had not participated would be duly assimilated into the Russian defence architecture in signing contracts with the Defence Ministry.

The image now appearing – much of this subject to redrawing, resketching, and requalifying – is that things were not quite as they seemed. Assuming himself to be a big-brained Wallerstein of regime stirring clout, Prigozhin had seemingly put forth a plan of action that had all the seeds of failure. Britain’s The Telegraph reported that “the mercenary force had only 8,000 fighters rather than the 25,000 claimed and faced likely defeat in any attempt to take the Russian capital.”

Another reading is also possible here, though it will have to be verified in due course. Putin had anticipated that this contingently loyal band of mercenaries was always liable to turn, given the chance. Russia is overrun with such volatile privateers and soldiers of fortune. Where that fortune turns, demands will be made.

Ultimately, in Putin’s Russia, the political is never divorceable from the personal. Chechnya’s resilient thug, Ramzan Kadyrov, very much the prototypical Putin vassal only nominally subservient, suggests that this whole matter could be put down to family business disputes. “A chain of failed business deals created a lingering resentment in the businessman, which reached its peak when St. Petersburg’s authorities did not grand [Prigozhin’s] daughter a coveted land plot.” The big picture, viewed from afar, can be very small indeed.

*

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

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

Featured image is licensed under CC BY 3.0

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

I have written two substack articles on COVID-19 vaccinated drivers crashing their vehicles, including: 

We are now seeing some of the worst crashes in history. Why?

June 20, 2023 – Windsor, Ontario – A school bus collided with SUV at 9:10am, sending 7 children to the hospital with minor injuries. SUV driver believed to have had a medical emergency. (click here)

Click here to view the video

June 17, 2023 – A Maryland Transit Administration bus crashed into several cars then a building at 10:15am. 17 people were injured (click here)

Click here to view the video

June 16, 2023 – Prince George, BC – Bus carrying workers for Coastal GasLink pipeline rolled over, injuring 30 people, some of them critically. Cause of bus crash remains unknown (click here)

June 15, 2023 – 16 dead, 10 hospitalized after collision involving a semi-trailer truck and a bus on Trans-Canada Highway between Winnipeg and Brandon, Man. The bus was full of seniors travelling to a casino (click here)

Click here to view the video

June 12, 2023 – Hunter Valley, Australia – Passenger bus carrying wedding guests crashed at 11:30pm and killed 10 people, in Australia’s deadliest road accident in 30 years. The 58 year old bus driver has been charged. (click here)

Click here to view the video

June 8, 2023 – Mississauga, ON, Canada – Eight-vehicle crash reportedly caused by a transit bus in north Mississauga, Ontario at 9:35am, left a woman dead and multiple people injured. (click here)

Click here to view the video

May 29, 2023 – Oxford County, Ontario – 35 yo police officer Steven Tourangeau collided with a school bus early morning around 7am, police officer and bus driver both died (click here)

Click here to view the video

May 16, 2023 – Eynesbury, Australia – School bus with 46 children onboard, was struck from behind by a truck at 3:45pm. The 49 yo truck driver with a spotless record had some kind of medical incident. Three primary schoolers had hands or arms amputated. (click here)(click here)

Click here to view the video

May 13, 2023 – A New Jersey elementary school bus holding around 20 students went missing for an hour after the 80-year-old driver suffered a medical emergency. (click here)(click here)

Click here to view the video

May 11, 2023 – Fort Cavazos, TX – Pickup truck crashed into a school bus with 56 kids on board from Clear Creek Elementary, 4 kids were taken to the hospital (click here)

Click here to view the video

My Take…

We are now seeing some of the worst motor vehicle crashes in decades.

Australia just had its worst road accident in 30 years, involving a bus.

Manitoba just had a bus crash with 16 dead.

The 10 bus crashes I’ve documented in this substack occurred over a period of just over one month, from May 11, 2023 to June 20, 2023.

It’s not always the bus driver at fault, sometimes it’s a truck or SUV driver who had a medical emergency and crashed into a bus.

There is no question that roads are less safe these days, and fully COVID-19 vaccinated drivers are having all kinds of medical emergencies, resulting in horrific accidents.

This very disturbing trend is worth keeping an eye on.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on School Buses and City Buses Crashing: COVID-19 Vaccinated Drivers Are Having Medical Emergencies Behind the Wheel, Risking Many Lives!

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan is one of the key people driving US foreign policy. He was mentored by Hillary Clinton with regime changes in Honduras, Libya and Syria. He was the link between Nuland and Biden during the 2014 coup in Ukraine. As reported by Seymour Hersh, Sullivan led the planning of the Nord Stream pipelines destruction in September 2022. Sullivan guides or makes many large and small foreign policy decisions. This article will describe Jake Sullivan’s background, what he says, what he has been doing, where the US is headed and why this should be debated.

Background

Jake Sullivan was born in November 1976. He describes his formative years like this:

“I was raised in Minnesota in the 1980s, a child of the later Cold War – of Rocky IV, the Miracle on Ice, and ‘Tear down this wall’. The 90s were my high school and college years. The Soviet Union collapsed. The Iron Curtain disappeared. Germany was reunified. An American-led alliance ended a genocide in Bosnia and prevented one in Kosovo. I went to graduate school in England and gave fiery speeches on the floor of the Oxford Union about how the United States was a force for good in the world.” 

Sullivan’s education includes Yale (BA), Oxford (MA) and Yale again (JD). He went quickly from academic studies and legal work to political campaigning and government.

Sullivan made important contacts during his college years at elite institutions. For example, he worked with former Deputy Secretary of State and future Brookings Institution president, Strobe Talbott. After a few years clerking for judges, Sullivan transitioned to a law firm in his hometown of Minneapolis. He soon became chief counsel to Senator Amy Klobuchar who connected him to the rising Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mentored by Hillary

Sullivan became a key adviser to Hillary Clinton in her campaign to be Democratic party nominee in 2008. At age 32, Jake Sullivan became deputy chief of staff and director of policy planning when she became secretary of state. He was her constant companion, travelling with her to 112 countries.

The Clinton/Sullivan foreign policy was soon evident. In Honduras, Clinton clashed with progressive Honduras President Manuel Zelaya over whether to re-admit Cuba to the OAS. Seven weeks later, on June 28, Honduran soldiers invaded the president’s home and kidnapped him out of the country, stopping en route at the US Air Base. The coup was so outrageous that even the US ambassador to Honduras denounced it. This was quickly over-ruled as the Clinton/Sullivan team played semantics games to say it was a coup but not a “military coup.” Thus the Honduran coup regime continued to receive US support. They quickly held a dubious election to make the restoration of President Zelaya “moot”. Clinton is proud of this success in her book “Hard Choices.”

Two years later the target was Libya. With Victoria Nuland as State Department spokesperson, the Clinton/Sullivan team promoted sensational claims of a pending massacre and urged intervention in Libya under the “responsibility to protect.”  When the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone to protect civilians, the US, Qatar and other NATO members distorted that and started air attacks on Libyan government forces. Today, 12 years later, Libya is still in chaos and war. The sensational claims of 2011 were later found  to be false.

When the Libyan government was overthrown in Fall 2011, the Clinton/Sullivan State Department and CIA plotted to seize the Libyan weapons arsenal. Weapons were transferred to the Syrian opposition. US Ambassador Stevens and other Americans were killed in an internecine conflict over control of the weapons cache.

Undeterred, Clinton and Sullivan stepped up their attempts to overthrow the Syrian government. They formed a club of western nations and allies called the “Friends of Syria.” The “Friends” divided tasks who would do what in the campaign to topple the sovereign state.  Former policy planner at the Clinton/Sullivan State Department, Ann Marie Slaughter, called for “foreign military intervention.”  Sullivan knew they were arming violent sectarian fanatics to overthrow the Syrian government. In an email to Hillary released by Wikileaks, Sullivan noted “AQ is on our side in Syria.”

Biden’s adviser during the 2014 Ukraine Coup

After being Clinton’s policy planner, Sullivan  became President Obama’s director of policy planning (Feb 2011 to Feb 2013) then national security adviser to Vice President Biden (Feb 2013 to August 2014).

undefined

Sullivan, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in November 2012 (Licensed under the Public Domain)

In his position with Biden, Sullivan had a close-up view of the February 2014 Ukraine coup. He was a key contact between Victoria Nuland, overseeing the coup, and Biden. In the secretly recorded conversation where Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine discuss how to manage the coup, Nuland remarks that Jake Sullivan told her “you need Biden.” Biden gave the “attaboy” and the coup was “midwifed” following a massacre of  police AND protesters on the Maidan plaza.

Sullivan must have observed Biden’s use of the vice president’s position for personal family gain. He would have been aware of  Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board of the Burisima Ukrainian energy company, and the reason Joe Biden demanded that the Ukrainian special prosecutor who was investigating Burisima to be fired. Biden later bragged and joked about this.

In December 2013, at a conference hosted by Chevron Corporation, Victoria Nuland said the US has spent five BILLION dollars to bring “democracy” to Ukraine.

Sullivan helped create Russiagate

Jake Sullivan was a leading member of the 2016 Hillary Clinton team which  promoted Russiagate.  The false claim that Trump was secretly contacting Russia was promoted initially to distract from negative news about Hillary Clinton and to smear Trump as a puppet of  Putin.  Both the Mueller and Durham investigations officially discredited the main claims of Russiagate. There was no collusion. The accusations were untrue, and the FBI gave them unjustified credence for political reasons.

Sullivan played a major role in the deception as shown by his “Statement from Jake Sullivan on New Report Exposing Trump’s Secret Line of Communication to Russia.”

Sullivan’s misinformation

Jake Sullivan is a good speaker, persuasive and with a dry sense of humor. At the same time, he can be disingenuous. Some of his statements are false. For example, in June 2017 Jake Sullivan was interviewed by Frontline television program about US foreign policy and especially US-Russia relations. Regarding NATO’s overthrow of the Libyan government, Sullivan says, “Putin came to believe that the United States had taken Russia for a ride in the UN Security Council that authorized the use of force in Libya…. He thought he was authorizing a purely defensive mission…. Now on the actual language of the resolution, it’s plain as day that Putin was wrong about that.”  Contrary to what Sullivan claims, the UN Security Council resolution clearly authorizes a no-fly zone for the protection of civilians, no more. It’s plain as day there was NOT authorization for NATO’s offensive attacks and “regime change.”

Planning the Nord Stream Pipeline destruction

The bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines, filled with 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas, was a monstrous environmental disaster. The destruction also caused huge economic damage to Germany and other European countries. It has been a boon for US liquefied natural gas exports which have surged to fill the gap, but at a high price. Many European factories dependent on cheap gas have closed down.  Tens of thousands of workers lost their jobs.

Seymour Hersh reported details of How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline. He says, “Biden authorized Jake Sullivan to bring together an interagency group to come up with a plan.” A sabotage plan was prepared and officials in Norway and Denmark included in the plot. The day after the sabotage, Jake Sullivan tweeted

“I spoke to my counterpart Jean-Charles Ellermann-Kingombe of Denmark about the apparent sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines. The U.S. is supporting efforts to investigate and we will continue our work to safeguard Europe’s energy security.”

Ellerman-Kingombe may have been one of the Danes informed in advance of the bombing. He is close to the US military and NATO command.

Since then, the Swedish investigation of Nord Stream bombing has made little progress. Contrary to Sullivan’s promise in the tweet, the US has not supported other efforts to investigate. When Russia proposed an independent international investigation of the Nord Stream sabotage at the UN Security Council, the resolution failed due to lack of support from the US and US allies. Hungary’s foreign minister recently asked,

“How on earth is it possible that someone blows up critical infrastructure on the territory of Europe and no one has a say, no one condemns, no one carries out an investigation?”

Economic Plans devoid of reality  

Ten weeks ago Jake Sullivan delivered a major speech on “Renewing American Economic Leadership” at the Brookings Institution. He explains how the Biden administration is pursuing a “modern industrial and innovation strategy.” They are trying to implement a “foreign policy for the middle class” which better integrates domestic and foreign policies. The substance of their plan is to increase investments in semiconductors, clean energy minerals and manufacturing. However the new strategy is very unlikely to achieve the stated goal to “lift up all of America’s people, communities, and industries.”  Sullivan’s speech completely ignores the elephant in the room: the costly US Empire including wars and 800 foreign military bases which consume about 60% of the total discretionary budget. Under Biden and Sullivan’s foreign policy, there is no intention to rein in the extremely costly military industrial complex. It is not even mentioned.

US exceptionalism 2.0

In December 2018 Jake Sullivan wrote an essay titled “American Exceptionalism, Reclaimed.” It shows his foundational beliefs and philosophy. He separates himself from the “arrogant brand of exceptionalism” demonstrated by Dick Cheney.  He also criticizes the “American first” policies of Donald Trump.  Sullivan advocates for “a new American exceptionalism” and “American leadership in the 21st Century.”

Sullivan has a shallow Hollywood understanding of history: “The United States stopped Hitler’s Germany, saved Western Europe from economic ruin, stood firm against the Soviet Union, and supported the spread of democracy worldwide.”  He believes “The fact that the major powers have not returned to war with one another since 1945 is a remarkable achievement of American statecraft.”

Jake Sullivan is young in age but his ideas are old. The United States is no longer dominant economically or politically. It is certainly not “indispensable.” More and more countries are objecting to US bullying and defying Washington’s demands. Even key allies such as Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are ignoring US requests.  The trend  toward a multipolar world is escalating. Jake Sullivan is trying to reverse the trend but reality and history are working against him.  Over the past four or five decades, the US has gone from being an investment, engineering and manufacturing powerhouse to a deficit spending consumer economy waging perpetual war with a bloated military industrial complex.

Instead of reforming and rebuilding the US, the national security state expends much of its energy and resources trying to destabilize countries deemed to be “adversaries”.

Conclusion

Previous national security advisers Henry Kissinger and Zbignew Brzezinski were very  influential.

Kissinger is famous for wooing China and dividing the communist bloc. Jake Sullivan is now wooing India in hopes of dividing that country from China and the BRICS alliance (Brazil,Russia, India, China, South Africa).

Brzezinski is famous for plotting the Afghanistan trap. By destabilizing Afghanistan with foreign terrorists beginning 1978, the US induced the Soviet Union to send troops to Afghanistan at the Afghan government’s request. The result was the collapse of the progressive Afghan government, the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and 40 years of war and chaos.

On 28 February 2022, just four days after Russian troops entered Ukraine, Jake Sullivan’s mentor, Hillary Clinton, was explicit: “Afghanistan is the model.” It appears the US intentionally escalated the provocations in Ukraine to induce Russia to intervene. The goal is to “weaken Russia.” This explains why the US has spent over $100 billion sending weapons and other support to Ukraine. This explains why the US and UK undermined negotiations which could have ended the conflict early on.

The Americans who oversaw the 2014 coup in Kiev, are the same ones running US foreign policy today:  Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland and Jake Sullivan.  Prospects for ending the Ukraine war are very poor as long as they are in power.

The Democratic Party constantly emphasizes “democracy” yet there is  no debate or discussion over US foreign policy. What kind of “democracy” is this where crucial matters of life and death are not discussed?

Robert F Kennedy Jr is now running in the Democratic Party primary. He has a well informed and critical perspective on US foreign policy including the never ending wars, the intelligence agencies and the conflict in Ukraine.

Jake Sullivan is a skilled debater. Why doesn’t he debate Democratic Party candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr over US foreign policy and national security?

*

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

Rick Sterling is a journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be contacted at [email protected]He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who Is National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Why He Should Debate RFK Jr.

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

When faced with questions relating to America’s role in the world, we would be wise to heed the advice of our Founding Founders. George Washington urged distance from the “frequent controversies” of Europe. Thomas Jefferson pursued a course of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

As NATO continues its post-Cold War expansion, it is worth pointing out that, by its own terms, the NATO Treaty does not commit Americans to the military defense of our allies. To that end, I introduced a resolution reasserting that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty does not supersede Congress’s responsibility to declare war or authorize military force before engaging in hostilities.  

For decades, many legislators have incorrectly interpreted Article 5 as an obligation that unquestionably commits the United States to provide military support should a NATO ally be attacked. To support their assertion, those who pine for a perpetual Pax Americana paraphrase Article 5 of the NATO Treaty by stating that, “an attack against one or is an attack against all.” 

But that is not exactly what Article 5 states. Article 5 states, “The Parties agree that an armed take against one or more of them . . . shall be considered an attack against them all and . . . each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense . . . will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith . . . such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force…” In other words, NATO allies are committed to assist each other in the event of an attack, but military action is not mandated, and the United States maintains its sovereign capacity to determine what kind of response is warranted. 

Furthermore, Article 11 of the NATO Treaty states that the provisions of the Treaty are to be carried out in accordance with each country’s respective constitutional processes.

The Constitution grants to Congress the sole authority to determine where and when we send our sons and daughters to fight. We cannot delegate that responsibility to the president, the courts, an international body, or our allies. This is a constitutional responsibility that all members of Congress have freely taken and one that the American people expect us to uphold.

I proposed the same text of my resolution when the Senate was considering the inclusion of Sweden and Finland into NATO. At the time, some of my colleagues questioned my approach, and one in particular argued that that my proposal would demonstrate to our allies that the United States is going “wobbly” on Article 5. I would argue that our men and women in the field do not want Congress to go wobbly on the Constitution.

Over the years, there has been a disturbing trend of executive overreach, undermining the checks and balances that our founders established to prevent such abuses of power. Collective defense should not be used as a pretext to bypass the constitutional requirement for congressional approval. By clarifying that the NATO Treaty does not supersede the Constitution, we can respond to those who would deceive the public about what America’s commitments are and renew our commitment to the highest law in the land. Respecting congressional war powers does not hinder our national security or imply a disregard for treaties. On the contrary, it ensures that the decision to use military force is subjected to rigorous scrutiny and debate by the representatives of the people, just as our Founding Fathers intended.

We must continue to show our fealty to the Constitution and elevate diplomacy to the forefront of United States foreign relations. For years I’ve led the fight to return war-making powers to Congress where they belong, and I’m proud to continue those efforts by introducing this resolution with support in the Senate and House of Representatives. It’s long past time that we respect the balance of power and reassert Congress’s voice.

*

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

Featured image: Orhan Cam and Gints Ivuskans via shutterstock

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Most estimates of US military spending mention a figure of 886 billion dollars or so. This is higher than the combined military spending of the next ten biggest spenders, most of whom are allies of the USA. This is 3 times the military spending of China.

However a recent review of US defense spending by defense analyst Winslow Wheeler has mentioned a figure of 1447 billion dollars after making some important corrections and also including related defense expenditures which are generally left out in commonly quoted official figures of 886 billion dollars.

Winslow Wheeler has written,

“The big spenders, especially, like to distort the size of our spending—and to mis-measure it—with gimmicks and yardsticks that have almost nothing to do with dollars spent.”

The revised estimate by Wheeler seeks to correct some figures and to include some left-out figures relating to nuclear weapons, homeland security from terrorists and criminals, and international security.

Wheeler’s complete calculations were reported in a review by Andrew Cockburn published in ‘Responsible Statecraft’ (May 7, 2023).

The Wall Street Journal noted in a recent analysis that spending on defense and veterans’ care is likely to pass 1000 billion dollars next year.

Recently a lot of concern has been expressed by various prominent persons over efforts that keep getting made for further increases even after big military budgets have been sanctioned. One of these efforts relates to the presentation of a list of ‘unfunded priorities’ to the Congress by military sources. It has been seen over the years that this practice results in the further addition of billions of dollars more to the defense budget.

Concern is also being expressed over the very high profit margins of the biggest weapon companies and military contractors. The big profit margins merely on the supply of spare parts by some companies which effectively act as monopoly suppliers has come as a shock to many people.

Serious concern is also being expressed regarding the increases in military spending that can take place even later in the year in the context of funding that is designated as “an emergency requirement or for overseas contingency operation”. As the Congressional Budget Office has stated, funding for this “would not be constrained.”

In the past this was often increased arbitrarily in the context of the conflict in Iraq to include all sorts of military expenditure. Now it is likely to be increased in the coming days in the context of the military assistance being provided to Ukraine.

The high levels of military spending much beyond real defense needs have become part of a vicious cycle. A small and concentrated number of military contractors get huge and inflated orders from the government. They then use a part of their high profits to appoint high profile lobbyists who can ensure huge levels of military funding.

However Pentagon and defense department have repeatedly not been able to pass in audits and failed to account for a lot of spending.

This has understandably raised concerns relating to corruption. The other major area of domestic concern relates to the defense budget eating up so much of resources that adequate funds are difficult to find for many unmet needs of the weaker sections of US society, or for some other priority areas.

However another concern that should receive more attention relates to the impact of ever-increasing military budgets of the most powerful and aggressive country on the safety of people in many other countries, particularly in the context of the forever wars and proxy wars of the USA.

Hence campaigns to reduce the military budget of the USA should be an important concern of the peace movement.

At the same time it needs to be stated that the military budgets of several other countries also tend to present lower than actual figures, and this tendency is by no means confined only to the USA. Hence at world level also the military budget is likely to be significantly higher, compared to the estimates frequently cited.

*

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

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Man over Machine and Earth without Borders. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

U.S. Is Arming Taiwan. What About China’s Spy Base in Cuba?

By Kim Petersen, June 26, 2023

On the heels of China’s weather/spy balloon downed by a US F-22 comes a report of the construction of a Chinese listening post in Cuba. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., supports the Biden administration’s claim that China is setting up a spy station in Cuba. Gaetz calls it a “stationary aircraft carrier right off the coast of Florida.”

Two Shipwrecks Reveal the State of the World

By Dan La Botz, June 27, 2023

The sinking of two vessels—the Andrianna, filled with hundreds of desperate migrants, and the Titan, with a handful of multi-millionaires—provides a vivid picture of the world today. All drowning deaths in the ocean are tragic, and one has to sympathize with the families who have lost loved ones. Yet these events also dramatically demonstrate global economic inequality and injustice.

The Influence of Christian Zionism on the 1947 Establishment of the State of Israel

By Hans Stehling, June 27, 2023

The establishment of the State of Israel in 1947 and its subsequent recognition by the United Nations has often been attributed to various factors. This report aims to shed light on the significant influence of Christian Zionism, particularly within the Evangelical Christian community in the United States, on the support for the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state in the Arab-settled Middle East.

No More Astana Peace Talks for Syria

By Steven Sahiounie, June 27, 2023

The Astana peace talks for Syria began in 2017 and recently met in Kazakhstan on June 20-21. It surprised many when the Kazakh Deputy Foreign Minister Kanat Tumysh called the process over while saying the goals were achieved and declared that the 20th Astana meeting was the last.

Deep State Groomers Recruit Mentally Handicapped Teenager to Become a Jihadist

By Ben Bartee, June 27, 2023

The heroes at the alphabet agencies who keep us safe day and night and whose vigilance we could never do without have been very busy recruiting mentally handicapped minors to serve as patsies for their false flag terror attacks.

The 1998 Bombings of Two U.S. Embassies in Africa: “Terrorism, Betrayal and Resilience” by Prudence Bushnell

By Karin Brothers, June 26, 2023

Prudence Bushnell’s book “Terrorism, Betrayal & Resilience” is an unexpected source of stunning inside information about the 1998 bombings of the two American embassies in Africa. Bushnell’s book, published twenty years after the bombings, attracted little notice but it raises key questions about what the U.S. role in the bombings might have been. The 25th anniversary of these bombings is August 7, 2023.

Africa’s Contradictory Peace Initiative on Russia-Ukraine Crisis

By Kester Kenn Klomegah, June 26, 2023

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa may underestimate the widespread media attacks inside his domain about the last round-trip intended to broker peace between two warring former Soviet republics, Russia and Ukraine. Both shared geographical borders and down the years since Soviet’s collapse have unreservedly claimed to be observing the international laws relating to their territorial integrity and political sovereignty as recognized by the United Nations.

‘Criminal’: Confidential EU Documents Reveal Thousands of Deaths From Pfizer-BioNTech Shots

By Michael Nevradakis, June 26, 2023

The documents, dated Aug. 18, 2022, and marked “confidential,” show that cumulatively, during the clinical trials and post-marketing period up to June 18, 2022, a total of 4,964,106 adverse events were recorded. The documents included an appendix with further details about the specifics about the identified adverse events.

Video: “Crimes Against Syria” Produced by Mark Taliano

By Mark Taliano, June 26, 2023

Trailer to the documentary, “Crimes Against Syria”, featuring Global Research, One America News Network, Eva K. Bartlett, and Syrian performer, Treka.

Ukraine War: It Worked Perfectly for Russia

By Karsten Riise, June 26, 2023

Ukraine is losing the war. Everything is breaking down for Kiev and NATO. Moscow needed a motivation for Kiev and NATO to go on fighting their losing war until their own self-destruction. And what better fake motivation to give NATO than playing to their delusions, vanity, and hubris that perhaps Moscow would break down all by itself.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: U.S. Is Arming Taiwan. What About China’s Spy Base in Cuba?

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Daniel Ellsberg, a high-level military analyst who courageously exposed four administrations’ criminal war on Vietnam and went on to become a leading peace and civil liberties activist, died on June 16 at the age of 92.

Ellsberg was best-known for his 1971 release of 7,000 pages of copies of classified documents, which became famously known as the Pentagon Papers. 

The incriminating documents, printed in leading newspapers in the United States and worldwide, showed that U.S. political and military leaders were willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of Vietnamese and tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers rather than admit defeat that many of them knew was inevitable. Working for the Rand Corporation and the State Department, Ellsberg had spent time in Vietnam and seen first-hand the discrepancy between government reports and the reality on the ground.

As early as July 23, 1965, when the massive U.S. troop buildup was just getting under way, Clark Clifford, a close advisor to President Lyndon Johnson, wrote:

“I don’t believe we can win in South Vietnam … If we lose 50,000 men there it will be catastrophic in this country. Five years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of men … I can’t see anything but catastrophe for our nation in this area.” 

But, assured by Pentagon generals that if given enough troops and bombs a U.S. victory was certain, Johnson commenced a huge surge that would deploy more than 550,000 troops to Vietnam by 1968. While inflicting unimaginable death and destruction on the country, victory was no closer at the height of the surge than at its beginning, and Johnson was forced out of office.

His successor, Richard Nixon was elected promising to end the war, but had no intention of doing so. While U.S. troops levels in Vietnam were being drawn down at the time of the Pentagon Papers publication in 1971, Nixon was escalating the genocidal air war on the country and contemplating the use of nuclear weapons.

The publication of the Pentagon Papers, titled “History of U.S. Decision-making in Vietnam, 1945-68,” was a bombshell, documenting a quarter-century of lies and deception. Its release enraged Nixon. One of his advisors, Egil Krough, Jr., said later: “We felt so strongly that we were dealing with a national security crisis. Henry Kissinger [then National Security Adviser] said that Dr. Daniel Ellsberg was ‘the most dangerous man in America’ and he had to be stopped.” 

A movie titled “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers,” narrated by Ellsberg himself, was released in 2009.

“Let’s get that son of a bitch into jail,” Nixon told his attorney, John Ehrlichman. “We want to destroy him in the press. Is that clear?”

After the New York Times began printing the papers on June 13, 1971, Nixon’s Attorney General John Mitchell obtained an injunction blocking further publication. But then, the Washington Post began publishing the documents. Later that year, the injunction was vacated by the Supreme Court, a major victory for press freedom.

Meanwhile, a two-week nationwide search for Ellsberg and an associate, Anthony Russo, called in one media report “the largest manhunt since the Lindbergh kidnapping” of the 1930s, ended when they turned themselves in. Both were charged with espionage and other crimes, Ellsberg facing 105 years in prison and Russo 35 years.

Ellsberg was the first target of the White House “Plumbers Unit,” which was secretly established in August 1971, under the leadership of G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, specifically to go after Ellsberg. The “Plumbers” would become infamous for the 1972 break-ins at the Democratic Party’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. — the Watergate scandal that would play a key role in Nixon’s 1974 resignation.

But earlier, on Sept. 3, 1971, the “Plumbers” had broken into the office of Ellsberg’s psychologist in Santa Monica, California, looking for information that Nixon hoped could discredit Ellsberg. When this break-in was revealed during the trial of Ellsberg and Russo in May 1973, it led the judge to dismiss the charges against both defendants. 

Daniel Ellsberg and the antiwar movement

As he pointed out, Ellsberg’s decision to release the Pentagon Papers did not take place in a vacuum, but was instead critically influenced by the growing movement against the Vietnam War. He attended his first antiwar rally in 1965 while still working as a Rand analyst, invited by his soon-to-be spouse, Patricia Marx.

An antiwar conference at Haverford College was a turning point for Ellsberg. At the conference, Randy Kehler, a draft resister, stated proudly that he was about to go to prison. “I hadn’t known that he was about to be sentenced for draft resistance,” said Ellsberg in an interview many years later. “It wasn’t what he said exactly that changed my worldview. It was the example that he was setting with his life … there was no question in my mind that my government was involved in an unjust war that was going to continue and get larger. … If I hadn’t met Randy Kehler it wouldn’t have occurred to me to copy [the Pentagon Papers]. His actions spoke to me as no mere words would have done. He put the right question in my mind at the right time.” (Greenfield Recorder, 12/31/2021)

On May Day 1971, just weeks before the release of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was part of an affinity group with Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and others at a mass antiwar demonstration in Washington, D.C. He would remain an antiwar activist for the rest of his life, opposing U.S. wars from Latin America to the Middle East. He was arrested more than 90 times in civil disobedience actions.

In a 2018 interview, Ellsberg said, “I think in Iraq, America has never faced up to the number of people who have died because of our invasion, our aggression against Iraq, and Afghanistan over the last 30 years.”

When in 2019 the ANSWER Coalition initiated a mass march and teach-in in Washington, D.C. opposing Trump’s attempt to impose regime change in Venezuela, Ellsberg was the keynote speaker.

Among his many books was “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.” Nuclear war planning was, according to Ellsberg, his main work as a military analyst. In May 2021, seeking another court challenge over the issue of press freedom, Ellsberg posted on the internet a classified 1958 document outlining a Pentagon plan to launch a nuclear war if the People’s Republic of China attempted to reassert control of the province of Taiwan, which had broken away from the mainland after the 1949 Revolution. The assumption of the planners was that such action by the United States would bring a response from the Soviet Union, and thus World War III.

Ellsberg was a staunch supporter of other “whistleblowers” who exposed the criminality of Pentagon/CIA wars and interventions, including Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. He wore a pink feather boa to represent Chelsea Manning at the San Francisco LGBTQ Pride Parade in 2013 and carried a sign that said, “I was Manning: The Pentagon Papers, 1971.” In 2020, Ellsberg testified against the extradition of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the United States.

In a 2018 interview, he called upon others in the national security apparatus who know about criminal actions being planned or enacted to come forward:

“My message to them is: Don’t do what I did. Don’t wait ’til the bombs are actually falling or thousands more have died, before you do what I wish I had done years earlier, in ’64 or even ’61, on the nuclear issue. And that is, reveal the truth that you know, the dangerous truths that are being withheld by the government, at whatever cost to yourself, whatever risk that may take. Consider doing that, because a war’s worth of lives may be at stake. Or in the case of the two existential crises I’m talking about, the future of humanity is at stake.” 

*

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

Featured image: Daniel Ellsberg speaking at a press conference in 1972. Photo: Gernard Gotfryd, public domain

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Daniel Ellsberg Exposed the U.S. War Machine and Became a Top Enemy of Empire
  • Tags:

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

For years, government-related institutes have experimented on their own citizens, mainly minorities, to serve their own interests. Infamous and not entirely disclosed, here are some of the most unethical operations done by the US on its own people and soil. 

Several experiments conducted on human test subjects in the United States have been deemed unethical due to their execution without the subjects’ knowledge or informed consent. These tests have occurred throughout American history, with some of them still being conducted today.

These experiments encompass a range of activities, such as subjecting humans to chemical and biological weapons, including infections with lethal or incapacitating diseases. They also involve human radiation experiments, the administration of toxic and radioactive substances through injections, surgical experiments, interrogation and torture experiments, tests involving mind-altering substances, and a diverse array of other experimental procedures.

A significant portion of these tests are conducted on children, individuals who are ill, and those with mental disabilities, often disguised as “medical treatment.” Moreover, a considerable number of subjects in these studies are impoverished, members of racial minorities, or incarcerated individuals.

