Global Research

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.

***

May 25, 2023 represents the 60th anniversary since the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the forerunner of today’s African Union (AU).

During 1963, over 30 independent African states held a summit meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia where they agreed to put aside differences in order to initiate a continental organization.

Since the early 1960s, two distinct blocs had come into existence in the post-colonial period of historical development. The Casablanca Group, which included states such as Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Egypt, Algeria, among others maintained an anti-imperialist posture in regard to their foreign policy imperatives.

Contrastingly, the Monrovia Group, which constituted the majority of states on the continent at the time, took a far more moderate position in relations to national development and international relations. Developments during the early 1960s witnessed the escalation of the armed struggles for national independence in Algeria along with other European colonies and settler states such as Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, South Africa, Rhodesia (later Zimbabwe), Southwest Africa (later Namibia), etc.

The overthrow and assassination of the first democratically elected prime minister of the former Belgian Congo, Patrice Lumumba, during 1960-1961, served to heighten anti-imperialist sentiments among progressive and socialist oriented states as well as among the masses of workers, youth and farmers on the continent.

Therefore, from the onset, the OAU represented a compromise between the moderate and anti-imperialist states.

There were both positive and negative aspects of the OAU policy in its formative years. An OAU Liberation Committee was established to provide material and political aid to those liberation movements and political parties still fighting for national independence.

However, the OAU position of non-interference in the internal affairs of member-states allowed for the destabilization and overthrow of governments by imperialist forces which backed counter-revolutionary elements within African societies. Within less than three years, the revolutionary Pan-Africanist government of the Republic of Ghana headed by President Kwame Nkrumah was forcefully and undemocratically removed in a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) instigated coup by lower-ranking military officers and the police.

Nkrumah was a leading co-founder of the OAU, which in actuality stemmed from the ideological views expressed by the Convention People’s Party (CPP) government in Accra. Even prior to taking power as Leader of Government Business in 1951, Prime Minister in 1954 and as an independent head-of-state beginning on March 6, 1957, Nkrumah was a strong advocate of African unity.

As early as 1947 in his first book entitled, “Toward Colonial Freedom: Africa and the Struggle Against World Imperialism”, which was reprinted in 1962 when he was President of the First Republic of Ghana, Nkrumah identifies the economic machinations of European domination as the basis of African oppression and exploitation. In later years, Nkrumah would publish “Africa Must Unite”, which was released at the founding summit of the OAU in May 1963, “Consciencism: Philosophy and Ideology for Decolonization” released in 1964 and “Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism”, issued in 1965, which proved too powerful for the United States since it pointed to the central role of Washington and Wall Street in the continuing underdevelopment of Africa and many other geopolitical regions of the world.

Contained in these texts are severe indictments of imperialism and the imperatives of African unification under socialism. Although these books were published six decades ago, their perceptions of the African situation remain relevant.

Today, across the continent, efforts by imperialism to stifle African development and unification abound. In West Africa we have experienced the recrudescence of military coups carried out by military elements with close ties to the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

In the Republic of Sudan, a major center of destabilization, the imperialists and their cohorts have armed and politically empowered military structures which have left millions traumatized and displaced. Hundreds of officially documented deaths have occurred in Sudan, an oil-rich and geostrategic state which could play a monumental role in the struggle for anti-imperialism and African unity.

As was illustrated in neighboring Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, there must be African solutions to African problems. At the initiative of the AU, a series of negotiations were held in South Africa and Kenya which resulted in the existing peace accord between the government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF).

Yet in the Republic of Sudan, the leadership of the Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) refused to meet in neighboring Republic of South Sudan for peace talks. Instead, it would take the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the U.S. to convene the talks. Nonetheless, the peace has still not been won.

The role of military interests in African politics was explained by Nkrumah in his seminal work entitled “Class Struggle in Africa”, published while he served as Co-President of the People’s Revolutionary Republic of Guinea in 1970. Most of the armed forces and police structures in independent states were inherited from the colonial era. Their political orientation is often dominated by capitalism and neo-colonialism. This set of social circumstances require a revolution from below which establishes the rule of the majority class interests of the workers and farmers of Africa.

Socialist Revolution in Africa and the Diaspora is the Ultimate Solution

In the chapter entitled “Socialist Revolution” in the book “Class Struggle in Africa” openly proclaims that the transformation of society from capitalist to socialist relations of production provides the only solution to the continental crisis. However, imperialism and their surrogates will not relinquish power without a struggle to overcome their control of the oppressive capitalist and colonial states.

Nkrumah says in this regard that:

“The highest point of political action, when a revolution attains its excellence, is when the proletariat—compromising workers and peasants—under the leadership of a vanguard party the principles and motivations of which are based on scientific socialism, succeeds in overthrowing all other classes. The basis of a revolution is created when the organic structures and conditions within a given society have aroused mass consent and mass desire for positive action to change or transform that society. While there is no hard and fast dogma for socialist revolution, because no two sets of historical conditions and circumstances are exactly alike, experience has shown that under conditions of class struggle, socialist revolution is impossible without the use of force. Revolutionary violence is a fundamental law in revolutionary struggles. The privileged will not, unless compelled, surrender power. They may grant reforms but will not yield an inch when basic pillars of their entrenched positions are threatened. They can only be overthrown by violent revolutionary action.” (p. 80)

In this same book, Nkrumah views the African Revolution as part and parcel of the world socialist movement against capitalism and imperialism. He views the African revolutionary struggle as being worldwide encompassing the people of African descent in the Diaspora of the Western Hemisphere.

According to Nkrumah:

“The African revolutionary struggle is not an isolated one. It not only forms part of the world socialist revolution but must be seen in the context of the Black Revolution as a whole. In the U.S.A., the Caribbean and wherever Africans are oppressed, liberation struggles are being fought. In these areas, the Black man is in a condition of domestic colonialism and suffers both on the grounds of class and of color. The core of the Black Revolution is in Africa, and until Africa is united under a socialist government, the Black man throughout the world lacks a national home. It is around the African peoples’ struggles for liberation and unification that African or Black culture will take shape and substance. Africa is one continent, one people, and one nation…. The total liberation and the unification of Africa under an All-African socialist government must be the primary objective of all Black revolutionaries throughout the world.” (pp. 87-88)

These observations and conclusions remain elusive but compelling in the third decade of the 21st century. Nonetheless, the existing crises of capitalism and imperialism provide openings for Africans and other oppressed and exploited peoples to wage a protracted struggle for genuine liberation and socialism.

***

Note: The following solidarity statement was prepared and delivered in part to the African Liberation Day program organized by the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party, (A-APRP-GC) under the theme “Pan-Africanism:  Waging Class Struggle in Africa and the Diaspora, Fighting for the One United Socialist Africa!” on Sat. May 27, 2023. The event was broadcast over the “Africans on the Move” internet radio program hosted by Lee Robinson of the African Awareness Association based in Richmond, Virginia. Speakers from various organizations made presentations including the Million Women March, the Committee to Free Jamil al-Amin, the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Movement, among many others. You can listen to the podcast of the event at the following link:

https://www.blogtalkradio.com/africa-on-the-move/2023/05/27/african-liberation-day-nakba-day–may-27-2023

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.

***

In May of this year, we took the long, 27-hour train ride from Moscow to Crimea to see how life is there and what the sentiment of the people are as the US and Ukraine sharpen their threats to “recapture” this peninsula from Russia.  And, while we were there, these threats were backed by a series of terrorist drone attacks in Crimea which, while doing little serious damage, signaled an escalation in the US/Ukrainian assault on Crimea.

Despite such threats and attacks, what we found in this historic peninsula on the Black Sea was a beautiful, almost idyllic place with a bustling economy and a general sense of prosperity and hopefulness.  We also found a people who seem quite content to remain a part of Russia just as Crimea has been, except for a brief interval, since 1783.

During our trip, we visited the three major cities of Simferopol, Sevastopol and Yalta.

Crimea has rugged but beautiful coastline.

The Capital Simferopol 

Simferopol is an inland city with about half a million residents. There are universities as well as Crimea’s parliament and  industry.  When we visited it, most people were enjoying the holidays. We saw multiple groups of teenagers singing patriotic songs on the street and in front of memorials. It is difficult to imagine something comparable happening in the US or Canada. The difference may be partly the result of education but it also shows the different consciousness and experience. Approximately 1 in every seven citizens died in WW2 so every family in the Soviet Union lost family members.  The Nazi invasion and occupation were horrible, real and impacted every one.

Theater students sing patriotic songs on the street, 6 May 2023.

In Simferopol we met two women, Larisa and Irina,  who described  in detail what happened in early 2014. Confrontations started when a small group of ultra-nationalists tried to demolish the statue of Lenin in the capital center. Seeing this as an attack on their Soviet and Russian heritage, a much larger group gathered and stopped them.  

Then, three police who were residents of Crimea were killed in Maidan protests. As their corpses were brought home, there was increasing fear that  the violence in Kiev could come to Crimea. Volunteers formed self-defense battalions. 

Hundreds of Crimeans went to Kiev on chartered buses to peacefully protest against the Maidan chaos and violence  The violence climaxed with the killing of police and protesters by snipers located in opposition controlled buildings on February 20.  The Crimeans realized that peaceful protests were hopeless and departed back to Crimea on the chartered buses. At the town of Korsun, the convoy of eight buses was stopped  by a gang from the Neo-Nazi “Right Sector”. Dozens people were beaten and seven Crimeans killed.  

Crimean Bus Passengers were beaten with seven killed on 20 February 2014.

On February 22 the elected Ukraine government was overthrown. On its first day in power,  the coup government enacted legislation to remove Russian as a state language.  These events provoked shock, fear and the urgent desire to re-unify with Russia. According to Larisa and Irina, there was a huge popular demand to hold a referendum to secede from Ukraine.  

The Crimean parliament agreed and first proposed to have the referendum in May. The popular demand was to have it much sooner. Larisa says that on February 27 the Russian flag was flying over  parliament. She does not know how, but says, “It was like a miracle.”  People sensed then that Russia might accept Crimea. Suddenly there were Russian flags all over the city. 

Crimea Parliament in the capital Simferopol

There was still the fear of violence. Soldiers in green uniforms without insignia, known as the “polite men” appeared at  key locations such as the airport and parliament.  It is generally understood these were Russian special forces. They were heartily welcomed by nearly all and events proceeded without violence. Larisa laughed at western journalists who used the photograph of a WW2 tank in a park, to suggest that Russian tanks were in the capital. 

There was  no involvement by Russia in the referendum; it was organized and carried out by the traditional election council on March 16. The results were decisive: with 83% voting, 97% voted to rejoin Russia. 

Two days later the Crimean  parliament appealed to the Russian Federation. Two days after that the agreement was signed in Moscow.  Larisa and Irina say, “Everyone was happy”;  they call it “Crimea Spring”. 

Nuclear Submarines Museum 

We visited many  amazing places in Crimea. In the port town of Balaklava, we visited a museum  which reminded us of the increasing danger of  nuclear war. The first class museum is located in the site where Soviet submarines were repaired, refitted and nuclear missiles installed. The site is a tunnel at sea level under a mountain. The tunnel goes from the open Black Sea to the protected Balaklava harbor.  Under the mountain, the submarines could survive any attack and respond if necessary. When we visited, many school children were also there, learning about the dangers of nuclear war, how and why Russia felt the need to develop their own nuclear capacity. The educational graphics start with the fact that the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, and why Russia must be prepared to defend itself.  Today this site is an educational museum.  We don’t often think about nuclear weapons and the likelihood they could be used if war was to break out between Russia and the US. The museum shows they take this very seriously. Russia’s active nuclear armed submarines are located in Vladivostok and elsewhere.   

Nuclear submarine base under mountain in Balaklava (now a museum).

The Valley of Death

Driving north from Balaklava, we paused at a memorial overlooking a valley that was scene of an important battle in the Crimean war of 1854.  It was immortalized in Alfred Tennyson’s poem
”The Charge of the Light Brigade” where British cavalry charged embedded Russian forces and suffered many losses. The poem says “Into the valley of death rode the six hundred.” A famous photograph taken by one of the first war time photographers shows a barren hillside strewn with cannon balls which mowed down the British attackers.

The great Russian author Leo Tolstoy was a volunteer fighter in the Crimean War, and he himself documented his experiences in battle.  As one Crimean told us in making the point that Crimea has been part of Russia for a very long time, “the Crimean War was a Russian war; it wasn’t a Ukrainian war.”

Today those valleys have grazing sheep and  vineyards with premier wineries comparable to those in Napa Valley, California. Visitors do wine tasting just like in California. The past war and bloodshed seem far away. 

Crimea War “Valley of Death” today.

Sevastopol – A Special City 

Further  north  is Sevastopol,  a thriving city and the base of the Russian Black Sea naval fleet. Sevastopol is known as “the most Soviet City in Russia and the most Russian City in Ukraine,” and even the City Hall continues to bear the hammer and sickle emblem on its gates.

When Ukraine seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991,  Russia negotiated a long term lease for the naval port.  The Russian military has been in this port for 240 years. Along with Russian navy ships, there are locals fishing from the docks. There is a laid back, casual air to the port although the war hit close to home when Russia’s naval ship “Moskva” was sunk early in the conflict. 