Numerous experiments not only violated US laws but were also backed by government agencies or unauthorized factions within them, including the Centers for Disease Control, the United States military, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Additionally, some experiments were funded by private corporations engaged in military endeavors.

Reader, brace yourself as you are about to delve into a trove of ominous files that unveil the reality of the United States’ self-interest at play.

Tuskegee Experiment (1932)

The Tuskegee Study, initiated in 1932 and spanning four decades, stands as a prominent example of medical racism and mistreatment in the United States. It is widely regarded as one of the most infamous instances of such abuse in American history.

The US Public Health Service (USPHS) and the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama conducted a profoundly unethical syphilis experiment, where hundreds of economically disadvantaged African American men were exploited as test subjects without their informed consent. The men were lured to take part in the study through enticing offers of complimentary medical examinations, transportation, meals, and burial insurance.

In 1932, the USPHS and Tuskegee Institute initiated the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male” under the pretense of observing the symptoms of syphilis. This experiment focused on a sexually transmitted infection that was deemed incurable during that period. However, due to the influence of white supremacist ideology, it was wrongly believed that syphilis had distinct effects on dark-skinned bodies as opposed to white bodies.

In Macon County, Alabama, the study was conducted, wherein 600 Black men aged 25 and above were enrolled as participants. Among them, 399 men were diagnosed with syphilis, while 201 did not have the infection. The researchers informed these men that they were receiving treatment for a condition known as “bad blood,” a term encompassing syphilis and other health problems such as anemia and fatigue.

Despite the widespread availability of penicillin as a syphilis treatment starting in 1947, the men in the study were never provided with this option throughout the remaining 25 years of the research. Their race led to them being dehumanized and treated as inferior beings. They were used as mere research subjects, akin to laboratory rats, with their sole purpose being to unveil the long-term consequences of this potentially fatal illness.

Plutonium testing: Who is Ebb Cade? (1945)

Ebb Cade, an African American individual with the codename HP (“Human Product”)-12, was the initial recipient of the injection. Cade, a 53-year-old cement mixer employed by a construction company in Oak Ridge, became the subject of the experiment. Following a severe car accident on March 24, 1945, Ebb Cade sustained severe fractures in his arm and leg. Despite his overall good health, contrary to the project’s initial requirement for subjects who were “expected to die,” Dr. Friedell communicated to Los Alamos that he had identified a suitable candidate for the plutonium experiment.

As per previous animal experiments, the established standard dosage for plutonium was one microgram. However, on April 10, Dr. Joseph Howland administered a plutonium dose of 4.7 micrograms to Cade, following recommendations from Los Alamos. This dosage exceeded the acceptable limit by nearly five times. Meanwhile, Cade endured great discomfort as he awaited to be treated for his broken bones. The scenario of white doctors refraining from providing treatment to an injured and unsuspecting black man, opting instead to carry out covert medical experiments, evokes disturbing parallels with the darkest moments of the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments.

Cade had to endure an agonizing wait of twenty-one days after his accident and a full five days after the injection before his broken bones were finally set. This delay was intentional as the doctors needed to obtain bone scrapings for biopsy. Additionally, fifteen of his perfectly healthy teeth were extracted by the doctors, without providing any explanation to Cade. These teeth were then shipped to Los Alamos for further examination, leaving Cade unaware of the reasons behind the tooth extractions. However, it is highly likely that Ebb Cade became aware that he was being utilized as a government test subject.

Although official documents state that he was “discharged” from the hospital, the reality is that one morning, a nurse discovered he had absconded during the night. Following his escape, Cade resided in Greensboro, North Carolina, until his passing in 1953 due to heart failure. Unfortunately, no autopsy was conducted, and according to Department of Energy (DOE) records, the permission to exhume his body in 1973 was deemed “lost to follow-up.”

With the onset of the Cold War, officials overseeing America’s biological weapons program faced new adversaries and fears. Driven by the determination to prepare for alleged “Soviet attacks,” the United States conducted over 200 domestic tests to evaluate the nation’s susceptibility to biological warfare and identify vulnerabilities at a national level.

Operation Sea Spray (1950)

Serratia marcescens, a bacterium found in soil and water, is notable for its capacity to generate a vivid red pigment. This distinctive characteristic renders this microorganism valuable in experiments, as its visibility allows for easy tracking. Exploiting this trait, the US military conducted a large-scale biowarfare test in 1950, harnessing the vibrant attributes of Serratia marcescens.

Operation Sea-Spray was a covert biological warfare experiment conducted by the US Navy. The objective of the operation was to assess the susceptibility of a city like San Francisco in California to a potential bioweapon attack. As part of the experiment, Serratia marcescens and Bacillus globigii bacteria were sprayed over the San Francisco Bay Area to gather data on the city’s vulnerability.

From September 20 to September 27, 1950, the US Navy initiated the release of the two bacterial strains from a ship located off the coast of San Francisco. It was believed at the time that these bacteria posed no harm to humans. Monitoring equipment installed across 43 locations throughout the city provided data that led the Army to conclude that San Francisco had been exposed to a significant dosage. In fact, the analysis indicated that nearly all of the city’s 800,000 residents were likely to have inhaled a minimum of 5,000 particles of the bacteria. Over the course of the next two decades, the military conducted similar tests in various cities across the United States.

No evidence indicates that the Army had provided any prior notification to health authorities before conducting the widespread bacterial dispersion. In hindsight, doctors contemplated whether the experiment could be linked to heart valve infections that occurred during the same period, as well as the significant infections observed among intravenous drug users in the 1960s and 1970s. The possibility of a connection between these occurrences and the experimental activities raised concerns among medical professionals.

In 1977, the US Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research conducted a series of hearings during which the US Army revealed the existence of the tests. Army officials acknowledged the occurrence of the outbreak but claimed that any connection to their experiments was allegedly purely coincidental. They emphasized that no other medical facilities reported similar outbreaks, and the 11 affected individuals all had urinary-tract infections following medical procedures, indicating that the source of the infections likely originated within the hospital.

Operation DEW I & DEW II (1951)

Operation Dew occurred between 1951 and 1952 along the southeast coast of the United States, specifically in the vicinity of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. This operation comprised two sets of trials known as Dew I and Dew II. The experiments involved releasing 250 pounds (110 kg) of fluorescent particles from a minesweeper stationed off the coast.

Operation Dew I was documented in a US Army report referred to as “Dugway Special Report 162,” dated August 1, 1952. The primary objective of Operation Dew was to investigate the behavior of aerosol-released biological agents. It encompassed a series of five distinct trials conducted between March 26, 1952, and April 21, 1952. The objective of these trials was to assess the feasibility of maintaining a substantial aerosol cloud, released offshore, as it drifted over land, thereby achieving extensive area coverage. Zinc cadmium sulfide was employed during the tests, released along a line spanning approximately 100 to 150 nautical miles (190 to 280 km) located 5 to 10 nautical miles (10 to 20 km) off the coasts of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, clearly putting their own citizens at risk of contamination.

Two of the trials disseminated clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide, covering expansive areas within all three states. The impact of these tests extended over an estimated 60,000 square miles (150,000 km²) in the populated coastal region of the southeastern United States. The releases during Operation Dew I were executed from the USS Tercel, a Navy minesweeper.

Dew II comprised the release of fluorescent particles and Lycopodium spores from an aircraft. A 1953 Army report documented the details of Dew II; however, the report remained classified until a 1997 report by the US National Research Council, which focused on the US Army’s zinc cadmium sulfide dispersion program from the 1950s.

Project MKULTRA (1953)

Project MKULTRA was the clandestine designation for a secret research program conducted by the CIA, aimed at exploring mind control and chemical interrogation techniques. Administered by the Office of Scientific Intelligence, this covert initiative commenced in the early 1950s and persisted until at least the late 1960s. Notably, it allegedly involved the utilization of American citizens as unknowing participants in various experiments. According to the available evidence, Project MKULTRA involved covertly employing a diverse range of drugs and various techniques to clandestinely manipulate individuals’ mental states and modify brain functioning. The program aimed to explore the effects of these interventions on the human mind and behavior.

Project MKULTRA gained significant public attention in 1975 through the efforts of the US Congress, particularly the investigations conducted by the Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission, which was a presidential commission. However, the investigative processes faced obstacles due to CIA Director Richard Helms’ directive in 1973 to destroy all MKULTRA files. Consequently, the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission relied heavily on sworn testimonies from individuals directly involved in the project and the limited number of documents that managed to survive Helms’ destruction order.

While the CIA maintains that the MKULTRA experiment was discontinued, Victor Marchetti, a former CIA veteran with 14 years of experience, revealed in several interviews that the CIA regularly carries out disinformation campaigns and that mind control research persisted within the organization. In a 1977 interview, Marchetti explicitly referred to the CIA’s assertion of MKULTRA’s abandonment as a “cover story.” His statements shed doubt on the official claims regarding the termination of the program and suggest ongoing activities related to mind control research within the CIA.

On the Senate floor in 1977, Senator Ted Kennedy said that: The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an “extensive testing and experimentations” program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens “at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign.” Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to “unwitting subjects in social situations.” At least one death, that of Dr. Frank Oslon, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers.

To this day most specific information regarding Project MKULTRA remains highly classified.

Operation Big Itch (1954)

In September 1954, Operation Big Itch was conducted at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. This series of tests aimed to assess the coverage patterns and survivability of the tropical rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis) for potential use as a disease vector in biological warfare. It is important to note that the fleas employed in these trials were not carrying or infected with any biological agent. The primary focus was on studying the behavior and characteristics of the fleas themselves rather than their disease-carrying potential.

Two types of munitions, the E14 bomb, and the E23 bomb were utilized to disperse the fleas. These munitions could be assembled into cluster bombs known as the E86 cluster bomb and the E77 bomb, respectively. Upon reaching altitudes of 2,000 or 1,000 feet (600 or 300 meters), the cluster bombs would release their individual bomblets via parachute, thereby disseminating the fleas as potential disease vectors. The aim of this method was to study the spread and behavior of fleas in a controlled environment.

The E14 munition was specifically designed to accommodate 100,000 fleas, while the E23 munition had a larger capacity of 200,000 fleas. However, during the initial tests of Operation Big Itch, the E23 munitions encountered significant malfunctions, leading to unintended flea release inside the aircraft. Consequently, the fleas bit the pilot, the bombardier, and an observer. In light of these incidents, the subsequent Big Itch tests proceeded solely with the smaller E14 munitions. Guinea pigs were employed as test subjects and strategically positioned within a circular grid measuring 660 yards (600 meters) in diameter.

The Big Itch tests yielded positive results, demonstrating that the fleas were capable of withstanding the impact of being dropped from an airplane and promptly seeking hosts. The weapon showcased its ability to cover a target area equivalent to that of a battalion, effectively disrupting operations for a duration of approximately one day. The time limit was primarily determined by the fleas’ activity, as the air-dropped fleas remained active for approximately 24 hours before their effectiveness diminished.

Operation Big Buzz (1955)

In June 1955, an experiment known as Operation Big Buzz was conducted in Savannah, Georgia. Additionally, a subsequent iteration of the experiment took place in Avon Park, Florida in 1956, under the name Operation Drop Kick.

During Operation Big Buzz, extensive tests were conducted by releasing more than 300,000 mosquitoes from airplanes and on the ground. The objective was to assess the feasibility of using these mosquitoes, specifically the yellow fever mosquito species known as Aedes aegypti, as a means of dispersing biological warfare agents.

Another objective was to ascertain the survival capability of the mosquitoes throughout the dispersion process and their ability to seek blood meals from the ground. The tests aimed to determine if the mosquitoes could effectively adapt to the environment after being released and exhibit their characteristic behavior of seeking blood meals. In total, the experiment involved the breeding of one million female mosquitoes for testing purposes. Among them, 330,000 uninfected mosquitoes were dispersed into the population through aircraft releases and via the utilization of E14 bombs, allowing them to be released on the ground.

The remaining portion of the mosquitoes was utilized to confirm their susceptibility to yellow fever infection, assess the viability of storing them, and evaluate the process of loading them into potential weapons. The objective was to ascertain the feasibility of using these infected mosquitoes as a means to produce yellow fever and investigate the practicality of their storage and deployment for military purposes. The conducted mosquito release tests revealed that these insects were capable of traveling distances of up to 2,000 feet from the location where they were initially deployed.

Upon entering populated areas, the mosquitoes immediately embarked on an active quest for blood meals, with humans and guinea pigs being their preferred hosts of choice. Within a span of just one day, a significant number of mosquitoes managed to infiltrate the homes of residents and successfully fed on them, providing conclusive evidence that they could be dispersed through multiple means.

While there is no definitive confirmation, there is a widespread belief that the mosquitoes used in the experiment may have been infected with yellow fever.

Additionally, there are suspicions that the Army deployed disguised personnel posing as health workers to observe and document the spread of the disease. Given the government’s extensive track record of utilizing Black communities as testing sites for diseases and infections, it is understandable that Black citizens harbor skepticism and doubt regarding the intentions and potential risks associated with such experiments.

Willowbrook hepatitis experiment (1956)

Established in 1947 with a capacity to accommodate 4,000 residents, the Willowbrook school became overwhelmed as its population exceeded 6,000 individuals for many years. Within its walls, disease, and neglect pervaded, leading to numerous fatalities resulting from untreated illnesses and instances of abuse. In 1965, during an unplanned visit to Willowbrook, Robert F. Kennedy, then a Senator from New York, was shocked by what he witnessed. Testifying before Congress, he expressed his dismay, stating that those confined within the institution had no access to civil liberties and likening Willowbrook to a deplorable “snake pit.”

Utilizing the dire circumstances prevailing at Willowbrook, Dr. Krugman and Dr. Giles capitalized on the institution’s conditions to recruit new families for their hepatitis experiments. Despite the well-documented horrors experienced at Willowbrook, it remained one of the few available options for children with severe disabilities, resulting in a lengthy waitlist. Dr. Krugman presented certain parents, including Nina Galen, with an enticing offer: the opportunity to bypass the waiting period and have their children placed in the newer, more hygienic research wards with increased staffing, on the condition that they participate in the experiments. “I felt coerced,” McCourt reveals, “as if I were being denied assistance unless I accepted this [opportunity].”

Even though some use this as an excuse to argue with the experiment, it is crucial to mention that a parent’s consent does not legalize or humanize the tests on those children. In addition, Krugman assured parents that since hepatitis was already widespread within the confines of Willowbrook, their children might as well have the opportunity to receive a vaccine. McCourt vividly recalls being informed that her daughter could receive an “antidote” to hepatitis if she participated in the experiment. When she questioned why the hepatitis studies couldn’t be conducted on primates instead, she was informed that utilizing animals would be deemed “too costly.”

Despite being aware of the ethical concerns surrounding infecting mentally disabled children with a potentially lethal disease, Dr. Krugman believed that the potential benefits outweighed the risks. In a 1958 paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine, he acknowledged that the decision to administer the hepatitis virus to patients at Willowbrook was not taken lightly. He pointed out that the strain of hepatitis present at Willowbrook was relatively mild, many of the children were likely to contract the disease anyway, and the knowledge gained from the experiment would benefit other residents of Willowbrook. Dr. Krugman also stressed that the study had received approval from the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene and the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board of the Surgeon General’s Office.

Some of Dr. Krugman’s trials built on previous research that giving children antibodies from patients who had recovered from hepatitis could prevent new infections. The experiments also involved infecting healthy children with the virus through the chocolate milk concoction. The doctors eventually learned how much it took for the children to show symptoms of hepatitis, allowed them to recover, and then gave them the virus all over again. These experiments were done to test if someone who had recovered from hepatitis would remain immune or if they could be reinfected again.

Operation LAC (1957)

Operation LAC, also known as Large Area Coverage, was a secret military operation conducted by the United States Army Chemical Corps. Its objective was to release microscopic zinc cadmium sulfide (ZnCdS) particles over extensive areas of the United States and Canada. The purpose of this operation was to study the dispersal patterns and geographic range of chemical and biological weapons. That said, a researcher has claimed that the experiments were carried out on the residents of St. Louis, Missouri, for an extended period, unethically subjecting them to exposure to radioactive compounds.

According to Professor Lisa Martino-Taylor, a sociologist at St. Louis Community College, although it was acknowledged that the government released “harmless” zinc cadmium sulfide particles over the general population in St. Louis, she alleges that a radioactive additive was also included in the compound. With extensive documentation and photographic evidence, Professor Lisa Martino-Taylor has reportedly gathered detailed descriptions of the spraying operations that exposed the clueless public, particularly in low-income and minority communities, to radioactive particles. ‘

During her research, Professor Lisa Martino-Taylor discovered photographs depicting the distribution of the particles during two periods: 1953-1954 and 1963-1965.

In Corpus Christi, the chemical was distributed through aerial dispersion from airplanes, effectively covering large areas of the city. In St. Louis, the Army utilized buildings, including schools and public housing projects, as well as mobile units mounted on station wagons, to deploy the chemical using sprayers.

Local politicians were allegedly kept in the dark about the true nature of the testing, despite its significant scope. More importantly, the residents of St. Louis were misled, being informed that the Army was conducting smoke screen tests aimed at safeguarding cities from potential “Russian attacks.”

Martino-Taylor reportedly discovered that the Pruitt-Igoe public housing complex in St. Louis was subjected to the highest concentration of spraying. This complex, which housed approximately 10,000 low-income residents, became a focal point of the experiments. She also revealed that a staggering 70 percent of the residents were children under the age of 12, highlighting the vulnerability of the population affected by the testing.

Operation 112 (1960)

Between 1962 and 1973, the Deseret Test Center, operated by the Department of Defense in Fort Douglas, Utah, undertook a series of tests known as Project 112 and Project SHAD. These tests focused on assessing the vulnerability of biological and chemical warfare capabilities. The experiments included various land-based and sea-based trials conducted at multiple locations.

Around 6,000 US servicemembers, predominantly from the Navy and Army, but also including some from the Marine Corps and Air Force, were engaged in conducting chemical tests aimed at defending against biological and chemical weapons threats. The majority of these participants were involved in Project SHAD.

Project 112 was carried out during John F. Kennedy’s presidency, and it received authorization from Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the US military. Reports indicate that funding and personnel were provided by every branch of the armed services as well as the CIA. Additionally, Canada and the United Kingdom were involved in certain activities under Project 112.

The primary focus of Project 112 was the exploration of aerosol-based methods for distributing biological and chemical agents capable of inducing “controlled temporary incapacitation” (CTI). The testing program encompassed extensive operations conducted at “extracontinental test sites” located in the Central and South Pacific as well as Alaska.

More than 50 trials were carried out as part of Project 112, involving various substances. Among them, at least 18 tests used simulants of biological agents (BG), while at least 14 tests involved chemical agents such as sarin, VX, tear gas, and other stimulants. These trials took place at different locations, including Porton Down in the UK, Ralston in Canada, and at least 13 US warships, collectively referred to as Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD). The coordination of the project was managed from the Deseret Test Center in Utah. However, as of 2015, publicly available information regarding the project remains incomplete.

Project SHAD, a component of the broader Project 112, was carried out in the 1960s with the aim of identifying the vulnerabilities of US warships to chemical or biological warfare agents. The tests conducted under Project SHAD were focused on developing response procedures to effectively counter such attacks while ensuring the maintenance of the ships’ war-fighting capabilities.

The classified information related to SHAD was not completely cataloged or located in one facility.

Bio agents in NYC subway (1966)

A team of scientists from the US Army ventured into the New York City subway’s Seventh and Eighth Avenue lines on June 6, 1966. Among them, some were equipped with air sampling machines stored in boxes and attached to belts, while others carried light bulbs.

The light bulbs contained approximately 175 grams of Bacillus subtilis bacteria, previously referred to as Bacillus globigii, with approximately 87 trillion organisms in each bulb. The objective was to break these bulbs and employ the sampling machines to observe the dispersion of the bacteria throughout the subway tunnels and trains.

These experiments, involving the use of bacteria to simulate biological weapons, were carried out on unsuspecting civilians without their knowledge or consent. This action directly contravenes the Nuremberg Code, which explicitly mandates that research participants must provide voluntary and informed consent.

Although the individuals responsible for conducting these experiments believed that the bacterial species they utilized were innocuous, subsequent revelations have shown that they can indeed lead to health issues. He says, “During peak hours, these bacteria were dropped,” adding that “If you can get trillions of bacteria into a light bulb and throw it on the track as a train pulls into a station, they’ll get pulled through the air as the train leaves.”

According to the report, army scientists determined that it took approximately four to 13 minutes for train passengers to come into contact with the bacteria. Just five minutes after the bacteria was released at 23rd Street Station, their presence was detected at every station between 14th Street and 59th Street. Between June 6 and June 10, their calculations estimated that over a million individuals had been exposed to the bacteria.

The germ warfare testing program came to light through a news report in the early 1970s, followed by subsequent requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. Scientists who had participated in the program were summoned to testify before Congress. The report concluded that test results revealed that a large number of the working population in New York City were exposed to the disease if one or more pathogenic agents were disseminated in several subway lines during rush hour.

Measles Vaccine experiment (1989)

In 1996, federal health officials disclosed that a government-sponsored study conducted in 1989 on nearly 1,500 minority infants in Los Angeles involved two measles vaccines. However, the study failed to inform the parents that one of the vaccines being administered was experimental. This revelation came to light during a major US measles epidemic at the time.

In 1989, a measles vaccine trial was initiated by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and Kaiser Permanente, a healthcare organization based in California. The trial involved approximately 1500 children in Los Angeles, primarily from economically disadvantaged black and Hispanic families. During the trial, parents were informed that certain children would be administered a vaccine that differed from the standard one typically used in the United States.

“This vaccine has been shown to be effective in younger children,” a brochure stated.

However, the parents were unaware that the alternative vaccine being administered, known as the Edmonston-Zagreb vaccine, did not possess approval for usage in the United States. As part of the study, approximately 900 children received the EZ vaccine.

The United States, famous for championing the cause of human rights on a global scale, has been involved with unethical experiments conducted without individuals’ consent. These actions have included the testing of biological weapons and other undisclosed endeavors. Such practices raise valid concerns about the US’ balance between scientific advancement and the rights and well-being of individuals.

Historically, there have been instances where the US government and its agencies engaged in covert research programs that violated ethical standards. While significant progress has been made in establishing ethical standards and regulations, there are still concerns about transparency and accountability in certain research practices.

Concealed beneath the façade of medical research and scientific progress, the United States perpetrated atrocious experiments upon vulnerable individuals, devoid of their consent. These unspeakable acts involved subjecting them to toxins and diseases with the potential to inflict grave consequences upon not just thousands, but potentially millions.

The question here is – can the United States truly retain its status as a beacon of freedom for humanity?

*

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

Featured image is from Mahdi Rtail

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dark History: How the US Experimented on Its Own People
  • Tags:

Two Shipwrecks Reveal the State of the World

June 27th, 2023 by Dan La Botz

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The sinking of two vessels—the Andrianna, filled with hundreds of desperate migrants, and the Titan, with a handful of multi-millionaires—provides a vivid picture of the world today. All drowning deaths in the ocean are tragic, and one has to sympathize with the families who have lost loved ones. Yet these events also dramatically demonstrate global economic inequality and injustice.

Those who died on the Titan have names. Stockton Rush, chief executive and founder of OceanGate, was the pilot of the Titan. Hamis Harding was a British businessman, chairman of Action Aviation based in Dubai, and an explorer. Paul-Henri Nargeolet was director of underwater research for RMS Titanic, Inc., an American firm that owns the rights to the wreck of the Titanic. And finally, Shazad Dawood and his 19-year-old son Sulem Dawood were scions of one of Pakistan’s wealthiest families.

The four passengers paid $250,000 each for the macabre adventure of descending to 12,500 feet below the surface to see the wreckage of the Titanic where 1,517 people died after the ship hit an iceberg in 1912. The vessel went missing on June 18. The U.S. and Canadian coast guards did everything possible, dispatching ships and planes to locate and save those five. But debris found on June 22 indicates that the submersible vessel apparently imploded.

By contrast, many of those who died when the Andrianna capsized on June 14 still have no names. The ship, an overloaded fishing vessel, sailed from Libya to Italy, carrying between 400 and 750 migrants from various countries. Some 104 were rescued, hundreds of others remain unaccounted for, many of them women and children who were below decks. There were Egyptians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Afghans, and Palestinians among the survivors and perhaps other nationalities among the dead. These passengers were mostly poor people heading for Europe in the hope of finding a way to make a better living and take care of themselves and their families.

But many European governments don’t want any more immigrants, particularly poor people of different nationalities, colors, religions, and languages. With rightwing governments in power in several European countries, all semblance of solidarity has disappeared. The Greek Coast Guard saw that the vessel was in trouble but declined to assist it.

Here, then, is the split screen reality of those who sail the high seas. The rich can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for an undersea adventure, while the poor spend the last of their savings to crowd onto an overloaded fishing boat in hopes of getting to Europe and finding a job. Governments mobilize their resources to rescue the rich, but turn their backs on the poor in distress. The sinking of these two vessels should lead Europeans and people around the world to examine their consciences.

What would it have been like if the million dollars that those four individuals spent to visit the Titanic had been spent instead on helping those several hundred migrants? Let’s take it one step further. There are about 45 million migrants in the world today, driven by climate change, economic crises, and oppressive governments. Taxing the global rich, who clearly have more money than they need, could provide considerable resources for addressing this migration crisis.

*

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

Dan La Botz is a member of the New Politics editorial board and of Internationalism from Below.

Featured image: Shipwreck in Italy in March 2023 (Shutterstock)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Two Shipwrecks Reveal the State of 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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

First published in June 28, 2021

***

When the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, 110,000-210,000 people were instantly killed. Japan surrendered in the days that followed. Not long after, nuclear physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, who led the Manhattan Project—the research and development program that produced the bomb—was awarded the highest US honor bestowed on civilians for his contribution to the war effort: a Medal of Merit. But Oppenheimer came to regret his participation in the unprecedented devastation, which included thousands more deaths over time due to radiation exposure.

In a post-war leadership position at the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Oppenheimer voiced strong opposition to the development of the hydrogen bomb and argued for international controls on nuclear weapons. His advocacy was seized on by political enemies, and in 1954, he was called before an AEC tribunal that focused on his connections to people associated with communist organizations. That secret, McCarthy-era hearing found no evidence of disloyalty, yet nonetheless revoked his security clearance a mere 32 hours before it was due to expire. The events caused him great personal and professional pain until his death in 1967.

Now, more than 50 years later, US Sens. Patrick Leahy, Edward Markey, Jeffery Merkley, and Martin Heinrich have written a letter to President Biden asking to clear Oppenheimer’s name.

Page 1 of Sens. Patrick Leahy, Edward Markey, Jeffery Merkley, and Martin Heinrich letter to President Biden asking to clear Oppenheimer’s name.

Page 1 of Sens. Patrick Leahy, Edward Markey, Jeffery Merkley, and Martin Heinrich letter to President Biden asking to clear Oppenheimer’s name. See page 2 below.

“People whose views differ from those in authority should not be targeted for speaking out,” said Tim Rieser, a senior foreign policy advisor to Senator Leahy. “[Oppenheimer] had a unique credibility and perspective on the future development and use of nuclear weapons.”

From the start, Oppenheimer’s case raised questions about the ability of government scientists to work and think independently. Reacting to the injustice of Oppenheimer’s hearing, Albert Einstein scoffed that the initials of the organization might stand for “Atomic Extermination Conspiracy.” David Lilienthal, a former Atomic Energy Commission chairman, wrote in his diary, “They are so wrong, so terribly wrong, not only about Robert, but in their concept of what is required of wise public servants.” Much later, in 2014, unredacted transcripts of the hearing, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, vindicated the nuclear physicist, showing that the prosecution engaged in a wide variety of misconduct.

The four senators have asked President Biden to issue an executive order vacating the AEC decision that Oppenheimer was untrustworthy and unfit to serve his country. “He was neither,” they wrote. This is the second letter to a president they have written in defense of Oppenheimer; the first was addressed to President Obama. As they understand it, that letter was forwarded to the Energy Department, where it “died,” Rieser said.

“During the Trump administration, it was pointless to pursue this. But with the Biden administration, we felt that we should try again,” Rieser said.

Page 2 of Sens. Patrick Leahy, Edward Markey, Jeffery Merkley, and Martin Heinrich letter to President Biden asking to clear Oppenheimer’s name.

Page 2 of Sens. Patrick Leahy, Edward Markey, Jeffery Merkley, and Martin Heinrich letter to President Biden asking to clear Oppenheimer’s name.

The four senators’ efforts are as much about correcting the historical record as they are about reminding the president and the public that a scientist’s ability to think independently is a fragile, yet vital element for ethical scientific progress.

“Look at what happened during the Trump years. People lost their jobs because they stood up for what they believed in,” said Rieser. “Some were intimidated into silence for fear of retribution, while others resigned. There are [recent] similarities to what happened with Oppenheimer, and we should be concerned about that.”

*

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.

Susan D’Agostino is an associate editor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Her writing has been published in The Atlantic, Quanta Magazine, Scientific American, The Washington Post, BBC Science Focus, Nature, Financial Times, Undark Magazine, Discover, Slate, Times Higher Education, and The Chronicle of Higher Education, among others.

Featured image: J. Robert Oppenheimer. Credit: James Vaughn. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. Accessed via Flickr.

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The establishment of the State of Israel in 1947 and its subsequent recognition by the United Nations has often been attributed to various factors. This report aims to shed light on the significant influence of Christian Zionism, particularly within the Evangelical Christian community in the United States, on the support for the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state in the Arab-settled Middle East.

Evangelical Christianity and its Beliefs

Evangelical Christianity, also known as evangelical Protestantism, is a global interdenominational movement within Protestant Christianity. With over 50 million adherents in the United States alone, accounting for approximately 25% of the Christian population, Evangelicals place emphasis on personal conversion, the authority of the Bible as God’s revelation, and the dissemination of the Christian message.

Harry S. Truman and the Role of Christian Zionism

Harry S. Truman, the 33rd president of the United States (1945-1953), played a pivotal role in supporting the United Nations Resolution 181 in 1947, which called for the partition of Palestine. Truman’s decision to back this resolution, despite his initial reservations about the Zionist movement and its proponent, Chaim Weizmann, can be attributed to his alignment with Christian Zionism.

Christian Zionism’s Influence on Truman

Truman’s personal beliefs as a Christian Zionist greatly influenced his stance on the partition plan. While he may not have been naturally inclined to support it, Truman was persuaded by his former business partner, who was involved in the Evangelical Christian Zionist movement. This decision, made by a prominent world leader, held significant sway over other UN member states at the time, leading to broader support for the partition.

Evaluating the UN Vote and Christian Zionist Influence

It is important to contextualise the UN vote in 1947, considering there were only 33 votes in favor of the resolution. At present, with 195 UN member states representing the global community, this number seems relatively small. However, the influence of the Evangelical Christian Zionist movement, both then and now, cannot be overlooked. It has played a substantial role in shaping international support for the State of Israel.

Conclusion

The establishment of the State of Israel was influenced by various factors, one of which was the significant impact of Christian Zionism. The support of influential figures like Harry S. Truman, driven by their alignment with Evangelical beliefs, contributed to the adoption of the United Nations Resolution 181. Recognising this historical context is crucial to understanding the dynamics that led to the creation of the modern State of Israel.

*

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

Hans Stehling (a pen name) is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is licensed under Wikimedia Commons

No More Astana Peace Talks for Syria

June 27th, 2023 by Steven Sahiounie

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Astana peace talks for Syria began in 2017 and recently met in Kazakhstan on June 20-21. It surprised many when the Kazakh Deputy Foreign Minister Kanat Tumysh called the process over while saying the goals were achieved and declared that the 20th Astana meeting was the last.

“Syria’s gradual emergence from isolation in the region could be regarded as a sign that the Astana process has completed its task,” he told reporters.

The meeting was attended by Russian negotiator Alexander Lavrentyev, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Ayman Sousan, Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Burak Akcapar, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, Iranian senior assistant to the Foreign Minister Ali-Asghar Khaji, the head of the Saudi-backed Syrian opposition Ahmed Touma, UN special envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen, and officials from Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon came as observers.

The two-day meeting was to discuss a roadmap developed by Russia to normalize relations between Turkey and Syria, but there appears little progress on that front, and Ayman Sousan repeated the official Syrian position of President Bashar al-Assad, that Turkey must first withdraw its military occupation forces from Syria before normalization can proceed.

“We cannot say that the Astana process is over,” Russian negotiator Alexander Lavrentyev said. “… But if the Kazakh side has decided that they need to be moved to a different location, we will discuss that and pick one.”

The UN has the Geneva peace process for Syria, but that has not been successful in returning Syria to peace, prosperity, and security.  The Syrian stakeholders are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Iran, Russia, Europe, and the United States. But, the Americans are nowhere to be seen in the process for peace. The US engineered the war on Syria beginning in 2011 using Radical Islamic terrorists as foot soldiers. President Obama and Vice President Biden developed a plan for regime change in Damascus but failed.  The US was there to fund and support the war but wants to prevent any plan leading to recovery and reconstruction.

Arab normalization

Syria has returned to the Arab League and has renewed diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia as well as other Arab countries. Jordan has presented an Arab initiative for peace in Syria which follows the UN security council resolution 2254. 

However, this has not translated into any economic help for the Syrian people living under the Damascus administration, who are mainly focused on just survival alone after the country’s economy has collapsed. There is still no hope for economic recovery or reconstruction.

Saudi Arabia, oil-rich Gulf nations, and other Arab nations have not been able to help Syria because of the US-EU sanctions in place which prevent any money or products to be sent to Syria, other than humanitarian aid in the wake of the earthquake. Without foreign investment or donations to rebuild Syria, the economy will remain at a standstill, and no jobs will be created for Syrians desperate for an income.  The sinking boats full of economic migrants in the Mediterranean Sea are a direct result of the US-EU sanctions which keep the Syrians starving and desperate to help their families.

Drone attacks in Latakia

On Friday, a drone attacked Qardaha, southwest of Latakia, killing one person and injuring another. The day prior, a drone attack on Salhab, west of Latakia, and south of Idlib, killed a woman and a child.

Idlib is northwest of Latakia and is occupied by the terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), headed by Mohammed Jolani, who began with ISIS in Iraq, and then came to Syria with Al Qaeda, and eventually rebranded his group with a name change.

HTS is defended and supported by humanitarian aid groups such as the UN, USAID, Save the Children, and Doctors Without Borders among others. Turkey has multiple military outposts in Idlib protecting HTS, who hold 3 million civilians as human shields. The terrorists possess huge amounts of sophisticated military weaponry, some of which were given to them by US President Obama and stockpiled. 

The drones used by HTS are given to them by Turkey, which also supplies Ukraine with the same type of drones.

Turkish outposts 

Turkey and Russia agreed in 2019 to open the M4 highway from Latakia to Aleppo. It was agreed that Turkey would move back HTS, their ally, and allow the highway to move freely.  That was never done.  The two-hour drive still takes six hours because Turkey has never controlled their terrorist ally.

Turkish propaganda says they are inside Syria just to protect their border from the Kurds who are protected by the US military occupying Syria. But, there are no Kurds in Idlib.

Yesterday, Turkish military forces set up a new military post on Al-Raqim hill in the northern countryside of Latakia. That brings the number of illegal Turkish military posts inside Syria to 67. This further emboldens the HTS who are protected by the Turkish occupation forces.

The new outpost was supported by a column of 40 military vehicles, including tanks and logistical materials as they crossed the border illegally, invading, north of Latakia at Kafr Losin.

The Turkish foreign policy on Syria seems schizophrenic.  On one hand, Turkish President Erdogan insists he wants to normalize his relationship with Damascus while establishing more illegal occupation posts in Idlib, which are opposed to each other.

Experts feel that Erdogan is putting pressure on the US to withdraw its military occupation of Syria before Turkey will do the same.  The US supports and defends the Kurdish SDF and YPG, which Ankara considers terrorists linked to the internationally outlawed terrorist group PKK.  Turkey maintains they are inside Syria to defend their border against attacks by the SDF and YPG.  The YPG is a communist military wing of the Kurdish autonomous region in the northeast of Syria and is directly linked to the PKK. The US has never had any problem working with, or supporting and defending the communist and terrorist groups, who have practiced ethnic cleansing in the northeast of Syria.

Turkey may be in Syria as an affront to the US, and to revenge their betrayal at the hands of a fellow NATO member, the US. Friends don’t support the direct enemies of a friend.

Syrian refugees to go home

In the Turkish election last month, both candidates promised to send all the 3 million Syrian refugees back home. It appears, the guests have overstayed their welcome, and are now blamed for the dismal economy and social ills.

Syrians have suffered in Turkey from racial hatred and discrimination. Many would like to go home, but what about an income? There are no jobs in Syria. The terrorists dismantled the factories and took them to Turkey. The US-EU sanctions prevent ordering machinery to rebuild the factories. There is also the issue of lack of electricity, which is doled out in three periods of 30 minutes three times per day. 

Suleyman Soylu, Turkey’s Minister of the Interior, was inside occupied Syria on May 24, when he laid the first stone of a massive building complex in Ghandoura, north of Aleppo. 

The minister stood protected by Turkish tanks and military on Syrian soil while he declared Turkey will build 240,000 homes there within three years and Syrian refugees will be sent there to live.

UN Geir Pedersen 

Geir Pederson is the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria. He is working with all sides in the Syrian conflict as he attempts to progress toward the UN resolution 2254 which was established in December 2015.

Pedersen gave an important interview to Majalla, in which he said the status quo in Syria is not acceptable. This refers to the current situation in Syria which sees no battlefields, no war, but the country cut into pieces of foreign occupation: Turkey in the northwest and the US in the northeast.

“The elephant in the room is the US, one of the biggest stakeholders. The US and Europeans up till now are committed to the three nos: No reconstruction, no lifting of sanctions, and no normalization until there is genuine progress in the political process. Does that make your life easier or more difficult?” said Pedersen in the interview.

The US holds the power to prevent any Syrian from finding an income in Syria and staying at home.  The migrant tragedies at sea are a direct result of the US-EU sanctions which strangle the Syrian people and prevent them from recovery at home but push them toward desperate and deadly boat rides which can take them to the bottom of the sea.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” -H.L. Mencken

The heroes at the alphabet agencies who keep us safe day and night and whose vigilance we could never do without have been very busy recruiting mentally handicapped minors to serve as patsies for their false flag terror attacks.

Via The Intercept:

“Last week, the Department of Justice announced the arrest of a teenager in Massachusetts on allegations of providing financial support to the Islamic State group…

The only problem with the case and how it has been described, however, is that according to the government’s own criminal complaint, Ventura had never actually funded any terrorist group. The only ‘terrorist’ he is accused of ever being in contact with was an undercover FBI agent who befriended him online as a 16-year-old, solicited small cash donations in the form of gift cards, and directed him not to tell anyone else about their intimate online relationship, including his family.

The arrest has shaken his family, who denied allegations that their son was a terrorist and said that he had been manipulated by the FBI. Ventura’s father, Paul Ventura, told The Intercept that Mateo suffered from childhood developmental issues and had been forced to leave his school due to bullying from other students.

‘He was born prematurely, he had brain development issues. I had the school do a neurosurgery evaluation on him and they said his brain was underdeveloped,’ Ventura said. ‘He was suffering endless bullying at school with other kids taking food off his plate, tripping him in the hallway, humiliating him, laughing at him.'”

Who among us doesn’t feel safer from the ravages of terrorism now that the good guys with the guns have taken down a mentally impaired teenager for the crime of buying an agent a few gift cards and promising not to tell anyone — just like a child sex crime victim would, manipulated into promising not to tell anyone about his special friend?  

*

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

This article was originally published on Armageddon Prose.

Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mercola

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Deep State Groomers Recruit Mentally Handicapped Teenager to Become a Jihadist
  • Tags:

Polish-German Dispute on the Rise

June 27th, 2023 by Uriel Araujo

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

German-Polish relations have been in a crisis, and the climate just keeps getting uglier, as exemplified by recent developments. For instance, Alice Weidel, spokesperson for Alternative for Germany (AfD), Germany’s third-strongest political force today, called in a tweet the area of former East Germany a “Central Germany” – thus implying that territories which today belong to Poland are German lands. This has sparked outrage: Poland’s former PM Beata Szydło, in response, said the AfD could in the future power over all of Germany, thus creating a “dangerous scenario for Europe”, because, she claims, it is a party “whose leaders openly negate the existing borders.” She added that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has recently demanded the abolition of the right of veto within the EU and asked: “Should Europe go in this direction? Towards a German-dominated federation?” This provocation from a German political figure takes place in the context of a rising Polish campaign against Berlin.

Meanwhile, two families of Polish WWII victims are suing German companies Bayer and Henschel for €4.3 million over the persecution of Polish businessmen during the Nazi occupation of Poland. Brzozowska-Pasieka, head of the War Compensation Foundation (Fundacja Odszkodowań Wojennych), the Polish organization which  represents the claimants, claims that these lawsuits are groundbreaking because they have been filed against private companies instead of the German state. Further claims on behalf of other families are being prepared. Commenting on the lawsuits, deputy culture minister Jarisław Sellin, lent his support, saying that “German companies which used forced laborers and actually participated in crimes during World War Two were never legally held accountable for what they did.”

Considering that Polish officials back these initiatives, one must see them as also part of a larger trend and context. Last month I wrote on the legal campaign Warsaw has been launching against Berlin for wartime reparations. It is accompanied by harsh anti-German rhetoric, which often describes Germany’s prominent role within the European Union as a “Fourth Reich”.

File:Europe 1914 (pre-WW1), coloured and labelled.svg

Nations of Europe (plus north African colonies) before the outbreak of World War 1. Colours indicate colonial holdings. Hover over land masses for more information. Micro-states (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City) are not labelled.  (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

Polish discourse on the issue is not without its dose of hypocrisy: while criticizing Ukraine for celebrating genocidal Nazis, as recently as 2019, with Polish President Andrzej Duda’s support, Warsaw opened ceremonies honoring the Holy Cross Mountains Brigade of the National Armed Forces – an underground force which, in the end of Second World War, collaborated with the Nazis in their anti-Soviet struggle. This was denounced by Poland’s chief rabbi as “dangerous revisionism”. Moreover, Warsaw so far has refused to publish state archives which would expose the degree of Polish collaboration with the Nazi persecution of Jews. It is no wonder the German ambassador to Poland, Thomas Bagger, warned the country not to “open Pandora’s box”.

Behind the weaponization of WWII resentments lie also geopolitical goals. As I wrote in September 2022, Washington has apparently been promoting Warsaw’s ambitions regarding regional hegemony as mainly a means to counter Berlin, Poland in turn also benefits from this situation. For a while, Warsaw has, for example, been urging Washington to support the Three Seas Initiative (3SI) as a Western “counterweight” to Chinese investments in “critical infrastructure” – as  Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau and his Romanian counterpart, Bogdan Aurescu, both wrote in a June 2021 piece published in Francis Fukuyama’s “American Purpose”.

Source: Arizona Geographic Alliance

Already in 2020, during the “Defender Europe 2020” military exercises, it had become clear that Poland aspired to become the main stronghold of American military presence in Eastern Europe – and the current conflict in Ukraine, since February 2022, has opened a window of opportunity in that regard.

By doing so, Poland aspires to establish itself as a new EU geopolitical center, while challenging Germany’s leading role in the continent. From a German perspective, this is ironic in itself, considering the fact that Berlin’s contribution to the EU budget has been the highest of any other member state, and therefore one could argue that the more recent EU member states such as Poland itself have been able to implement sustainable development policies largely thanks to Berlin’s disproportionate financial injections into the European budget. Therefore, according to this reasoning, Warsaw basically strives to get the maximum financial and economic benefits from its EU membership, at the expense of its “allies”, Germany especially.

For decades, Poland has arguably been on the path of refusing to contribute with the building of an intra-European system of relations. Warsaw pursues exclusively its own interests and shows no interest in building pan-European cooperation within a framework of mutual respect. Germany and France today are potentially forces for strategy autonomy in the European bloc (at least up to a certain point); Poland, on the other hand, is perhaps the main promoter of European “alignmentism”.

Warsaw, for instance, actively opposed the (now gone) Russian-German gas pipeline Nord Stream 2. The pipeline’s still unexplained explosion, denounced by journalist Seymour Hersh as an act of sabotage carried out by Washinton, remains an open wound in Germany – and a German investigation into allegations that Poland could have been used as a hub for the sabotage only make German-Polish tensions even worse. The Polish National Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement that such suspicions are “not supported by the evidence.”

In any case, Polish-German and intra-Europeans tensions in all likelihood will keep building up, because the Polish government weaponizes anti-German feelings, as it also does with Russophobia, in its rewriting of history. These tensions mirror a short-circuit in the European narratives as well as the continent’s own ideological and geopolitical contradictions.

*

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

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

At what stage can a proxy war between two big powers become a direct war? This question has become very important in the context of the proxy war between the USA and Russia being fought through Ukraine, particularly as Russia and the USA are by far the two biggest nuclear weapon powers in the world, having about 90% of the total stock of nuclear weapons in the world, and the exchange of just one-tenth of their nuclear weapons is enough to destroy the world.

While the entire world recognizes that there should never be a direct war between Russia and the USA, several red lines have been breached in recent times in the context of the Ukraine conflict.

First, these were breached when several kinds of destructive weapons which were not considered earlier for supplying to Ukraine by the USA and its allies started being supplied in abundance. Britain has even sent depleted uranium shells.

Second, training for operating these weapons as well as help for wider strategic planning has also been provided by the USA and NATO allies.

Third, intelligence has been steadily provided in terms of satellite data etc. for knowing enemy deployment and positions.

Fourth, regarding the weapons supplied by the USA or NATO allies it was stated earlier that these will never be used to attack Russia mainland but this is also reported to have happened.

Fifth, Russia has already stated that it is a situation which is like fighting the collective west.

Sixth, the USA has steadily pursued a policy of ensuring that only forces hostile to Russia can be in the ruling regime of Ukraine (to the extent of engineering a coup for this) and of strengthening and arming these forces.

Seventh, the USA while steadily expanding NATO eastwards in violation of previous promises has always supported at least the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine while Russia has always opposed this very strongly.

Eighth, business interests based in the the USA and close allies, including politically influential ones, have been steadily advancing in Ukraine so that there is greater likelihood of the USA maintaining a very strong influence in Ukraine on longer-term basis.

Ninth, those in charge of foreign policy in the USA in recent times have been seen to be increasingly aggressive towards Russia and what is more, have not been observing the necessary cautions regarding not indulging in dangerous brinkmanship which can go out of control.

Last but not the least, some NATO members which are located close to Russia and Ukraine have been very aggressive towards Russia and have many refugees from Ukraine living there. An escalatory action may start from here and in case of Russian responding equally aggressively USA/ NATO members may be drawn in too.

Thus we see a situation in which conditions that were earlier considered to be red lines are being crossed.

In addition  on important issues opposite viewpoints which cannot be reconciled are being promoted and the situation is being so manipulated that the ruling regime in Ukraine, a country having a very long border with Russia and very old, many-sided relationships among people of the two neighboring countries, remains always hostile to Russia and under the influence of USA/NATO.

Hence possibilities are increasing that the direct conflict and hostility between two neighboring countries of Ukraine and Russia become very prolonged and also that at some stage, sooner or later, the proxy war between the USA and Russia becomes a direct war.

This is a very dangerous situation and must be checked from further escalation by the collective efforts of all forces of peace.

Longer-term and stable peace along with reduction of distress and welfare of people is best achieved by Ukraine remaining neutral in big power rivalries and mobilizing the people of the devastated country for a broad-based rehabilitation and reconstruction effort which should get unconditional and generous support from all countries which can contribute for this.     

*

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

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children and Earth without Borders.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ten Factors Which Could Lead to the Ukraine Proxy Conflict Becoming a Direct War Between Russia and America
  • Tags:

Canadian Wildfires and Arson

June 27th, 2023 by Dr. William Makis

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

DeAnna Lorraine is joined by Dr. William Makis, who brings evidence that the Canada wildfires that have been roaring are 100% intentional and orchestrated by government arsonists!

He also drops new bombshells about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and pregnancy — disfigured babies with congenital malformations, fetal heart attacks, stillbirths and more that are being hidden by VAERS.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canadian Wildfires and Arson

La gestión china de su sector financiero

June 26th, 2023 by James Wham

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

 

“I do not have a clear picture yet of what happened when“, I may not ever have a clear picture of what happened when. None of us may.” — Prudence Bushnell, “U.S. Case Against bin Laden in Embassy Blasts Seems to Rest on Ideas”, New York Times, April 13, 1999 

Prudence Bushnell’s book “Terrorism, Betrayal & Resilience” is an unexpected source of stunning inside information about the 1998 bombings of the two American embassies in Africa. Bushnell’s book, published twenty years after the bombings, attracted little notice but it raises key questions about what the U.S. role in the bombings might have been. The 25th anniversary of these bombings is August 7, 2023.

On the morning of August 7, 1998, there were virtually simultaneous truck bomb explosions at two American embassies in Africa that were over 400 miles apart. The bombings, at Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killed over 250 and injured over 5,000; they occurred in countries which were allied to the U.S. and had been regarded as generally peaceful.

The Nairobi bombing, in which the vast majority of the deaths and injuries occurred, took place in the parking lot behind the embassy. While the back of the embassy building was merely scorched and its windows blown out, the explosion destroyed the seven- story Ufundi House office building (reportedly steel and concrete) in front of the truck as well as busses and traffic behind the truck. Hundreds of businesses along the street were damaged and many of the injuries included amputations and blindness.

See this and this.

Bushnell notes that despite the dozen U.S. agencies in the blast area, only 12 of the approximately 250 victims who died were American. The U.S. decided to destroy the embassy building despite its light damage.

The U.S. quickly blamed Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for the bombings. The first embassy bombing trial would take place in New York City because the U.S. had filed a secret indictment against bin Laden (and about 20 others) two months before the embassy bombings for attacks on Americans over the past decade. The indictment would be updated in November, 1998, to include the embassy bombings. The trial, at which only the four charged with the embassy bombings would be tried, was held in 2001; they were convicted in May and sentenced to life in prison the following October, the month after 9/11.

Prudence Bushnell was serving as the U.S. ambassador to Kenya at the time of the Nairobi embassy bombing. When the explosion happened, she was in the Cooperative Bank building near the embassy which was not severely damaged, but she was traumatized by the experience and clearly disturbed by what she saw from her position as ambassador. The word “betrayal” in her book’s title seems to be the key to understanding why she wrote this book.

While Bushnell adopts a breeziness about her experiences — we learn that she is a great dancer, has a neat husband and lives in a big house – what she has to relate is significant. She covers her critical observations by affirming her support for the way the U.S. government does business: rendition, torture and even assassinations are acceptable tools, and she accepts that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are responsible for terrorism and for the bombings. She loses some credibility with unreliable background information on Wadih el Hage and the Alkifah Center along with extensive footnotes which are not always reliable.

She weaves into her account, however, information that challenges assumptions about the bombings. She is disturbed by President Bill Clinton’s directives, by the strange American response to the Nairobi victims, by the unexpected U.S. disinterest in bombing information, and by the veiled apology she received from the prosecutors at the 2001 New York trial.

Bushnell notes that many Africans were skeptical about U.S. claims that it had been attacked by anyone. Bushnell’s issues include:

  • President Bill Clinton’s foreknowledge 

President Bill Clinton called Ambassador Bushnell immediately after the Nairobi explosion:

Ambassador, someone yelled, the president wants to talk to you… How are you? he asked.  … Pru, he continued, “I want you to secure the perimeter!”                 

What? Really? I could hardly believe my ears.  Where was the famous “I feel your pain”?… I answered hesitantly, thinking, why is he talking about this? “Mr. President, we’re still bringing out bodies.”                 

“Oh.. well.. okay. But as soon as you can, secure the perimeter and … hold on a second. .. and you need to secure the perimeter of the building next door, too.”                 

But Mr. President, I argued, “They are digging out bodies there, too, from the rubble.”

Oh, okay, But as soon as possible, secure the perimeter!” he ordered.                 

…  I was far too dumbstruck by the instruction.  … We hung up without further conversation.

Terrorism Betrayal & Resilience” pp. 14-15

The implications of Clinton’s response are stunning on two accounts.

  1. Clinton is aware that Ufundi House — “the building next door” — was involved in the embassy bombing operation; and
  2. Clinton’s command to “secure the perimeter” while people were buried alive inside them demonstrated that he knew that the purpose of the bombing trumped rescuing trapped people. That command was why Americans protected the ruins — even by threatening first responders — rather than helping to save people’s lives.
  • The U.S. focus on protecting wreckage rather than helping buried victims

Under the dire circumstances, U.S. personnel would have been expected to help rescue the trapped victims; instead, Bushnell notes that Marines threatened first responders and took no part in rescue operations; they were concerned only with protecting the remains of the buildings — presumably to allow the analysis of the explosive residue. US medical personnel were called in, apparently to perform autopsies on the dead rather than to aid the injured.

Bushnell was disappointed that the U.S. not only ignored the African victims on August 7th, but would largely wash its hands of helping them afterward, claiming that it was not responsible for the bombing.

  • The U.S. refusal to interrogate those who knew about the embassy bombings

Bushnell notes the official dismissals of the several men who warned about the bombing. Mustafa Mahmoud Said Ahmed walked into the Nairobi embassy in November, 1997 and gave a detailed and accurate description of what would happen the following August. The CIA dismissed his warning but interestingly, according to Bushnell, would meet with him “within a week” of the August 7th bombings. He was arrested after the bombings, but instead of facing U.S. interrogation or extradition, he was “deported to Egypt, never to be seen again.” (p. 183)

U.S. investigators did not ask Bushnell for her witness and they were dismissive of African investigations, including of the suspects held by Nairobi and Dar es Salaam police. Highly-respected Sudanese intelligence had arrested two people it believed were connected to the bombings and held them for the U.S., assuming that they would want them. The U.S. was not interested, so the Sudanese released them. (p. 183)

  • The U.S. government’s presumed foreknowledge from its surveillance

Although Bushnell was shocked by the amount of information the U.S. had on al Qaeda in its November, 1998 indictment, she should not have been because she did document that the CIA, the FBI and the NSA had long had al Qaeda members under surveillance. Osama bin Laden (including his satellite telephone) had been under surveillance since 1993. Wadih el Hage, who led al Qaeda in Nairobi and was among those first charged, had had his computer, phone and address book confiscated in an August 1997 FBI raid on his home; he followed the FBI “advice” to leave Nairobi and return to the U. S., although it wouldn’t save him. El Hage was associated with U.S. intelligence agent Ali Mohamed, whose computer was downloaded and his home wired and phone bugged in 1997. [This is the same “Green Beret” whose military classes in New Jersey had drawn in those who would be convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspiracy!  Mohamed would plead guilty to a minor scouting role in the embassy bombings and was allowed to disappear before sentencing.]

  • The “veiled apology” from the prosecutors of the 2001 trial 

“The Wall”, the prosecutors explained, did not allow those in the know to communicate warnings.

Bushnell leaves it up to the reader to analyze the implications of her information on the U.S. government’s role in — or use of — the embassy bombings operation. She draws no controversial conclusions. Despite the evidence at the U.S. government’s disposal that should have anticipated the bombings, her book claims that the bombings were an “intelligence failure”.

Given her evidence, the embassy bombings were either intelligence failures that demonstrated the willful incompetence of U.S. security organizations or successful false flag operations perfectly timed to further various agendas — including obtaining al Qaeda convictions four months before 9/11 that facilitated NATO’s unanimous support for its “War on (‘al Qaeda’) Terror”.

Bushnell lays out the evidence.

*

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

Karin Brothers is a freelance writer. She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 1998 Bombings of Two U.S. Embassies in Africa: “Terrorism, Betrayal and Resilience” by Prudence Bushnell

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa may underestimate the widespread media attacks inside his domain about the last round-trip intended to broker peace between two warring former Soviet republics, Russia and Ukraine. Both shared geographical borders and down the years since Soviet’s collapse have unreservedly claimed to be observing the international laws relating to their territorial integrity and political sovereignty as recognized by the United Nations.

Russia declared a ‘special military operation’ on Ukraine on February 24, 2022. It was approved by the State Duma and Federation Council, the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively. But was it approved by the Security Council of the United Nations? Did Russia commit crimes by breaking into Ukraine’s territory with its armed forces?

With threats of resorting to the use of nuclear weapons, it becomes absolutely necessary to find suitable solutions. It has created global economic instability and wide-spread social discontent among the population due to rising commodity prices. The situation has adversely affected most countries around the world. African countries are not excluded as they largely depend on imports of fertilizers and grains from Russia and Ukraine.

The disruption in supplies forced a group headed by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa who went on June 16 to Kyiv and June 17 to St. Petersburg to present the ten-point peace plan to share the continent’s perspectives with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In Saint. Petersburg, Putin interrupted the discussions to reiterate aspects of the situation with Ukraine and categorically indicated to African leaders his logic of war is flawless and consistent with the United Nations Charter. As expected, Russian officials have reacted differently after the high-profile meetings, some expressed signs of pessimism. For instance, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, after the three-hour meeting that the Africans’ peace plan consisted of ten (10) elements, “was not formulated on paper.”

“The main conclusion, in my opinion, from today’s conversation is that our partners from the African Union have shown an understanding of the true causes of the crisis that was created by the West, and have shown an understanding that it is necessary to get out of this situation on the basis of addressing the underlying causes,” Lavrov said, but the African delegation had not brought the Russian leader any message from Zelenskyy.

“The peace initiative proposed by African countries is very difficult to implement, difficult to compare positions,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. Under the headline – Kremlin’s decision to demilitarize Ukraine has largely been achieved – the Ukrainskaya Pravda reported that Kremlin’s Press Secretary, Dmitry Peskov, had said the task of the aggressor country on the so-called demilitarization of Ukraine has largely been fulfilled.

During the two meetings in Kyiv and Saint. Petersburg, Ramaphosa was joined by the presidents of Comoros, Senegal, and Zambia, as well as Egypt’s prime minister and envoys from the Republic of Congo and Uganda. The key aim of the African peace mission primarily to propose “confidence-building measures” in order to facilitate peace between the two countries. It was to seek a peaceful settlement of the conflict which began late February 2022. In between, the African peace officers were particularly concerned with issues related to food insecurity, including African access to grain and fertilizer affected by the war.

Long before the peace- brokering trip, Ramaphosa’s administration faced condemnation over its “neutrality” in foreign policy, and especially South Africa’s relations, the friendly partnership, with Russia and China. That has added to mountains of internal problems, including energy deficits, youth unemployment and sky-rocketing cost of living inside South Africa.

Now Ramaphosa, who led the delegation, was criticized upon his final return home. But right from the start, it appeared unlikely to achieve peace in that part of Europe. In a spiky final chess-game, Ramaphosa imported the incredible Russia-Ukraine commodity (conflict or crisis) back to South Africa.

South African media gravitates between the narrating causes of the developments between the two former Soviet republics and its implications particularly for Africa. For Africa, it is the question of food supply, or appropriately how to sustain or preserve addiction for food import-dependency. For these African countries, there is no other alternative than to reconnect to regular supplies from Russia and Ukraine.

Diverse accusations ceaselessly awash the media landscape. The opposition Democratic Alliance called for Ramaphosa to account for the use of public funds in what it called a “failed PR stunt.” Its leader, John Steenhuisen, said Ramaphosa disgraced South Africa in the “so-called peace mission”. And others unreservedly referred to its failure to provide a path to peace. Ultimately, it was a missed opportunity for South Africa to reposition itself on the world stage.

Worse still, most of the leading South African media questioned why Ramaphosa had embarked on that sure-to-fail peace mission. The mainstream reports focused on characterization of the president. For instance, the Business Day’s editorial is typical: “It’s not clear whether Ramaphosa was so naive as to expect that peace could be brokered or was simply cynically making the gesture in an attempt to demonstrate SA’s nonaligned credentials.”

Business Day’s reporter Steven Grootes frankly asked: Do Ramaphosa and his foreign minister Naledi Pandor, as both have consistently acknowledged that Russia is a “friend” to South Africa, still believe Russia is a friend, even after informing them of their arrival in Kyiv? This is almost certainly the first time in the history of South Africa as a nation-state that its leader has been in a city against which missiles have been launched by a “friendly” nation which knew they were there. The criticism will be appropriately crisp: if your friend launches missiles at you, can you name any enemies who have done the same?

Dr. Tristen Taylor’s report in Businesslive media underlined the fact that the president’s diplomatic efforts were wasted on the wrong conflict on the wrong continent. So the president went to Kyiv and St Petersburg on a forlorn peace mission. Both Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin declined to implement a ceasefire, and no-one was particularly surprised.

According to the report, the mission was an absolute farce, and not because President Cyril Ramaphosa’s excessively large and exceptionally well-armed security detail and a bunch of journalists ended up getting stuck on a Polish runway. That was actually a surprise. The mission was a tragic farce for three reasons: the composition of the delegation, the diplomatic effort being focused on the wrong war, and because Ramaphosa should have gone to a different country. The report written by Dr. Tristen Taylor, a freelance journalist and photographer. He is also a research fellow in environmental ethics at Stellenbosch University.

In addition. another local media reported that Ramaphosa had hardly finished his peace pitch before Putin interrupted. He offered nothing in response to their pleas to unblock urgent grain exports and end a war which has affected the African continent particularly hard. He rejected their appeals to seek a ceasefire “through negotiations and diplomatic means” reportedly challenging their plan, which is predicated on internationally accepted borders.

It’s not clear whether Ramaphosa was so naive as to expect that peace could be brokered or was simply cynically making the gesture in an attempt to demonstrate South Africa’s nonaligned credentials. Either way, one hopes there was much learnt as a result of his mission – because the bill was steep and the reputational damage deep.

One of the consistent features of the reporting on the South African plane that was stranded in Poland is that it was carrying a large number of weapons. As the Sunday Times reported, “Highly placed South African government insiders said the arms included long-range sniper rifles and weapons normally used in serious conflict.”

At this stage, it is difficult to know what these weapons were for. While snipers are a common feature of presidential security in South Africa (they can often be seen around events like the State of the Nation Address, for example) it seems unlikely that either Ukrainian or Russian officials would grant permission for South African snipers to operate on their soil.

The Sunday Times wrote it was also difficult to believe that these weapons would be necessary (in the event, it turns out that much more important for the safety of Ramaphosa was a bomb shelter in a nearby hotel). This may well lead to more questions being asked about the South African National Defence Force and what is really happening inside it. It is obvious that the debate around Russia and Ukraine in our society is about to enter a new phase with Ramaphosa likely to face criticism of even greater intensity.

Mia Swart is Senior Lecturer in International Human Rights Law at Edge Hill University and Visiting Professor at the University of the Witwatersrand. Mia Swart wrote in an opinion article that underscoring the fact “one of the reasons South Africa remains tied to Russia is that Russia has helped provide a financial lifeline to the African National Congress (ANC).” Earlier this year, it was reported that the ANC had received R15-million from a company tied to a sanctioned Russian oligarch. But then the South African government cannot continue to be blind to the illegality and inhumanity of Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. It cannot continue to be blind to the pre-2022 human rights violations committed during Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea.

South Africa’s ties to Russia appear to be not only ideological, but also material. Yet our government wants to convince us that it is not about the money. (In the run-up to next year’s election the ANC knows it needs all the financial help it can get.) Members of the government are not only deaf to the sound of missiles in Kyiv, but they are also tone deaf to the demands of a world order which foregrounds humanitarian concerns and human rights.

If the ANC continues to not honour the human rights commitments on which our constitutional democracy is built, it will lead to economic and reputational ruin. By continuing to support Russia, Pandor and others in the government are committing “kamikaze diplomacy”. This means they are willing to destroy South Africa’s reputation for the sake of supporting Russia, concluded Senior Lecturer Swart.

The first is that African governments, especially in South Africa, can’t do right for doing wrong in the racist imaginary. The second is that the pope and the Japanese prime minister appear to side with Ukraine, but want a peaceful settlement. Ramaphosa and Pandor appear to side with Russia, and (also) prefer a peaceful settlement. It is difficult to ignore or dismiss the racist undertones and Afro-pessimism at the base of intellectual responses to South Africa’s peace mission to Russia and Ukraine. The African Peace Mission had “failed to spark enthusiasm from either Moscow or Kyiv” according the report in the Daily Maverick.