Fishing from dock in Sevastopol….. Russian Navy vessels in distance.

Tanya introduced us to former Soviet and Ukrainian Navy captain Sergey.  He described how, when the decision was made to secede from Ukraine in spring 2014, many enlisted sailors and officers chose to be in the Russian rather than Ukrainian navy. Throughout our visit it was emphasized that Crimea has been Russian since 1783 and the large majority of the population have Russian as their native language and consider themselves Russian. 

People in Russia are very conscious of war and fascism.  They call WW2  the Great Patriotic War.  The Soviet Union caused by far the most losses of Axis soldiers. The US, Canada, and other allies supported the war with troops and supplies but it was the Soviet Union that bore the brunt of the war and was the primary cause of victory over Nazi Germany. 

Crimea was a major target of the Nazi Axis and was the scene of some of the bloodiest battles of WW2. Despite stiff resistance the peninsula was temporarily defeated. After 250 days of siege, Sevastopol was captured by the Germans in June 1942. Crimea was retaken by the Soviet Red Army in 1944.  

This history may explain why Crimeans are adamantly opposed to ultra nationalist hate filled rhetoric and why they decisively chose to re-unify with Russia following the overthrow of the elected Ukraine government in February 2014. 

In Sevastopol we visited the Partisan Museum which is a house where anti-fascist Crimeans organized resistance to the Nazi occupation.  The house had a hidden basement where fliers were printed and partisans organized the sabotage campaigns. 

Partisan Museum in Sevastopol.

A few miles south of Sevastopol is the hilltop where Nazi German command was based.  It has been converted into a memorial and during our visit on Saturday prior to May 9 Victory Day, there were educational exhibitions and military displays along with miniature tanks driven by kids in a 50 foot track. 

Yalta

In a palace at Yalta, the leaders of the US, UK and Soviet Union negotiated the spheres of influence in Europe after the defeat of the axis powers. The three countries were allies in WW2 but in just a few years the Cold War emerged. 

Yalta is a thriving tourist city. The palace where Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met is open for visitors.  During our visit, the hotels in Yalta were  near capacity and the promenade and city streets were full of locals and visitors.  Russians who used to travel to West Europe are now travelling about their own huge country and Crimea is especially popular. 

Reflections on Crimea

Crimea is incredibly beautiful and historic. Today, despite occasional sabotage actions, the situation in Crimea is calm and inviting. 

Following Crimea’s secession, Ukraine tried to punish Crimeans by cutting off the electricity supply to the peninsula. They were without power for five months. Next Ukraine blocked the fresh water supply. 

Despite these hostile actions, Crimeans display no hostility to regular Ukrainians. They say, “They are our brothers and sisters.” Ukrainian is a state language in Crimea and Ukrainians are respected.  There are statues honoring Ukrainian writers and artists. Many Ukrainian civilians have come to Crimea to escape the war. 

Sergey says that Crimeans are sad about the conflict in Ukraine but will continue, slowly and patiently, to victory.  

Irina says, “Zelensky will sooner take back the Moon than take back Crimea.” 

———

Dan Kovalik is a human rights attorney and author of seven books.  

Rick Sterling is a journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

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.

***

Eleven months ago a critical education case came before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in North Carolina (Peltier v. Charter Day Sch., Inc., 37 F.4th 104, 116, 4th Cir. 2022). A main issue in the case pertains to the dress code at “Charter Day School” in Leland, North Carolina, specifically, whether the privately-operated but publicly-funded charter school had violated the rights of female students by stipulating what they could and could not wear. The ACLU reports that, “Girls at Charter Day School, together with their parents, challenged the skirts requirement as sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX.”

For general purposes and for the purpose of this case in particular, it is first important to appreciate that, while all non-profit and for-profit charter schools are privately-operated schools, many, including “Charter Day School,” are also owned-operated by a private educational management organization (EMO).[1] This is another layer of privatization, another level of private ownership and control. In this vein, it is important to grasp that the legal framework that applies to private entities differs qualitatively from the legal framework that applies to public entities. Private actors and state actors operate in different legal spheres. The U.S. Constitution, for example, does not apply to the acts of private entities; it applies mainly to acts of government. Indeed, the private-public distinction shapes the laws and institutions of many countries. As a general rule, no public schools in America are operated by an EMO.

It is also legally significant that the parents of the students suing “Charter Day School” voluntarily enrolled their daughters in the privately-operated charter school. No one is forced or compelled to enroll in a charter school in the United States. Nor is the state compelling, encouraging, or coercing “Charter Day School” to adopt any particular dress code or educational philosophy for students.

As a general rule, privatized education arrangements in America (e.g., private Catholic schools that charge tuition) have always been able to adopt the dress code they want without any government interference. It is generally recognized that, as private schools, they can essentially adopt whatever dress code or educational philosophy they wish to enforce, and that parents are under no obligation to enroll their child in a private school if they do not wish to do so. This has been the case for more than a century. It is one of many expressions of the long-standing public-private distinction in law, education, and society.[2]

It is also important to consider that the capital-centered ideologies of choice, individualism, and the free-market encompass the notion of doing something voluntarily, i.e., willingly and freely. It is the reason why charter school promoters repeat the disinformation that charter schools are “schools of choice” (even though charter schools typically choose parents and students more than the other way around).[3] This neoliberal logic is also consistent with the “free market” notion that parents and students are not considered humans or citizens by charter school operators, they are viewed instead as consumers and customers shopping for a “good” school that won’t fail and close, which happens every week in the crisis-prone charter school sector.[4]

Charter schools, to be clear, represent the commodification of education, the privatization and marketization of a modern human responsibility in order to enrich a handful of private interests under the banner of high ideals. For decades, neoliberals and privatizers have painstakingly starved public schools of funds so as to set them up to fail. Then they have mass-tested them with discredited corporate tests to “show” that they are “failing.” This is then followed by a sustained media and political campaign to vilify and demonize public schools so as to create antisocial public opinion against them, which then eventually “justifies” privatizing public education because “privatization will improve education.” Suddenly “innovative” charter schools appear everywhere, especially in large urban settings inhabited by thousands of marginalized low-income minorities.

The typical consequences of privatization in every sector include higher costs, less transparency, reduced quality of service, greater instability, more inefficiency, and loss of public voice. Privatization essentially undermines social progress while further enriching a handful of people driven by profit maximization. To date, whether it is vouchers, so-called “Education Savings Accounts,” or privately-operated charter schools, education privatization (“school-choice”) has not solved any problems, it has only multiplied them.[5]

With this context in mind, let us return to the court case at hand. In a 10-6 vote on June 14, 2022, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, “found that that the dress code [at “Charter Day School”] ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.” Girls at the K-8 charter school, it was concluded, should have the freedom to wear pants and not just skirts because they have “the same constitutional rights as their peers at other public schools – including the freedom to wear pants.”

Marking the first time a federal appeals court has ever done such a thing, the Richmond Court found that “Charter Day School” is a state actor (i.e., it is a public school), which means that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment does apply to the school.

Consistent with numerous other court rulings over the years, however, the lawyer for “Charter Day School,” Aaron Streett, maintained that the Richmond court issued a flawed ruling because the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment does not apply to the charter school because the charter school is a private entity and not a state actor like a public school.

According to legal precedent, as a private actor, “Charter Day School” did not deprive any person of their constitutional rights. This view stems in part from the long-standing premise that charter schools are “independent,” “autonomous,” “innovative” schools under the law, that is, they are deregulated “free market” schools, meaning that they are exempt from most of the laws, rules, policies, and regulations that govern public schools. They do not operate like public schools. They are not so-called “government schools.” They are not arms of the state.[6] They are not connected to state authority in the same way public schools are. They are not governed by elected officials like public schools are. Charter schools operate in their own separate sphere. The fact that many charter schools are also owned or operated by private EMOs only adds an additional wrinkle to the public-private dynamic.

“Charter Day School” is currently appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which may hear the case this summer (2023).

The issue of whether a charter school is a state actor or not is critical because it hits at the core issue about charter schools. This point cannot be overstated. If it is the case that “Charter Day School” is not a state actor, as the lawyer for the privately-operated school argues, then the Virginia court’s ruling represents a form of “harmful government interference” because the 14^thAmendment does not apply to private actors.

Under U.S. law, “state action” is defined as “an action that is either taken directly by the state or bears a sufficient connection to the state to be attributed to it.” Another source states that a state actor is “a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to regulation under the United States Bill of Rights, including the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state governments from violating certain rights and freedoms.”[7]

However, as private actors charter schools are not in fact “acting on behalf of a governmental body.” Private actors are not controlled or directed by the state, at least not in the way agencies and arms of the state are, which means that the actions of privately-operated charter schools cannot be called actions taken directly by the state. State action doctrine holds that government is not responsible for the conduct of a private actor.

Even most of the entities that authorize charter schools are not public or governmental in the proper sense of the word. Many charter school authorizers are operated or governed by unelected private persons. Many of the wealthy individuals who operate or govern such entities are hand-picked by wealthy governors. The public, as a matter of course, is omitted in these arrangements. The public has no meaningful say in any part of this set-up. This is on top of the fact that charter schools themselves are not governed by publicly elected citizens either, whereas public schools are. Unelected private persons governing a deregulated private entity (which may also be owned by another private entity) is not the same as elected public school officials governing a public school that serves no private interests, admits all students at all times, has unionized teachers, can levy taxes, and is accountable only to the public.

Unlike charter schools, regular public schools, which have been around for 180 years and educate 90% of America’s youth, are in fact state actors; they are political subdivisions of the state because they not only carry out a public function but are also explicitly delegated authority by the state to carry out various public responsibilities. “Function” and “authority” are not synonyms; they are different concepts. Carrying out a role is not necessarily the same thing as having power to carry out that role. A role can be carried out by a person or entity that derives its responsibility from a higher political power. Its role can be delegated by a more influential power.

Properly speaking, charter schools are not exercising state prerogatives. Nor do they enter into what may be called a symbiotic relationship with the state. Unlike public schools, they are not state agencies proper, which explains why the state does not coerce, encourage, or compel charter schools to act in the same way it coerces, encourages, or compels public schools to act. The state has more influence and control over public schools than it does over privately-operated “free-market” charter schools. In this neoliberal legal setup, the state is not responsible for the policies and operations of deregulated charter schools; charter schools can do as they please; “no rules;” “laissez-faire;” “hands-off,” “autonomy.”  This usually means no meaningful accountability.

Charter schools are intentionally set up to operate outside the parameters and framework governing public schools. This is what makes them “innovative,” “independent,” and different. It is worth stressing again that, in the case of “Charter Day School,” the state played no direct role in creating, directing, or shaping the dress code being challenged by parents who voluntarily enrolled their children in the school. The charter school’s dress code policy was not therefore an expression of state action.

Unlike public schools, charter schools fall under private law, specifically contract law. Charter, by definition, means contract: a legally-binding agreement between two or more parties to do or not do something in a specified period of time with associated rewards and punishments. For state action doctrine this means that just because a private entity has a contract with the government that does not mean that the actions of private contractors like charter schools can be attributed to the state. Simply “partnering” with the state does not make the conduct of a private entity a form of state action. A private actor does not become public, does not become a state actor, just because it contracts with the state.

The issue of whether a charter school is public or not is often confusing to many because there is relentless disinformation from charter school promoters that charter schools are public schools when in reality they are privatized independent entities. Charter schools remain private, independent, deregulated, segregated entities even though they receive public money, are often called public, and ostensibly provide a service to the public. Interestingly, when asked what they think a charter school is, most people say they are not really sure or they think that charter schools are some sort of private school. The average person rarely thinks charter schools are public schools.

To be sure, charter schools cannot be deemed public just because they are called “public” 50 times a day. Under the law, this is not what makes an entity public. Simply labelling something a specific thing does not automatically make it that thing. In the U.S. legal system, merely labeling private conduct “public” does not make it a form of state action. Moreover, receiving public funds does not spontaneously make an entity public under the law. Thousands of private entities in the U.S. receive public money, for example, but they do not suddenly stop being private entities.[8]

Only narrow private interests benefit from obscuring the distinction between public and private. Public and private mean the opposite of each other. They are antonyms. They should not be confounded.

Public refers to everyone, the common good, all people, transparency, affordability, accessibility, universality, non-rivalry, and inclusiveness. Examples include public parks, public libraries, public roads, public schools, public colleges and universities, public hospitals, public restrooms, public housing, public banks, public events, and more. These places and services are available to everyone, not just a few people. They are integral to a modern civil society that recognizes the role and significance of a public sphere in modern times.

Private, on the other hand, refers to exclusivity, that is, something is private when it is “designed or intended for one’s exclusive use.” Private also means:

-Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others.

-Of or confined to the individual; personal.

-Undertaken on an individual basis.

-Not available for public use, control, or participation.

-Belonging to a particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or the government.

-Of, relating to, or derived from nongovernment sources.

-Conducted and supported primarily by individuals or  groups not affiliated with governmental agencies or corporations.

-Not holding an official or public position.

-Not for public knowledge or disclosure; secret; confidential.