News24, another South Africa’s media added Ivor Ichikowitz in its report. The arms dealer who was ‘supporting’ Ramaphosa’s Ukraine peace mission says he never sold to Russia. Ichikowitz has denied supporting Russia and has been outspoken in support of a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The founder of arms manufacturer Paramount, Ivor Ichikowitz, says there is no conflict of interest in his involvement in helping to coordinate African leaders’ peace mission to Ukraine and Russia. The presidency refused to answer questions about the involvement of Ichikowitz and the Brazzaville Foundation’s Jean-Yves Ollivier in the peace mission.

The South African Presidency’s statement did not mention Ollivier, Ichikowitz or the Brazzaville Foundation’s participation. “Participants included the president of the Comoros Islands and current president of the African Union, HE Othman Ghazali, president of Egypt, HE Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, president of Senegal HE Macky Sall, president of Uganda HE Yoweri Museveni, and president of Zambia HE Hakainde Hichilema,” read the statement.

None of the Presidency’s statements on the mission mentioned the involvement of the Brazzaville Foundation. That, however, on May 19, Newsweek quoted Ollivier as saying most of the African leaders were his “personal friends” and he started negotiating with Kyiv and Moscow about a peace mission with African leaders.

Asked about the involvement of Ollivier and Ichikowitz in the peace mission, Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, told News24 that he would not answer any questions in that regard. A spokesperson for the Brazzaville Foundation informed News24 Ollivier would not be granting further interviews and referred News24 to a statement from June 12, which read: “We are delighted that the meetings between the African heads of state and the leaderships of Russia and Ukraine have been confirmed. The ongoing arrangements are being handled through the official and diplomatic channels of the respective countries.”

Inside South Africa, the Africa Peace Initiative headed by President Cyril Ramaphosa has sparked a week-long giggling and grinning, debates and discussions in the media. The controversies and complexities surrounding the last peace trip will, to a large extent, influence both the future internal politics and foreign policy. It has become an important matter for the middle-class, the business community and politicians alike in South Africa. Besides that, the Russia-Ukraine crisis indeed threatens Africa’s unity. Majority of the countries in theoretical terms claim neutrality, but the Russia-Ukraine crisis has already visibly divided Africa.

*

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

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

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Documents released by BioNTech to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) reveal tens of thousands of serious adverse events and thousands of deaths among people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The documents, dated Aug. 18, 2022, and marked “confidential,” show that cumulatively, during the clinical trials and post-marketing period up to June 18, 2022, a total of 4,964,106 adverse events were recorded. The documents included an appendix with further details about the specifics about the identified adverse events.

Among children under age 17, 189 deaths and thousands of serious adverse events were reported.

The documents present data collected between Dec. 19, 2021, and June 18, 2022 (the “PSUR #3 period”), in addition to cumulative data on adverse events and deaths that occurred among those who received the vaccine during clinical trials and during the post-marketing period, beginning December 2020 up until June 18, 2022.

During this time, Pfizer-BioNTech said it identified almost no safety signals and claimed the vaccine demonstrated over 91% “efficacy.”

Remarking on the documents, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., senior director of science and research for Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender:

“These adverse event reports are ‘off the charts,’ with myocarditis reports at over 10,000 and pericarditis reports at over 9,000.

“Historically, we know that this would be an under-ascertainment of the actual numbers. It is criminal for the EMA to keep this vaccine on the market.”

According to an analysis by commentator and author Daniel Horowitz, the percentage of adverse events classified as serious was “well above the standard for safety signals usually pegged at 15%,” and women reported adverse events at three times the rate of men.

Sixty percent of cases were reported with either “outcome unknown” or “not recovered,” suggesting many of the injuries “were not transient,” Horowitz said.

The highest number of cases occurred in the 31-50 age group, of which 92% did not have any comorbidities, making it very likely it was the vaccine causing “such widespread, sudden injury.”

There were 3,280 fatalities among vaccine recipients in the combined cumulative period including the clinical trials and post-marketing, up to July 18, 2022.

According to Horowitz, the documents “show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on,” yet continued to distribute its COVID-19 vaccine.

The documents are not part of the ongoing court-ordered release of the so-called “Pfizer documents” in the U.S., but according to Horowitz, are pharmacovigilance documents requested by the EMA, the EU’s drug regulator.

The documents were made available to an Austrian science and politics blog, TKP, following “a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request from an anonymous reader.” They were subsequently published on March 4. However, once published, no European English-language media outlet appears to have reported on them.

As a result, they remained under the radar until recently, when several independent English-language bloggers discovered and published the documents.

Thousands of pediatric serious adverse events and deaths

The main Pfizer-BioNTech document revealed 9,605 adverse events (3,735 serious) during the PSUR #3 and 25 cases during the clinical trials among children ages 11 and younger. These included 20 fatalities, in children as young as 5 years old.

Causes of these fatalities included dyspnea, cardiac arrest, cardio-respiratory arrest, pyrexia and myocarditis, though “all events were assessed as unrelated” to the vaccine.

In one example listed in the document, an 11-year-old boy died of acute respiratory failure two days after the first dose of the vaccine. In another case, a 6-year-old girl died seven days following her initial dose of complications that included renal impairment, epilepsy, apnea, seizure and “sudden death.”

The document lists another case, that of a 6-year-old boy whose listed causes of death are myocarditis, cardio-respiratory arrest and COVID-19. He died seven days after the first dose of the vaccine, and although autopsy results were “pending,” “the reporter concluded that the death ‘had nothing to do’ with the administration of BNT162b2 [the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine] and was due to natural causes.”

For children ages 12-17, the document listed 21,945 adverse eventss (19,558 serious) in the post-marketing period and 15 cases during clinical trials. A total of 169 deaths were recorded, with listed causes including dyspnea, pyrexia, cardiac arrest, myocarditis, cardiac failure, seizure and shock.

Nevertheless, the document states “No new significant safety information was identified based on the review of the cases reported in the overall paediatric population.”

‘No safety signals’ despites deaths, injuries of pregnant women and newborns

Pregnant and lactating women also were significantly affected. There were 3,642 post-authorization adverse events and 697 clinical trial adverse events in this population, including spontaneous abortion, fetal death, postpartum hemorrhage, premature separation of the placenta, premature labor or delivery, live birth with congenital anomalies and stillbirths.

Nevertheless, the documentation again states, “There were no safety signals regarding use in pregnant/lactating women that emerged from the review of these cases or the medical literature,” despite two key admissions elsewhere in the documentation.

In one instance, the document stated, “The safety profile of the vaccine in pregnant and/or breastfeeding women was not studied in the pivotal clinical trial and the maternal clinical trial was terminated early due to participant recruitment difficulties.”

And in another instance, Pfizer-BioNTech identified the following as “missing information”:

“Use in pregnancy and while breastfeeding; Use in immunocompromised patients; Use in frail patients with co-morbidities … Use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders; Interaction with other vaccines; Long term safety data.”

Pfizer-BioNTech stated a “commitment” to track “pregnancy outcome[s] in clinical trials.”

Myocarditis and pericarditis deaths among children, young adults

A notable discrepancy appears in terms of reported cases of myocarditis in the clinical trials as compared to the post-marketing period — one myocarditis case (0.15% of all cases) is listed for the clinical trial period, while 5,422 cases (1.1% of all cases) and 5,458 serious events were reported in the PSUR #3 period.

Of these, 87 cases were fatal and 1,608 were listed as “not resolved.” Among children and young adults, 48 cases were reported for those between the ages of 5 and 11 (two deaths), 366 among 12-15-year-olds (three deaths), 345 among 16-17-year-olds and 968 among 18-24-year-olds (four deaths).

In one instance, an 11-year-old girl developed myocarditis two days after her first dose and subsequently died, with the listed causes of death including myocarditis, respiratory failure, acute cardiac failure and cardio-respiratory arrest.

Separately, a 13-year-old boy developed myocarditis five days after his second dose, and subsequently died of myocarditis, cardiac arrest, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, ventricular tachycardia and renal failure.

A 13-year-old girl with no medical history developed myocarditis six days after her first dose and also later died.

In the case of a 19-year-old male who developed myocarditis three days after his third dose and who eventually died, an autopsy “revealed extensive necrosis of the left ventricular myocardium (myocardial necrosis); myocarditis/fulminant myocarditis.”

And a 26-year-old male who also took the flu vaccine developed myocarditis four days after his third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and subsequently died. The listed causes of death included myocarditis, arrhythmia, inflammation and left ventricular dysfunction. Autopsy results “showed myocarditis.”

Similarly, while no cases of pericarditis were recorded during the clinical trial, 4,156 were recorded during the PSUR #3 period, including 4,164 serious adverse events and 19 fatalities. This included 30 cases among 5-11-year-olds, 118 cases among 12-15-year-olds, 106 cases among 16-17-year-olds, 479 cases among 18-24-year-olds (and one death), and 417 cases among 25-29-year-olds, again including one death.

In one example, a 22-year-old male developed pericarditis 31 days after his second dose and eventually died of pericarditis and other causes, including multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pericardial mass, pericardial effusion, malignant pericardial mesothelioma and right ventricular failure.

Numerous other cardiovascular adverse events were recorded, totaling 32,712 cases during the PSUR #3 period (496 fatal) and 27 during the clinical trials (two fatal — with none of the events listed as “related” to vaccination).

Causes of death included in this category include arrhythmia, cardiac failure and acute cardiac failure, cardiogenic shock, coronary artery disease, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome(POTS) and tachycardia.

Nevertheless, “No new significant safety information was identified.”

Many ‘very severe and very rare’ adverse events identified

The 393-page confidential Pfizer document shows that Pfizer observed more than 10,000 categories of diagnosis, many “very severe and very rare,” Horowitz wrote.

These include 73,542 cases of 264 categories of vascular disorders from the shots, many of which “are rare conditions,” hundreds of categories of nervous system disorders, totaling 696,508 cases and 61,518 adverse events from well over 100 categories of eye disorders, “which is unusual for a vaccine injury,” according to Horowitz.

In addition, “there were over 47,000 ear disorders, including almost 16,000 cases of tinnitus,” “roughly 225,000 cases of skin and tissue disorders,” “roughly 190,000 cases of respiratory disorders” and “over 178,000 cases of reproductive or breast disorders, including disorders you wouldn’t expect, such as 506 cases of erectile dysfunction.”

“Over 100,000 blood and lymphatic disorders, for both of which there’s a wealth of literature linking them to the spike protein” were indicated, as well as “almost 127,000 cardiac disorders, running the gamut of about 270 categories of heart damage, including many rare disorders, in addition to myocarditis.”

There were also “3,711 cases of tumors — benign and malignant,” and “there were over 77,000 psychiatric disorders observed.”

“What is so jarring is that there are hundreds of very rare neurological disorders that reflect something so systemically wrong with the shots, a reality that was clearly of no concern to the manufacturers and regulators alike,” Horowitz wrote, referencing 68 listed cases of a rare diagnosis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.

In another example, the “Pharma Files” Substack identified 3,092 neoplasms, noting that ”malignant neoplasms means cancer.”

Pfizer-BioNTech usually identified ‘no safety signal’ despite thousands of deaths

Numerous deaths and serious adverse events were recorded for a wide range of other conditions:

  • Stroke: 3,091 cases and 3,532 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 314 fatalities, and 19 cases during the clinical trial (one death).

The document stated, “Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis … and Cerebrovascular Accident/Stroke were evaluated as signals during the reporting period and were not determined to be risks causally associated with the vaccine … No additional safety signals … have emerged based on the review of these cases.”

  • Respiratory: 2,199 cases and 1,873 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 363 fatalities, and 33 cases during the clinical trial (four deaths). Serious adverse events included cardio-respiratory arrest, pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute respiratory failure, hypoxia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Yet, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”
  • Bell’s palsy: 733 cases were reported during PSUR #3, in addition to 1,428 cases of facial paralysis. Six cases were fatal, with all victims over age 60. One additional case of Bell’s palsy, in a 75-year-old female from the U.S., was recorded in the clinical trial but was deemed “not related” to her vaccination. Again, “No new significant safety information was identified.”
  • Neurological: 5,111 cases and 4,973 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 67 fatalities, and 15 cases during the clinical trial. Once more, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”
  • Immune-mediated/autoimmune adverse events: 11,726 cases and 8,445 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 133 fatalities, and 19 cases during the clinical trial. Serious adverse events included thrombocytopenia, interstitial lung disease, cerebral hemorrhage, encephalitis, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, renal failure, pneumonia and pulmonary embolism. Yet, “No new safety signals have emerged.”
  • Multisystem inflammatory syndrome: 207 cases and 210 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 56 deaths, with 35 involving the elderly. In addition, 38 cases were reported in children. Nevertheless, “No new safety signals have emerged based on a review of these cases [or] literature.”

Pfizer-BioNTech stated a “commitment” for “closely monitoring multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and in adults … and reporting of new cases.”

  • Thromboembolic adverse events: 6,102 cases and 6,724 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 265 fatalities, and 17 cases during the clinical trial (one death). Serious adverse events included pulmonary embolism, thrombosis and deep vein thrombosis. Again, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”

Elsewhere in the document, the case of a 14-year-old male who died of peripheral swelling after getting the COVID-19 vaccine was mentioned, with no additional details.

In another example, a 67-year-old male “with a history of diabetes and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura” suffered chest and gastrointestinal discomfort less than 30 minutes after receiving his third dose of the vaccine. A diagnosis of anaphylaxis was made, while an electrocardiogram showed “signs of a myocardial infarction.” He later sustained cardiac arrest and died 12 days following his vaccination.

Moreover, 204 fatalities (and 24,077 cases) of vaccination failure, 81 deaths from “vaccination stress,” 24 deaths (and 1,402 cases) of suspected vaccination failure, two deaths from glomerulonephritis and nephrotic syndrome, two deaths (1,326 cases) from “medication error” and 166 deaths from “other” adverse events — mostly pyrexia — were recorded.

Pfizer-BioNTech and EMA: ‘nothing to see here’

Pfizer and BioNTech claimed that the overall efficacy of their COVID-19 vaccine for the PSUR #3 period was 91.3% — and 100% for some populations.

Moreover, only one safety signal was definitively identified: hearing loss, with Pfizer-BioNTech committing to perform a “safety evaluation of tinnitus and hearing loss.”

Two other conditions, myocarditis and pericarditis, were determined to be an “important identified risk,” while irritability was determined to be an “identified risk (not important).”

“A statement regarding the reporting rates of myocarditis and pericarditis after primary series and booster doses” was added to their vaccine’s European product label.

Labeling was changed for Guillain-Barré syndrome, but in Japan. The document stated:

“Although not considered by definition a regulatory action taken for safety reasons because it does not significantly impact the benefit risk balance of use of the product in authorised populations, due to the receipt of spontaneous reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) after vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines including BNT162b2 … Japan has required class changes to include GBS in the important precautions section of the Japan package insert.”

Despite the large number of deaths and serious adverse events, Pfizer and BioNTech wrote, “Based on the available safety and efficacy/effectiveness data from the reporting interval for BNT162b2, the overall benefit-risk profile of BNT162b2 remains favorable” and that “no further changes … or additional risk minimization activities are warranted.”

The EMA appears to have agreed with this conclusion. In its “assessment report,” its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) wrote that “The benefit-risk balance for the use of Comirnaty in its authorized indication remains unchanged.”

“The PRAC considers that the risk-benefit balance of medicinal products containing tozinameran (Comirnaty) remains unchanged and therefore recommends the maintenance of the marketing authorisation(s),” the PRAC added.

However, Horowitz argues that the documents “show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on,” yet continued to distribute its COVID-19 vaccine.

Earlier this month, BioNTech was sued in Germany by a woman alleging injuries from the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The lawsuit demands at least 150,000 euro ($161,500) in damages for bodily harm and unspecified compensation for material damages.

*

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

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

Featured image is from CHD


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Criminal’: Confidential EU Documents Reveal Thousands of Deaths From Pfizer-BioNTech Shots
  • Tags:

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Rep. Ro Khanna on Wednesday was the only member of the House Armed Services Committee to vote against legislation that would authorize an $886 billion military budget for the coming fiscal year, a sum the California Democrat decried as outrageous amid cuts to social spending and attacks on aid programs for vulnerable Americans.

“I was proud to cast the lone NO vote against a defense budget nearing $1 trillion while we are cutting relief for the poor, for students with loans, and for the working class,” Khanna wrote on Twitter. “The Beltway is not with me, but many Americans—particularly the young—want us to improve their lives.”

The 58-1 vote on the House committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) came after a marathon markup session replete with Republican hysteria over Pentagon diversity programs and funding for drag shows, which the Defense Department has already banned.

But in a tweet following the committee vote, which sends the NDAA to the full House for consideration, Khanna focused his attention on the massive costs of price gouging by private military contractors and other abuses.

“How is it that ’60 Minutes’ has done better oversight of the Pentagon and found more waste and fraud than our Congressional committees tasked with that very responsibility?” Khanna asked, referring to a recent CBS News investigation detailing rampant profiteering by some of the world’s largest military contractors, including Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

Last year, nearly three-quarters of Lockheed Martin’s net sales were from the U.S. government. The weapon manufacturer’s CEO recently welcomed the proposed $886 billion military spending topline in the recently approved debt ceiling agreement, calling it “as good an outcome as our industry or our company could ask for at this point.”

Lockheed and other major military contractors spend big on lobbying and campaign contributions each year, often targeting key congressional panels such as the House Armed Services Committee.

During the 2022 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets, the military sector donated millions to the 59 members of the panel. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the chair of the committee, received the most from the sector last year at $517,700.

“Pentagon contractors consistently contribute heavily to House Armed Services Committee members, Senate counterparts, and appropriations committee members in both chambers,” OpenSecrets found. “The top 20 House Armed Services Committee members received almost $2.3 million from the defense sector, and 12 of those members serve in leadership roles on the committee or related subcommittees.”

Eric Eikenberry, government relations director at Win Without War, said in a statement Thursday that the committee’s approval of an $886 billion military budget was a vote “for military contractor profits and against the climate, against parents trying to provide for their families, and against diplomacy.”

“The people of the United States are dealing with real issues,” said Eikenberry. “Climate change, which our gas-guzzling military accelerates, causes wildfires that clog our skylines. Inflation and the looming restart of student loan payments cut into our personal and family budgets. Inequality—racial, gender, and economic—keeps many communities off-kilter and on the margins.”

“Instead of addressing these enduring sources of insecurity,” Eikenberry added, “Congress decided to grease the wheels of the war machine and its profiteers.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Jake Johnson is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Ukraine War: It Worked Perfectly for Russia

June 26th, 2023 by Karsten Riise

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Western Illusions

Ukraine is losing the war. Everything is breaking down for Kiev and NATO. Moscow needed a motivation for Kiev and NATO to go on fighting their losing war until their own self-destruction. And what better fake motivation to give NATO than playing to their delusions, vanity, and hubris that perhaps Moscow would break down all by itself.

It has all worked perfectly for Russia.

The West now believes that Moscow could break down any time. Just a little wind, then perhaps.

While in reality, both Russia and the Kremlin are stronger than ever.

Putin in Control

Russia’s president Putin managed the situation quickly and with minimum or no bloodshed. The [former] fighters of Wagner will continue to fight for Russia, now under contract directly with the Russian Ministry of Defense. On the occasion, Putin received allegiance of loyalty personally and directly from each of all top generals and governors in Russia. Russia continues to win in Ukraine, the Russian economy is doing better than probably ever – and Russian diplomacy is successful.

A Successful Military

The Russian military has performed very well, most of the time even excellently. It has successfully adapted, and the war is very different from when it started 24 February 2022. Training, equipment, and doctrine have all been successfully developed – contrary to NATO. Defense Minister Shoigu and Chief of General Staff Gerasimov both deserve honor for this. Shoigu as the manager who has modernized and developed the organization and established the industrial foundation. Gerasimov as the military leader. Look how Ukraine with all its NATO weapons, NATO training, NATO officers, and NATO intelligence is being smashed on their “counteroffensive” which started on 5 June 2023. That is operational excellence achieved by the Russian military, and without any participation from Wagner whatsoever.

A Special Unit in Transition

Wagner has played one central role as special forces and stormtroopers against cities and some of the deadliest fortifications like Soledar. These operations require special skills, and even under the best of circumstances incur high losses. Attacks normally require numerical superiority like 3-1 or more. Wagner captured Artemovsk (Bakhmut) and other deadly targets with numerical inferiority.

Whether Wagner has received the optimal amount of ammunition, equipment, and support for this, is hard to say. On the other hand, it is normal that commanders always complain that they “don’t get enough” – even US generals about to go against Iraq complained to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, that they needed “more”. Rumsfeld famously rebuffed his complaining generals by saying “maybe you don’t have all you ‘need’, but you’ve got 100% of what you’ve got !!”  In the end, Rumsfeld was more than right on that point, as Iraq was completely rolled over (the US problems started later).

Russia has spared the lives of its soldiers and has taken exceptionally few losses. But a large part of the losses taken by Russia have been borne by Wagner. It is an organization led by extremely competent military people with many Spetsnaz (special forces). And to bear many of the losses and swell the ranks quickly, Wagner added a lot of convicts, who have performed well, probably much better than many expected. Wagner has functioned similarly to the French Foreign Legion, which also has recruited convicts, and which is also a unit designed to do special operations, where losses will not create public “discomfort”.

Time for Change

Prigozhin has no military background or education. Some commentators say Prigozhin does not lead Wagner’s military operations, though we have seen that Prigozhin has been playing a leading and probably motivating role with all the men. But a lot of the words and thoughts do not point to great consistency, temper, or analytics. Prigozhin built Wagner but time is right for Wagner to have a very different type of leader to carry it on. Entrepreneurs are not always good at managing big organizations once their creation grows and becomes much more complex. Wagner’s operations in Ukraine are totally different from Wagner’s role overseas in places like Africa. Both roles need to be developed independently. It is time to redefine Wagner.

*

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

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Moscow State: Alexander Smagin, Unsplash CC0

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Trailer to the documentary, “Crimes Against Syria”, featuring Global Research, One America News Network, Eva K. Bartlett, and Syrian performer, Treka.

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: “Crimes Against Syria” Produced by Mark Taliano

Biden and Modi: Unlimited Hypocrisy

June 26th, 2023 by Robert Fantina

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

India’s brutal Prime Minister Narendra Modi, personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of Muslims, recently visited United States President Joe Biden at the White House. This was a ‘state visit’, the most prestigious hospitality that the U.S. can offer to a foreign dignitary. The reason for the visit was to strengthen the ties between the two nations; as the U.S. increases tensions with China, it is looking for another major player to help reset the balance of power in the U.S.’s favor.

It is interesting to look at the history of the man that Biden invited to the White House for a state visit. Modi has been Prime Minister of India since 2014, but his blatant racism predates that date by many years. Writing in Time on February 28, 2020, journalist Rana Ayyub stated the following: “In February 2002, as Gujarat burned in communal flames for days and a thousand Muslims were killed, leaders of his (Modi’s) Bharatiya Janata Party and its ally, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, gave speeches provoking Hindus to teach Muslims a lesson. Modi himself gave the most incendiary speech mocking riot victims, calling relief camps set up for Muslims, child producing factories.”

In India, under Modi, press freedom and free speech are curtailed, with the government arresting journalists, and generally stifling any voices of dissent. Commenting on the situation, as reported by The New York Times on February 8, 2021,  Gyan Prakash, a professor of history at Princeton University, “… cited what he called a creeping dismantling of the pillars of democracy under Mr. Modi, from the coercion and control of the mainstream media to influencing of the courts.”

The blatant anti-Muslim racism that Modi encourages can be seen no more clearly than in Kashmir. In August of 2019, Modi altered the Indian constitution and abrogated Article 370, which gave limited autonomy to Kashmir. Prior to this time, Kashmiris has suffered greatly for decades under Indian violence; this suffering accelerated quickly. Within two weeks of the abrogation, at least 4,000 Kashmiris had been arrested and held under the so-called Public Safety Act (PSA). This laws enables Indian authorities to jail anyone, without charge or trial, for two years. And the 4,000 arrested at that time does not include people whose detentions had not yet been recorded.

A report from AA from November 20, 2020, states the following:

“’Pakistan strongly condemns the extra-judicial killing of four more innocent Kashmiris in a fake encounter outside the city of Jammu by the Indian occupation  forces in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK),’ the Foreign Ministry said.

“Indian forces said that they killed militants in a shootout on the Jammu-Srinagar National Highway.

“Over the past year, more than 300 Kashmiris, including women and children, were killed by Indian forces, the ministry said, calling for an independent inquiry into the ‘extrajudicial killings’.

“Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised his security forces for their ‘bravery and professionalism.’”

One learns all one needs to know about Modi when he praises the killings of innocent men, women and children.         

Modi, while in Washington being fawned over by Biden, uncharacteristically answered a few questions from the press. He was asked about his repression of any dissent, and the Indian government’s treatment of religious minorities, specifically Muslims. He said this: “There’s absolutely no space for discrimination. When you talk of democracy, if there are no human values and there is no humanity, there are no human rights, then it’s not a democracy.”

Yet not everyone agrees with Modi’s description of ‘democracy’ in India. On February 5, 2021, Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, the founder and president of Genocide Watch, a global organization that flags the intentional destruction of ethnic, racial and religious groups, said this:  “The systemic state-sponsored discrimination against Kashmiri Muslims bears all the hallmarks of a genocide.

“We believe that the Indian government’s actions in Kashmir have been an extreme case of persecution and could very well lead to genocide.”

A Human Rights Watch report of April 9, 2020, says the following:

“Muslims in India have been increasingly at risk since the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi was first elected in 2014. Faizan (author’s note: a 23-year-old Muslim who was severely beaten with four other men in February by Indian policemen and forced to sing the Indian national anthem, and who died two days later from his injuries) died in a carnage amidst rising communal tensions in the country. On December 12, 2019, the Modi administration achieved passage of the discriminatory Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). Under the act, for the first time in India, religion is a basis for granting citizenship. The law specifically fast-tracks asylum claims of non-Muslim irregular immigrants from the neighboring Muslim-majority countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The amended citizenship law, coupled with the government’s push for a nationwide citizenship verification process through a National Population Register (NPR) and a proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), aimed at identifying ‘illegal migrants,’ has led to fears that millions of Indian Muslims, including many families who have lived in the country for generations, could be stripped of their citizenship rights and disenfranchised.”

It must be noted that the newly-minted United Nations in 1948 passed a resolution stating that the future of Kashmir, and whether it would become a part of India or Pakistan, was to be determined by a plebiscite, and that that plebiscite should be held ‘as soon as possible’. Seventy-five years later, the people of Kashmir are still waiting for their voices to be heard.

This is the man that Biden invited to the White House; this is the leader who addressed the U.S. Congress on June 22, 2023, and received fifteen standing ovations.

U.S. government spokespeople are forever stating that human rights are a pillar of U.S. policy around the world. Why then is Modi feted with such respect in the White House and the halls of Congress? Why does the U.S. finance and give complete diplomatic cover to Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people? Please remember that at least three, internationally renowned human rights organizations (B’Tselem, located in Tel Aviv; Amnesty International, located in Geneva, Switzerland, and Human Rights Watch, located in New York City) have documented in great detail that Israel is an apartheid regime. Why sanction Venezuela, Iran, Cuba and many other countries? The U.S. issued brutal sanctions against Iraq before invading that country in 2003. It is difficult to forget the response of Secretary of State Madeline Albright when questioned about one of the results of those sanctions. Here is the exchange with journalist Lesley Stahl:

“’We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima,’ asked Stahl, ‘And, you know, is the price worth it?’

“’I think that is a very hard choice,’ Albright answered, ‘but the price, we think, the price is worth it.’”

Over 500,000 innocent children died because of U.S. sanctions, and the U.S. Secretary of State found that perfectly acceptable.

In view of all this, Biden’s welcome of another brutal world leader is not surprising. China must not be allowed to take a major role on the world stage; already, that country’s influence is being felt in the Middle East, so Biden will sell the U.S. soul to the devil to try to regain center stage. That devil arrived in the U.S. last week, and was given all the honor the U.S. government can bestow.

The idea of the U.S. as a beacon of freedom and an advocate for human rights around the world has never been true, and that myth is believed less and less outside of U.S. borders. At some point, U.S. government officials will recognize that, if they haven’t already, but power and profits always trump human rights for the U.S. government. Modi’s visit to the U.S. is just the latest in a long line of evidence, proving that fact.

*

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

Featured image: President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India walk along the Colonnade of the White House, Thursday, June 22, 2023, to the Oval Office following the State Arrival Ceremony on the South Lawn. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Amid numerous disturbing reports about possible false flag operations involving nuclear devices and weapons, the Kiev regime seems to be escalating its actions in this regard. According to various local sources, the South Ukraine Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), located in the city of Yuzhnoukrainsk in the Nikolayev region (oblast), has been effectively taken over by the Neo-Nazi junta forces. Although troops have been stationed in and around the NPP since the start of the special military operation (SMO), in recent weeks this has escalated. Apparently, mysterious “guards” have appeared at the NPP and have even restricted access to the reactor facilities, including to the staff responsible for the critically important maintenance of the reactor and the NPP’s key systems and subsystems.

Worse yet, the “guards” are offering no explanation for their behavior, nor does anyone else, be it the military or civilian authorities. In essence, nobody really knows for sure, but many people are skeptical (to say the least). The “guards” have even placed what can only be described as ammunition crates inside the NPP. And it doesn’t seem to be small arms ammunition, but something much bigger, such as shells or even rockets, all of which have foreign markings. For over a year, there have been numerous reports about the Kiev regime hiding NATO-sourced weapons there, obviously in an attempt to prevent their destruction. Needless to say, having any sort of weapons at a nuclear facility of any kind is suicidal in and of itself, but having shells and rockets stored there is simply criminal.

This is particularly dangerous as the political West and the Neo-Nazi junta have been insisting that Russia is supposedly planning to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, supposedly due to mythical “battlefield losses”. On the other hand, Moscow has repeatedly issued warnings about the Kiev regime’s plans to build a so-called “dirty bomb”, for which it has more than enough enriched uranium stored in several Soviet-era NPPs across Ukraine. The previous scenario is extremely unlikely, as it’s not in Russia’s interest to use nuclear weapons. However, Moscow’s “dirty bomb” warnings are certainly not to be dismissed, as the Neo-Nazi junta has been threatening to acquire nuclear weapons for years. This includes threats by the Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky himself.

Latest intelligence data suggests that the South Ukraine NPP is also being used as an ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) command and control center for most NATO forces covertly stationed in Ukraine. This is hardly unexpected and is in line with the previous message Russia sent to the belligerent alliance after it hit an underground bunker where hundreds of NATO officers were deployed to command and coordinate their favorite puppet regime’s troops. According to varying estimates, up to 400 officers and other staff were neutralized in a hypersonic missile strike (presumably involving a single 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal”). Obviously, in order to ensure such high casualties among high-value assets are avoided, NATO most likely decided to deploy its higher-ranking personnel in NPPs, knowing that Russia will not target those.

This could also explain why the United States and NATO are suddenly parroting about invoking Article 5 in case of a supposed Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons or if an attack on an NPP causes radiation spikes. Both scenarios clearly imply that a false flag is in the works, as this is precisely how the political West operates during its countless aggressions against the world. The belligerent power pole first threatens to attack in case the side they are targeting does something, and then, all of a sudden, the targeted country supposedly does “exactly that”, even though it’s clearly not in its interest. Obviously, such a scenario is virtually impossible to implement against a country like Russia without leading to a world-ending thermonuclear confrontation.

It has now become clear that the political West is aware of just how much of a failure the Neo-Nazi junta’s much-touted counteroffensive has been, leading to attempts to thwart any possible Russian counterattack that might have devastating consequences for the Kiev regime. This might be attempted through direct intervention by NATO, as the political West probably believes that such escalation could be controlled. And a possible false flag operation simulating a Russian attack on the South Ukraine NPP (or even the Zaporozhye NPP) might be used as an excuse for that. Still, considering how risky such a scenario is, the belligerent power pole might even contemplate the delivery of nuclear weapons to the Neo-Nazi junta in an attempt to cause a localized nuclear confrontation with Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has already hinted at this possibility, warning that the delivery of nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets might be the way for the political West to achieve such a scenario. However, for its part, Moscow has warned that this would certainly not be a localized confrontation, as the Kiev regime’s puppet masters would also suffer the consequences of their rabidly Russophobic actions in Ukraine. The already thin line between global peace and thermonuclear annihilation is getting thinner by the day due to the US-led belligerent power pole’s unrelenting aggression against Russia. The political West has a clear choice of considering an off-ramp solution that might avert a catastrophe of global proportions. Still, it’s pushing for further escalation.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. 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 button below the author’s name.