In its essence, private property is the right to exclude others from use of said property; it is the power of exclusion;[9] it is not concerned with transparency, inclusion, the common good, or benefiting everyone. This is why when something is privatized, e.g., a public enterprise, it is no longer available to everyone; it becomes something possessed and controlled by the few. This then ends up harming the public interest; it does not improve efficiency, strengthen services, lower costs, increase accountability, or expand democracy.

Charter schools are labeled “public” mainly for self-serving reasons, specifically to lay claim to public funds that legitimately belong to public schools alone. If charter schools were openly and honestly acknowledged as being private entities they would not be able to place any valid claim to public funds and they would not be able to exist for one day. This presents a contradiction for defenders of charter schools who want to “have it both ways,” that is, be public when it suits them and act private when it serves them. This is the definition of arbitrary and irrational.

To be clear, the relationship between the state and charter schools is not the same as the relationship between the state and public schools. This is one reason why the rights of students, teachers, and parents in charter schools differ from the rights of students, teachers, and parents in public schools. Thus, for example, while the vast majority of public school teachers are unionized, about 90% of charter school teachers are not unionized. Charter schools are notoriously anti-union. They energetically fight efforts by teachers to unionize to defend their rights. Teachers in charter schools are considered “at-will” employees, meaning that they can be fired at any time for any reason. This is not the case in public schools where due process, tenure, and some collective security still exist. Conditions are more humane and more pro-worker in public schools, even when these chronically-underfunded and constantly-vilified schools face one neoliberal assault after another. This is also linked to why many charter schools across the country can legally hire numerous uncertified and unlicensed teachers.

Another profound difference between charter schools and public schools is that the former cannot levy taxes while the latter can. A tax, as is well-known, can only be laid for a public purpose, which means that charter schools do not possess the characteristics of a political subdivision of the state; they are not fully exercising a public function.

Many other legal differences could be listed.

It would be more accurate to say that charter schools resemble traditional private schools far more than they resemble regular public schools, yet they continue to be mislabeled “public schools.”[10] In practice, charter schools are quintessentially private schools. See Outlaw Charter Schools: Can A Charter School Not Be A Charter School? for additional analysis of these themes.

The question of whether a charter school is a state actor or not also has big implications for thousands of other organizations (e.g., hospitals, utility companies, colleges, etc.) across the country because various constitutional provisions typically do not apply to private entities and businesses. This case is therefore of national importance. The public-private distinction at stake in this education case goes beyond the issue of the dress code at “Charter Day School.”

The “Charter Day School” case is currently in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue at stake—the public-private distinction—is so significant that, on January 9, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court asked President Joe Biden’s administration to give their view on the case. The U.S. Supreme Court States that the key issue at stake is: “Whether a private entity that contracts with the state to operate a charter school engages in state action when it formulates a policy without coercion or encouragement by the government.” This move is seen by charter school promoters as a positive sign that the highest court in the land is willing to consider the case.

On May 22, 2023, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar filed a brief responding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s January 9, 2023 request. Prelogar essentially reinforced the 10-6 ruling of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in North Carolina. She urged the U.S. Supreme Court to view “Charter Day School” as a state actor and to decline to hear the school’s appeal.

In the final analysis, with or without a ruling from any court, as privatized, marketized, corporatized arrangements that celebrate consumerism, competition, and individualism, charter schools have no legitimate claim to the public funds, facilities, resources, and authority that belong only to public schools. No court ruling, one way or the other, will change this fact. Claiming that charter schools are public schools for the purpose of laying claim to public wealth that belongs solely to public schools, damages public schools, the public interest, the economy, and the national interest. It does not help low-income minority youth or close the long-standing “achievement gap” rooted in poverty, racism, inequality, and disempowerment.

Charter schools do not raise the level of education or improve society. Thirty plus years of evidence shows that charter schools mainly enrich narrow private interests. Without charter schools, public schools would have tens of billions of additional dollars to pay teachers and improve learning for all students, especially low-income minority students enrolled in urban schools. This would make a huge difference. No charter schools would also mean that thousands of students, teachers, and parents would no longer have to feel angry and abandoned by charter schools that close every week (often abruptly).

Neoliberals have never cared about public schools or the public interest; they are masters of disinformation and self-serving to the extreme. Neoliberals have worked ceaselessly over the last few decades to methodically privatize public education in America under the banner of high ideals while actually lowering the level of education, increasing chaos in education, and enriching a handful of people along the way. The so-called “school choice” political-economic project has little to do with advancing education and improving opportunities for millions of marginalized youth and more to do with profit maximization in the context of a continually failing economy. “School choice” has brought immense suffering to public education and the nation. “School-choice” does not have a human face.

The only sense in which charter schools may be called state actors is that they are neoliberal state actors because they are actively organized by wealthy individuals and groups that control and influence many state positions, levers, institutions, and individuals. In this sense, charter schools are indeed acting on behalf of the neoliberal state and are therefore neoliberal state actors. This is bound to happen in a society where Wall Street and the state become indistinguishable.

About 3.5 million students are currently enrolled in roughly 7,600 charter schools in 45 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

—

Shawgi Tell, PhD, is author of the book “Charter School Report Card.” His main research interests include charter schools, neoliberal education policy, privatization and political economy. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

***

“Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands.”

Anthony Bourdain, A Cook’s Tour (2002)

If a heavy resume of crimes is a guarantee of longevity, then surely Henry A. Kissinger (HAK, for short), must count as a good specimen.  The list of butcheries attributed to his centurion, direct or otherwise, is extensive, his hand in them, finger fat and busy.  There were the murderous meddles in Latin America, the conflicts in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.  (The interventions in Laos and Cambodia are said to have left 350,000 Laotians and 600,000 Cambodians dead.)  Then came the selective turning of blind eyes in Indonesia and Pakistan, and the ruthless sponsorship of coups in Africa.

Regarding the Vietnam War, this pornographer of power’s deviousness, and attempt to inveigle himself into the favours of Richard Nixon, running as presidential candidate in 1968, knew no bounds.  With privileged access as an advisor to the US State Department, he became the conduit for information to Nixon’s campaign to sabotage the Johnson Administration’s efforts to broker an earlier peace with North Vietnam.  This involved convincing South Vietnam that the peace terms they could negotiate would be far more favourable under a Nixon administration.  Peace prospects were scuppered; the war continued, eventually yielding a wretched Nobel Peace Prize for the Doctor in 1973.  The US forces soon withdrew, leaving the impotent South Vietnamese to be overrun by their stronger Northern opponents.

Nixon’s electoral victory in 1968 ushered in an era of ruthless subversion of the international order, and one that bears repeating in these testy times of China ascending and US Imperial anxiety.  Kissinger, working with Nixon, thought that convincing North Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh to return to talks would be helped by targeting North Vietnamese supply routes in Laos and Cambodia.  With stomach-churching cynicism, these bombing operations were given various gastronomic names: Operation Menu; Breakfast Plan.  When the covert bombing program was exposed by the New York Times on May 9, 1969, Kissinger put the wind up FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to not only place a number of journalists under surveillance, but a select number of government officials, including his aides in the National Security Council.  One of the latter, Morton Halperin, would subsequently sue his former boss, Nixon and the Department of Justice for illegal wiretapping of his home and office phones.

In Chile, Nixon and Kissinger poisoned the waters of that country’s politics, destabilising the democratically elected government of socialist President Salvador Allende and paving the way for a bloody coup that installed General Augusto Pinochet.  A mere eight days after Allende’s election in September 1970, Kissinger, in conversation with CIA director Richard Helms emphatically stated that, “We will not let Chile go down the drain.”  Three days later, Nixon, in a meeting including Kissinger, infamously told the CIA to “make the [Chilean] economy scream.”

In November 1970, Kissinger demonstrated an almost callow level of expertise in claiming in a memorandum that Allende’s election “would have an effect on what happens in the rest of Latin America and the developing world; on what our future position will be in the hemisphere; and on the larger world picture”.  To permit democratically elected socialist governments in the Americas along the “Titoist” lines of Allende’s government “would be far more dangerous to us than in Europe”, creating a model whose “effect can be insidious.”

Kissinger’s venality, and complicity as a deskbound suited thug, supply us a bottomless reservoir.  To commemorate the occasion of his hundredth natal day, Nick Turse of The Intercept revealed a number of unreported attacks on Cambodian civilians during the secret war, suggesting that the program has been more expansive, and vicious, than had been previously assumed.  “These attacks were far more intimate and perhaps even more horrific than the violence already attributed to Kissinger’s policies, because the villages were not just bombed, but also strafed by helicopters gunships and burned and looted by US and allied troops.”

The incidents are too numerous to list, leaving us a catalogue of cruelties ghoulish and despairing.  Yet his own accounts do little to shed light on such exploits. The White House Years are barren on his blood-soaked achievements, the doorstop memoirs being a selective account drawing from memos, memcons and telcons that this faux Metternich had generated while in office.  In 1977, in typical fashion, Kissinger made off with over 30,000 pages of daily transcripts of phone conversations he was involved in, documents he deviously called “personal papers”.  In self-reflective glory, he could pilfer, cut and adjust.

Efforts to seek his richly deserved arrest have been made, though all have ended in a legal and practical cul-de-sac.  In January 2015, CODEPINK protesters ventured to make a citizen’s arrest during a US Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.  In the UK, human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell also had a stab in April 2002, seeking a warrant from the Bow Street Magistrates’ Court under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.  The charges asserted that “while he was national security adviser to the US president 1969-1975 and US Secretary of State 1973-1977, [Kissinger] commissioned, aided and abetted and procured war crimes in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia”.

The presiding District Judge Nicholas Evans was not willing to play along, hampered by higher powers.  To proceed, the Attorney-General’s consent was needed.  Lacking that, “there is nothing I can do.”  That’s HAK’s way of operation, an oleaginous Brahmin above others.  Let the likes of Pinochet be nabbed; the backer always makes his getaway.

Best, then, to conclude this natal day salutation to the man by reflecting on the remarks of that most raw yet delicate of culinary (and social) commentators, Anthony Bourdain.  In visiting Cambodia for his Cook’s Tour series, he could only reflect about why such a man was not sharing dock space at The Hague with other war criminals.  “You will never be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking.”  Sadly, for many in the Kissinger cosmos, they continue to do so without so much as flinching.

***

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.

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.

Our thoughts are with the victims of the mRNA vaccine, which has been applied Worldwide. More than 14 billion doses for a World population of 8 billion people  

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, May 28, 2023

***

This may seem like a strange topic for an article, however, enough of these incidents have actually occurred. Family members often go together to get a COVID-19 vaccine and now we are seeing multiple sudden deaths in the same family.

If multiple family members die suddenly following COVID-19 vaccination, the big question is: did they get the same bad vaccine batch or vial?

Here are 11 families that had multiple sudden deaths:

CASE 1 – Halifax, NS – Fully COVID-19 vaccinated Dr. Hesham Lakosha, a physician & ophthalmologist died on April 9, 2023, allegedly from ALS and his ex-wife Latifa Alabdy (age 68) died two weeks later on April 23, 2023.

CASE 2 – Ontario – Kevin Aaron Meehan (age 36) died on March 28, 2023, and his sister Kerri Anne Meehan (age 49) died 3 weeks later on April 17, 2023.

CASE 3 – St.Cloud Florida – Patrick Kelly (age 20) died April 18, 2022 and his mother, a nurse, Francesca Kelly (age 50) died Feb.5, 2023. Mother believed her son died from the COVID-19 vaccine

CASE 4 – 33 year old soccer player Omar Achadoud died suddenly in his sleep, he played a soccer match and had cardiac arrest after, died on Jan.28, 2023, and his father died 3 days later (click here)

CASE 5 – Wailly-Beaucamp, France – 46 year old Frederic Wibaut was found dead in the carpooling area, victim of a heart attack, on Jan.24, 2023. His wife Albane Wibaut, a 44 yo national swimmer died on June 16, 2022 (click here)

CASE 6 – North Tonawanda, NY – 16 year old lacrosse captain Tayler Marie Woolston died in her sleep on Jan.1, 2023. “this is the 2nd death of a young family member in my family in less than a week” (her aunt Barbara Woolston died a few days earlier on Dec.30, 2022)

CASE 7 – Pittsburgh, PA – 25 year old Dr. Lindsay Heck, a pharmacy graduate from UPitt died suddenly on Dec.20, 2022 and her father, Carl Heck (age 63) died 2 weeks later on Jan.15, 2023

CASE 8 – New York, NY – Mother and son both took J&J COVID-19 vaccine in March 2021, son David Malone died June 2021 and mother Karen Malone died April 2022

CASE 9 – Italy – Vaccinated siblings died of cardiac arrest: soccer player Alessandro Campo (age 25) died Sep.1, 2021 and his sister Vittoria Campo (age 23) died Nov.1, 2021 after COVID-19 vaccination (click here)

Case 10 – Eau Claire, WI – 24 yo Sage Rajnar Brost died 3 days after getting COVID-19 vaccine, from pulmonary embolism on April 20, 2021. 8 days later, his partner, Katie Walters (age 22) died suddenly on Apr.28, 2021 (click here)

Case 11 – NSW, Australia – Mother and daughter buried side by side within 7 months of each other.

My Take…

These unusual incidents of multiple sudden deaths of young people in one family, should be extremely rare.