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On the heels of China’s weather/spy balloon downed by a US F-22 comes a report of the construction of a Chinese listening post in Cuba. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., supports the Biden administration’s claim that China is setting up a spy station in Cuba. Gaetz calls it a “stationary aircraft carrier right off the coast of Florida.”

That is pretty rich given that the US is arming Taiwan (which the present US administration confirms is a province of the People’s Republic of China), and certainly Taiwan’s location makes an excellently situated listening post for the CIA. Thus it appears more so, using Gaetz’s analogy, that Taiwan is being made to serve as a stationary US aircraft carrier right off the coast of Fujian. Nonetheless, China’s presence in Cuba does not violate American sovereignty. Contrariwise, the US’s meddling in Taiwan is viewed as objectionable and provocative by Beijing.

And where is the evidence for Gaetz’s claim?

Western media asked Wang Wenbin, spokesman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for comment on 9 June 2023:

AFP: Reports by US media outlets say that China and Cuba have agreed to set up a Chinese spy facility capable of monitoring communications across the southeastern part of the US. Officials in Washington and Havana have said these reports are not accurate. Does the Chinese foreign ministry have a comment?

Wang Wenbin: I am not aware of what you mentioned. It is well known that the US is an expert on chasing shadows and meddling in other countries’ internal affairs. The US is the global champion of hacking and superpower of surveillance. The US has long illegally occupied Cuba’s Guantánamo Bay for secretive activities and imposed a blockade on Cuba for over 60 years. The US needs to take a hard look at itself, stop interfering in Cuba’s internal affairs under the pretext of freedom, democracy and human rights, immediately lift its economic, commercial and financial blockade on Cuba, and act in ways conducive to improving relations with Cuba and regional peace and stability, not otherwise.

And again on 13 June 2023:

Prensa Latina: Although China and Cuba denied the recent reports, the US government said over the weekend that it had information about this alleged spy center that they say China has been operating in Cuba. What is your comment about it?

Wang Wenbin: I made clear China’s position on this last week. Over the past few days, we have seen self-conflicting comments from US officials and media on the so-called allegation of China building “spy facilities” in Cuba. This is another example of “the US negating the US.”

What is true can never be false, and what is false can never be true. No matter how the US tries with slanders and smears, it will not succeed in driving a wedge between two true friends, China and Cuba, nor can it cover up its deplorable track record of indiscriminate mass spying around the world.

Thus, Gaetz has once again revealed the absurdity/mendacity of American politicians. Besides, what does it matter if China is building a listening post in Cuba? Is there any country on the planet that believes that the US is not spying on them? What is it that the Five Eyes are doing? What are all those eyes in the sky doing? Do US embassies and consulates not function as intelligence gathering bases? The US collects intelligence on friends and foes alike.

It even surveilles its own citizens. Don’t Americans know this? That is why Edward Snowden faces arrest should he return home. It is a moral contradiction that a whistleblower who exposes government illegality would be arrested by that same government for exposing its illegal actions.

This plays into another US narrative of the Threat of China. (See Paolo Urio, America and the China Threat: From the End of History to the End of Empire, 2022. Review.) Fox News cites an unnamed Biden administration official on the awareness

of a “number of” efforts by the People’s Republic of China “around the world to expand its overseas logistics, basing, and collection infrastructure.” These outposts would allow the People’s Liberation Army “to project and sustain military power at a greater distance.”

That is the rules-based order writ large. The US can do whatever it pleases. It can build military bases around the world and listen in on whoever it wants. But there are rules for the rest of the world to obey.

What does Gaetz propose doing? He supports “an Authorization for Use of Military Force to take out the Chinese assets in Cuba.”

Is this what American citizens need now, another war with a powerful country their government chooses to regard as an adversary — all this while the US and its NATO minions are going down to ignominious defeat in Ukraine?

*

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

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com

Featured image is from China Briefing

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Is Arming Taiwan. What About China’s Spy Base in Cuba?
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As well known, the Kiev regime has been carrying out irresponsible attacks against the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) since last year. Russian officials, independent journalists and ordinary citizens have repeatedly reported the Ukrainian strikes, with strong suspicions that the regime deliberately wants to provoke a nuclear leakage in the region. However, Kiev now seriously accuses Russia of planning such a crime, which sounds like a coordinated operation to delude public opinion.

On his social media, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky claimed to have received an intelligence report exposing that Moscow is planning a “terrorist attack” on the ZNPP. The objective would be to destroy the plant and cause a radioactive leak, thus affecting the lives of thousands of civilians. On the occasion, the Ukrainian president also resumed the unfounded accusations that Russia was responsible for the incident at the Novaya Kakhovka dam, in addition to saying that the whole world is being warned in advance about what will possibly happen in ZNPP. He called on Kiev’s international partners to “act” in order to prevent such a tragedy.

“We have just had a report from our intelligence and the Security Service of Ukraine. Intelligence has received information that Russia is considering a scenario of a terrorist attack on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. A terrorist attack with radiation leakage. They have prepared everything for this. Unfortunately, I have repeatedly had to remind that radiation has no state borders, and who it will hit is determined only by the wind direction. (…) There should never be any terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants anywhere. This time it should not be like with Kakhovka – the world has been warned, so the world can and must act”, he said.

In the same vein, the president’s aide Mikhail Podoliak reiterated the accusations about an alleged “terrorist offensive” and added that mines were being placed around the ZNPP aimed at increasing the chances of radioactive leakage. For Podoliak, in fact, the alleged Russian terrorist plan is already “currently underway” and its objective would be to stop the Ukrainian armed forces’ counteroffensive by creating a “depopulated zone” in the areas affected by radiation.

“Russia (…) is currently considering a large-scale terrorist attack at the ZNPP to stop the Ukrainian counteroffensive and create a depopulated sanitary gray zone, fixed for the next years, as part of the territorial status quo without ceasefire. This strategy also includes attempts to attack the dam in Kryvyi Rih with Kinzhals. Additional mining of the nuclear power plant, including the cooling ponds, is currently underway. Whether the Kremlin decides to go ahead with this scenario today depends solely on the reaction of the global world. The red lines have to be defined. The consequences must be announced. Not tomorrow. Today”, he stated.

However, contradicting the words of the Ukrainian official, Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), clarified that the organization continues to closely monitor the ZNPP, making it clear that there is no problem with mines in the region.

“The IAEA is aware of reports of mines having been placed near the cooling pond. No mines were observed at the site during the Director General’s visit, including the cooling pond (…) Our assessment of those particular placements was that while the presence of any explosive device is not in line with safety standards, the main safety functions of the facility would not be significantly affected”, Grossi said.

Indeed, Ukrainian accusations against Russia are not new. Since 2022, both sides have mutually accused each other of carrying out attacks against ZNPP. The main point is that Moscow presents concrete evidence when making such claims, while Kiev accuses Russia in an unsubstantiated way. It was the Russian side that repeatedly invited international observers to investigate the ZNPP’s situation on the ground, clearly showing that Moscow has nothing to hide about what happens there.

The same can be said about the attack on the Kakhovka dam, which several analysts say is Ukraine’s fault. The act was consistent with the interests of the regime both in blocking the water supply to Crimea and in destabilizing the functioning of the ZNPP itself, as it risked the cooling of the reactors, increasing the chances of leakage. It is important to remember that months before the operation Ukrainian officials had already admitted their intention to bomb the dam.

Considering these factors, the most plausible explanation for the recent Ukrainian accusation seems to be an attempt to advance the matter in public opinion. Kiev may be planning even riskier raids against the ZNPP, which is why, in advance to any accident, it tries to spread the narrative that it is the Russian side that wants to cause the catastrophe. In this case, the intent would be to prepare western media’s audience for an anti-Russian false flag.

If Ukraine succeeds in its ambition, Moscow could be accused of several crimes, justifying escalations by the western side. Mainstream media and Ukrainian state propaganda would use rhetorical means to move public opinion to support violent measures against Moscow. Kiev is hopeful that this will prompt a direct intervention by the alliance in the war, although this scenario is unlikely as the bloc seems interested in keeping the conflict at proxy level.

On the Russian side, however, the situation continues to be monitored. Moscow has avoided responding appropriately to provocations in order not to escalate violence, but if increasing the intensity of attacks against the Kiev regime is the only way to prevent a nuclear accident from occurring in the ZNPP, certainly Russian forces will accelerate their maneuvers towards the neutralization of the enemy.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from New Scientist

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

While the many-sided destruction that has taken place and is taking place in the Ukraine conflict is a matter of deep concern, there are two related matters which should cause even higher worry and concern.

Firstly, it is deeply worrying that despite 16 months of conflict having passed, there appear to be no signs today of any breakthrough for bringing peace.

Secondly, many well-informed analysts have repeatedly voiced the warning that the more this war gets prolonged, the greater the risk of the proxy war between Russia and the USA/NATO escalating into a direct confrontation between the two biggest nuclear powers, and hence into a nuclear war and a third world war with the ultimate destructive potential of ending most of the life on earth.

Many people think that world’s leaders can never be so non-rational as to allow such a stage to be reached, but then they should also consider why such warnings have been more frequently issued in the context of the Ukraine conflict by several eminent and well-informed persons.

One important factor here is that you can manage high-tension conditions between the biggest nuclear weapon powers for some time, but if high-tension conditions are prolonged for an indefinite period then the chances of these getting out of control, even if unintentionally, increase (due to misunderstandings or mischief by someone or suspicions or sudden circumstances or technical flaws in offensive and defensive weapon system management).

It is an elementary and very basic rule of safety that one should avoid doing anything or getting entangled in anything in which there are chances of excessively high destruction. This basic rule of safety has been violated by world leadership that has thereby also violated its mandate for ensuring the most basic safety conditions in world.

Hence the greatest urgency now is of avoiding the possibility of a very big catastrophe in the near future, apart from stopping the ongoing destruction. This is best achieved by an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, to be followed by prolonged negotiations till various contentious issues can be sorted out.

Unconditional ceasefire is extremely important at this juncture because if you start bringing in conditions, then the positions taken by the two sides on some important issues are so different that a ceasefire will simply will not be achieved. At the same time, if there is no ceasefire, if fighting goes on, the destruction goes on, then each passing day of conflict increases bitterness, reduces the possibilities of peace and increases the possibility of catastrophe.

Yes, conditional ceasefire was possible in March-April 2022 when at an initial stage very credible peace efforts to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine were made but these were sabotaged by the USA and the UK.

Now if conditions relating to territory and NATO membership etc. are raised then the stated positions of the two sides differ so much that ceasefire will simply not be possible. Hence a beginning has to be made by ceasefire and then other aspects can be sorted out over prolonged negotiations without any actual fighting taking place.

The role of the UN is of course supposed to be very important not only for peace between Russia and Ukraine but also for avoiding a much bigger catastrophe, but unfortunately the UN has been marginalized so much in matters of such critical importance that there is not much hope from the UN for securing an unconditional ceasefire, although there can be some hope still for the role of the UN in implementing it.

A related question is whether the Ukraine regime is currently proceeding on the basis of careful protection of safety and welfare of the people of Ukraine, or is it guided by narrower considerations of the power of certain sections which are unduly hostile to the very idea of making stable peace with Russia. Do these sections derive their power to a large extent from the USA/NATO? How long will the USA push and support them on a path of permanent hostility towards Russia?

Can the USA be prevailed upon to shift to a less aggressive role that has more space for peace proposals such as unconditional ceasefire? Can some of its western allies convince the USA to move towards such a role, or will they merely follow what the USA says? Can the peace movement within the USA and at world level make a contribution to bringing early peace starting with unconditional ceasefire? Can some neutral countries make a contribution to peace?

These are just some of the questions that people committed to peace must be asking and exploring. What is really very important and must be the first priority is to try to achieve an unconditional ceasefire and then keep working for improving goodwill and other conditions necessary for a negotiated settlement of other issues. Ceasefire and peace must be maintained even if negotiations take a long time.

*

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

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children and Earth without Borders.      

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Medical Journals Are Being Deleted. Dr. Scott Jensen

June 26th, 2023 by Sen. Scott Jensen

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

With so many people dead and injured from the Covid mandates and injections, medical journals that published BS science to support the genocidal agenda, are scrubbing the record to hide their guilt.

Here is a brief but important alert from Dr Scott Jensen, a long-time family physician, and former Minnesota State Senator for Carver County.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Medical Journals Are Being Deleted. Dr. Scott Jensen

West’s Predictions About Coup in Russia Proved Wrong

June 26th, 2023 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

More and more, Western media outlets seem discredited due to their own propaganda acts. On June 24th, news around the world were marked by reports on the situation in Russia, due to a mutiny organized by the head of the Wagner Group PMC, Evgeny Prigozhin. A day earlier, the ex-restaurateur claimed to have started a “march for justice” to Moscow, with Wagner’s troops occupying military facilities in the city of Rostov. The objective would be to achieve changes in the Russian governmental structure, mainly in the Ministry of Defense, given the public disagreements between Prigozhin and Minister Sergey Shoigu. On the 23rd, Wagner’s head had also officially accused the Russian Army of bombing the PMC’s field camps in the special military operation zone.

With no effective damage to Russian society, the riot ended on the 24th, less than one day after it started. After talking with the President of Belarus Aleksandr Lukashenko, Prigozhin declared that he had reached an agreement, ordering the withdrawal of Wagner’s troops from the streets. In the agreement, it was established that Prigozhin would be moved to Belarus and that both he and the Wagner’s soldiers involved in the mutiny would be amnestied, without any criminal prosecution. In addition, Wagner’s troops who did not participate in the “march” were incorporated into the Ministry of Defense, becoming part of the Russian Armed Forces. No changes in the Ministry of Defense were mentioned in the agreement.

The existence of a deal made it clear that what happened was just a mutiny, not an attempted coup d’état or the start of civil war. If something so serious were attempted by Prigozhin, the situation would not be resolved so quickly with a simple agreement mediated by Lukashenko. Prigozhin would be arrested, and the Russian army would attack Wagner’s soldiers involved in the move. The way Russian forces deal with cases of treason is severe, so if there was an amnesty, it is because the case was seen as a mutiny, without major proportions and side effects.

However, the western media miscalculated what the outcome of the problems in Russia would be and hastily launched a series of baseless predictions about the future of the country and its president. The Financial Times, for example, published: “It is hard to believe that Putin can ultimately survive this kind of humiliation… His prestige, his power, even his life of him, are now on the line”. In the same vein, CNN stated that “Putin’s regime will ever go back to its previous heights of control from this moment… further turmoil and change is ahead”, even predicting that Wagner’s mobilization would “alter the course of the war in Kiev’s favor.”

In some cases, media outlets even promoted curious pro-Wagner propaganda, believing that the PMC would actually start a civil war against the Putin government – but these groups’ enthusiasm was obviously short-lived. For example, the pro-Kiev website “Terror Alarm” even referred to Wagner’s troops on their social networks as “freedom fighters” during the turmoil, but changed the narrative in a few hours, classifying them as “terrorists” after reporting the end of the riot.

Apparently, even Western officials misunderstood the case. The Wall Street Journal reported that sanctions against the Wagner Group have been postponed by US authorities in light of the “possibility” of an anti-Putin rebellion. Also, Politico published a series of erroneous predictions made by US officials about how Prigozhin’s maneuvers would “help” Ukraine. Government sources informed the newspaper that this would be “an unprecedented opportunity to advance”. In the same vein, Democratic Congressman Jason Crow said that the unrest would “almost certainly benefit the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the near term and [Kiev] should move fast to capitalize.”

However, in the end, Western outlets and officials were wrong, misled by their own propaganda machine. The mutiny lasted a few hours and had no positive effect for Ukraine either on the battlefield or in Russian civil society. On the contrary, Moscow emerged undoubtedly strengthened from the event. The Russian government, in cooperation with Union State partner Belarus, has shown itself able to resolve internal conflicts of interest through diplomacy, without generating large-scale problems. Furthermore, a series of strategic maneuvers were taken during the unrest, such as the establishment of an anti-terrorist operation, the mobilization of Chechen troops to Rostov and the transfer of Wagner’s soldiers involved in the “march” to the territory of Belarus.

Some analysts even suggested that the event was a kind of Russian “psyop” to distract the West while such strategic maneuvers were being made. Although there is not enough evidence to prove such a hypothesis, it is undeniable that there were significant gains, which are already starting to be seen even by the enemy side. On the 25th, for example, Poland began mobilizing troops on the border with Belarus, in response to the arrival of the Russian PMC in the neighboring country.

During Wagner’s “march”, there was no challenge to the authority of Vladimir Putin. Prigozhin never spoke of “overthrowing” Putin – despite calling him “mistaken”, directing his words only to the Ministry of Defense. Likewise, all sectors of Russian society, even those who agreed with Prigozhin in his claims, reaffirmed their loyalty to Putin.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Industry figures and scientists claim pesticide use and GMOs are necessary in ‘modern agriculture’. But this is not the case: there is now sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. It is simply not necessary to have our bodies contaminated with toxic agrochemicals, regardless of how much global agribusiness firms try to reassure us that they are present in ‘safe’ levels. 

There is also the industry-promoted narrative that if you question the need for synthetic pesticides or GMOs in ‘modern agriculture’, you are somehow ignorant or even ‘anti-science’. This is again not true. What does ‘modern agriculture’ even mean? It means a system adapted to meet the demands of global agri-capital and its international markets and supply chains. 

As writer and academic Benjamin R Cohen states:   

“Meeting the needs of modern agriculture – growing produce that can be shipped long distances and hold up in the store and at home for more than a few days – can result in tomatoes that taste like cardboard or strawberries that aren’t as sweet as they used to be. Those are not the needs of modern agriculture. They are the needs of global markets.”  

Current policies favour a (heavily subsidised and inefficient – when externalised health, social and environmental costs are factored in) geopolitical corporate-industrial agriculture and the strengthening of a globalised neoliberal food regime that by its very nature fuels and thrives on, among other things, unjust trade policies, indebtedness, population displacement and land dispossession, environmental degradation, illness, nutrient-deficient diets and a narrowing of the range of food crops available for public consumption. 

These policies prioritise urbanisation, giant retailers, global markets, long supply chains, external proprietary inputs (seeds, synthetic pesticides and inorganic fertilisers, etc), chemical-dependent monocropping, commodified corporate knowledge, highly processed food and market dependency at the expense of rural communities, independent enterprises and smallholder farms, local markets, short supply chains, on-farm resources and indigenous knowledge, diverse agroecological cropping, nutrient-dense diets and food sovereignty.   

Unfortunately, global agribusiness concerns have secured the status of ‘thick legitimacy’ based on an intricate web of processes successfully spun in scientific and policy arenas.  

This perceived legitimacy derives from the lobbying, financial clout and political power of agribusiness conglomerates which have set out to capture and shape government departments, public institutions, the agricultural research paradigm, international trade (WTO), the lending strategies of global finance (World Bank, IMF) and cultural narratives concerning food and agriculture (for example, via the industry front-group International Life Sciences Institute). 

Nevertheless, an alternative agri-food system is required. And it can be achieved.  

The 2009 report Agriculture at a Crossroads by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, produced by 400 scientists and supported by 60 countries, recommended agroecology to maintain and increase the productivity of global agriculture. It cites the largest study of ‘sustainable agriculture’ in the Global South, which analysed 286 projects covering 37 million hectares in 57 countries and found that on average crop yields increased by 79% (however, the study also included ‘resource conserving’ non-organic conventional approaches). 

The report concludes that agroecology provides greatly improved food security and nutritional, gender, environmental and yield benefits compared to industrial agriculture. 

The message conveyed in the paper Reshaping the European Agro-food System and Closing its Nitrogen Cycle: The potential of combining dietary change, agroecology, and circularity (2020), which appeared in the journal One Earth, is that an organic-based, agri-food system could be implemented in Europe and would allow a balanced coexistence between agriculture and the environment. This would reinforce Europe’s autonomy, feed the predicted population in 2050, allow the continent to continue to export cereals to countries which need them for human consumption and substantially reduce water pollution and toxic emissions from agriculture. 

The paper by Gilles Billen et al follows a long line of studies and reports which have concluded that organic agriculture is vital for guaranteeing food security, rural development, better nutrition and sustainability.  

In the 2006 book The Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects, Neils Halberg and his colleagues argue that there are still more than 740 million food insecure people (at least 100 million more today), the majority of whom live in the Global South. They say if a conversion to organic farming of approximately 50% of the agricultural area in the Global South were to be carried out, it would result in increased self-sufficiency and decreased net food imports to the region. 

In 2007, the FAO noted that organic models increase cost-effectiveness and contribute to resilience in the face of climatic stress. The FAO concluded that by managing biodiversity in time (rotations) and space (mixed cropping) organic farmers can use their labour and environmental factors to intensify production in a sustainable way and organic agriculture could break the vicious circle of farmer indebtedness for proprietary agricultural inputs. 

Of course, organic agriculture and agroecology are not necessarily one and the same. Whereas organic agriculture can still be part of the prevailing globalised food regime dominated by giant agri-food conglomerates, agroecology uses organic practices but is ideally rooted in the principles of localisation, food sovereignty and self-reliance. 

The FAO recognises that agroecology contributes to improved food self-reliance, the revitalisation of smallholder agriculture and enhanced employment opportunities. It has argued that organic agriculture could produce enough food on a global per capita basis for the current world population but with reduced environmental impact than conventional agriculture. 

In 2012, Deputy Secretary General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Petko Draganov stated  that expanding Africa’s shift towards organic farming will have beneficial effects on the continent’s nutritional needs, the environment, farmers’ incomes, markets and employment.  

meta-analysis conducted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNCTAD (2008) assessed 114 cases of organic farming in Africa. The two UN agencies concluded that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term. 

There are numerous other studies and projects which testify to the efficacy of organic farming, including those from the Rodale Institute, the UN Green Economy Initiative, the Women’s Collective of Tamil NaduNewcastle University and Washington State University. We also need look no further than the results of organic-based farming in Malawi. 

But Cuba is the one country in the world that has made the biggest changes in the shortest time in moving away from industrial chemical-intensive agriculture. 

Professor of Agroecology Miguel Altieri notes that due to the difficulties Cuba experienced as a result of the fall of the USSR it moved towards organic and agroecological techniques in the 1990s. From 1996 to 2005, per capita food production in Cuba increased by 4.2% yearly during a period when production was stagnant across the wider region.  

By 2016, Cuba had 383,000 urban farms, covering 50,000 hectares of otherwise unused land producing more than 1.5 million tons of vegetables. The most productive urban farms yield up to 20 kg of food per square metre, the highest rate in the world, using no synthetic chemicals. Urban farms supply 50 to 70% or more of all the fresh vegetables consumed in Havana and Villa Clara. 

It has been calculated by Altieri and his colleague Fernando R Funes-Monzote that if all peasant farms and cooperatives adopted diversified agroecological designs, Cuba would be able to produce enough to feed its population, supply food to the tourist industry and even export some food to help generate foreign currency. 

A systems approach 

Agroecological principles represent a shift away from the reductionist yield-output chemical-intensive industrial paradigm, which results in among other things enormous pressures on human health, soil and water resources. 

Agroecology is based on traditional knowledge and modern agricultural research, utilising elements of contemporary ecology, soil biology and the biological control of pests. This system combines sound ecological management by using on-farm renewable resources and privileging endogenous solutions to manage pests and disease without the use of agrochemicals and corporate seeds. 

It often draws on agrarian ecosystems based on centuries of indigenous knowhow that is increasingly recognised as valid for achieving food security, as outlined, for instance, in the paper Food Security and Traditional Knowledge in India in the Journal of South Asian Studies. 

Academic Raj Patel outlines some of the basic practices of agroecology by saying that nitrogen-fixing beans are grown instead of using inorganic fertilizer, flowers are used to attract beneficial insects to manage pests and weeds are crowded out with more intensive planting. The result is a sophisticated polyculture: many crops are produced simultaneously, instead of just one. 

However, this model is a direct challenge to the interests of global agribusiness. With the emphasis on localisation and on-farm inputs, agroecology does not require dependency on proprietary inputs or long-line global supply chains. 

Agroecology stands in sharp contrast to the prevailing industrial chemical-intensive model of farming. That model is based on a reductionist mindset which is fixated on a narrow yield-output paradigm that is unable or more likely unwilling to grasp an integrated social-cultural-economic-agronomic systems approach to food and agriculture. 

Localised, democratic food systems based on agroecological principles and short supply chains are required. An approach that leads to local and regional food self-sufficiency rather than dependency on faraway corporations and their expensive environment-damaging inputs. If the last few years have shown anything due to the closing down of much of the global economy, it is that long supply chains and global markets are vulnerable to shocks. Indeed, hundreds of millions faced food shortages as a result of the various economic lockdowns that were imposed. 

In 2014, a report by the then UN special rapporteur Olivier De Schutter concluded that by applying agroecological principles to democratically controlled agricultural systems we can help to put an end to food crises and poverty challenges. 

But Western corporations and foundations are jumping on the ‘sustainability’ bandwagon by undermining traditional agriculture and genuine sustainable agri-food systems and packaging their corporate takeover of food as some kind of ‘green’ environmental mission. 

The Gates Foundation through its ‘Ag One’ initiative is pushing for one type of agriculture for the whole world. A top-down approach dominated by hugely powerful, unaccountable agribusiness and agritech corporations and institutional investors regardless of what farmers or the public need or want. A system based on corporate consolidation and centralisation. 

But given the power and influence of those pushing for such a model, is the outcome merely inevitable? Not according to the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, which has released a report in collaboration with the ETC Group: ‘A Long Food Movement: Transforming Food Systems by 2045‘. 

It calls for civil society and social movements – grassroots organisations, international NGOs, farmers’ and fishers’ groups, cooperatives and unions – to collaborate more closely to transform financial flows, governance structures and food systems from the ground up. 

The report’s lead author, Pat Mooney, says that agribusiness has a very simple message: the cascading environmental crisis can be resolved by powerful new genomic and information technologies that can only be developed if governments unleash the entrepreneurial genius, deep pockets and risk-taking spirit of the most powerful corporations. 

Mooney notes that we have had similar messages based on emerging technology for decades but the technologies either did not show up or fell flat and the only thing that grew were the corporations. 

Although Mooney argues that new genuinely successful alternatives like agroecology are frequently suppressed by the industries they imperil, he states that civil society has a remarkable track record in fighting back, not least in developing healthy and equitable agroecological production systems, building short (community-based) supply chains and restructuring and democratising governance systems. 

And he has a point. A few years ago, the Oakland Institute released a report on 33 case studies which highlighted the success of agroecological agriculture across Africa in the face of climate change, hunger and poverty. The studies provide facts and figures on how agricultural transformation can yield immense economic, social, and food security benefits while ensuring climate justice and restoring soils and the environment. 

The research highlights the multiple benefits of agroecology, including affordable and sustainable ways to boost agricultural yields while increasing farmers’ incomes, food security and crop resilience. 

The report described how agroecology uses a wide variety of techniques and practices, including plant diversification, intercropping, the application of mulch, manure or compost for soil fertility, the natural management of pests and diseases, agroforestry and the construction of water management structures. 

There are many other examples of successful agroecology and of farmers abandoning Green Revolution thought and practices to embrace it. 

Upscaling 

In an interview on the Farming Matters website, Million Belay sheds light on how agroecological agriculture is the best model for Africa. Belay explains that one of the greatest agroecological initiatives started in 1995 in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, and continues today. 

It began with four villages and after good results, it was scaled up to 83 villages and finally to the whole Tigray Region. It was recommended to the Ministry of Agriculture to be scaled up at the national level. The project has now expanded to six regions of Ethiopia. 

The fact that it was supported with research by the Ethiopian University at Mekele has proved to be critical in convincing decision makers that these practices work and are better for both the farmers and the land. 

Bellay describes an agroecological practice that spread widely across East Africa – ‘push-pull’. This method manages pests through selective intercropping with important fodder species and wild grass relatives, in which pests are simultaneously repelled – or pushed – from the system by one or more plants and are attracted to – or pulled – toward ‘decoy’ plants, thereby protecting the crop from infestation. 

Push-pull has proved to be very effective at biologically controlling pest populations in fields, significantly reducing the need for pesticides, increasing production, especially for maize, increasing income to farmers, increasing fodder for animals and, due to that, increasing milk production, and improving soil fertility. 

By 2015, the number of farmers using this practice had increased to 95,000. One of the bedrocks of success is the incorporation of cutting-edge science through the collaboration of the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology and the Rothamsted Research Station (UK) who have worked in East Africa for more than 15 years on an effective ecologically based pest management solution for stem borers and striga. 

It shows what can be achieved with the support of key institutions, including government departments and research institutions. 

In Brazil, for instance, administrations have supported peasant agriculture and agroecology by developing supply chains with public sector schools and hospitals (Food Acquisition Programme). This secured good prices and brought farmers together. It came about by social movements applying pressure on the government to act. 

The federal government also brought native seeds and distributed them to farmers across the country, which was important for combatting the advance of the corporations as many farmers had lost access to native seeds. 

Agroecology should not just be regarded as something for the Global South. Food First Executive Director Eric Holtz-Gimenez argues that it offers concrete, practical solutions to many of the world’s problems that move beyond (but which are linked to) agriculture. In doing so, it challenges – and offers alternatives to – prevailing moribund doctrinaire neoliberal economics. 

By creating securely paid labour-intensive agricultural work in the richer countries, it can address the hollowing out of the economies of the likes of the US and UK as well as the displacement of existing indigenous food production systems by global agribusiness and the undermining of rural infrastructure in places like India. 

If policy makers were to prioritise agroecology to the extent Green Revolution practices and technology have been pushed, many of the problems surrounding poverty, unemployment and urban migration could be solved. 

Various official reports have argued that to feed the hungry and secure food security in low-income regions we need to support small farms and diverse, sustainable agroecological methods of farming and strengthen local food economies. 

Olivier De Schutter says: 

“To feed nine billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available. Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live, especially in unfavourable environments.” 

De Schutter indicates that small-scale farmers can double food production within 10 years in critical regions by using ecological methods. Based on an extensive review of scientific literature, the study he was involved in calls for a fundamental shift towards agroecology as a way to boost food production and improve the situation of the poorest. The report calls on states to implement a fundamental shift towards agroecology. 

The success stories of agroecology indicate what can be achieved when development is placed firmly in the hands of farmers themselves. The expansion of agroecological practices can generate a rapid, fair and inclusive development that can be sustained for future generations. This model entails policies and activities that come from the bottom-up and which the state can then invest in and facilitate. 

A decentralised system of food production with access to local markets supported by proper roads, storage and other infrastructure must take priority ahead of exploitative international markets dominated and designed to serve the needs of global capital. 

Countries and regions must ultimately move away from a narrowly defined notion of food security and embrace the concept of food sovereignty. ‘Food security’ as defined by the Gates Foundation and agribusiness conglomerates has merely been used to justify the rollout of large-scale, industrialised corporate farming based on specialised production, land concentration and trade liberalisation. This has led to the widespread dispossession of small producers and global ecological degradation. 

Across the world, we have seen a change in farming practices towards mechanised industrial-scale chemical-intensive monocropping and the undermining or eradication of rural economies, traditions and cultures. We see the ‘structural adjustment’ of regional agriculture, spiralling input costs for farmers who have become dependent on proprietary seeds and technologies and the destruction of food self-sufficiency. 

Food sovereignty encompasses the right to healthy and culturally appropriate food and the right of people to define their own food and agriculture systems. ‘Culturally appropriate’ is a nod to the foods people have traditionally produced and eaten as well as the associated socially embedded practices which underpin community and a sense of communality. 

Health and wealth 

But it goes beyond that. Our connection with ‘the local’ is also very much physiological. 

People have a deep microbiological connection to local soils, processing and fermentation processes which affect the gut microbiome – the up to six pounds of bacteria, viruses and microbes akin to human soil. And as with actual soil, the microbiome can become degraded according to what we ingest (or fail to ingest). Many nerve endings from major organs are located in the gut and the microbiome effectively nourishes them. There is ongoing research taking place into how the microbiome is disrupted by the modern globalised food production/processing system and the chemical bombardment it is subjected to. 