To be clear, I did not search for these 11 cases. They were either sent to me or I stumbled upon them accidentally on social media. That means there are probably many more such situations that we haven’t heard about.

If multiple members of a family took COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and then died suddenly, this situation should be of interest to the medical community for investigation and study.

Are there genetic mutations that are heritable and predispose certain families and their members to sudden death following COVID-19 vaccination? We don’t know and the question is not even being asked.

It’s interesting that these cases are coming to me from regular people, not from doctors. Also, the website howbadismybatch.com which tracks Pfizer & Moderna mRNA vaccine serial numbers with the VAERS system to see how toxic a particular vaccine batch is, in terms of disabilities and deaths, wasn’t created by doctors.

It now has over 111 million visitors.

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 more chip stock jumps 32,% driven by the AI tsunami. This time it is Marvell Technologies. Interestingly, the AI tsunami surprised even IT industry insiders like this company itself:

“In the past, we considered AI to be one of many applications within cloud, but its importance and therefore the opportunity has increased dramatically,” Murphy said. CNBC, May 26, 2023 

Marvell Technologies is specialized in connectivity, data storage, and networking technologies for data centers. It is therefore telling that even Marvell was not kept in the loop about Microsoft’s enormous investments in AI and data centers for AI.

The AI revolution is driven by Microsoft and OpenAI, obviously in coordination with the US government. Microsoft corporate clients, a few top universities, and key suppliers like NVIDIA and AMD have been fully involved in a closed circle – the rest have been kept in the dark.

Even Google seems surprised. Google is now scrambling to even stay in the AI game.

There are three reasons for this.   

1. Just two years ago, nobody, not even OpenAI or Microsoft, knew that a technological breakthrough in AI was so close.  
2. Microsoft wanted to take the lead with a surprise on Google and everybody else in the industry.

The US government wanted to keep China and Russia in the dark for as long as possible. 

The US government has succeeded enormously in this. Just a year ago, China thought they had the AI lead with Wu-Dao 2.0 and that the pace in AI would be slow, gradual, and set by China. China is completely hoodwinked. Russia still doesn’t get it.The US is executing the perfect strategic surprise. Surprises are seldom achievable at the strategic level, but the US pulls it off in AI. All big software developers are working high speed to integrate Microsoft’s AI into their products.

In 2024, AI will be all over work and leisure. And more than 120 enormous new Microsoft data centers will be ready all over the World to run it. We have no total figures. But the investments in AI in hardware and software in the West can easily exceed $ 200 billion or 1% of US GDP per year. And it will penetrate EVERYWHERE. 

In 2025, the social and military effects of this will be profound. By the way, Microsoft is also a key contractor to develop systems for the US Navy and Army. Amazon, another AI participant,  is also a key US security contractor.

Russia and China are still sleeping – and AI is taking off.

When they wake up, it may take even China nearly a decade to catch up. If they ever do.

Before Russia and China get in on the big use of AI everywhere, the US will have realized economic and military advantages beyond imagination.

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 July 17, 2022

Global Research Editor’s Note

Read carefully. Pfizer is committing crimes against humanity, specifically against our children.

The vaccine has resulted in cardiac arrest not in an elderly person but in a two month old baby.

“Why did they not follow up on the 2-month-old baby’s condition, after going into cardiac arrest an hour after receiving an experimental vaccine? Why is there no further information? Is it because he died? Or was the baby removed from an experiment? Why would the author of the report not mention this?”

We call upon the US Department of Justice to undertake a criminal investigation against Pfizer.

We call upon governments worldwide to immediately suspend the mRNA vaccine.

A class action law suit is also required on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the mRNA vaccine.

Never mentioned by the media, Pfizer has a criminal record with the US Department of Justice.

In 2009 Pfizer was indicted on charges of “fraudulent marketing”.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 6, 2022, May 27, 2023

***

First published by globalresearch.ca on July 6, 2022, 

***

An analysis of VAERS reports shows that contrary to the FDA’s briefing document claiming that the majority of adverse events in Pfizers’ clinical trial were non-serious – at least 58 cases of life-threatening side effects in infants under 3 years old who received mRNA vaccines were reported. For some, it is unclear if they survived. It is also unclear why the infants were vaccinated, and whether they were part of the clinical trials. However, in the upcoming FDA meeting on Wednesday, the FDA will not be able to argue it did not know

“Chest pain; cardiac arrest; Skin cold clammy”. This short description of a cardiac arrest, which occurred one hour after receiving a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, is taken from the VAERS system – the US Vaccine Adverse Eve Reporting System ( case number 1015467), and it does not refer to an elderly person, nor to a young adult, or even a teenager. It is hard to believe, but this report refers to a two-month-old baby.

“A 2-month-old male patient received bnt162b2 (PFIZER-BioNTech COVID-19 VACCINE) lot number: EL 739, via an unspecified route of administration on 02 Feb 2021 at single dose for COVID-19 immunisation”, thus stated in the report. “Patient administered vaccination, observed for 15 minutes left the clinic then returned one hour later on 02 Feb 2021, presenting as skin cold, clammy and with chest pain, cardiac arrest event then developed, patient stabilised and transferred for further medical treatment… The outcome of the events was unknown. This case was reported as serious with seriousness criteria-life threatening from HA. No follow-up attempts possible. No further information expected”.

How did a 2-month-old baby receive the mRNA vaccine? These vaccines have not yet received EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) for approved use in children ages five and under by the FDA, or any other regulatory authority, and even if it will, the EUA will only include babies 6 months and older.

Was this baby a participant in Pfizer-BioNTech’s clinical trials, testing efficacy and safety among babies?

The answer is unclear. According to the person who wrote the report “Unsure if patient was enrolled in clinical trial”. However, the author of the report also states that the report was ”received from a contactable Other Health Care Professional by Pfizer from the Regulatory Agency”. This note implies that the infant might have actually participated in Pfizer’s trial. The regulatory agency report Safety Report Unique Identifier GB-MHRA-ADR 24687611 – indicates that the report came from Great Britain (the first 2 letters in the report ID stand for the country of origin, GB- Great Britain, and MHRA indicate that the source of reporting was its’ drug authority).

Why did they not follow up on the 2-month-old baby’s condition, after going into cardiac arrest an hour after receiving an experimental vaccine? Why is there no further information? Is it because he died? Or was the baby removed form an experiment? Why would the author of the report not mention this?

Shockingly, it turns out that this incident is not isolated, but in fact one of many in the VAERS system, describing babies and children under five exposed to mRNA Covid vaccines, who suffered life-threatening adverse reactions.

Even though children under five were not considered eligible for these vaccines unless they were part of a clinical trial, astonishingly, it appears that there are many reports in the system describing babies and toddlers who were vaccinated. Some of the children suffered from life-threatening adverse events. In some cases, it is not clear what happened to them; did they survive and recover, do they still suffer from health problems, or did they die.

In a couple of days, on June 15, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will discuss Moderna and Pfizer’s EUA requests for vaccines for infants and toddlers aged 6 months to 4 years – the only group not yet eligible for COVID-19 vaccination today.

According to the FDA’s briefing document released today ahead of the VRBPA committees’ meeting, there were “245 US reports” to the VAERS system “in children 6 months through 4 years of age”, who were injected (“product administered to patient of inappropriate age” or “off-label use”) or exposed to the vaccine “via breastmilk”.  Nevertheless, both companies announced already in May that their findings indicate that their vaccines are safe and effective.

The VRBPAC Briefing Document lists a variety of adverse events reported following the exposure to the vaccine in this age group, including “pyrexia…, body temperature…, cough, headache, rash, diarrhea”. According to the document, “Among US VAERS reports for individuals aged 6 months through 4 years, which may reflect unauthorized use of the vaccine or may reflect a reporting error, the majority (96.3%) were non-serious”.

While the document specifies safety concerns identified from post-authorization safety surveillance data in VAERS, including anaphylaxis, myocarditis, and pericarditis, it does not relate to these safety concerns identified in the younger age group. Instead, it states: “No unusual frequency, clusters, or other trends for adverse events were identified that would suggest a new safety concern”.

But is that really the case? It seems that regardless of the results, and despite the disturbing and shocking findings that are being exposed from Pfizer’s documents, it is expected that both companies will receive the desired EUA very soon. In fact, the CDC website, already in April, had advertised a protocol regarding children’s vaccination, which included babies 6 month to 4 years as well.

In light of this expected approval, RT Magazine conducted an analysis of the cases reported in the VAERS system referring to babies up to 3 years old.

During the analysis, cases were removed in which it was stated that the exposure to the vaccine was through breastfeeding (these cases were analyzed separately and will soon be presented in a follow-up article), as well as cases that were identified as errors in the age registration.

The analysis shows there were at least 58 cases of severe and life-threatening adverse reactions among babies and toddlers 3 years old and younger. This finding is especially puzzling considering the fact that they weren’t supposed to be vaccinated at this age to begin with. Sadly, similarly to the case reported above, most VAERS reports do not indicate how and under which circumstances they were exposed to the vaccine – were they participants in the companies’ trials? And if not, why and in which circumstances were they vaccinated?

Both companies have not yet released the safety data from their trials on this age group. However, one thing is clear from the VAERS reports: there were many babies who were injured after receiving the vaccine. Whether they were vaccinated in the trials or illegally in their communities, Pfizer and Moderna will defiantly not be able to claim, when presenting their data to the FDA, that the vaccine is safe for babies, and that there weren’t any severe adverse events in this age group. Moreover, the FDA’s committee experts who will discuss the EUA approval will not be able to ignore those cases and argue that they did not know. The data presented in this article demonstrate beyond any doubt the complete opposite, and this time – these data are presented to the public in advance, before the EUA is granted and ahead of the VRBPAC discussion.

The outcome of the events: Did not recover

One of the most chilling reports refers to a 43-day-old female baby, who on January 30, 2021, received Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine. In the incident description (report no. 1133837) it is clearly stated that she was vaccinated and that the vaccine was injected to the muscle: “A 43-days-old female patient received bnt162b2 (COMIRNATY), intramuscular on 30Jan2021 (Lot Number: EK9788) as SINGLE DOSE for COVID-19 immunisation”. Right after the vaccination, the baby suffered a variety of life-threatening multi-system injuries, such as “Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Asthma/bronchospasm (narrow), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Acute central respiratory depression (broad), Pulmonary hypertension (broad), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Eosinophilic pneumonia (broad), Vestibular disorders (broad), Hypersensitivity (broad), Respiratory failure (narrow), Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome (broad)“. Although in the section reporting death the statement states “No”, the section reporting recovery also states “No” – meaning the baby has not recovered. What then happened to her? Is she alive or did she die?

In addition, this report, like many others, raises some difficult questions. How did a 43-day-old baby receive a vaccine not yet approved for use in babies? Furthermore, the current clinical trials conducted are supposed to include babies and children over 6 months. Was this baby a participant in Pfizers’ trial? The report does not answer to this question.

Just like this baby, it turns out that in most of the reported cases several life-threatening side effects were recorded for the same baby. The most common severe adverse events were dangerous hemorrhaging; anaphylactic shock – a life-threatening allergy that can damage the respiratory system and cause dizziness, fainting, and even death; anticholinergic syndrome- a condition that occurs when the receptor sites for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine are blocked, which can lead to coordination problems, increased heart rate, and other symptoms; encephalitis – a brain infection, that can cause headaches, vomiting, loss of consciousness and death; hypoglycemia – very low blood sugar, a condition that can quickly escalate to death in infants; and neuroleptic syndrome – which is also life-threatening , and can damage the heart muscles, other muscles, and the kidneys.

From the summary of the findings of the analysis according to age and gender groups, the following picture emerges:

In the age group of 0-6 months – there are 28 reports, in which 10 are males, 16 are females, and 2 whose gender was not specified.

9 of them (32%) suffered an anticholinergic syndrome, 9 (32%) had an anaphylactic shock, 8 (28.6%) suffered Neuroleptic syndrome, 5 suffered from heart rhythm irregularities, and 5 had hypoglycemia.

In the age group of 6-12 months – in this group, 5 reports were found – 3 males, one female, and one whose gender was not specified. This group is small compared to the other groups. The list of adverse reactions included: anaphylactic shock, anticholinergic syndrome, and Neuroleptic syndrome.

In the age group of one-to-three year old – in this group 25 cases were reported, of which 5 related to males, 19 related to females, and one to a baby whose gender was not specified.

6 of the babies (24%) had an anaphylactic shock, 6 (24%) suffered anticholinergic syndrome, 5 (20%) suffered from Neuroleptic syndrome, 4 (16%) suffered encephalitis, 3 (12%) had irregular heartbeats, one baby was hemorrhaging and one suffered from hypoglycemia.

It should be noted that the adverse events listed above are only some of the ones reported in VAERS with respect to babies. We have chosen to focus only on life-threatening and common adverse events.

Table No. 1: Analysis of reports by age and gender 

Table No. 2: Analysis of reports by adverse events

Are the babies alive?

Similarly to the previous case described, another baby, two months old, also went through anaphylactic shock after being exposed to a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on January 6, 2021, and just like her, according to the report (no. 976433), she suffered from an array of multi-system symptoms. Regarding the method of administering the vaccine, it was stated ”via an unspecified route of administration”, meaning it is not clear in what circumstances the baby was exposed to the vaccine.

Was she part of Pfizers’ clinical trial? Again, it is unclear from the report.

However, the more important question that should be asked, just like in the previous case, is what happened to the baby? Did she survive? Is she alive?

And again, in the section reporting death, it states “No”, meaning the baby did not die. However, in the report description it says, “The patient had not recovered from the event. No follow-up attempts possible. No further information expected”.

It is hard to believe, but this basic question – what happened to a baby after suffering such severe and life-threatening adverse reactions – also arises from other serious cases, such as the case of a 6-month-old baby (report # 2084418) who “received bnt162b2 (COMIRNATY), intramuscular” on December 29, 2021, and went through anaphylactic shock, anticholinergic syndrome, Neuroleptic syndrome, infectious pneumonia, other infections, and multi-system symptoms.

In this case as well, the section reporting death states “No”, meaning supposedly the baby did not die, while in the event description it says “outcome ‘unknown’…  No follow-up attempts are possible. No further information is expected”.

In another case (report no. 1012508) a one-year-old baby who also received a Pfizer vaccine, in January 19, 2021 (this case it is specified that the baby did not take part in a trial) developed a pain in her left ear that escalated to full paralysis, which was diagnosed as Guillain Barre syndrome.  In the case description it was stated that the baby suffered Guillain Barre Syndrome, face paralysis, non-infectious encephalitis, non-infectious meningitis, earaches and hearing disorders. Nonetheless, in the summary of the report, it was written, again, that “No follow-up attempts are possible”.

And another shocking case (report number 1379484) emerges from the report of a baby who was only one month old, who suffered “Vaginal bleeding/ Constant heavy vaginal bleeding with chunks of clot” the following day after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on May 19, 2021.

Although the symptoms the baby suffered from were defined as “serious as medically significant”, in the incident description it is stated that the result is “unknown” and that “No follow-up attempts are possible. No further information is expected”.

As mentioned, in some of the cases it is stated the babies were not part of a clinical trial, while in others it is not clear whether they participated in a clinical trial or were vaccinated in other unknown circumstances. But whether they were part of the trial or not, the report does not explain the absence of this critical information; what happened to these babies? Did they survive? And if so, did they recover? Why was there not a follow-up on the medical condition of babies who suffered from severe and life-threatening adverse events, while it was clearly stated that they did not recover? Is it not required in such severe cases by the FDA that the company should make every effort to locate these babies, find out what their condition is and follow up on them?

“Redness in the injection area: the clinical trial protocol does not mention severe adverse reactions”

The press release issued in February 11, 2022, in which Pfizer-BioNTech announced that they intend to apply to the FDA for approval for infants from 6 months to 4 years of age, the safety findings from the company’s clinical trials in babies and toddlers at these ages are not mentioned, not even in a word. The information brochure regarding the clinical trials testing the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine in adults, children and babies, on the FDA website, clearly states “No Study Results Posted on ClinicalTrials.gov for this Study”.  And as noted above, the newly released The VRBPAC Briefing Document only lists a handful of non-serious adverse events reported in this age group, including, and concludes that there is nothing that would suggest a new safety concern. How could the FDA not know about so many serious adverse events that were reported to the CDC’s reporting systems? Alternatively, if they do know about them – why are they ignoring them?

How were adverse events in babies tested than in the clinical trials? In an attempt to answer this critical question, intended to address the safety issues and to assure parents that the vaccine is safe for babies, we examined the study protocol found on the FDA clinical trial website.

It appears that no potential severe adverse events were listed. The list of potential adverse events that the study was supposed to evaluate according to the protocol (“outcome measure”) did include both local and systemic reactions. However, these are relatively non-serious adverse events.

The list of local adverse events that the trial was supposed to monitor includes: “Pain or tenderness at the injection site, redness and swelling”, and the systematic reactions included ”Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, new or worsened joint pain, decreased appetite, drowsiness, and irritability”. Moreover, although the study is scheduled to end only on June 14, 2024, the time frame set for examining adverse events is limited to seven days after each of the doses – the first and the second dose.

The vaccine is ineffective in infants. The solution: lower the efficiency threshold and add a third dose

In addition to the substantial concerns regarding the vaccines’ safety for babies, their efficacy in this age group is questionable by and large. According to the available data, healthy children are at almost zero risk for severe illness, hospitalization, or death due to COVID-19.

Hospitalization due to COVID-19 is very rare among children, and death cases are even rarer. In Germany, for instance, a large study found that not even one child died of COVID-19 among 5-11 age group without pre-existing conditions. Under these circumstances, even one case of a serious adverse event, let alone death, is crucial and outweighs any possible benefit of the vaccine.

Not surprisingly, Pfizer clinical trials in babies under 4 proved that 2 vaccine doses do not increase their antibody count significantly. The FDA commissioner, Dr. Janet Woodcock, admitted in an interview in early April 2022 that “The antibodies that were developed were not as high, so they didn’t have the same antibody response to the two-shot series in the older kids.  It wasn’t as high as what we would have hoped for the younger as it was for the older kids”.  According to Woodcock, this is why Pfizer, which planned to apply for EUA approval for babies in February, postponed the submittal date and decided to add a third dose to the trial and wait for the findings after all babies got their third dose.

Furthermore, in a statement given on May 11, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research at the FDA, announced that infant and toddler vaccines will not need to pass the 50% efficacy rate against Covid. A 50% efficacy rate is the threshold adult vaccines need to pass. However, Marks explains that despite the previous guidelines, the FDA will not deny companies now approval for babies and toddlers just because it did not reach the 50% efficacy in preventing symptomatic infections.

Pfizer issued a press release on May 23 announcing that “Vaccine efficacy of 80.3% was observed in descriptive analysis of three doses during a time when Omicron was the predominant variant”. According to the press release, “The study suggests that a low 3-ug dose of our vaccine…, provides young children with a high level of protection against the recent COVID-19 strains”.

Yet, the FDA’s briefing document reveals that the claim for a “high level of protection” is based on a total of 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19 identified in the trial, that occurred at least 7 days postDose 3. Three of them occurred among participants 6-23 months of age (which included 555 participants – 376 in the vaccine group and 179 in the placebo group) – with 1 case in the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine group and two in the placebo group. Seven other cases occurred among participants 2-4 years of age (which included 860 participants – 589 in the vaccine group and 271 in the placebo group) – with 2 cases in the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine group, compared to 5 in the placebo group. Nevertheless, the vaccine’s efficacy was framed by the FDA as 80,4%, and the document concludes that “Available data support the effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine 3-dose primary series (3 µg each dose) in preventing COVID-19 in the age group of 6 months through 4 years”. In addition, the document states that “Among infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age, rates of hospitalization and death due to COVID-19 are higher than among children and adolescents 5-17 years of age, and comparable to individuals 18-25 years of age, underscoring the benefit of an effective COVID19 vaccine in this age group”.

 How ethical is it to give a baby a vaccine for a disease that the chances of getting severely ill or dying from it is almost zero, while the benefits of the treatment are unclear and, and life-threatening adverse reactions are very significant?

This question was the topic of an article published in March this year in Bioethics. The researchers stated that not even one of the main claims argued to justify approval for babies is valid. According to them, the benefits of the vaccine for healthy children are minimal, and therefore, even though complications are rare, they outweigh the vaccine’s benefits, especially since it is highly unclear what the short and long-term risks are, and the experience with the vaccine is very short. The altruistic claim of protecting the environment is also very problematic, since as a vaccine exists, the groups at risk can defend themselves, and it was proven already that children are not the main transmitters of the virus.

Congress members demand answers

This ethical issue has been raised in recent days by 18 members of Congress in a letter issued to the FDA on June 7, demanding answers before the authority’s decision to grant an emergency permit for the infant vaccine. Members of Congress demanded to know why COVID-19 vaccines are necessary for this age group in light of the fact that the disease poses a very small risk to infants and young children, that vaccines have little efficacy, and that there are many unanswered questions regarding these vaccines’ safety and adverse events.

The letter presents 19 questions to the FDA, including, among others – why did the FDA delay the publication of the hundreds of thousands of data pages from the manufacturers’ studies, the state of adverse events, and when can all FDA data be expected to be made public? The FDA was also asked to provide the public with more details regarding children who were severely injured or died from COVID-19, and how many children in general became seriously ill. Legislators also addressed the issue of cardiac risks in giving the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to children, noting that following vaccinations given to large numbers of children aged 5-18, an increase in myocarditis and pericarditis was observed, with some cases ending in death, and the long-term effects of heart-related inflammation not yet quantified by health authorities. What’s more, lawmakers demanded to know why the FDA lowered the threshold of efficacy for the vaccines specifically for infants and youngest children, thus actually allowing companies to apply for EUA without any justification.

The FDA will not be able to argue it did not know

As stated, the data emerging from the analysis presented in this article demonstrate beyond any doubt that the vaccine is not safe for babies and toddlers. Whether these children were part of the study or not – these reports have been in the VAERS system for many months, so there is no chance that the FDA does not know them. Unfortunately, the fact that the FDA was aware of at least some of the serious adverse events, including increased risk of morbidity in the first days after vaccination, myocarditis, and increased risk of miscarriage and fetal malformations, and yet approved the vaccine for teens, children, and pregnant women, was later revealed too late – long after the EUA was granted to Pfizer and Moderna, when many have already been harmed. It only became clear thanks to FOIA (Freedom of Information) requests submitted to the FDA and other health authorities, and only after the FDA was forced by the court to disclose the documents. This time, the VAERS data presented here makes it possible to reveal this fact even before the approval. The FDA will not be able to claim that it did not know.

*

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 Real Time Magazine

First published on March 23, 2023

We are currently at the crossroads of the Most Serious Economic and Social Crisis in World History.  It is an outright war against all humanity: the Planet’s 8 billion people. 

Starting with the corona crisis in late January 2020, the global crisis (2020-2023) –which is ongoing– has literally disrupted and destroyed people’s lives Worldwide in the course of the last three years.

The scale and complexity of the 2020-2023 Global Economic and Social Crisis far surpasses all previous “depressions” including the 2007-2009 Recession which was categorized as the most serious economic meltdown since the Great Depression of 1929. 

Everything is interrelated starting with the Covid pandemic, the mRNA vaccine, the powers of Big Pharma, global governance, corrupt governments, the destabilization of the Nation State, the war in Ukraine, media disinformation, the demise of international diplomacy, the threat of nuclear war.

There are many complex features underlying the global economic crisis pertaining to financial markets, the decline in production, the collapse of State institutions and the rapid development of a profit-driven war economy.

The sugar coated bullets of the “free market” are killing our children. The act to kill is instrumented in a detached fashion through engineered derivative trade on the New York and Chicago mercantile exchanges, where the global prices of basic food staples including rice, wheat and corn are decided upon. 

“Institutional speculators” including hedge funds are involved in the deliberate manipulation of equity and currency markets.

Poverty is not solely the result of policy failures at a national level. People in different countries are being impoverished simultaneously as a result of a global market mechanism. A small number of  financial institutions and global corporations have the ability to determine, through market manipulation, the standard of living of millions of people around the World. 

What is rarely mentioned is how this global economic restructuring forcibly impinges on three fundamental necessities of life: food, water and fuel. 

Access to Food, Water and Energy pertains to the “Reproduction of Real Life” which is the very basis of  human civilization.

“Reproduction of Real Life” is not limited to “Basic Human Needs” (e.g. privatization of water, reproduction of the agricultural cycle). It also pertains to the concurrent reproduction of the institutions of civil society including schools and universities, science, knowledge, social and family relations, the structures of the nation state, justice, culture, history, international relations, all of which are currently in jeopardy. 

VIDEO: Michel Chossudovsky Interview with Caroline Mailloux

 

 

To leave a comment click “rumble” on the lower right corner of the screen

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

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

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

***

The U.S. Supreme Court this week decided against hearing a lawsuit against Apple that sought to determine whether the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) radiofrequency (RF) radiation guidelines preempt state safety and health laws.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit — nearly 30 iPhone users — allege that Apple’s iPhone emitted RF radiation that regularly exceeded the federal exposure limit and that Apple violated California state health and safety laws by failing to warn consumers about the health and safety risks of holding the device close to the body.

The plaintiffs on Jan. 23 filed a petition for a writ of certiorari — or “cert” request — asking the Supreme Court to hear the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled on Aug. 26, 2022, that the plaintiffs’ claims were invalid because the FCC’s federal guidance “impliedly preempted” state health and safety law.

Commenting on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, W. Scott McCollough, Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) lead litigator for electromagnetic radiation cases, said the Supreme Court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ request was “disappointing” but there is “still hope” that the question of federal preemption of state health and safety law will be addressed.

McCollough — who in March co-authored an amicus brief submitted by CHD and eight nonprofitsin support of the plaintiffs’ request — said, “We wish the court would’ve taken it up, but it’s not over. There will be another chance.”

McCollough told The Defender there is still a “significant circuit split” — meaning that different U.S. Circuit courts have rendered differing decisions — on the issue of whether FCC guidelines on human exposure limits on RF radiation preempt state health and safety law and “typically that is something the [Supreme] Court will resolve at some time.”

An amicus brief is filed by non-parties to litigation to provide information that has bearing on the issues and to assist the court in reaching the correct decision. It comes from the Latin words amicus curiae, which means “friend of the court.”