Capitalism colonises (and degrades) all aspects of life but is colonising the very essence of our being – even on a physiological level. With their agrochemicals and food additives, powerful companies are attacking this ‘soil’ and with it the human body. As soon as we stopped eating locally grown, traditionally processed food cultivated in healthy soils and began eating food subjected to chemical-laden cultivation and processing activities, we began to change ourselves. 

Along with cultural traditions surrounding food production and the seasons, we also lost our deep-rooted microbiological connection with our localities. It was replaced with corporate chemicals and seeds and global food chains dominated by the likes of Monsanto (now Bayer), Nestle and Cargill. 

Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, neurotransmitters in the gut affect our moods and thinking. Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiome have been implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including autism, chronic pain, depression and Parkinson’s. 

Science writer and neurobiologist Mo Costandi has discussed gut bacteria and their balance and importance in brain development. Gut microbes controls the maturation and function of microglia, the immune cells that eliminate unwanted synapses in the brain; age-related changes to gut microbe composition might regulate myelination and synaptic pruning in adolescence and could, therefore, contribute to cognitive development. Upset those changes and there are going to be serious implications for children and adolescents. 

In addition, environmentalist Rosemary Mason notes that increasing levels of obesity are associated with low bacterial richness in the gut. Indeed, it has been noted that tribes not exposed to the modern food system have richer microbiomes. Mason lays the blame squarely at the door of agrochemicals, not least the use of the world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate, a strong chelator of essential minerals, such as cobalt, zinc, manganese, calcium, molybdenum and sulphate. Mason argues that it also kills off beneficial gut bacteria and allows toxic bacteria. 

The 2015 Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology argues for building grass-root local food systems that create new rural-urban links, based on truly agroecological food production. It says that agroecology should not be co-opted to become a tool of the industrial food production model; it should be the essential alternative to it. 

The declaration stated that agroecology is political and requires local producers and communities to challenge and transform structures of power in society, not least by putting the control of seeds, biodiversity, land and territories, waters, knowledge, culture and the commons in the hands of those who feed the world. 

As activist John Wilson says, agroecology goes beyond ‘science’ or sets of practices. It is about creative solutions, a (spiritual) connection to nature and the land, nurturing people, peaceful transformation and solidarity.  

It is also about resistance and freedom. 

*

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

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

Featured image is from Countercurrents


Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

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

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

Click here to read.

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

I have written two substack articles on COVID-19 vaccinated drivers crashing:

Jun 15, 2023 – Columbus, OH – A driver had a medical emergency, he crashed into Dublin Methodist Hospital at 12:45pm and died (click here)

Jun 7, 2023 – Killdeer, ND – 49 year old driver of a semi truck had a medical emergency behind the wheel at 7:20am, hit a traffic safety device, crashed into a ditch, was found unconscious and died in hospital (click here)

May 30, 2023 – Mantachie, MS – 40s year old driver had a medical emergency, crashed into a house & died (click here)

May 23, 2023 – 35 year old Yale psychiatric nurse Christopher Andreozzi suffered a medical emergency at 7:50am which led to a 10-vehicle crash! He died after the crash on May 23, 2023 at Yale New Haven Hospital.

May 13, 2023 – Lithonia, GA – Medical emergency triggers multi-car crash sending three people to the hospital (click here)

Apr. 26, 2023 – Los Angeles, CA – A pickup truck driver age 30s, had a medical emergency just before 8am and crashed into a woman & child who were walking to Hancock Park Elementary School, killing her (click here)

Mar. 25, 2023 – Seminole County Sheriff’s Deputy Matthew Luxon experienced a medical emergency that caused him to crash his vehicle into a concrete pillar on Mar.25, 2023. An off-duty firefighter pulled him out of the vehicle before it caught fire & saved his life (click here)

Feb. 19, 2023 – New York, NY – 48 year old Detective Del Caraballo died after experiencing a fatal medical emergency while driving. He died from the “fatal medical event”, not the car crash (click here)

Jan. 18, 2023 – (Oak Creek, WI) 37 year old woman driving her SUV had a medical emergency and crashed into a restaurant (Belair Cantina) at 9:30am (click here)

Jan. 2023 – Driver in Denton, Texas crashes into house after having a medical emergency

Jan. 15, 2023 – LASD Detective Steven Lim, age 52, had a medical emergency and crashed his car on his way home from work around 10pm, he did not survive (click here)

Jan. 2023 – Greensboro, NC – A young woman who had COVID-19 booster “was paralyzed while driving my car”, she has now had 4 such episodes.

Spring 2022 – (Macomb, IL) – 18 year old Angel Moritz was COVID-19 vaccinated and started having “little episodes” which resulted in a horrific car crash (click here)

Jan. 2022 (Osoyoos, BC, Canada) – 53 yo COVID-19 vaccinated truck driver Benton Letourneau blacked out while driving a semi, now has had stroke and epileptic seizures, he is upset at COVID-19 vaccine mandates

Sep. 2021 – Erin Louise blacked out behind the wheel in the morning and wondered if her COVID-19 jabs had something to do with it

Image

My Take… 

Young COVID-19 vaccinated drivers are having “blackouts behind the wheel” and are crashing their vehicles.

These blackouts often happen early in the morning or in the middle of the day.

Police Officers who were forced, by COVID-19 vaccine mandates, to take mRNA vaccines to keep their jobs are now having medical episodes and crashing their vehicles.

What is causing these blackouts?

When the driver survives the crash, these are most likely COVID-19 vaccine induced micro-clots which are causing TIAs or Transient Ischemic Attacks. These are like mini-strokes that cause a temporary “black-out” but the person recovers quickly.

Some people continue to have these “blackout episodes” repeatedly, because they continue to create micro-clots which go to the brain.

When the driver doesn’t survive the crash, these could be either cardiac arrest caused by myocarditis, or episodes caused by larger blood clots such as heart attacks, strokes or pulmonary embolisms.

Anyone who has had such an incident and has survived should be on Nattokinase to help break down the thrombogenic spike protein as well as micro blood clots, such as the Wellness Company’s Spike Support formula (click here), or other products which contain Nattokinase, which is made from fermented soybeans.

Anyone who is COVID-19 vaccinated and has had such “blackout episodes” must take them seriously!

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Young Drivers (COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated) Are Having Medical Emergencies and Crashing While Driving

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

The recent election victory of Recep Tayyip  Erdoğan to a new five year term as President of Türkiye, is rapidly looking like it will be a Pyrrhic one, one that will see that pivotal nation literally destroyed by his so-called NATO allies, above all by Washington and the City of London.

Already the outlines of that destruction are emerging. It is aimed at the Turkish economy. While waging a fierce campaign against a unified six party opposition that was quietly backed by the Biden Administration, Erdogan has now named a cabinet which, far from rescuing Türkiye from soaring inflation, will insure the near-term collapse of the Turkish economy and with it, of Erdogan’s power to play a global geopolitical role. With Erdogan seeking to join the BRICS countries and his refusal to openly oppose Russia in Ukraine, it is clear why the Anglo-American actors seek to finally neutralize the shrewd president. He is simply a large loose cannon on the NATO deck.

Who Controls Erdogan’s Economy?

The two most important appointees of Erdogan’s new ruling government are his new Finance Minister and his new Central Bank head. Here lies the trap. For several years Wall Street and the City of London have led heavy speculative attacks on the Lira. They targeted Erdogan’s hand-picked finance ministers and central bank heads who had adopted Erdogan’s unorthodox low interest rate policy. One result was an inflation rate in late 2022 over 80%. Only through extraordinary short-term loans from UAE, Russia and China was Erdogan able to stabilize the situation somewhat prior to the elections to 39%.

Following his election runoff victory at end of May, Erdogan announced appointment of Mehmet Simsek as Treasury and Finance Minister. Simsek, a member of Erdogan’s AKP was named Finance Minister previously in 2009 to 2015. Then, on the reported insistence of Simsek, Erdogan named 41-year-old Turkish-American banker and former Wall Street Goldman Sachs director, Hafize Gaye Erkan to head the Central Bank of Turkey. [1]

Simsek, who was educated in economics at Exeter in the UK and holds dual UK-Turkish citizenships, is a former top executive with US Wall Street investment bank Merrill Lynch in London. Erkan, the first woman to head the Turkish central bank, is a dual US-Turkish citizen who got her doctorate in finance at Princeton in 2006 where she studied Operations Research and Financial Engineering.

At that same time she joined Goldman Sachs, where she worked for nine years. She became a managing director of Goldman Sachs in 2011. [2]

Three years later in 2014  Erkan left her senior post at Goldman’s  to become an executive of a young and aggressive San Francisco Bank, First Republic Bank, as Head of Investment. Yes, that First Republic Bank. There she increased the assets under management for the high-flying bank by a whopping  ten times, earning her by 2021 the title of co-CEO of First Republic. It’s now clear that First Republic under the leadership of Erkan was a very murky bank catering to Silicon Valley bigs and other high-net-worth-individuals. In other words, she was clearly a major architect of the deeply-flawed risk model that resulted in the bank’s failure in May, 2023. [3] She reportedly left First Republic bank some months before its bankruptcy, perhaps sensing the disaster she created. On May 1 First Republic was taken over by the largest bank in the US, the very corrupt JP Morgan Chase, with quiet Biden Administration backing. Erkan is now being sued in a class action lawsuit for her role in the debacle. [4]

Dubious Credentials

But that is all being ignored as on  the demand of Finance Minister Simsek, Erkan will decide the future of Turkish interest rates. According to insider reports, she has agreed to raise present 8.5% base rates to 25% in the next months. Such a rate shock therapy would make Paul Volcker a softie moderate by comparison.[5]

In her first act in office, on June 22, Erkan raised the key Turkish central bank rate by 6.5%, a huge rise by normal standards, bringing it to 15%, almost double. She promised it was just the beginning of the great reversal of the Erdogan low rate era. The “markets” were not satisfied. They had “expected” a jump to 25% in that meeting. They want blood. The lira fell after the rate news and the stage is now set for the destruction of the Turkish real economy in the interests of monetary “orthodoxy.” So far this year the Lira has dropped over 20% against the US dollar. Since 2013 it has fallen 90%. Global financial speculators such as Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase now control the Turkish economy.

Erdogan has clearly made a Faustian bargain to secure his re-election. JP Morgan is “predicting” a central bank interest rate of 30% by year-end. With Simsek and Erkan in firm control of the Turkish economy and credit, Erdogan will be powerless to pursue a strategy of economic growth, or even to pursue an ambitious oil and gas development  program that would give him more freedom of action.

As old Henry Kissinger purportedly said years ago, “who controls the money, controls the world…” It looks like for the moment that Wall Street and the City of London bankers control Erdogan’s Turkey. This is a very critical juncture for him and for Turkey’s future geopolitical role.

*

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

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics.

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

Notes

[1] Ragip Soylu, How Mehmet Simsek convinced Erdogan to drop his low interest rate policy , 13 June 2023,  

 https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-simsek-erdogan-convinced-drop-interest-rates-policy 

[2] Al Jazeera, Who is Hafize Gaye Erkan, Turkey’s new central bank chief?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/9/who-is-hafize-gaye-erkan-turkeys-new-central-bank-chief 

[3] Handelsblatt, Eine Ex-Managerin der First Republic Bank muss jetzt die Lira retten, 9 June, 2023,

https://www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/geldpolitik/neue-zentralbankchefin-eine-ex-managerin-der-first-republic-bank-muss-jetzt-die-lira-retten/29195700.html

[4] Al Jazeera, Op Cit.

[5] Ragip Soylu, op. Cit.

Featured image is from LinkedIn


Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-2-3
Year: 2007
Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Has Erdogan Fallen Into a Deadly Trap? Who Controls Turkey’s Economy?

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

European Union (EU) member states are set to increase the size of their fund to finance Ukraine’s arms supply by €3.5 billion. However, Hungary is still blocking the plans. Unsurprisingly, this has sparked another round of tensions between Brussels and Budapest, fresh off the back of the Prisoner of War debacle.

The European Peace Mechanism, which currently has a budget of around €7.9 billion, will be increased by almost 50% in a decision agreed by EU ambassadors. The mechanism reimburses governments for providing military supplies to Ukraine but is also used to support other countries.

Much of the fund has already been allocated to military aid to Ukraine since the start of Russia’s special military operation. Still, according to the agency’s sources, Hungary is blocking an eighth tranche of €500 million since Kiev has a Hungarian bank on a list of companies that continue to do business in Russia.

“The only thing we have asked the Ukrainian authorities to do in order to be able to pass the EPF proposal in the European Union is to remove our bank from this list, where it has no business being. Your authorities have not listened to this very simple request,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said in response to a Ukrainian MP at the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly earlier this month.

“I would like to ask you to help us and take the number one Hungarian bank off this list, which is very unfairly listed, and then we will be happy to come back to this issue,” Szijjártó added.

The Hungarian foreign minister back in May already signalled that the government would oppose the new €500 million tranche until Ukraine removed the bank from its list of international sponsors of the war since no international law is being violated.

Although European foreign ministers are expected to sign off on the plans when they meet in Luxembourg because Kiev could be forced to remove the bank from the list, Budapest’s blocking of the tranche is part of wider hostilities with Brussels.

European countries, along with other Western states, have helped Ukraine in a variety of ways since the Russian military operation began, including in the form of military support. Hungary, for its part, has protested such measures as it sees the supply of weapons into Kiev’s hands as prolonging conflict and destruction.

Hungary resisted Russian oil and gas blockades at the beginning of the Russian military operation. Hungary also agreed to pay for gas in Russian roubles, thus circumventing sanctions on Moscow and supporting the de-Dollarisation process. Due to this, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been endlessly targeted and lambasted by the West and Ukraine.

It is recalled that Orbán said at the parliamentary elections held in April last year that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was one of the “opponents” he had to overcome to win. The trove of documents leaked by a US Air National Guardsman on a Discord chatroom earlier this year alleges that Zelensky contemplated bombing the Druzhba pipeline, which also runs through Hungary, to starve Orbán of Russian oil.

Another recent incident involves Prisoners of War and is also indicative of the deteriorating relations between Budapest and Kiev, which affects Budapest’s relations with Brussels since the latter serves Ukraine first instead of the interests of bloc member states.

Peter Stano, the spokesperson for the EU’s foreign policy branch, told reporters on June 21 that Budapest needs to explain its role in transferring Ukrainian prisoners of war from Russia. The eleven PoWs are reportedly from Ukraine’s Zakarpattia Oblast, which has a large Hungarian minority. These PoWs are believed to belong to the Hungarian minority forced by the Kiev regime to fight Russia.

Although the PoWs were sent from Russia to Hungary on June 9, Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s minister of foreign affairs, accused Hungary of keeping them in isolation and ignoring requests to establish contact. He also described the prisoner transfer as a political stunt designed to bolster the standing of Orbán among all Hungarians, including those in neighbouring countries.

“There was one simple goal: Viktor Orbán had to show the Hungarians both in Hungary and outside of Hungary that he was their only defender,” Kuleba said.

Hungary’s chief spokesperson Zoltán Kovács hit back at Kuleba and accused him of making false statements. In a Tweet, citing Szijjártó, Kovács said the Hungarian government had not been involved and that the transfer had been coordinated between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Hungarian Charity Service of the Order of Malta.

The accusations against Hungary are nothing more than a provocation to conjure condemnation from the EU in a shallow victory because Orbán has not fully capitulated to their demands. Ukraine has joined the international chorus of critics of Orbán, which could be another reason why Budapest did not negotiate the prisoner exchange with the Kiev regime, and why it will not so easily sign off on anything to their benefit.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

NEW STUDY (Cleveland Clinic, Shrestha et al, June 12, 2023): “Among 48,344 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, those NOT ‘up-to-date’ on COVID-19 vaccination had a lower risk of COVID-19 infection than those ‘up-to-date’ (see graph above) 

OLDER STUDY (Cleveland Clinic, Shrestha et al, Dec.19, 2022) – A study of 51,011 employees showed that the more COVID-19 vaccine doses you had, the more likely you were to get infected with COVID-19 over time (see graph below). Each additional dose damaged your immune system more.

Image

Both of these Cleveland Clinic studies proved that COVID-19 vaccines damage the immune systems of the vaccinated and make them more susceptible to getting infected with COVID-19 (and other viruses).

The most recent Cleveland Clinic study proved that the COVID-19 boosted and ‘uptodate’ on their vaccines had worse health outcomes than those who were not ‘uptodate’ on their vaccines.

The older Cleveland Clinic study proved that each COVID-19 vaccine damaged the vaccinated person’s immune system more, and the more doses you had, the worse off you were in terms of getting infected with COVID-19 over time.

More proof that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines damage the immune systems of the vaccinated: 

Denmark Study – Hansen – Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster Pfizer or Moderna vaccination series: A Danish Cohort study

 

Explanation: these graphs show that Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccine effectiveness dropped below zero at 91-150 days after second dose, which is evidence of immune system damage. Even the vaccine maker Sputnik V made note of this on Twitter:

Ontario, Canada Study – Buchan – Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron or Delta Infection 

Explanation: again, vaccine effectiveness dropped below zero for the entire period 60 to 240+ days after 2nd mRNA dose. Vaccine maker Sputnik V again pointed this out on Twitter:

Sweden Study – Peter Nordstrom – Risk of infection, hospitalization, and deaths up to 9 months after a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine

This Swedish study of 842,974 vaccinated individuals showed that starting at about 7 months after 2nd dose, vaccine effectiveness dropped below zero, indicating immune system damage in the vaccinated.

USA Study – Dan-Yu Lin – Effects of COVID-19 vaccination and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on omicron infection and severe outcomes in children under 12 years of age in the USA

In this study, mRNA vaccine effectiveness for children ages 5-11 against hospitalization and death dropped to negative starting at two months after jab.

The mRNA jabs were harming the immune systems of children 5-11 years old within 2 months, and these kids were doing worse than unvaccinated children!

New York – Dorabawila – Effectiveness of Pfizer vaccine among children 5-11 and 12-17 years in New York after the emergence of the Omicron variant

This study showed negative vaccine effectiveness in children 5-11 years old in New York, proving immune system damage in mRNA vaccinated kids.

Posting this study and warning against vaccinating children 5-11 years old got my Twitter account suspended permanently for 11 months from March 5, 2022 until Feb. 6, 2023.

CDC ACIP Meeting preliminary unpublished data June 14, 2022 (click here)

CDC’s own preliminary data showed that Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccine had a “vaccine effectiveness” that dropped below zero as early as 3 months after the 2nd dose, consistent with immune system damage.

CDC ACIP Meeting Preliminary unpublished data Sep.1, 2022 (click here)

CDC’s own preliminary data again showed that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have a “vaccine effectiveness” that drops below zero starting a few months after vaccination.

The damage to the immune system caused by mRNA occurs in all age groups!

My Take… 

Two recent Cleveland Clinic studies proved that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines damage the immune systems of the vaccinated, who then have worse health outcomes than the unvaccinated.

However, “negative vaccine effectiveness” has been known since December 2021 when the Denmark study was released.

If a COVID-19 vaccine was useless, vaccine effectiveness would simply go to zero.

However, when a COVID-19 vaccine causes immune system damage, that’s when vaccine effectiveness goes BELOW ZERO.

A COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness below zero means you are more likely to get COVID-19 infected after taking the vaccines, than if you remained unvaccinated.

And that is only possible with significant immune system damage.

They all knew. CDC’s own internal documents and “preliminary unpublished data” confirmed it.

But they pushed on with immune system destroying COVID-19 vaccines anyways.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Destroy Your Immune System. Cleveland Clinic Proved It, But Negative Vaccine Efficacy Was Known as Early as Dec. 2021

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The “Conference on Ukraine’s Recovery” was held in London, and marked the transition to a new phase of the war against Russia: the US, NATO, and the EU are not only continuing to arm Kyiv forces but are preparing to transform Europe in the forefront of a long-lasting confrontation with Russia. There are several indications of what the plan might be:

1) Create a military demarcation line in Europe, like the one that has divided the Korean peninsula for 70 years, formally demilitarized through an armistice with Russia.

2) Put Ukraine, formally out of NATO, “under the tutelage” of Poland which, at the official request of Kyiv, would permanently deploy its military forces there together with those of the three Baltic Republics and possibly other NATO countries.

Hence the need for “Ukraine’s recovery“, which cost is expected to be between 400 and 1,000 billion dollars. In this framework, European Union – which this year has allocated 18 billion euros to pay salaries, pensions, and public services in Ukraine – allocates another 50 billion euros for the “recovery” of Ukraine, taking away other vital resources from EU countries.

The plan stems from the failure of the “Ukrainian counter-offensive” which, according to what they announced, was supposed to break through the Russian lines and reconquer the “occupied territories“. The Ukrainian armed forces, financed, armed, and trained by NATO, equipped with the most modern weaponry (such as the German Leopard tanks) are suffering increasing losses. Hence the need for a new strategy.

An unwinnable war / Washington needs an endgame in Ukraine,” writes Samuel Charap, an analyst at the RAND Corporation: “A total victory on the field by either side is nearly impossible. Proper peace is impossible. However, it is possible that the two sides could settle for a Korean-style armistice line.” This scenario is further elaborated by Anders Rasmussen, NATO secretary general at the time when it demolished the Libyan State in war and started covert operations to do the same in Syria: “We know that Poland is very busy providing assistance specific to Ukraine. I do not exclude that Poland is even more involved in this context on a national basis and that it is followed by the Baltic states, with the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine.”

*

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

This article was originally published on byoblu in Italian.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image: The Demilitarized Zone compared to the earlier 38th parallel de facto border (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The “Korean Solution” for Europe. Create a “Military Demarcation Line” in the EU, Put Ukraine under the Tutelage of Poland . Manlio Dinucci
  • Tags: ,

The “Russian Coup” that Wasn’t

June 26th, 2023 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Yesterday I posted a video discussion that Larry Sparano and I had about the  alleged “Russian coup.” See this. 

Looking back at our discussion, I am satisfied that we did a good job given the unresolved situation about which there was not much information.  I am addressing the “coup” again because there is a great deal to be learned from it that is not being learned.

It is discouraging to see that the Russian media is as capable of creating false narratives and setting them in stone as Western presstitutes. The Russian media has set in stone the narrative that Prigozhin, the commander of the Wagner Group which has done most of the fighting in the liberation of Donbass, launched an “armed rebellion” against Putin despite the fact that there is no evidence of an armed rebellion.

The so-called “coup” has many curious aspects and raises many neglected questions.

I acknowledge that Prigozhin had become increasingly displeased with the Russian military command. The Kremlin had not addressed the feud between Prigozhin and the Russian military brass. The Kremlin’s failure to resolve the differences is the most likely cause of events mischaracterized as a coup. For Prigozhin, the final straw was his belief that an encampment of his troops was hit by a missile from the rear, that is, from Russia, not from Ukraine. Perhaps Prigozhin was given false information for the purpose of worsening the relations between the main fighting force and the Russian high command during a Ukrainian “counter offensive.”  Perhaps a missile strike occurred, but has a different explanation.  

The situation exploded when the Russian Ministry of Defense denied Prigozhin’s accusation when the proper response would have been to send an investigatory team to establish the fact and if a missile strike did occur to determine the source.  

In addition to tensions between the Wagner Group and the Russian military bureaucracy stemming from, for example, inadequate ammunition supplies at critical stages of the fighting, the Russian military bureaucracy was determined to exercise command over the Wagner Group, a demand or desire that Prigozhin would not accept. Getting rid of Prigozhin became a priority for the Russian military bureaucracy. 

As I illustrated in the discussion with Sparano, conspiracies against military commanders during war are commonplace, so an attack on Wagner forces designed to set Prigozhin off is a possible scenario. This possibility gains credibility from the immediate denial instead of investigation and from the instant official narrative of an “armed rebellion.” As there was no investigation, all that Putin knows is what the generals tell him, and that will be their side of the story.

What the “armed rebellion” amounted to was Prigozhin starting out to Moscow with a convoy of his troops to, in Prigozhin’s words, “confront corrupt generals.”  Prigozhin announced in advance that he intended no coup.

But let’s assume he intended a coup and let’s accept the exaggerated claim by presstitutes of a convoy of 25,000 troops traveling with him on the roads to Moscow.  How is a convoy of troops going to get to Moscow without being decimated by air attacks, and, should they arrive, how are 25,000 troops going to overcome the Russian Army, occupy Moscow, and establish a government? 

The question that immediately jumped to my mind is: Why did Putin rush to embarrass Russia by announcing an “armed rebellion” unless he had no army with which to defend Moscow?

The question of the whereabouts of the Russian Army has been growing on my mind. Why, as I have repeatedly asked, has Putin, instead of using sufficient force to end the conflict, permitted it to ever-widen with increasingly provocative participation on the part of Washington and NATO? This makes no sense. It serves no Russian purpose. Why is Putin fighting a dangerous conflict not merely with Ukraine but with the West with a small private military group and Donbass militias? Where is the Russian Army? Is there one?

Or has Putin been warned by his central bank and the neoliberal Russian economists not to risk the ruble and the budget deficit by spending money on the military? Surely Russia has its own David Stockman. Has Putin been convinced that the economic threat is greater than the military threat? Has Putin decided that with his vast superiority of nuclear forces over ours he doesn’t need an army? Why do Russian leaders keep warning of nuclear war if they have sufficient conventional forces?

Perhaps Putin doesn’t use sufficient conventional force to end the conflict in Ukraine because he doesn’t have the troops.

If this is the case, then the prospect for nuclear war is more likely than I have thought, and I already thought such a possibility was extremely high. If Western provocations finally cross a line that Putin cannot ignore and his only possible response is nuclear, Armageddon is upon us.

The unfortunate effect of the Russian government and media joining those of the West in proclaiming an “armed rebellion” and setting the narrative in stone is that it serves the West’s purpose of discrediting Putin and serves the neoconservatives’ propaganda that “we can win” if we fully commit to the task. Clearly, no one in the Kremlin or Russian media was thinking when they joined the propaganda against themselves by endorsing the portrait of dissent in the Russian military that threatens the regime.  The picture created of internal dissent plays into the hands of the West.  

The danger is that now with more confidence, the West pushes harder against Russia. This is the unfortunate result of the failure of the Russian military brass to placate Prigozhin.  

In the West the misunderstanding of last Saturday’s event is total. Even normal level-headed analysts, such as Scott Ritter and Moon-of-Alabama, have contributed to the gross misunderstanding of the event. Ritter described Prigozhin as being in “Victoria Nuland’s pocket” and working with Ukrainian intelligence cells inside Russia. Moon-of-Alabama blames the event on Putin’s use of an independent military force in Ukraine.  

Perhaps the most absurd of all is the self-serving claim by unidentified “sources” of “US intelligence agencies” that they had advanced knowledge of Prigozhin’s “coup.” How could they unless they were responsible for the missile strike, knowing that it would light Prigozhin’s fuse? (Even the Russian media reported this absurd claim: see this.)

I will end this essay, which I hope provokes thought and awareness of how much more dangerous the situation is now, with a final observation. If there was actually a coup attempt and Prigozhin and his Wagner Group troops constituted a danger to the Russian state as Russian leaders declared, why was the situation resolved by permitting Prigozhin refuge in Belarus and the Wagner troops to be enrolled in the Russian Army? Does this indicate that the Kremlin knows there was no coup? Or does it mean that the Kremlin lacked an army with which to confront the coup and had to come to terms with Prigozhin?

Is this the appropriate conclusion of a dangerous threat to Russian national existence?:

“Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Saturday evening that the criminal case against Prigozhin had been dropped and that he would leave for Belarus under guarantees given by Putin. The spokesman added that the members of the Wagner PMC involved in Saturday’s events would not be prosecuted given their distinguished service during Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine.” See this. 

Update: June 26, 2023

Amazing how quickly a false narrative was set in stone.

Col. Douglas Macgregor Agrees with me that there was NO coup. 

He also agrees that the forever-war is leading to nuclear war.

***

 

*

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

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from The Dossier

Creating Havoc in Moscow: Wagner’s PMC “Short-Lived” Rebellion Against Putin. Who Was Behind It?

By Peter Koenig, June 25, 2023

What Evgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner Private Military Company (PMC) really wanted to achieve with his short-lived “rebellion” is unclear as of now. A mutiny – for what? To create havoc in Moscow? To please the West? To prepare for Regime Change – against his boss, President Putin, who gave him the mandate to help fight the Ukraine aggression against Russians, mainly in the Donbass Region, with a mercenary army. Is that Prigozhin’s purpose?

The “Russian Coup” that Wasn’t

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, June 26, 2023

The Russian media has set in stone the narrative that Prigozhin, the commander of the Wagner Group which has done most of the fighting in the liberation of Donbass, launched an “armed rebellion” against Putin despite the fact that there is no evidence of an armed rebellion.

CIA and US Special Forces Raids. Globalization and the Geopolitics of Oil

By Shane Quinn, June 26, 2023

The United States had been running two separate military campaigns in Yemen, which was kept virtually secret from the American public. One of the campaigns was under the authority of the CIA using drones, and the other was being executed by elite US troops from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). 

Two U.S. Senators Propose Nuclear War Against Russia

By Eric Zuesse, June 26, 2023

This proposed congressional Resolution, if it passes, is actually part of a U.S. Government strategy to enable the government of Ukraine, when and if Ukraine manages successfully to hit that nuclear power plant and thereby causes nuclear radiation to go downwind into a NATO member nation, to spark an “immediate” invasion of Russia by the U.S. Government on behalf of NATO.

Dangers of Coalescing Artificial Intelligence (AI), Digitization, 5G Ultra-Microwaves and the Great Reset Alias Agenda 2030

By Peter Koenig and Michael Welch, June 26, 2023

AI was on the agenda of the Bilderberg Conference in Lisbon Portugal. And Sam Altman CEO of Open AI (Which founded new Artificial Intelligence technology was an attendee of Bilderberg, He previously testified in front of a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee regarding the recent rise of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.).

Meet BlackRock, the New Great Vampire Squid, “Global Financial Giant”

By Ellen Brown, June 25, 2023

To most people, if they are familiar with it at all, BlackRock is an asset manager that helps pension funds and retirees manage their savings through “passive” investments that track the stock market. But working behind the scenes, it is much more than that. BlackRock has been called “the most powerful institution in the financial system,” “the most powerful company in the world” and the “secret power.”

Video: The Wagner Group Insurgency Directed against President Putin. Scott Ritter

By Scott Ritter and Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, June 25, 2023

Judge Napolitano interviews Scott Ritter on recent developments in Russia, following the insurgency of the Wagner Mercenary Group directed against President Putin.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution: “AI Will Enable Some People to Control the World”

By Michael Welch, Karsten Riise, and Peter Koenig, June 24, 2023

Science fiction can involve extra-terrestrial species interacting with human beings, space exploration, time travel, telepathic development, and parallel universes. When the subject turns to the question of artificial intelligence (AI), speculation and advanced research seem to be merging in the imagination of our time.

Prigozhin’s Wagner PMC Gambit: Failed “Moscow Maidan”? Scott Ritter

By Scott Ritter, June 25, 2023

If Disney were to write a song about Prigozhin and Wagner today, it would be called Hero to Zero. Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind—Yevgeny Prigozhin has become a witting agent of Ukraine and the intelligence services of the collective West.

41-Year-Old Model and Hollywood Actress Katerina Pavelek Ended Her Life at an Assisted Suicide Clinic in Basel, Switzerland in June 2023, Due to COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Injuries (ME, CFS, ALS)

By Dr. William Makis, June 23, 2023

Can COVID-19 vaccines cause ALS? There is some anecdotal evidence that yes, it’s possible, but it’s rare. The mechanism is unknown but could be an aberrant immune (autoimmune?) response after COVID-19 vaccination.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Creating Havoc in Moscow: Wagner’s PMC “Short-Lived” Rebellion Against Putin. Who Was Behind It?

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Michael Welch (MW): The development of AI recently seems to have taken the world by surprise. Yet AI is part of this transition. Like a surprise discovery in December of last year. Yet it seems like AI would be part of the overall trajectory of the scheme towards the great reset and agenda 2030. Could you explain how that is possible?

Peter Koenig (PK): Let me begin by saying that we are about the fifth or sixth Civilization that has inhabited this planet in the past several hundred thousand years.

All of these previous civilizations have died out, have basically committed suicide, with technological “advances” – more technology, more materialism, and less spirituality.

Materialism is seductive. It allows the least spiritual people to become an “elite” by accumulating more and more material things, making technical “advances” – I call them advances – mind you they are not – so people understand… these technical advances allow them an ever-smaller elite to possess ever more material goods and eventually to control those who have less or no material goods.

From what we know, previous Civilizations have been equally or more “advanced” technologically than we are… in different ways. They had technologies we dream of, but don’t know how to activate them… like free energy all around us. Those who control and drive these technological “advances”, would lose control.

In the spiritual sense, these people become “sick” – dangerous, including dangerous for themselves, because they are eventually destroying the very base that they used to dominate.

Well, today, we are about again at these cross-roads of technification of everything. We call it digitization, transhumanism, where a machine controls our brains, what we call Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Our “means of exchange”, we call it money – will be digitized, so it allows the elite which controls it all – to put the population in hand-cuffs, in prison actually. Because this digitized money which they will call Central Bank Digital Currency or CBDC will be programmable, meaning they can block it from you using it, they can make it expire at a certain point… they can – or let me say could – because we are not there yet – starve you to death.

Its as simple as that.

And we, the people, are lied about it constantly – by those who control the “technology”, who also control what we call the media – the information system. All can be bought by “material things” in this case money – what we use as an exchange system.

Maybe people have heard about the “Tavistock Institute for Social Manipulation”. Highly recommended for those who want to wake up.

It is the title of a book that describes the way manipulation works, so that most people have no clue how they are manipulated. Tavistock is based in the UK. Its counterpart of the US is called DARPA and stands for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, it is a thinktank attached to the Pentagon, doing the same – and more…

So, with this as background, AI has been under preparation for a long time, for decades. It has come lately to the fore, because it is now that they are planning to apply it to humans.

First, it must be made palatable to people, so they like it and fall for it. Once they do, they can be easily enslaved by AI; their brains will be controlled by remote AI – as well explained by Dr. James Giordano, in 2018 at the West Point NY Military Academy for elite military officers.

For Dr. James Giordano’s video presentation (video 1:07:28 h – see this article, in which this and another revealing video are embedded.

It is hardly a coincidence that Klaus Schwab’s book the Fourth Industrial Revolution came out in 2018, precisely when Dr. Giordano, a DARPA scientist, presents AI and mind manipulation via 5G microwaves to the officers of the US top military academy.

And yes, the Great Reset and the so-called UN Agenda 2030 go hand in hand. The UN has years ago ceased being what still most people believe it is – the United Nations, vouching for Peace on Earth.

Guterres is a close friend and associate of Klaus Schwab’s. Or better, Schwab is his boss, as Schwab, the WEF CEO, calls the shots on behalf of those who fund and support the WEF. And Big Finance calls the shots on the WEF. There we go. Nothing is what it seems.

MW: AI was on the agenda of the Bilderberg Conference in Lisbon Portugal. And Sam Altman CEO of Open AI (Which founded new Artificial Intelligence technology was an attendee of Bilderberg, He previously testified in front of a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee regarding the recent rise of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.). Biden Administration assigned Eric Schmidt to head the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), or the AI Commission. He chairs Bilderberg. Henry Kissinger has taken great interest in AI as well. So, with all these developments, what are your core concerns about where AI may be headed?

PK: AI is primed to control the surviving humanity. “Surviving”, because, as you know, one of the key objectives of The Great Reset is massive population reduction. And the pursuit of this target is in the process of happening, thanks to the forced vaxxes upon a fake plandemic – so well “marketed” with fear and threats, and of course, lots of money, that again, most people fell for it.

See this revealing admission of a BlackRock recruiter on how politicians are bought – video 11-min.

Most people were injected with different kinds of poisonous concoctions that cause different kinds of diseases, many if not most, mortal diseases, cancers of all sorts, mostly affecting reproductive organs of both women and men – other injection types are sterilizing women – that has already been noticed, as birth rates in Germany and most European countries have gone down drastically.

And much more.

Others – maybe most, were also injected with graphene oxide, a highly magnetic substance, especially when it gets in touch with 5G microwaves – precisely the kind of electronics that aims at manipulating people’s minds, making humans to transhumans.

In other words, most vaxed people are already primed to eventually become transhumans, if they do not die before.

MW: A lot of people noticed the pandemic is finally over. And are probably rejecting the vaccine in greater numbers by now. Was the pandemic part of the PR drive for bringing about the Great Reset and all the changes coming into play with the Fourth Industrial Revolution which was already planned?

PK: The short answer is YES. The Plandemic was or is, already an integral part of the Great Reset and serves to prepare people, to prime people – for the 4th Industrial Revolution, for full digitization of everything, including people’s brains.

If you told people, they would not believe you.

I recommend everybody to read The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Easy reads – both available from Amazon. Knowing their contents – of course you need to do a lot of reading between the lines… will help waking you up, becoming alert, informing others – This is the way of becoming a critical mass.

MW: Digitized ID is still part of the plan. What evidence is there that everybody will have to switch over to digital ID and digital currency?

PK: None so far.

Up to now it is just a plan of the EU and WHO – talking about it, as if it were already in place is also called “fear-mongering” – and people in fear are highly vulnerable, as we know, as we got confirmed by the entire covid fraud.

On digital money – it is a plan of the Bank for International Settlement (BIS), the Central Bank of all central banks, and the IMF. The managing director of the IMF has just today (21 June) called upon all countries to adopt as fast as possible CBDCs. She urged the IMF’s some 190 member countries to accelerate the CBDC-process.

Nothing is DONE yet. But it takes people to say NO in unison, and with their legislators. Yes, unfortunately the legislators, all or most of them are corrupted.

What We, the People must do, is demand en masse to exit WHO.

In the country where this drive for total health tyranny of WHO started, in the US, there are several Republican Senators seeding a motion in the Senate to exit WHO. This is a good sign and could be a guiding light for other countries to follow.

MW: Explain the role of 5G and 6G in this unusual enterprise. They are necessary for fast downloads and driverless cars etc. But what is your foundation for the claim it can be a tool for enslaving us?

PK: Again, the fast downloads and self-driving cars are just a pretext. I have not seen or heard anybody so far who wants a self-driving car. All to the contrary. People do not want to lose their last autonomy.

As Dr. Giordano so vividly and lucidly explains, these powerful short-waves are mainly to be used to control peoples’ brains, to make them into transhumans, or quasi-robots, so to speak.

Something to this extent, Klaus Schwab admitted in a 2016 interview with Swiss French TV. He said by 2025 we may all have chips implanted in our clothes or under the skin, to interface with the electronic world. He already then used the term “transhumanism”.

In essence, this means, if people do not behave according to the rules, they can be “taken out” remotely – and nobody would notice.

By the way, have you noticed how these 5G and soon 6G antennas are going up all over the world like mushrooms? Not just thousands, but millions.

And so do satellites, tens of thousands are already in the air – and many more tens of thousands are to follow, beaming down these deadly microwaves to the antennas which then are set to direct the 5G waves on you – on us – to kill our sentiments – pineal gland, and to read and manipulate our thinking – and eventually, to order us to do what the elite wants us to do.

MW: What have you seen in the last 3 years that convinces you that resistance is not futile?

PK: Frankly, I have not seen much fruitful resistance, so far. The resistance that most springs to mind, is the US Senate movement of Republican Senators in the US Congress to object to WHO’s plan of introducing a global health tyranny, by depriving each WHO member country of its sovereign right on issues of health.

These Senators want to get out of WHO.

And so do other counties, and people of other countries. Like in Switzerland, there is already a people’s initiative under way to exit WHO.

There is ample room for much more protest and resistance – but in solidarity, in unison. Solidarity makes us strong.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. 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 a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dangers of Coalescing Artificial Intelligence (AI), Digitization, 5G Ultra-Microwaves and “The Great Reset”, Alias “Agenda 2030”
  • Tags:

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The United States had been running two separate military campaigns in Yemen, which was kept virtually secret from the American public. One of the campaigns was under the authority of the CIA using drones, and the other was being executed by elite US troops from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). 

US president Barack Obama (2009–17) asked to see the “kill lists”, with the biographies of the Islamic militants to be targeted in drone warfare and military raids (1). The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported in January 2015 that, under Obama’s government, the Americans had carried out 103 attacks inside Yemen that included 88 drone strikes and ground assaults launched by US special forces units; which killed at least 580 people (424 of them in drone attacks) along with the deaths of 131 civilians. 

While American forces have often deployed drones to assassinate people, the Russian military, for example in Ukraine, has used drones to undermine the critical infrastructure, arms supplies and ammunition sustaining the regime in Kiev during the conflict with Russia. The Russians have used drones, and other military equipment like missiles, in a much more humane manner than the Americans. 

Predating the Obama years to the Bush administration, from 2002 to 2004 US drone strikes over Yemen, probably launched from bases such as in Djibouti, killed between 294 and 651 insurgents and “suspected terrorists”, along with between 55 to 105 adult civilians and 24 children. (2) 

The leader of extremist group Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, said that the US considered Yemen to be their property, because of its proximity to the world’s biggest oil reserves of the Persian Gulf states (3). Bin Laden believed that Yemen held great strategic importance, as it is located beside the Bab el-Mandeb Strait which links the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea, separating east Africa from west Asia, providing a vital passage also to the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. 

At the start of Obama’s presidency the US Department of Energy, a branch of the US government, estimated in 2009 that 3.2 million barrels per day (BPD) of oil flowed to America and Europe through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait; and from the 200 mile long Suez/Sumed oil pipeline in Egypt, which runs from the Gulf of Suez near the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. 

The Americans, using the pretexts of combatting piracy in Somalia and fighting Al Qaeda in Yemen, militarised the regions around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, constructing bases such as Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, east Africa. By controlling the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, Washington expected to prevent the flow of Saudi Arabian oil to major rivals like China. The strait is a central passage between Africa and the Middle East, while ensuring a strategic connection between the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean. 

President Obama wanted to change America’s “global posture”, with one key ambition being the attempt to contain China’s influence in Asia. Much of these areas comprise of territory which the US Armed Forces had captured from the Empire of Japan, between 1942 and 1945. The foundation for US power today still largely consists of its victories in the Second World War, including in western Europe following the 1944 Normandy landings in northern France. 

Obama outlined the Asia-Pacific area as a core focus of his foreign policy ventures, which included the stationing of 2,500 marines in northern Australia, the largest US military build-up there since World War II. In November 2011, Obama said at a news conference during a trip to the Australian capital city Canberra, “With my visit to the region, I am making it clear that the United States is stepping up its commitment to the entire Asia-Pacific region”. (4) 

In south-east Asia the US has sought to control the Strait of Malacca, which separates the Malay Peninsula from the island of Sumatra in western Indonesia. Four-fifths (80%) of the oil imported by China, from the Middle East and Africa, has passed through the Strait of Malacca and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Brazilian scholar Moniz Bandeira wrote “the Strait of Malacca links the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean, as well as the economies of East Asia to the Middle East and Europe”. (5) 

In the area of the Caspian Sea, the earth’s biggest inland body of water, the US Energy Information Administration estimated, by 2012, that it contained 48 billion barrels of oil and 292 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas “in proved and probable reserves” (6). The US Geological Survey, another agency of the American government, calculated there are large undiscovered fossil fuel reserves in the Caspian Sea, amounting to another 20 billion barrels of oil and 243 trillion cubic feet of gas. 

The Caspian Sea’s total oil sources was estimated in 1999 at over 100 billion barrels, 10 times more than is present in Alaska. After the Persian Gulf, the Caspian contains the world’s second largest oil and gas reserves. The Caspian region has been viewed as “lacking stability” in the West, and the perceived instability had sometimes deterred Western investors from financing oil and gas pipelines originating from the Caspian. 

Yet the Caspian has attracted increasing attention in Washington over the past 30 years. It was identified by high-ranking officials like Dick Cheney as critically important (7). The Pentagon sent abroad armed personnel from military organisations like Blackwater, with the aim of protecting the oil and gas pipelines in the Caspian region. 

Outside interest in the Caspian Sea is nothing new. By attacking the Soviet Union in the early 1940s, Adolf Hitler had planned to “take the saving prize of Caspian resources, and then to drive south for the even greater prize of Persia [Iran] and Iraq”, journalist John Rees wrote. About 50 years or so before the Nazi invasion, Russia had successfully fought to prevent John D. Rockefeller’s American Standard Oil Company from gaining control of the Caspian. (8) 

Over the past generation, the Caspian’s total oil production has exceeded the resource-rich North Sea, where exploited oil wells declined from 44 in 2008 to 12 in 2014. There are still an estimated 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil off the coast of Aberdeen in eastern Scotland, and west of the Shetland Islands further north. (9) 

Russia, and its neighbour Kazakhstan, have traditionally controlled the biggest part of the Caspian Sea. At the Fourth Caspian Summit held in the city of Astrakhan, Russia, on 29 September 2014, the five countries which have shorelines with the Caspian – Russia, Kazakhstan, Iran, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan – unanimously agreed they would uphold the security of the region, and not allow the interference of foreign military entities like the US-led NATO. The agreement reached in Astrakhan delivered a blow to US hegemony, by closing off the Caspian to Obama’s designs. 

Obama, as with his predecessor George W. Bush, persisted in the attempts to extend NATO to Ukraine. The Americans have felt that Ukraine would serve as a bridgehead, providing them with another key route to penetrate into Eurasia, while attempting to slow down Russia’s resurgence. Washington and its NATO allies therefore stoked unrest, and funded anti-Russian opposition groups in Kiev. 

This involved Western support for an extreme right-wing coup implemented in Kiev in early 2014. A year later, during an interview with CNN, Obama admitted American government involvement in overthrowing the legally elected president Viktor Yanukovych. Obama’s comments were immediately noticed by the Russian political hierarchy, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. (10) 

Western governments, with the support of the mass media in America and the EU, waged a psychological warfare (psyops) campaign against Russia, which involved demonising Moscow for reincorporating Crimea to Russian control in the spring of 2014. Overlooked by the West is that Crimea, like Ukraine, is historically a Russian territory, and both Crimea and Ukraine had been liberated by Russian forces from Nazi rule in World War II. Control of these areas for Russia is crucial for enabling the country to project its strength over the Sea of Azov, and the Black Sea, bodies of water which flow across Russia’s borders. 

After 1945, it is true that no other country has had the same influence as the US. Its allies, such as Britain, France and Canada, have participated fairly prominently in the international arena, but their actions are restricted and unambitious and they usually limit themselves to obeying Washington’s policies. 

The power of the US has, however, suffered a series of setbacks within the past half century alone. This includes the failure to secure all of its goals in the Vietnam war, followed in 1979 by the “loss” of Iran after a revolution there (11). Iran is a very important nation due to its position in the Middle East, and the fact that it contains among the earth’s largest oil and gas reserves. 

If “losing” Iran was not serious enough, the loss of Iraq followed from 2003, after the inability of the US military to conquer the country. The US invasion also compelled oil-rich Iraq to pursue closer relations with its Iranian neighbour to the east. Iran received a further boost as the US military failed to secure victory in Afghanistan, a nation which has a near 600 mile western border with Iran. 

As a result Iran, at one time under severe threat, has since become free from the spectre of complete encirclement by the Americans, on both Iran’s western and eastern frontiers. With Iraq and Afghanistan under their control, Washington had hoped such a scenario would force regime change in Tehran or, failing that, they could proceed to launch an invasion of Iran. This is out of the question because of the US military shortcomings in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are weaker countries than Iran. 

US influence in Central Asia has likewise been declining, in part because of growing Russian confidence and the US defeat in Afghanistan, which shares borders with Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Under Obama the “war on terror” was watered down to become “overseas contingency operations”. In the first half of Obama’s presidency, from 2009 to 2013 the Americans executed 291 drone strikes at insurgents, which resulted in the deaths of between 1,299 and 2,264 people. US special forces carried out 675 kill/capture raids in 2009, increasing to about 2,200 such raids in 2011. (12) 

From 2004 to January 2015, the CIA carried out 413 drone strikes, as reported by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Out of these 413 CIA drone attacks, 362 of them were launched during Obama’s tenure. The drone strikes in question killed between 2,342 and 3,789 people, of which between 416 and 957 were civilians (13). The drone attacks were taking place in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. 

According to New America, a Washington-based think tank, president Bush had ordered between 45 to 50 drone strikes during his 8 years in office, resulting in the deaths of 477 people. (14)

*

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

This article was originally published on Geopolitica.RU.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes 

1 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer; 1st edition, 23 June 2017) p. 213 

2 Ibid. 

3 Ibid., p. 215 

4 “Obama boosts U.S. military in Australia, reassures China”, Reuters, 16 November 2011

5 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 216 

6 “Oil and natural gas production is growing in Caspian Sea region”, US Energy Information Administration, 11 September 2013

7 John Pilger, The New Rulers Of The World (Verso Books, 20 February 2003) pp. 109-110 

8 Ibid., p. 110 

9 “North Sea oil production rises despite price fall”, Daily Telegraph, 3 August 2015

10 “Obama’s remarks confirm US involvement in Ukraine coup: Lavrov”, Press TV, 2 February 2015

11 “Factions behind US policy in the Gulf”, Middle East Research and Information Project, March/April 1988

12 “Targeted killings”, Council on Foreign Relations, 23 May 2013

13 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st edition, 4 February 2019) p. 54 

14 Ibid., p. 55

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

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced on June 22nd a Resolution which if passed and signed by President Biden (whom both Senators praised for his resolute hostility toward Russia), would commit the U.S. as the head of NATO to launch, on behalf of NATO, war directly against Russia, if (regardless of the reason) Russia uses even the smallest tactical nuclear weapon (for example, to destroy a command-center deep underground) in Ukraine (which isn’t a NATO country), and which Resolution alleges that the reason why America would do this for NATO (even though Ukraine isn’t a member) is that there might be some nuclear fall-out that might reach a NATO member nation from such an attack by Russia against Ukraine. In other words: they want to enable the U.S. President to launch a U.S. invasion of Russia if Russia becomes forced to use a nuclear device in order to be able to prevent Ukraine from joining America’s anti-Russian military alliance, NATO.

At the press conference introducing their Resolution, Senator Graham said,

“Our message is to those around Putin: If you do this and follow his order, should he give it, you can expect a massive response from NATO. You will be at war with NATO.”

The video of that press conference is here.

Their Resolution will allegedly be for “NATO” instead of for just the U.S. Government, and so if it becomes U.S. law, then — if the U.S. Government subsequently alleges that Russia has violated it — America will invade Russia and will expect all NATO countries to be on its side in the resulting World War Three. America would be in this War for NATO — not merely for America.

The Resolution furthermore says that the U.S. Senate:

(2) views the use of a tactical nuclear weapon by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory causing significant harm to human life, as an attack on NATO requiring an immediate response, including the implementation of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty,” which is the Treaty Article that obligates each member-nation to support NATO’s war.

That’s the core passage in this entire proposed document. In other words, not ONLY would Russia’s use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine trigger WW III under the Graham-Blumenthal Resolution, but ALSO an attack against Europe’s biggest nuclear electric-power plant, which is in Zaporozhia in Ukraine and which nuclear-power facility Ukraine’s government has several times aimed missiles at but not yet successfully hit, would trigger a NATO invasion of Russia, even though Ukraine, and not Russia, had done it. Russia has, in fact, been protecting that nuclear power plant, which is in territory that Russia controls, and this is the reason why none of Ukraine’s missiles against it has yet succeeded at hitting it. (Well, there was one that barely did, but not badly enough to cause any release of radiation from the plant.) The Resolution’s key clause is the sub-clause “or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory.” That’s the clause which (if this Resolution passes) could empower Ukraine’s government to spark a U.S. invasion of Russia — i.e., then a successful Ukrainian attack against that nuclear facility would “immediately” produce  a U.S. nuclear attack against Russia (since the hypothesis of this Resolution is that in any such case, Russia had already entered a nuclear war against NATO, since a NATO member received some downwind radiation from that plant).

In other words: this proposed congressional Resolution, if it passes, is actually part of a U.S. Government strategy to enable the government of Ukraine, when and if Ukraine manages successfully to hit that nuclear power plant and thereby causes nuclear radiation to go downwind into a NATO member nation, to spark an “immediate” invasion of Russia by the U.S. Government on behalf of NATO.

So: this Resolution, if it becomes passed by Congress and signed by Biden, will short-circuit not only the requirement to get Ukraine into NATO, but also the requirement for a congressional resolution of war against Russia, in order for the U.S. Government to ‘justify’ a nuclear first-strike against The Kremlin — the start of WW III.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Another Day in the Empire

First published by Global Research on January 23, 2020

 

BlackRock is a global financial giant with customers in 100 countries and its tentacles in major asset classes all over the world; and it now manages the spigots to trillions of bailout dollars from the Federal Reserve. The fate of a large portion of the country’s corporations has been put in the hands of a megalithic private entity with the private capitalist mandate to make as much money as possible for its owners and investors; and that is what it has proceeded to do.

To most people, if they are familiar with it at all, BlackRock is an asset manager that helps pension funds and retirees manage their savings through “passive” investments that track the stock market. But working behind the scenes, it is much more than that. BlackRock has been called “the most powerful institution in the financial system,” “the most powerful company in the world” and the “secret power.” It is the world’s largest asset manager and “shadow bank,” larger than the world’s largest bank (which is in China), with over $7 trillion in assets under direct management  and another $20 trillion managed through its Aladdin risk-monitoring software.

BlackRock has also been called “the fourth branch of government” and “almost a shadow government”, but no part of it actually belongs to the government. Despite its size and global power, BlackRock is not even regulated as a “Systemically Important Financial Institution” under the Dodd-Frank Act, thanks to pressure from its CEO Larry Fink, who has long had “cozy” relationships with government officials.

BlackRock’s strategic importance and political weight were evident when four BlackRock executives, led by former Swiss National Bank head Philipp Hildebrand, presented a proposal at the annual meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in August 2019 for an economic reset that was actually put into effect in March 2020. Acknowledging that central bankers were running out of ammunition for controlling the money supply and the economy, the BlackRock group argued that it was time for the central bank to abandon its long-vaunted independence and join monetary policy (the usual province of the central bank) with fiscal policy (the usual province of the legislature). They proposed that the central bank maintain a “Standing Emergency Fiscal Facility” that would be activated when interest rate manipulation was no longer working to avoid deflation. The Facility would be deployed by an “independent expert” appointed by the central bank.

The COVID-19 crisis presented the perfect opportunity to execute this proposal in the US, with BlackRock itself appointed to administer it. In March 2020, it was awarded a no-bid contract under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) to deploy a $454 billion slush fund established by the Treasury in partnership with the Federal Reserve. This fund in turn could be leveraged to provide over $4 trillion in Federal Reserve credit. While the public was distracted with protests, riots and lockdowns, BlackRock suddenly emerged from the shadows to become the “fourth branch of government,” managing the controls to the central bank’s print-on-demand fiat money. How did that happen and what are the implications?

Rising from the Shadows

BlackRock was founded in 1988 in partnership with the Blackstone Group, a multinational private equity management firm that would become notorious after the 2008-09 banking crisis for snatching up foreclosed homes at firesale prices and renting them at inflated prices. BlackRock first grew its balance sheet in the 1990s and 2000s by promoting the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that brought down the economy in 2008. Knowing the MBS business from the inside, it was then put in charge of the Federal Reserve’s “Maiden Lane” facilities. Called “special purpose vehicles,” these were used to buy “toxic” assets (largely unmarketable MBS) from Bear Stearns and American Insurance Group (AIG), something the Fed was not legally allowed to do itself.

BlackRock really made its fortunes, however, in “exchange traded funds” (ETFs). It gained trillions in investable assets after it acquired the iShares series of ETFs in a takeover of Barclays Global Investors in 2009. By 2020, the wildly successful iShares series included over 800 funds and $1.9 trillion in assets under management.

Exchange traded funds are bought and sold like shares but operate as index-tracking funds, passively following specific indices such as the S&P 500, the benchmark index of America’s largest corporations and the index in which most people invest. Today the fast-growing ETF sector controls nearly half of all investments in US stocks, and it is highly concentrated. The sector is dominated by just three giant American asset managers – BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, the “Big Three” – with BlackRock the clear global leader. By 2017, the Big Three together had become the largest shareholder in almost 90% of S&P 500 firms, including Apple, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, General Electric and Coca-Cola. BlackRock also owns major interests in nearly every mega-bank and in major media.

In March 2020, based on its expertise with the Maiden Lane facilities and its sophisticated Aladdin risk-monitoring software, BlackRock got the job of dispensing Federal Reserve funds through eleven “special purpose vehicles” authorized under the CARES Act. Like the Maiden Lane facilities, these vehicles were designed to allow the Fed, which is legally limited to purchasing safe federally-guaranteed assets, to finance the purchase of riskier assets in the market.

Blackrock Bails Itself Out

The national lockdown left states, cities and local businesses in desperate need of federal government aid. But according to David Dayen in The American Prospect, as of May 30 (the Fed’s last monthly report), the only purchases made under the Fed’s new BlackRock-administered SPVs were ETFs, mainly owned by BlackRock itself. Between May 14 and May 20, about $1.58 billion in ETFs were bought through the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF), of which $746 million or about 47% came from BlackRock ETFs. The Fed continued to buy more ETFs after May 20, and investors piled in behind, resulting in huge inflows into BlackRock’s corporate bond ETFs.

In fact, these ETFs needed a bailout; and BlackRock used its very favorable position with the government to get one. The complicated mechanisms and risks underlying ETFs are explained in an April 3 article by business law professor Ryan Clements, who begins his post:

Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) are at the heart of the COVID-19 financial crisis. Over forty percent of the trading volume during the mid-March selloff was in ETFs ….

The ETFs were trading well below the value of their underlying bonds, which were dropping like a rock. Some ETFs were failing altogether. The problem was something critics had long warned of: while ETFs are very liquid, trading on demand like stocks, the assets that make up their portfolios are not. When the market drops and investors flee, the ETFs can have trouble coming up with the funds to settle up without trading at a deep discount; and that is what was happening in March.

According to a May 3 article in The National, “The sector was ultimately saved by the US Federal Reserve’s pledge on March 23 to buy investment-grade credit and certain ETFs. This provided the liquidity needed to rescue bonds that had been floundering in a market with no buyers.”

Prof. Clements states that if the Fed had not stepped in, “a ‘doom loop’ could have materialized where continued selling pressure in the ETF market exacerbated a fire-sale in the underlying [bonds], and again vice-versa, in a procyclical pile-on with devastating consequences.” He observes:

There’s an unsettling form of market alchemy that takes place when illiquid, over-the-counter bonds are transformed into instantly liquid ETFs. ETF “liquidity transformation” is now being supported by the government, just like liquidity transformation in mortgage backed securities and shadow banking was supported in 2008.

Working for Whom?

BlackRock got a bailout with no debate in Congress, no “penalty” interest rate of the sort imposed on states and cities borrowing in the Fed’s Municipal Liquidity Facility, no complicated paperwork or waiting in line for scarce Small Business Administration loans, no strings attached. It just quietly bailed itself out.

It might be argued that this bailout was good and necessary, since the market was saved from a disastrous “doom loop,” and so were the pension funds and the savings of millions of investors. Although BlackRock has a controlling interest in all the major corporations in the S&P 500, it professes not to “own” the funds. It just acts as a kind of “custodian” for its investors — or so it claims. But BlackRock and the other Big 3 ETFs vote the corporations’ shares; so from the point of view of management, they are the owners. And as observed in a 2017 article from the University of Amsterdam titled “These Three Firms Own Corporate America,” they vote 90% of the time in favor of management. That means they tend to vote against shareholder initiatives, against labor, and against the public interest. BlackRock is not actually working for us, although we the American people have now become its largest client base.

In a 2018 review titled “Blackrock – The Company That Owns the World”, a multinational research group called Investigate Europe concluded that BlackRock “undermines competition through owning shares in competing companies, blurs boundaries between private capital and government affairs by working closely with regulators, and advocates for privatization of pension schemes in order to channel savings capital into its own funds.”

Daniela Gabor, Professor of Macroeconomics at the University of Western England in Bristol, concluded after following a number of regulatory debates in Brussels that it was no longer the banks that wielded the financial power; it was the asset managers. She said:

We are often told that a manager is there to invest our money for our old age. But it’s much more than that. In my opinion, BlackRock reflects the renunciation of the welfare state. Its rise in power goes hand-in-hand with ongoing structural changes; in finance, but also in the nature of the social contract that unites the citizen and the state.

That these structural changes are planned and deliberate is evident in BlackRock’s August 2019 white paper laying out an economic reset that has now been implemented with BlackRock at the helm.

Public policy is made today in ways that favor the stock market, which is considered the barometer of the economy, although it has little to do with the strength of the real, productive economy. Giant pension and other investment funds largely control the stock market, and the asset managers control the funds. That effectively puts BlackRock, the largest and most influential asset manager, in the driver’s seat in controlling the economy.

As Peter Ewart notes in a May 14 article on BlackRock titled “Foxes in the Henhouse,” today the economic system “is not classical capitalism but rather state monopoly capitalism, where giant enterprises are regularly backstopped with public funds and the boundaries between the state and the financial oligarchy are virtually non-existent.”

If the corporate oligarchs are too big and strategically important to be broken up under the antitrust laws, rather than bailing them out they should be nationalized and put directly into the service of the public. At the very least, BlackRock should be regulated as a too-big-to-fail Systemically Important Financial Institution. Better yet would be to regulate it as a public utility. No private, unelected entity should have the power over the economy that BlackRock has, without a legally enforceable fiduciary duty to wield it in the public interest.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age.  She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

In the 1997 Disney animated musical fantasy film, Hercules, there is a particularly catchy number, Zero to Hero, which describes the rise of the star of the film from a clumsy boy into a strong and capable man. In the span of less than 24 hours, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the public face of the Wagner Group, a Russian private military contractor with shadowy ties to Russian military intelligence, has flipped the script of this ashes to diamonds tale, transforming an organization that had, through virtue of its impressive battlefield performance, become a legendary symbol of Russian patriotism and strength, into a discredited band of disgruntled traitors seeking the violent overthrow of the constitutional government of Russian on behalf of nations who seek the strategic defeat and ultimate destruction of Russia.

If Disney were to write a song about Prigozhin and Wagner today, it would be called Hero to Zero.

Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind—Yevgeny Prigozhin has become a witting agent of Ukraine and the intelligence services of the collective West.

And while there may be those within Wagner who have been unwittingly drawn into this act of high treason through deception and subterfuge, in the aftermath of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s address to the Russian nation on June 24, and Yevgeny Prigozhin’s impolitic reply, there can be no doubt that there are only two sides in this struggle—the side of constitutional legitimacy, and the side of unconstitutional treason and sedition.

Anyone who continues to participate in Prigozhin’s coup has aligned themselves on the wrong side of the law and have themselves become outlaws.

Scott Ritter will discuss this article on Ep. 42 of Scenes from the Evolution Sunday (tentative) at 1 PM ET, and on Ep. 77 of Ask the Inspector Tuesday at 3 PM ET, when he will also answer audience questions.

Having taken Wagner down this unfortunate path, one needs to examine the motivations—stated and otherwise—that could prompt such a dangerous course of action. First and foremost, Prigozhin’s gambit must be looked at for what it is—an act of desperation.
.
For all its military prowess, Wagner as a fighting force is unsustainable for any period without the logistical support of the Russian Ministry of Defense. The fuel that powers Wagner’s vehicles, the ammunition that gives its weapons their lethality, the food that nourishes its fighters—all comes from the very organization that Prigozhin has set his sights on usurping.
.
This reality means that to succeed, Prigozhin would need to rally sufficient support behind his cause capable of not only sustaining his gambit but offsetting the considerable power of the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Federation which, if left intact, would be able to readily defeat the forces of Wagner in any large-scale combat.

In short, Prigozhin is looking to create a so-called “Moscow Maidan” designed to replicate the success of the events of early 2014 in Kiev, where the constitutionally elected government of President Victor Yanukovych was toppled from power through violence and force of will that was orchestrated by Ukrainian nationalists supported by the US and Europe. The fantasy of a “Moscow Maidan” has been at the center of the strategy of the collective West and their Ukrainian proxy from the very start. Premised on the notion of a weak Russian president propped up by a thoroughly corrupt oligarch class, the idea of creating the conditions for the rise of sufficient domestic unrest capable of bringing down the Putin government like a proverbial house of cards was the primary objective of the sanctions regime imposed by the West after the initiation of the Special Military Operation (SMO) on February 24, 2022.