‘If we can ever get the FCC to change the rules, then we don’t have to worry about state court law’

The Supreme Court’s decision is a blow to individuals in the Western U.S. seeking to sue telecommunication companies under state laws because it means the 9th Circuit’s August ruling remains unchallenged and “will probably be precedent-setting in the 9th Circuit,” said McCollough, who is a former Texas assistant attorney general and telecom and administrative law attorney.

“So there is now in the 9th Circuit no ability to obtain any kind of state law — and specifically tort— remedies,” McCollough added.

The 9th Circuit is the largest judicial circuit in the U.S. and covers California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

However, there are “other potential remedies,” McCollough said.

For instance, there are “other available remedies under federal statutes — and an FCC regulation cannot preempt a federal statute” established by Congress so “there can be no preemption question.”

“We might have what we call a ‘conflict of laws’ question [in which] you have two statutes that don’t fit well together,” McCollough said.

In that situation, the federal statute established by Congress “should take priority” over the FCC guidelines “but that’s not fully determinative,” he added.

There are “many reasons” why the Supreme Court may choose to not hear a case “even if they are interested” in the issue at hand, McCollough told The Defender.

For instance, the Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 requests per annual term to hear cases and only hears arguments in about 80 cases.

Additionally, the court may have thought the case was not a “good vehicle” for addressing the question of federal preemption, said McCollough.

McCollough pointed out that by the time the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Apple had reached the 9th Circuit, they had dropped all personal injury claims and narrowed their case to focus on how Apple had failed to disclose the health risks of its devices.

McCollough said it’s possible the Supreme Court wanted to wait until it had a case seeking state law remedies for actual personal injuries rather than a claimed failure to disclose potential risks.

Finally, what the Supreme Court’s decision “really does,” McCollough said, “is make ever more important the win we [CHD] had in 2021, in the District of Columbia Circuit where that court told the FCC to re-evaluate the [RF emission] rules — the very rules whose operation were held to be preemptive.”

“If we can ever get the FCC to change the rules, then we don’t have to worry about state court law,” McCollough said.

Last month CHD petitioned the FCC to “quit stalling” and comply with the court-ordered mandate to review and explain how the agency determined its current guidelines adequately protect humans and the environment against the harmful effects of exposure to RF radiation.

The FCC’s chairwoman on May 11 sent a letter to the chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in which she said she “promises that the commission will be taking up revision of their NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] rules — which includes its RF radiation exposure guidelines — as soon as the CEQ [Council of Environmental Quality] gets finished with its rulemaking.”

According to McCollough, the CEQ has already set forth rules requiring the FCC to act.

“There are already existing CEQ rules which require them [the FCC] to act and they’re forgetting this,” he said.

Nonetheless, the FCC’s letter is significant because it indicates that “at some point” they are going to do something. “That’s the first time they’ve ever said that,” McCollough added.

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.

*** 

If the Conservatives are hoping to get re-elected next year they may have to rethink their policy of banning the sale of new petrol- or diesel-powered cars by 2030. Electric cars are proving to be an unmitigated disaster. Indeed, scarcely a day passes without a story appearing in the Telegraph about just how terrible they are – and not just if you want to get from A to B.

For instance, we learnt last week that some electric cars are losing their value twice as quickly as petrol alternatives.

Drivers have been pushed towards electric cars by a string of government initiatives, which are intended to help the country become “net zero” by 2050. However, drivers going green risk losing thousands of pounds more than those who stick with petrol.

Some popular electric models have fallen in price at twice the rate of petrol cars. A driver who bought an electric BMW i3 in 2020 would have paid £39,000 and could sell the car for £13,900 today, a depreciation of 64%.

However, the petrol equivalent has maintained much more of its original value. A new petrol-powered BMW 3 series cost £32,000 on average three years ago but would sell for £22,360 now – a drop of just 30%.

Yesterday brought more bad news.

First, we discovered that thousands of free electric car chargers have been pulled from Britain’s roads over the past year as soaring energy costs makes them unaffordable.

The number of chargers offering free electricity has fallen from 5,715 a year ago to 3,568, a drop of almost 40%.

They now make up less than one in 10 public chargers on Britain’s roads, compared to one in five a year ago.

The drop in free top-up charging spots is the latest blow to the Government’s ambitions to attract motorists to electric cars by making it cheap and convenient to charge them away from home.

Then we learnt that because electric cars can weigh 33% more than wet cars, much of our basic transport infrastructure – such as multi-story car parks and bridges – may well collapse under their additional weight.

Last month, car park experts raised concerns about the ability of some ageing car parks ability to handle the weight as the number of electric vehicles grew.

Russell Simmons, chair of the British Parking Association’s structures group, told The Telegraph that he had carried out inspections of multi-storey car parks in the UK over the last six months which would not have been able to withstand new EV weights.

Electric vehicles are generally heavier than petrol counterparts because of the weight of their batteries, which can weigh around 500kg.

Earlier this year, Jennifer Homendy, the chair of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, found that the best-selling EVs in the U.S. were on average 33% heavier than petrol counterparts.

To summarise, electric car owners have discovered in the past week alone that their cars may lose their value twice as quickly as non-electric vehicles, that free charging points are rapidly disappearing from our roads and if they park their Tesla in a multi-story carpark it might well collapse. Who knew virtue-signalling would prove to be so costly?

You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

*

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 TDS

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

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

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

***

Last Saturday the Washington Post published an exposé of classified American intelligence documents showing that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, working behind the back of the Biden White House, pushed hard earlier this year for an expanded series of missile attacks inside Russia. The documents were part of a large cache of classified materials posted online by an Air Force enlisted man now in custody. A senior official of the Biden administration, asked by the Post for comment on the newly revealed intelligence, said that Zelensky has never violated his pledge never to use American weapons to strike inside Russia. In the view of the White House, Zelensky can do no wrong.

Zelensky’s desire to take the war to Russia may not be clear to the president and senior foreign policy aides in the White House, but it is to those in the American intelligence community who have found it difficult to get their intelligence and their assessments a hearing in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, the slaughter in the city of Bakhmut continues. It is similar in idiocy, if not in numbers, to the slaughter in Verdun and the Somme during World War I. The men in charge of today’s war—in Moscow, Kiev, and Washington—have shown no interest even in temporary ceasefire talks that could serve as a prelude to something permanent. The talk now is only about the possibilities of a late spring or summer offensive by either party.

But something else is cooking, as some in the American intelligence community know and have reported in secret, at the instigation of government officials at various levels in Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Republic, and Latvia. These countries are all allies of Ukraine and declared enemies of Vladimir Putin.

This group is led by Poland, whose leadership no longer fears the Russian army because its performance in Ukraine has left the glow of its success at Stalingrad during the Second World War in tatters. It has been quietly urging Zelensky to find a way to end the war—even by resigning himself, if necessary—and to allow the process of rebuilding his nation to get under way. Zelensky is not budging, according to intercepts and other data known inside the Central Intelligence Agency, but he is beginning to lose the private support of his neighbors.

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

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

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

***

Israel’s recent bombing of the Gaza Strip from May 9–13 killed 33 Palestinians, including seven children. FAIR looked at coverage of these attacks from the Washington Post, New York Times and CNN, and didn’t find a single reference to Israel as an apartheid state, despite this being the consensus in the human rights community.

Since apartheid is the overriding condition that leads to Israel’s violent outbursts, and since the US has vigorously supported Israel for the last 60 years, US media should be putting it front and center in their coverage.  Omitting it allows Israel to continue to portray any violence from Palestinians as a result of senseless hostility, rather than emerging from the conditions imposed by Israel. For audiences, that distortion serves to justify Israel’s attacks on civilians and continued collective punishment of all Palestinians.

The term apartheid originated with the South African system of systematic racial segregation, which was not unlike Jim Crow in the United States. Apartheid is considered a crime against humanity—defined in the UN’s Apartheid Convention as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”

The term has been increasingly applied to the Israeli apparatus of checkpoints, segregation, surveillance, arbitrary detentions and extrajudicial murders that it uses to oppress Palestinians. In particular, the exclusion of most Palestinians under Israeli control from participation in Israeli politics, under the pretense that Palestinian areas either are or someday will be independent, mirrors the disenfranchisement of Black South Africans through the creation of fictitious countries known as bantustans.

Human Rights Watch published a report in 2021 titled A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution. That same year, the leading Israeli human rights organization, B’Tselem, labeled Israel’s rule “a regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.” Amnesty International published a major report in 2022 on “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians.”

After the biggest, most respected human rights organizations labeled Israel an apartheid state, much of the US political establishment erupted in bipartisan indignation in defense of Israel. The New York Times actually refused to even mention the Amnesty International report for 52 days (Mondoweiss, 3/24/22).

‘Trading fire’

 

Gaza, the Palestinian enclave between Israel and the Mediterranean, is arguably the most abused territory under the apartheid regime. Most of the water in the enclave fails to meet international standards, and was even called “undrinkable” by the United Nations. The illegal blockade regularly prevents important medicine and other supplies from being widely available in the country.

Regular Israeli military attacks on the Gaza Strip are a key part of the repression, killing unarmed civilians, destroying neighborhoods, schools and hospitals—most notably in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021. These periodic attacks on the Palestinians, often crassly referred to as “mowing the grass,” have killed 5,460 Palestinians since 2007. International observers have often referred to Gaza as an “open-air prison,” with 2 million people being crammed into 146 square miles.

The recent Gaza coverage fails to capture this context, and instead portrays the situation as a conflict between equals. The Washington Post (5/12/23) described it as a “face off” when (at that point) 30 Palestinians, including six children, were killed by Israeli airstrikes, along with one Israeli killed by Palestinian rocket fire; a New York Times article (5/11/23) described the conflict as Israel and Islamic Jihad “trad[ing] fire.”  Another New York Times (5/12/23) headline vaguely referred to the attack as “A New Round of Middle East Fighting.”

CNN (4/12/23) used the classic whitewashing word “clash” in describing the attacks. CNN’s use of the term was even more striking because it appeared in a headline that included the incongruity between 30 dead Palestinians and one dead Israeli.

Outlets gave several “how we got here” pieces that purported to give context for the current escalation (e.g., New York Times, 5/9/23; Washington Post, 5/13/23). Again, not a single article FAIR reviewed used the term “apartheid” or referenced the recent findings from human rights NGOs to describe the current situation in Palestine.

‘Consequences of territorial ambitions’ 

UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese (Guardian, 5/12/23): Israel “cannot justify the occupation in the name of self-defense, or the horror it imposes on the Palestinians in the name of self-defense.”

On a recent trip to London, Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur for human rights in the Occupied Territories, criticized the the tendency to omit important context and trends in the discussions about Israel (Guardian, 5/12/23):

“For me, apartheid is a symptom and a consequence of the territorial ambitions Israel has for the land of what remains of an encircled Palestine…. Israel is a colonial power maintaining the occupation in order to get as much land as possible for Jewish-only people. And this is what leads to the numerous violations of international law.”

Member states need to stop commenting on violations here or there, or escalation of violence, since violence in the occupied Palestinian territory is cyclical, it is not something that accidentally explodes. There is only one way to fix it, and that is to make sure that Israel complies with international law.

The dominant and overriding context of anything that happens in Israel/Palestine is the fact that the state of Israel is running an apartheid regime in the entirety of the territory it controls.  Any obfuscation or equivocation of that fact serves only to downplay the severity of Israeli crimes and the US complicity in them.

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

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

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

***

The G7 Leaders’ 2700-word statement on Ukraine, issued in Hiroshima after their summit meeting glossed over the burning question today — the so-called counter-offensive against the Russian forces.

It is a deafening silence, since rumours are swirling about the disappearance of the commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces. Significantly, President Vladimir Zelensky himself is making himself scarce from Kiev touring world capitals — Helsinki, Hague, Rome, Vatican, Berlin, Paris, London and Jeddah and Hiroshima. It does seem that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

As the G7 summit ended, the head of the Wagner PMC, Yevgeny Prigozhin announced on Saturday that the Russian operation to capture the strategic communication hub of Bakhmut in Donbass region of eastern Ukraine lasting 224 days, has been brought to a successful completion, overcoming the resistance by more than 80,000 Ukrainian troops. 

It is a painful moment for Zelensky, who had boasted before US lawmakers in Capitol Hill last December that “just like the Battle of Saratoga (in 1777 during the American Revolutionary War), the fight for Bakhmut will change the trajectory of our war for independence and for freedom.” 

Meanwhile, to distract attention, there is talk now about a subtle shift in the US policy regarding supply of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine in an indeterminate future. In reality, though, no one can tell what the Ukrainian rump state will look like when the jets arrive.  Unsurprisingly, the Biden Administration still seems to be in two minds. F-16 is a hot item for export; what happens if the Russians were to blow it out of the sky with their hi-tech weapons and rubbish its fame ? 

The Russians seem to have concluded that nothing short of a total victory will make the Americans and the British understand that Moscow means business on the three objectives behind the special military operations that are non-negotiable: security and safety of the ethnic Russian community and their right to live in peace and dignity in the new territories; demilitarisation and de-Nazification of Ukraine; and a neutral, sovereign, independent Ukraine freed from the US clutches and no longer a hostile neighbour. 