The failure of the sanctions to generate such a result compelled the collective West to double-down on the notion of collapsing the Russian government, this time using a military solution. The British Prime Minister pressured his Ukrainian counterpart to forgo a negotiated settlement to the conflict that was ready to be signed in Istanbul on April 1, 2022, and instead engage in a protracted war with Russia fueled by tens of billions of dollars’ worth of military and financial assistance designed to inflict military losses on Russia sufficient to trigger domestic unrest—the elusive “Moscow Maidan.”

This effort likewise failed.

Failing to create the conditions conducive for the collapse of domestic support for Putin and the Ukrainian conflict by pressuring Russia from without, the collective West began working to create the conditions for bringing down Russia by sowing internal seeds of dissention.

This strategy hinged on a very sophistical information warfare scheme which simultaneously sought to suppress and discredit narratives which sustained the official position of the Russian government, while building up covert agents of influence within social media outlets deemed to be influential amongst the Russian public. Using these channels, the pro-Ukrainian practitioners of information war began promulgating narratives intended to highlight the failings of the Russian government and, more specifically, persons close to President Putin who were affiliated with the SMO. By focusing their angst on what these channels were highlighting as the “failures” of the SMO, the information warfare practitioners were able to wrap themselves in the mantle of “patriotism,” claiming only to be looking out for the best interests of “Mother Russia,” all the while denigrating the character of the constitutional government.

There were several compelling narratives that were used by these information warfare specialists to serve as the foundation of their attack on Putin’s Russia. One of the more popular was grounded in the mythology of “2014” and the early resistance to the Ukrainian nationalists who sought to impose their policies of cultural and linguistic genocide on the ethnic Russian population of the Donbas.

Let there be no doubt—the fighting that took place in the initial months and years of the Donbas conflict was difficult and bloody, and those who rallied to the cause of the ethnic Russians of the Donbas deserve tremendous credit for their courage and resilience in the face of a dangerous enemy.

But this resistance also served to foster a sense of entitlement among the early leaders and participants of this resistance which often transformed into resentment against Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, for abandoning the citizens of the Donbas to their own fate.

The combination of resentful entitlement turned into hostility after the initiation of the SMO, when these “originals” took umbrage at whet they deemed to be the inadequate intervention on the part of the Russian government and the perceived incompetence of the Russian military. Characters such as Igor Girkin (perhaps better known by his nom de guerre, Strelkov) and Russell “Texas” Bentley perfected the art of “patriotic” criticism which, intentionally or not, was used by Russia’s enemies to further the notion of a weak and ineffective Russian government vulnerable to intervention by “real” Russian patriots who were concerned about “corruption” and “inefficiency” in the Putin regime. The pro-Ukrainian information warfare outlets were able to help magnify these “patriotic” voices of dissent by disseminating their message using Telegram and YouTube channels.

An expansion on the theme of “betrayed patriot” involves the Wagner Group itself and is pertinent to the present matter. The origins of the private military contract company, Wagner, are murky, but appear to be linked to the events of 2014 in the Donbas and the need for the Russian government to create a vehicle for the provision of relevant military expertise and material to the ethnic Russian resistance in the Donbas that would not conflict with Russian constitutional prohibitions against the deployment of regular Russian Army personnel on foreign soil. From its inception, Wagner was an adjunct of Russian Military Intelligence (GRU), and responsive to the commands of the Russian General Staff. This placed Wagner in the shadowy space between being an official agent of government policy and an independently-funded private military contractor.

Following the initiation of the SMO, the role played by Wagner in the Donbas conflict expanded, transitioning from an advisory capacity to major combatant by expanding the scope and scale of the Wagner presence. Wagner grew into a Corps-sized formation equipped with heavy weapons, including armor and artillery, as well as fixed-wing fighter aircraft, and was assigned responsibility for a section of the frontlines which included the twin-salt mining towns of Soledar and Bakhmut, both of which had been heavily fortified by the Ukrainian military. The bloody fighting for the Soledar-Bakhmut complex, which became known by the sobriquet “the meatgrinder,” helped transform Wagner into a legendary combat force in the minds of most Russians, and elevated Prigozhin’s profile considerably.

Wagner achieved its well-deserved martial reputation largely because it was able to operate independent of the suffocating bureaucracy of the Russian military.

Thus liberated, Wagner was able to best exploit the experience and skill of its veteran fighters, streamlining command and control and tactical decision-making to enable Wagner to seize and maintain operational initiative, allowing Wagner to dominate the battlefield. While Wagner had operational independence, it received its operational tasking from the Russian General Staff, which also provided Wagner with the weapons, ammunition, fuel, and other logistical sustainment necessary to carry out its assigned mission.

The legal status of Wagner was secure so long as the territory it operated on was not Russian. This changed, however, in the aftermath of the September 2022 referendum which saw the Donbas transition from being an independent entity to being part of Russia. Wagner was able to maintain its unique status during the political transition of the Donbas to full Russian constitutional control, but once this transition was completed, sometime in early 2023, reality came home to roost.

Logistical requisitions, which used to be treated as special requests approved as part of the general support provided by Russia to the Donbas, were not treated as part of the routine logistical establishment of the Russian ministry of Defense. From a practical standpoint, this meant that the quantities of ammunition, especially in terms of artillery shells, was cut back to reflect the “norm” used to support military formations of a similar size. Wagner tactics, however, were contingent upon the ability to support their operations with overwhelming fire support. Denied the quantities of ammunition they were used to receiving, Wagner’s assault detachment began to take heavy casualties, prompting Prigozhin to initiate a public feud with both Shoigu and Gerasimov, whom he accused of incompetence and corruption.

Prigozhin’s antics, which were played out in intimate detail on social media, caught the attention of pro-Ukrainian information warfare specialists, who began promoting the narrative of Prigozhin—a former convict with zero political experience—assuming a leadership position in Russia. Prigozhin himself seemed to feed off this notion. While publicly denying any such ambition, Prigozhin continued his public trolling of Shoigu and Gerasimov. The vitriol became so intense that Putin was compelled to summon both men to the Kremlin, where they were read the riot act by an irate Russian President and told in no uncertain terms to cease and desist or pay the consequences. Putin also at this time had Shoigu step back from being the overseer of Wagner logistical support, instead turning that task over to General Sergey Surovikin, a senior military commander overseeing the air component of the SMO.

In retrospect, this was a mistake, as it only reinforced the notion in Prigozhin’s mind that if he made a big enough scene, Putin would yield to his desires.

At some point in time, Prigozhin appears to have gone off the rails completely. Even after the presidential intervention, Prigozhin continued his public feud with both Shoigu and Gerasimov, at one point threatening to pull Wagner out of Bakhmut before that battle was concluded. Prigozhin went out of his way to promote himself as a frontline commander, appearing in videos he published on Telegram visiting the Wagner fighters on the frontline, often under fire, and then contrasting this with what Prigozhin articulated as the timid behavior of Shoigu and Gerasimov, whom Prigozhin mocked for managing the SMO from the safety of bunkers far from the zone of conflict.

At some point in time Prigozhin’s antics caught the attention of Ukrainian intelligence, and their British and US counterparts. The narcissistic need for attention, coupled with grandiose notions of self-importance, made Prigozhin an ideal candidate for recruitment by a hostile foreign intelligence service. A financial component—basic greed—can be added to this behavioral model as well.

In addition to seeking to bring Wagner under the operational control of the Ministry of Defense through the rationing of ammunition, Defense Minister Shoigu announced that Wagner fighters would have to sign legally binding contracts with the Russian Minister of Defense to allow them to continue to serve in their capacity as a combat unit.

The reason for this was the constitutional ban on private military companies operating on Russian soil. The Russian government was willing to turn a blind eye to this legality while the battle for Bakhmut raged, but once the “meatgrinder” shut down, and Wagner was withdrawn from the front for a period of well-deserved rest and refitting, the Ministry of Defense announced that before Wagner could resume its combat operations (Prigozhin indicated that Wagner would return to fighting around August 5), its fighters and commanders would have to sign contracts. The deadline for signing contracts was set for July 1.

According to Prigozhin, the military council of commanders—the real leaders of Wagner—refused to allow these contracts to be signed. Wagner and Shoigu were heading for a confrontation. Wagner was, during this time, building upon the good will of the Russian people that had been earned in the bloody fighting for Bakhmut.

Wagner was engaged in an unprecedented public relations campaign designed to imprint on the Russian people the heroic status its fighters enjoyed, all the while seeking to recruit new fighters into it ranks. The success of this public relations campaign only reinforced in the mindset of Prigozhin the notion that he and Wagner were more popular amongst the Russian people than were Shoigu, Gerasimov, and the Russian Ministry of Defense.

The collusion between Prigozhin and the Ukrainians, while unproven at this juncture, appears obvious in retrospect. One of the key indicators is the decision by the Ukrainians to send so-called “anti-Putin” Russian forces across the border into the Belgorod region of Russia, helping create the impression of Russian impotence and incompetence, notions Prigozhin was only too happy to magnify on his own Telegram channels. This message was then further disseminated by Ukrainian-controlled Telegram channels, including those which operated under the guise of serving “Russian patriots.”

Soon both Prigozhin and the ostensible “pro-Russian” social media accounts were highlighting the potential of a Russian Civil War and the collapse of the Putin regime in a repeat of the collapse experienced in the Russian Army in 1917, leading to the downfall of Tsarist rule and the Romanov dynasty. Indeed, informed observers have stated that many of the Wagner fighters who accompanied Prigozhin into Russia as part of the ongoing armed insurrection apparently believed that they were being dispatched to reinforce the border region to guard against future incursions into Russia by forces loyal to Ukraine.

If the goal of Prigozhin was to achieve the collapse of the Putin regime, it appears to have failed miserably. No political leaders, no military leaders of units, no oligarchs have rallied to Prigozhin’s cause.

Russia appears to be firmly behind President Putin, and supportive of his stated goal of bringing this insurrection to an end using all means necessary. While Prigozhin claimed to have assembled a force of some 25,000 men for his march of Moscow, the reality is the total number of Wagner soldiers involved is no more than half that number.

Unless Wagner receives substantial assistance, this invasion force will soon run into sustainability issues—gas, ammunition, and food supplies will become problematic. Moreover, as Russian forces begin to physically confront Wagner, it will become crystal clear to the actual fighters that far from defending Russia from a corrupt and inept regime, Wagner has become a pariah, forever linked in the minds of Russia as traitors who sought to stick a knife in Russia’s back at a time of great peril to the survival of the nation—in short, Wagner will have transitioned from Hero to Zero.

What Prigozhin and his supporters, both in the command and rank and file of Wagner, and those collaborators in the social media universe, have done in attacking the constitutional government of Russia is nothing short of treason. Unless something extreme happens in the next day or two, it is inevitable that Wagner will be defeated. The history books will always punctuate its existence as an organization with perfidy of having betrayed Russia to its enemies. But the critical point here isn’t Wagner’s treasonous behavior, but rather the fact that Russia’s enemies—in particular the British and American intelligence services—saw fit to facilitate a substantive armed insurrection designed to remove from power the government of a nuclear armed power. Imagine, for a moment, the righteous ire that would be on display in the halls of Congress and within the walls of the White House if Russian intelligence had actively conspired to have an entity like Blackwater march on Washington, DC with the goal of removing President Biden from power.

It would, some might say, constitute an act of war.

Russian nuclear doctrine allows for Russia to use nuclear weapons when faced with an existential threat to the survival of the Russian state.

If the CIA and MI-6 were involved in the recruitment of Prigozhin with an eye toward facilitating Wagner’s march of Moscow, then they would have been directly engaged in an action that constituted an existential threat to Russia.

Russia would, under its doctrine, have every right to use nuclear weapons in response.

For everyone cheering Prigozhin along this morning, think on that long and hard as you chew on your breakfast.

Because if Prigozhin were to succeed, there may be no tomorrow.

What Evgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner Private Military Company (PMC) really wanted to achieve with his short-lived “rebellion” is unclear as of now.

A mutiny – for what? To create havoc in Moscow? To please the West? To prepare for Regime Change – against his boss, President Putin, who gave him the mandate to help fight the Ukraine aggression against Russians, mainly in the Donbass Region, with a mercenary army. Is that Prigozhin’s purpose?

All of that seems to be a mystery and up to speculation.

But it appears to be over now. Thanks to a resolution negotiated by Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus. This happened in close cooperation with President Putin. Mr. Prigozhin and his troops were assured safety and non-prosecution. They retreated into Belarus.

But let us look back. What was this less than 24-hour “rebellion” all about?

Mr. Prigozhin claims, his quarrel is not with the Russian military, but “with the clowns that lead them”. Does he mean Russia’s Minister of Defense, or President Putin? The very person who gave him the job?

He made some unprecise accusations to Russian military commanders that they interfere with Wagner PMC fighting men. Though never presenting evidence.

Prigozhin also declared that he was advancing on Moscow to confront Russian military officials he deemed corrupt. Again, no precision. No evidence.

Prigozhin calls his march on Moscow, a “march for justice.” – Again, no further precision?

President Putin declares Prigozhin’s mutiny as backstabbing not just the Kremlin but the Russian people, a betrayal on Russia, on the Russian Federation.

And the speculation goes on. 

Openly at least, so far nobody advances the distinct possibility of western interference, of a western ignited upheaval leading to a mutiny against President Putin, possibly hoping it might result in a civil war which could result in a coup attempt to cause “regime change” – what the west wants ever since President Putin came to power in 2000.

Mr. Putin is not a replica of Boris Yeltsin, first President of Russia (1991-1999), the west hoped for as the leader to follow western friendly President Yeltsin. How ever one may judge Yeltsin, he had a flash of light before stepping down – saving his country from the predatory west. And to his credit, he succeeded, by proposing the at the time rather unknown Vladimir Putin, a former foreign intelligence officer, who served for 16 years in the KGB, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel before resigning in 1991 to begin a political career in Saint Petersburg.

While Mr. Prigozhin and his mercenary militia are being given assurances that they will be safe from prosecution, an investigation into what happened is already under way.

Might the answer be simple and contained in a recent video by a BlackRock recruiter — who freely divulges to an undercover reporter how BlackRock buys politicians – and that for amazingly “cheap money”.

The BR recruiter was particularly referring to US Congress people. But why would similar principles not apply to international politicians, or para-politicians, lie the leaders of the Russian Wagner Group — in yet another attempt to bring about unrest to Moscow, and possibly a “coup” against President Putin?

You can take this big f*** ton of money and buy people, … It’s not who is the president, it’s who is controlling the wallet of the president. You could buy your candidates. First, there is the senators these guys are fuckin cheap. Got 10 grand you can buy a senator I’ll give you 500k right now It doesn’t matter who wins they’re in my pocket.    

Varlay doesn’t stop there, he goes on to describe what those in his line of work think of the tragedy of war saying its “real f***ing good for business”. 

See 11-min. video, here 

Just a thought. It is worth noting, according to Scott Ritter that: 

“This is a concerted effort between Wagner, the Ukrainian intelligence service, and their Western sponsors … Prigozhin is working on behalf of foreign intelligence Services carrying out their tasks. That task is to collapse the government of Vladimir Putin. I personally believe that he won’t succeed. But that’s what’s happening this morning

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 a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing

In an important  interview with Judge Napolitano, Scott Ritter describes the Wagner Insurgency:

“as a concerted effort between Wagner, the Ukrainian intelligence service, and their Western sponsors …

Prigozhin is working on behalf of foreign intelligence Services carrying out their tasks. That task is to collapse the government of Vladimir Putin. I personally believe that he won’t succeed. But that’s what’s happening this morning”

It is worth noting that the Wagner Mercenary Group’s Insurrection was initiated barely a week following Vladimir Putin’s statement at the Saint Petersburg Peace Summit with African Leaders (June 18).

At this important venue, President Putin provided details on how the West had obstructed the implementation of Ukraine-Russia Peace Negotiations in Istanbul held in late March 2022.

Putin pointed to acts of sabotage to prevent the signing of an agreement between Kiev and Moscow, which would have led to a cease fire in April 2022. 

 

Timeline 

Below are excerpts from a Jam News Report

On the afternoon of June 23, Telegram channels linked to Prigozhin circulated a 30-minute video in which he vehemently criticizes the war in Ukraine. In short, he said:

  • “There was no need to start a war at all: NATO was not going to attack Russia”
  • “Nothing terrible has happened in Donbas for eight years”
  • “Zelensky was ready for negotiations”
  • “The Russian military needed the war to distinguish itself, and the oligarchs needed it to enrich themselves at the expense of Ukraine”
  • “Everything was done wrong. And all that had to be done was not to lie, not to steal, and take care of the soldiers.”

In the evening, a video appeared on the same Telegram channels, probably filmed in a PMC field camp. Prigozhin accused the Russian Defense Ministry of delivering strikes that led to numerous casualties among the Wagnerites. There are no casualties in the video itself, and analysts say it looks like a fake.

Prigozhin said he intended to stop the evil that the military leadership of the country was carrying, and called on the military and all sympathizers to join him. 

The Russian ministry of defense called the report about the attacks on the camps of the Wagner fighters a provocation, and a criminal case was immediately opened against Prigozhin for incitement to rebellion.

At night, Prigozhin announced that Wagner units had entered Rostov-on-Don and completely taken control of it.

The governor of the Rostov region asked citizens not to leave their homes.

Large army and police forces have been mobilized in Moscow and Rostov-on-Don, and military equipment is on the streets even in Moscow. In Moscow blocked the passage to the presidential administration. Checkpoints have been set up on the highway linking Moscow, Voronezh and Rostov-on-Don, and entrances to Rostov have been blocked.

On the morning of June 24, Moscow Mayor Sobyanin said that “anti-terrorist measures aimed at strengthening security measures” are being carried out in Moscow. But what exactly this means is unclear.

After Putin’s speech, Prigozhin is doomed, many experts say

Copyright Jam News 

Judge Napolitano interviews Scott Ritter on recent developments in Russia, following the insurgency of the Wagner Mercenary Group directed against President Putin.

According to press reports, the Wagner mercenary chief Yevgeny Prigozhin: 

“Ordered his troops to march towards Moscow to seek “revenge” after accusing Russia’s military leadership of killing his forces. On Saturday night, the country’s first armed coup in decades appeared to come to an abrupt end, with Prigozhin announcing that his troops would return to base to avoid “Russian bloodshed”..

According to Scott Ritter:

SR: “This is a concerted effort between Wagner, the Ukrainian intelligence service, and their Western sponsors … Prigozhin is working on behalf of foreign intelligence Services carrying out their tasks. That task is to collapse the government of Vladimir Putin. I personally believe that he won’t succeed. But that’s what’s happening this morning

JN: Are among those uh foreign intelligence Services the CIA?

SR: Of course the CIA is there. But I think the lead agency here is uh is the British intelligence.

Joe Biden is not fully there 

We have an information war.” 

In a  TV Address President Putin describes this as an: 

“Armed Rebellion, A Stab in the Back by Our Country and Our People”.

Russia is currently engaged in a fierce struggle for its future, repelling the aggression of Neo-Nazis and their masters.

Almost the entire military, economic and information machinery of the West is directed against us.”

View this important interview. Judge Napolitano and Scott Ritter

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

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

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

First published on August 16, 2022

***

You were instructed to stay at home to protect the healthcare system. But while you did so, hospitals essentially had a holiday, and this is backed up by official data. You were told the answer to everyone’s prayers was to get the Covid-19 injection. But now that you have done so, the healthcare system is on the brink of collapse.

Waiting times for ambulances are at an all-time high. The number of emergency calls due to people suffering cardiac arrest is at an all-time high. The number of people dying is at an all-time high, with hundreds of thousands of excess deaths occurring around the world every single week.

And official Government reports prove without a shadow of a doubt that it is all thanks to the Covid-19 vaccines.

Exhibit A: The Healthcare System is overwhelmed

Ambulances in England are taking almost an hour to reach patients who have had a suspected stroke or heart attack, more than three times the 18-minute maximum wait, the latest NHS data shows. When people call 999 they can no longer be confident that they will get the emergency care they need.

Why?

The following chart is taken from the UK Health Security Agency’s ‘Ambulance Syndromic Surveillance System – Week 30′ bulletin, and it shows the daily number of 999 calls requesting an ambulance due to suffering cardiac arrest in England vs the expected rate (black dotted line).

Source

The daily number of calls has been way above average since at least August 2021.

The National Health Service (NHS) has also confirmed in response to a freedom of information request that ambulance call-outs relating to immediate care required for a debilitating condition affecting the heart nearly doubled in the whole of 2021 and are still on the rise further in 2022.

On the 25th April 2022, Duncan Husband sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust requesting to know the number of call-outs for patients with heart conditions per year, between 1st January 2017 and the present day.

The NHS responded on the 18th May with a spreadsheet containing the requested information.

The following chart visualised the data made available in the spreadsheet –

ambulance call-ours for high conditions have been higher overall since January 2021, and have been increasing month on month. It was not until April 2021 that we saw a significant increase among people under the age of 30 though, and it again has increased month on month since then.

The following chart shows the overall total call-outs by year for everyone and those aged 0 to 29 –

The average number of annual call-outs between 2017 and 2020 equates to 24,463. Meaning the number of call-outs increased by 48% in 2021. The average number of annual call-outs among under 30’s between 2017 and 2020 equates to 3,940. Meaning the number of call-outs increased by 82% in 2021.

The following chart shows the monthly average number of ambulance call-outs for conditions relating to the heart by year –

There was a significant increase in 2021 among all age groups, and unfortunately, things got even worse in the first few months of 2022.

The question is, why?

Exhibit B: Covid-19 Vaccination can damage the heart, that is a FACT

Let’s look at the fact that it is now known without any doubt that Covid-19 vaccination can cause serious damage to the heart. Myocarditis and Pericarditis are just two of the handful of adverse events medicine regulators have been forced to admit can occur due to Covid-19 vaccination.

They claim it is rare, but they are lying. The fact their hand has been forced in admitting they can occur means they are much more common than the average person on the street would like to think.

A quietly published study conducted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Food and Drug Administration actually found that the risk of myocarditis following mRNA COVID vaccination is around 133x greater than the background risk in the population.

Source

This means Covid vaccination increases the risk of suffering myocarditis by a shocking 13,200%.

Myocarditis is a condition that causes inflammation of the heart muscle and reduces the heart’s ability to pump blood and can cause rapid or abnormal heart rhythms.

Eventually, myocarditis weakens the heart so that the rest of the body doesn’t get enough blood. Clots can then form in the heart, leading to a stroke or heart attack. Other complications of the condition include sudden cardiac death.

There is no mild version of myocarditis, it is extremely serious due to the fact that the heart muscle is incapable of regenerating. Therefore, one the damage is done there is no rewinding the clock.

The following chart shows reports of myocarditis to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System by year –

Source

Is there any wonder the number of ambulance call-outs in England relating to conditions affecting the heart is at an all-time high?

Exhibit C: Hundreds of thousands of Excess Deaths are being recorded every week

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes weekly figures on deaths registered in England and Wales. The most recent data shows deaths up to 29th July 2022.

The following chart, created by the ONS, shows the number of deaths per week compared to the five-year average –

Source

As you can see from the above, from around May 2021 onwards, England and Wales recorded a huge amount of excess deaths that were not attributed to Covid-19 compared to the five-year average. It then appears that excess deaths dropped at the start of 2022.

But appearances can be deceiving, and the only reason they dropped is that the ONS decided to include the 2021 data in the 5-year-average. This makes it all the more concerning that excess deaths have been recorded every week since the end of April 2022 compared to the five-year average (2016 to 2019 + 2021).

The most recent week shows that there were 11,013 deaths in England and Wales, equating to 1,678 excess deaths against the five-year average. Only 810 of those deaths were attributed to Covid-19.

Source

Most of Europe is also recording a significant amount of excess deaths, as can be seen in the following official chart compiled by Eurostat showing excess mortality across Europe in May 2022 –

The world is experiencing an extremely serious issue where tens to hundreds of thousands more people are dying than what is expected every single week.

But how can we prove these deaths are definitively due to Covid-19 vaccination? The answer lies in comparing the age-standardised mortality rates per 100,00 among the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Exhibit D: Mortality Rates are lowest among the Unvaccinated in all age-groups

The following is indisputable evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines are deadly and killing people in the thousands.

The following charts show the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status among each age group for Non-Covid-19 deaths in England between January and May 2022, the figures can be found in table 2 of a recently published dataset collated by the UK Government agency, the Office for National Statistics

Source Data

In every single month since the beginning of 2022, partly vaccinated and double vaccinated 18-39-year-olds have been more likely to die than unvaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds. Triple vaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds however have had a mortality rate that has worsened by the month following the mass Booster campaign that occurred in the UK in December 2021.

We also see a similar pattern among every single other age group.

40-49

50-59

60-69

70-79

80-89

90+

These are age-standardised figures. There is no other conclusion that can be found for the fact mortality rates per 100,000 are the lowest among the unvaccinated other than that the Covid-19 injections are killing people.

But just in case that isn’t enough to finally open your eyes tot his devastating fact, here’s several more pieces of indisputable evidence to back up this fact.

Exhibit E: 1 in every 246 Vaccinated People died within 60 Days of Covid-19 Vaccination

The UK Government has revealed that 1 in every 246 people vaccinated against Covid-19 in England has died within 60 days of receiving a dose of the Covid-19 vaccine.

Table 9 of the ONS ‘Deaths by vaccination status, England’ dataset contains figures on ‘Whole period counts of all registered deaths grouped by how many weeks after vaccination the deaths occurred; for deaths involving COVID-19 and deaths not involving COVID-19, deaths occurring between 1 January 2021 and 31 May 2022, England’.

Here’s a chart showing the number of deaths within 60 days of Covid-19 vaccination in England between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st March 2022, according to the Office for National Statistics dataset

Between 1st Jan 21 and 31st May 2022, a total of 14,103 people died with Covid-19 within 60 days of vaccination, and a total of 166,556 people died of any other cause within 60 days of vaccination.

This means that in all, 180,659 people died within 60 days of Covid-19 vaccination between January 2021 and May 2022 in England.

The following table is taken from page 65 of the UK Health Security Agency’s week 27 ‘Weekly national Influenza and COVID-19 surveillance report’, and shows vaccine uptake in England by age –

Source

According to the UKHA, 44.48 million people have had a single dose, 41.8 million people have had two doses, and 32.9 million people have had three doses as of July 3rd 2022.

Therefore, using simple maths, we find that 1 in every 246 vaccinated people has died within 60 days of Covid-19 Vaccination in England.

44,480,115 (People vaccinated) / 180,659 (deaths) = 246 = 1 death for every 246 people vaccinated

Exhibit F: COVID-19 Vaccines are at least a shocking 7,402% deadlier than all other Vaccines combined

The UK Medicine Regulator has confirmed that over a period of nineteen months the Covid-19 Vaccines have caused at least 5.5x as many deaths as all other available vaccines combined in the past 21 years. This means, that when compared side by side, the Covid-19 injections are a shocking 7,402% more deadly than every other vaccine available in the UK.

The Medicine and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) confirmed in response to a Freedom of Information request (FOI) that had received a grand total of 404 reported adverse reactions to all available vaccines (excluding the Covid-19 injections) associated with a fatal outcome between the 1st January 2001 and the 25th August 2021 – a time frame of 20 years and 8 months.

Source

The MHRA also confirmed, separately, in their weekly Yellow Card report summary that they had received a grand total of 2,213 adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections associated with a fatal outcome between January 2021 and July 2022, a period of 19 months –

Source Data

Meaning, there have officially been 5.5x as many deaths in just 19 months due to the Covid-19 vaccines than there have been due to every other available vaccine combined since the year 2001.

Twenty years and 8 months is a period that is 13.7 x longer than the nineteen-month period where the Covid-19 vaccines have been rolled out.

Therefore, the number of deaths reported to all other vaccines combined in the same time frame of nineteen months equates to 29.5 deaths.

This means the Covid-19 injections are proving to be a shocking 7,402% more deadly than every other vaccine available in the UK.

Exhibit G: Athlete Deaths are 1700% higher than expected since the COVID Vaccine roll-out

The number of athletes who have died since the beginning of 2021 has risen exponentially compared to the yearly number of deaths of athletes officially recorded between 1966 and 2004.

So much so that the monthly average number of deaths between January 2021 and April 2022 is 1,700% higher than the monthly average between 1966 and 2004, and the current trend for 2022 so far shows this could increase to 4,120% if the increased number of deaths continues, with the number of deaths in March 2022 alone 3 times higher than the previous annual average.

According to a scientific study conducted by the ‘Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland which was published in 2006, between the years 1966 and 2004 there were 1,101 sudden deaths among athletes under the age of 35.

Now, thanks to the GoodSciencing.com team, we have a comprehensive list of athletes who have collapsed and/or died since January 2021, a month after the first Covid-19 injection was administered to the general public.

Because it is such as long list we are not including it in this article so that full list can be accessed in full here.

The following chart shows the number of recorded athlete collapses and deaths between January 2021 and April 2022, courtesy of the linked list above –

As you can see there has undoubtedly been a rise from January 2021 onwards, the question is whether this was ordinary and to be expected.

In all between Jan 21 and April 22 a total number of 673 athletes are known to have died. This number could, however, be much higher. So that’s 428 less than the number to have died between 1966 and 2004. The difference here though is that the 1,101 deaths occurred over 39 years, whereas 673 recent deaths have occurred over 16 months.

The yearly average number of deaths between 1966 and 2004 equates to 28. January 2022 saw 3 times as many athlete deaths as this previous annual average, as did March 2022. So this is obviously highly indicative of a problem.

The 2021 total equates to 394 deaths, 14x higher than the 1966 to 2004 annual average. The Jan to April 2022 total, a period of 4 months, equates to 279 deaths, 9.96x higher than the annual average between 1966 and 2004.

However, if we divide the 66 to 04 annual average by 3 to make it equivalent to the 4 months’ worth of deaths so far in 2022, we get 9.3 deaths. So in effect, 2022 so far has seen deaths 10x higher than the expected rate.

The following chart shows the monthly average number of recorded athlete deaths –

The yearly average number of deaths between 1966 and 2004 equates to 28. January 2022 saw 3 times as many athlete deaths as this previous annual average, as did March 2022. So this is obviously highly indicative of a problem.

The 2021 total equates to 394 deaths, 14x higher than the 1966 to 2004 annual average. The Jan to April 2022 total, a period of 4 months, equates to 279 deaths, 9.96x higher than the annual average between 1966 and 2004.

However, if we divide the 66 to 04 annual average by 3 to make it equivalent to the 4 months’ worth of deaths so far in 2022, we get 9.3 deaths. So in effect, 2022 so far has seen deaths 10x higher than the expected rate.

The following chart shows the monthly average number of recorded athlete deaths –

So between 1966 and 2004. the monthly average number of deaths equates to 2.35. But between January 2021 and April 2022, the monthly average equates to 42. This is an increase of 1,696%.

Closing Arguments: The data doesn’t lie

There is plenty more evidence out there to prove that the Covid-19 injections are killing hundreds of thousands of people every single week. For instance, the UK Government has confirmed fully vaccinated young adults are 92% more likely to die than unvaccinated young adults (see here).

They’ve also confirmed COVID vaccinated children are at least 4423% more likely to die of any cause & 13,633% more likely to die of COVID-19 than unvaccinated children (see here).

But the most damning evidence of all lies in 4 simple facts.

Fact No.1: Medicine Regulators have been forced to admit the Covid-19 vaccine can damage the heart.

Fact No.2: Record-breaking numbers of people are requesting an ambulance due to conditions affecting the heart.

Fact No.3: Hundreds of thousands of excess deaths are being recorded around the world on a weekly basis, but only a small minority can be attributed to Covid-19.

Fact No.4: Age-standardised mortality rates are lowest among the unvaccinated population in every single age group.

These are not baseless claims. They are official Government statistics and they are found in official Government reports.

Therefore, official Government reports prove without a shadow of a doubt that hundreds of thousands of people are dying every single week due to Covid-19 vaccination.

*

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

Featured image is from The Expose