To be sure, the unprecedented levels of US hostility towards Russia only hardened Moscow’s resolve. If the Anglo-Saxon alliance keeps climbing the escalation ladder, the Russian campaign may well expand the operation to the entire region east of the Dnieper River. The Russians are in this war for the long haul and the ball is in the  American court.

What comes to mind is a speech last July by President Vladimir Putin while addressing the Duma. He had said, 

“Today we hear that they want to defeat us on the battlefield. Well, what can I say? Let them try. We have already heard a lot about the West wanting to fight us ‘to the last Ukrainian.’ This is a tragedy for the Ukrainian people, but that seems to be where it is going. But everyone should know that, by and large, we have not started anything in earnest yet.” 

Well, the Russian operation has finally started “in earnest.” The thinking behind the delay is unmistakeable. Putin underscored in his speech that the West should know that the longer Russia’s special military operation goes on, “the harder it will be for them to negotiate with us.”  

Therefore, the big question is about the Ukrainian counteroffensive. The Russian forces enjoy overwhelming superiority in every sense militarily. Even if the hard core of the Ukrainian forces who were trained in the West, numbering some 30-35000 soldiers, manage to achieve some “breakthrough” in the 950-kilometre long frontline, what happens thereafter? 

Make no mistake, a massive Russian counterattack will follow and the Ukrainian soldiers may only end up in a fire trap and suffer huge losses in their tens of thousands. What would the Anglo-Saxon axis have achieved? 

Besides, the Ukrainian military will have so thoroughly exhausted itself that there will be nothing stopping the Russian forces from advancing toward Kharkov and Odessa. Herein lies the paradox. For, from that point, Russians will have no one to talk to. 

If past American behaviour — be it Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq and Syria — is anything to go by, Washington will do nothing. The well-known American strategic thinker Col. (Retd.) David MacGreggor couldn’t have put things better when he said earlier this week: 

“I can tell you that Washington is going to do nothing. And I’ve always warned… we (United States) are not a continental power, not a land power anywhere but in our own Hemisphere. We are primarily an aerospace and maritime power, much like Great Britain. And what does that mean? When things go badly for us, we sail away, we fly away, we go home… That’s what we always do. Eventually, we just leave. And I think, that’s on the agenda now.” 

The stony silence of the G7 statement on the Ukrainian counteroffensive is understandable. The G7 statement needs to be juxtaposed with a report appearing in Politico on the eve of the summit in Hiroshima which, quoting senior US officials elaborated on an audacious plan to transform Ukraine war into a “frozen conflict” on the analogy of the Korean Peninsula or Kashmir. 

A Pentagon official told the daily that recent military aid packages to Ukraine reflect the Biden administration’s “shift to a longer-term strategy.” Reportedly, US officials are already talking to Kiev about the nature of their relationship in the future. 

Principally, if Ukraine’s NATO membership bid stalls, western guarantees could range from a NATO-style Article 5 mutual defence deal to Israel-style arms deals with Ukraine so that “the conflict will wind up somewhere in between an active war and a chilled standoff.”

Indeed, the G7 statement began conceptualising the “Europeanisation” of Ukraine with reforms, market economy driven by private sector and western financial institutions, and boosting Kiev’s deterrent capability vis-a-vis Russia militarily. 

It is quite amazing. Hardly has one flawed narrative — espousing Russia’s military defeat in Ukraine and the overthrow of Putin — unravelled, another narrative is being hoisted, predicated on the simplistic notion that Russia will simply roll over and passively watch the US integrating Ukraine into the western alliance system to create an open wound festering on Russia’s western borders that will drain resources for decades to come and complicating ties with neighbours.

However, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s reaction to the G7 Summit confirms that Moscow will not fall into the trap of a “frozen conflict.” Lavrov said, “Could you take a look at those decisions which are being debated and adopted at the G7 summit in Hiroshima and which are aimed at dual containment of Russia and the People’s Republic of China?

“The objective was announced loudly and frankly, which is to defeat Russia on the battlefield, and without stopping at this, to eliminate it later as a geopolitical rival, so to speak, along with any other country that claims an independent place in the world, they will be suppressed as opponents.”

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

The phenomenon of SADS – “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” is a brand new phenomenon since COVID-19 mRNA vaccines rolled out in the general population starting in December 2020.

 Perfectly healthy, young COVID-19 vaccinated people go to sleep and never wake up. There is no struggle. They die “peacefully” and their families, who never had any warning signs, are left in utter shock and horror.

 

Here are 13 such cases of young people dying in their sleep in 2023:

New York, NY – 35 year old photographer & model Vincent Vega died suddenly in his sleep on May 22, 2023.

Iowa City, IA – 34 year old high school teacher Amylia Yeaman died suddenly in her sleep on May 20/21, 2023. She was fully COVID-19 vaccinated and boosted.

Markham, ON – 21 year old Jonathan Scarth died unexpectedly & suddenly in his sleep on May 13, 2023.

New York, NY – 29 year old Robert Little died in his sleep on May 6, 2023. Robert was a fire performer and graduated from Florida College of Natural Health.

Solon, OH – 40 year old high school teacher Crystal Kennedy Cespedes died suddenly in her sleep on April 27, 2023.

Australia – 15 year old Balin Menzies died suddenly in his sleep on April 21, 2023. (click here)

Milwaukee, WI – 19 year old Marquette University Student Kamrin Ray was found dead in residence by his roommate on April 17, 2023 “First responders found him unresponsive around 9:30pm, on the bed”

34 year old fully vaccinated Saskatchewan healthcare worker Quinn Torgunrud died suddenly in her sleep on April 12, 2023, she celebrated her birthday 2 weeks prior

Airdrie, AB – 25 year old Wyatt Allen Vezina Topolnicky, a former Calgary Police Cadet and hockey player, who was fully vaccinated and boosted, died suddenly in his sleep on March 26, 2023.

Aberdeen, Scotland – 35 year old Samantha Gilbert died suddenly in her sleep on Feb.13, 2023. (click here)

22 year old University of Cincinnati media production student Carolyn Frey died suddenly in her sleep on Jan.24, 2023 from pulmonary embolism.

Gahanna, OH – 20 year old Columbus Academy Tennis player Jack Madison died suddenly in his sleep on Jan.2, 2023. (click here)

North Tonawanda, NY – 16 year old lacrosse captain Tayler Marie Woolston died in her sleep on Jan.1, 2023. (click here)

My Take…

SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome) didn’t really exist before COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were forced on the entire population.

There was a related phenomenon called Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome which was extremely rare and was caused by congenital anomalies that predisposed young people to sudden cardiac death.

A UK study showed these sudden deaths occurred at a rate of 1.6 deaths per million population per year, with a mean age of 32 years old (click here)

53% of SADS had an inherited heart disease, usually an arrhythmia. (click here)

30% of SADS families had a history of additional unexplained premature sudden deaths (click here)

In the cases presented here, young healthy people are dying in their sleep very likely due to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine induced myocarditis which, in the presence of a surge of stress hormones during times such as the early morning hours when the body is waking up, can cause sudden cardiac arrhythmias which are often fatal.

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

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

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

***

The G7 has recently wound up its meeting in Hiroshima, and the participants joined to affirm their fear of the Threat of China. British media reported that prime minister Rishi Sunak said:

“China poses the biggest challenge to global security and prosperity of our age with the ‘means and intent to reshape the world order’.”

The global septet spoke of “de-risking” rather than “de-coupling” from China.

This was prudent because decoupling from the world’s leading manufacturing base would risk plunging all economies into recession. China leads the world in so many facets of production, particularly high technology: high-speed rail, rocket technology, their own space station, lunar and Martian probes and rovers, quantum computing, AI, robotics, bridge building, tunnel construction, chip production, hypersonic missiles, laser weapons, military armaments, nuclear technology, and on and on. Could it be that the Chinese economy is not as sturdy as it seems to be?

I asked Wei Ling Chua, the author of Democracy: What the West can learn from China and Tiananmen Square “Massacre”? The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence, his forecast for the Chinese economy.

Kim Petersen: In a recent article, “Why China Can’t Pull the World Out of a New Great Depression,” strategic risk consultant F. William Engdahl writes, “… in real physical economic production, China has left the USA and everyone else in the dust. Therefore, the future course of industrial production in China is vital to the future of the world economy.”

He writes that steel production is “the single best indicator of a growing real economy” for which China crushes the competition. China leads in coal production, rare earth mining and processing, motor vehicle production, as supplier of essential cement for construction, aluminum production, and copper consumption. Engdahl adds, “The list goes on.”

Then Engdahl identifies a problem: “A huge problem with China’s economic model over the past two decades has been the fact that it has been a debt-based finance model massively concentrated on real estate speculation beyond what the economy can digest.” He points at the inflated housing market, rising unemployment, the dubiousness of official figures for total state debt, and the lack of transparency for financial information.

It is expected that there would be bumps along the road in the development of what was once, not so long ago, a very poor country compared to the economic colossus that China has become today. In addition to the commodities exported worldwide, China has also garnered much skepticism for its growth and development over the years, and yet China has always managed to steam ahead. China has a planned economy, and assuredly the mandarins have contingency plans for the unexpected.

What is your take on the Engdahl article?

Wei Ling Chua: What does not address is the CCP series of policies and reforms. 

Unlike western, Japanese, USSR development that relied heavily on imperialism, expansionism and looting

1) In the first 30 years of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the sources of finance were mainly from the agricultural sector, and the hard work, delegation and sacrifices of the entire population to rebuild the nation.

The Mao era was the hardest era in the history of the PRC, as the country just managed to hold together the entire nation with virtually nothing (no technology, no money, a 90% illiteracy rate, a divided population, a population hungry and in poor health with a super short average life-expectancy of 36 years, a hostile international environment (Korean war, Sino-India war, USSR border war, plus western sanctions, and in the 1960s USSR sanctions as well).

However, Mao managed to win the Korean war with mainly foot soldiers armed with rifles and hand grenades, helped Vietnam to chase away the US occupier, and defeated India and the USSR in skirmishes. China worked herself into the UN to replace the nationalist government as the only legitimate government of China. It also completed the first stage of the Chinese industrial revolution with all types of light industry (self-made household appliances, processed food), an active agriculture sector, fisheries, etc, and heavy industry such as producing trucks, cars, buses, trains, atomic bombs, satellite, missiles, and all type of other military weapons, construction technology…

2) over the next 30 years, China financed her economic reform via opening up with massive foreign investment plus massive land mortgage financing to fund all types of infrastructure across the country.

But, unlike the rest of the developing countries, China used cheap land and labor to attract foreign investment to build factories, and used her own land allocation as a guarantee to print money and provide loans for building infrastructure, commercial and residential property, and therefore, not incurring too much foreign debt. So, most of China’s debts are domestic and are outside of foreign control.

3) Since Xi came into power, his zero tolerance towards corruption and successful anti-corruption policy very much ensured the country’s continued smooth operation with high efficiency and less waste. This is a most vital element in any nation’s development and future prosperity (whereas all western countries are down down and down at the moment due to legalised corruption in the name of lobbying, political donations, speech bureaus, privatisation, etc)

Xi’s centralised medicine approval strategy has successfully reduced all drug prices by up to more than 90%, and hence china was able to introduce sustainable nationwide medicare coverage. Such a policy freed up people’s savings for domestic consumption. This economic generator is a pillar of any advanced country.

Under Xi, the average wages of the nation basically more than doubled.

Yes, like the rest of the world, the real estate market and tax on property transactions are major sources of government revenue. But Xi knew that if the real-estate market was allowed to continue being controlled by a handful of billionaires to reap speculative profits then the housing prices would keep rising. So, he openly told the nation that housing is for people to live, not for speculative profit.

He cracked down on irresponsible real estate giants controlling too much real estate and using them to mortgage and buy more. Finally, this caused some collapse in overheated pricing. But unlike the US, there is no too-big-to-fail company in China; Xi froze these troubled giant companies from issuing dividends to shareholders, and made the owners sell their own assets to repay the interest and loans, sell their overseas companies and assets, and then domestic assets to repay the loans. And when the state bails out a company, all those assets return back to the people; i.e., state control.

4) Yes, there are debt issues in China, but debts should be distinguished between good debt and bad debt:

Across the west, they keep printing money to give away to political donors in exchange for personal benefits at the expense of the taxpayers, they also give away money to voters to win votes. These are bad debts as they produce no future return for the masses.

But, for China, the debts transform into infrastructure domestically and overseas. The outcome is apparent: more and more regions and countries with Chinese investment enjoy economic prosperity; hence, they help China to continue enjoying prosperity despite western decoupling policies.

The winning of trust and friends across the world will only pave the way for China’s Belt and Road win-win strategy to ensure mutual prosperity even without the West. We are now witnessing that the BRICS’s GDP is bigger than that of the G7, and the Chinese economy has been bigger than the entire EU (the combined GDP of 27 countries) since 2021.

Besides, the rise of China’s high-tech economy are obvious: due to China’s superiority in EV car technology, China has just replaced Japan as the world’s biggest new car exporter (the world number 1 in EV car exports), solar technology exports as well, infrastructure exports, ship building etc, and lately, overtaking the US in military armament exports to places like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Thailand… etc. Consider also the growing popularity of the RMB as a reserve currency. It is important to note that China managed to achieve these feats without firing a single shot; it’s all about investment in education, R&D, development of infrastructure, and a policy of win-win.

China’s future is very bright with the coming development, export of chips, nuclear power plants, and reunification with Taiwan. At this moment, the world has seen China managing to finally create a peaceful and Chinese-friendly Central Asia, Russia, Middle East, and ASEAN (excluding the Philippines under Marcos). We also notice that almost all African countries and Latin American countries are also very much preferring China over the West. This peace dividend will help create an entire region surrounding China to move towards the world’s biggest economic block developing in peace and harmony. It will become a magnet for the rest of the world.

Do the emergence of a seemingly multipolar world and the declining power of the US (mainly its constant economic crises, falling rates of profit, recession, excessive debt, etc.) provide an opportunity for Puerto Rico and other nations to achieve self-determination?

The US state has been the world’s hegemon and has largely ruled with unipolar supremacy since the aftermath of World War II (the exception, during the Cold War, from the late 1940s to the late 1980s). The ascendance of the US to the global position of power was established by developing international political and economic institutions (e.g., the IMF, WB, GATT, and the UN) that stabilized the capitalist economy and legitimized the US state.

What anchored the US state hegemony was its conversion to a permanent war economy, which developed its military capacity and militarism used to enforce this international system and to hinder forces who opposed this order, which included socialists and national liberation forces. As a result, it has been next to impossible for colonies, neo-colonies, and other nations to achieve autonomy and self-governance. Efforts to bring resolutions went largely unabetted because many nations had bent to the pressures and belligerence of the US state. Therefore, the question is: does a realignment of the global order allow Puerto Rico and other nations to exercise their self-determination?

GLOBAL AND REGIONAL REALIGNMENT

The emergence of a multipolar world has been in the works for some time, with states forming associations based on mutual respect, trade, and trading in their currencies as a deliberate means to sidestep US dominance, efforts at establishing fair trade, and autonomy.

One example of this effort can be seen in BRICS nations (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), which comprise over 40% of the world population, a substantial amount of trade, and roughly 32% of global GDP.

The BRICS is considered a rival to the G-7 economies and has announced an initiative to develop a New Development Bank (alternatives to the IMF and WB) and de-dollarization initiatives. The goal of the union is to promote cooperation and dialogue among themselves proactively, pragmatically, incrementally, transparently, and openly. The focus is also on building a peaceful, harmonious world with shared prosperity that serves the interests of all the people and nations that belong to it. Many other developing nations are interested in joining the BRICS, and many nations are trading in their own currencies.

Another clear example of how the US is being challenged is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a global infrastructure development strategy implemented by the Chinese government in 2013 to invest in more than 150 countries and international organizations.

BRI is said to be one of the most significant infrastructure and investment projects in history. The initiative defines five major priorities: policy coordination; infrastructure connectivity; unimpeded trade; financial integration; and connecting people. Some criticisms view that countries are swapping out one imperialist power for another. In addition, a preponderance of media, primarily US-based coverage, equates the Chinese BRI with expansionism and debt-trap diplomacy. However, the Chinese have not sought to superimpose their political system on other nations.

There have been concerns by anti-capitalists that China continues to operate within the framework of the Western capitalist economic order. Yet, the current conditions may change this reality, especially with the US provocations regarding Taiwan’s sovereignty and arming neighboring nations (e.g., the Philippines, Guam, Australia, and Japan) against China. But the issue we are most concerned with is whether a multipolar world provides an opportunity for nations to work together in a mutually beneficial way and not be under the control of the US state.

Yet, the BRI has worked with many nations from East Asia to Europe to the Caribbean on essential infrastructure projects such as constructing roads, water pipelines, and railways and providing loans to many historically underdeveloped nations. According to the World Bank, by improving infrastructure and reducing trade costs, BRI investments could help lift nearly 40 million people from poverty.

In addition, US dollar supremacy and US global control have been increasingly questioned since the 2007–2008 global financial crisis, which originated in the US with worldwide ripple effects. In addition, the accelerated de-dollarization has been largely driven by the US-imposed lead sanctions placed on Russia for invading Ukraine, which signaled to other nations, such as China, the need moves away from the dollar. As important de-dollarization is to the US hegemony, many nations are invested in the dollar, the global reserve currency, which continues to be reliable. The idea or forecast of a new global currency is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, the Chinese yuan international transitions have increased, with Russia, the other BRICS, plus Iran, Bangladesh, and Southeast Asia nations, to name a few. Iran has been using the yuan for some time. Even President Macron of France, a key US ally, “warned against the ‘extraterritoriality of the US dollar,'” suggesting that Europe should cut its dependence on the dollar to maintain France’s “strategic autonomy” and not become vassals should tensions between US and China heat up” (Tan 2023).  For many nations, the dollar, the internationally reserved currency backed by the US government, is increasingly viewed as a control mechanism.

United States’ lead sanctions on Russia have contributed to de-dollarization and the rise of many nations utilizing their currencies and the yuan. The Russian invasion of Ukraine can be seen in the larger context as part of the US state’s provocation and response to its declining hegemonic position and an attempt to expand its influence in Ukraine, Western Europe, and Russia. It is essential to understand here how these events create opportunities for many nations, considered non-western and parts of the Global South, to form systems that are autonomous from the US state and its state system of allies. These statements are not intended to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty but to only situation it in a larger context of US imperialism and global realignment. In the past many of these nations were reluctant to take principled political stances for nations either seeking national independence or redress for human rights violations because of the repercussions and the control that the United States and Western nations command over them.

However, a global realignment of power might allow nations such as Puerto Rico to develop associations based on mutual and equal partnerships and not remain under the domination and subordination of the United States. At least twenty-five countries in the Americas are not independent sovereign nations; they are, therefore, colonies to various official classifications, called constituent parts of sovereign states or dependent territories of sovereign states. Of course, the above represents the continued Western colonial rule of the most direct type in the Americas. This description is not too different from the rest of the world. As a result, these nations’ colonial status forbids them from exercising fundamental national rights because of the continued legacy of the colonial rule of the imperialist West and the United States.

There has also been pushback from Latin America and the Caribbean to US hegemony and its underdevelopment strategies. These nations have historically formed alliances based on their shared histories of a multitude of direct and indirect rule from Western and US imperialist powers. An example of recent pushback from peripheral nations in this hemisphere can be seen in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), an example of an association and trading bloc operating autonomously from the US state. ALBA’s primary goals are to alleviate poverty and to promote socioeconomic reform through trade agreements that meet each country’s needs rather than through the neoliberal or free market. There is a long history of the US supporting military dictators and right-wing governments in repressing and overthrowing popular and leftist governments has been changing. Throughout the region, right-wing governments have been replaced by socialist and social democratic ones in the last four years. In addition, there has been a tide of leftist elected presidents in Latin America – e.g., Colombia, Chile, Peru, Honduras, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. The defeated presidents were largely supported by the US and failed to address the popular frustration in their respective nations with increased inequality and failed neoliberal economic policies. These political leaders reject the traditional US role in the region and are working to strengthen regional ties with their neighbors, such as Cuba and Venezuela.

A significant act of defiance from some Latin American nations came as the US refused to invite the socialist nations Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to the Summit of Americas, held in Los Angeles, CA, June 6–10, 2022. In protest, President López Obrador of Mexico called for a boycott, stating, “I don’t accept hegemonies…. Not of China, not of Russia, not of the United States. All countries, no matter how small they are, are free and are independent” (Norton 2022).  On May 5, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) announced that if any American country were excluded from the summit, its fourteen member nations would likely not attend. Ultimately, López Obrador did not participate, along with others boycotting it, such as Bolivia, Honduras, and Guatemala. Many have seen this act as a defiant act against the US by some of its most loyal allies. Some have gone as far as to describe this as the end of US hegemony, the Monroe Doctrine of the Americas, making the Americas the domain of the United States. This act was especially significant, as it occurred while the US attempted to solidify its alliance against China and Russia. However, it appears that many nations in Latin America and the Caribbean are seeking to exercise their self-determination by welcoming economic ties and associations with each other and with other nations such as China and Russia.

Just as the US state’ ascendance involved imperialist expansion, the creation of colonies, the use of genocide, slavery, and with its military dominance in the post-WWII period, military invasions, the overthrowing of democratically elected political officials in the name of “the fight against Communism,” its decline appears to be no different. For this, we only need a few examples to capture the continuity of this policy: the US’ invasions, bombings, and incursions in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), and Libya (2011). According to Jeffrey Sacks, since 1980, the US has been in at least 15 overseas “wars of choice” (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Syria, and Yemen, to name a few), while China has been in none, and Russia only in one (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union. The US has military bases in 85 countries, China in 3, and Russia in 1 (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union (2022). According to the Military Intervention Project, the US has undertaken almost 400 military interventions since 1776, with half of these operations undertaken between 1950 and 2019; over 25% occurred in the post-Cold War period (Kushi and Duffy Toft 2023).[1]

According to John Ross, two powerful forces oppose US military aggression: China, whose economic development is not merely crucial for improving the living standards of its population, and the military as a deterrent to US military aggression and the emergence of several countries that are countering US aggression—including many in the Global South, comprising the majority of the world’s people—not merely from a moral viewpoint but from direct self-interests (2022). However, the US state continues its worldwide dominance and expansion – e.g., the “War on Terror,” the “Pivot to Asia,” “AFRICOM” (i.e., an effort to recolonize Africa), and “regime changes” such as in Ukraine in 2014. Its consequent “proxy” war intended to destabilize Russia and its aggression towards China to undermine its development. In fact, the US is covertly and not so covertly attempting to impact the political processes in Pakistan and Turkey because of political forces in their nations trying to operate in our national interests, as opposed to the United States’ interests. Many nations have been responding to the US imperialist policies and their attempt to prevent counties from achieving national independence and sovereignty.   

PUERTO RICO IN THE UNIPOLAR US-IMPERIALIST STATE WORLD 

Millions of people in the US, its colonial territories, and worldwide are influenced by the US imperialist states’ self-image. The US military and economic dominance have resulted in it achieving global hegemony. The US- state’s dominant position is constructed by various factors such as state officials, corporate media, and its global network of other capitalist states, corporate elites, and international organizations such as the WB, IMF, WTO, and the United Nations. The US-state has a history of pressuring member states at the UN to either vote with the US or to abstain from voting on the issue of Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination and to become an independent nation. Although the UN has passed some important resolutions such as the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People) in 1960 and most recently in 2017. The 2017 resolution by the UN Special Committee on Decolonization was to the General Assembly calling on the US “to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that would allow the people of the island to fully exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence.” Yet, many see international organizations like the UN, the WB, and IMF that developed after 1945 (the post-WWII era), a period in which the US reached its apex of power as a ‘super imperialist nation,’ as instruments of the most domination nations (Harvey 2003).

The US essentially created the world in its image following WWII with the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944, which provided the groundwork for the IMF, WB, and the GATT (recognized today as the WTO) and the creation of the United Nations. To varying degrees, these international organizations were designed to establish peace and stability among western and capitalist states. According to Bowles, Gordon, and Weisskopf (1990), “The US-State achieved military, economic, financial, and political dominance over the rest of the world and was able to use dollar diplomacy, the CIA, and other means to thwart off populist and socialist challengers to capitalism abroad” (in Volscho 2017:251). We must consider the US dominance and hegemony when considering the UN as an honest broker. Many of these capitalist nations formed an entity of stakeholders who have a vested interest in continuing the global capitalist system. The US hegemonic position has allowed it, in many instances, the ability to hide much of its imperialist behavior and the ability to disseminate its ideas, values, and beliefs that present itself as “the leader of the free world” and as a liberator, are but some examples of its ability to influence or win over many of the people of the world. However, when the US-imperialist state’s hegemony fails, it resorts to the violence and coercion of the military might of its state.

With some exceptions, many do not refer to the US as an empire. An empire for good (e.g., Ferguson 2004; Kagan 2003), or as the world’s “policeman,” etc. and debate its strategic course, soft power vs. hard power and unipolarism vs. multilateralism (Ikenberry 2004; Nye 2002). These views tend to reflect a patriotic academic scholarship and an adherence to Western political realist justifications. Yet, what is missing is the fact that imperialism is what empires do (Parenti 2011), and these representations of a US empire are void of the carnage and the meddling in the political affairs of the sovereign nations and peoples that the US-imperialist state as a long history of inflicting (see Chalmers Johnson’s Blowback, 2004, who argues that much of these actions have been kept hidden from the US public, however, see Ward Churchill’s The Justice of Roosting Chickens, 2002, who argues that the public is well of aware of this).

The various favorable views of the US empire persist and continue to be propagating by the media and US political officials. A current rendition holds that the US must rule – i.e., maintain dominance and uphold the international order because, without its military and economic backing, the world would collapse into chaos or authoritarianism. This sentiment was recently expressed by the US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who spoke about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as tearing at the rules-based international order that “keeps us all secure.” Yet, Chomsky and Prashad argue that there are two rules-based international order, one supported by the US, which defines the system as, if you follow the US, then you are following the rules; the other is grounded in the UN Charter (2022:185).

James M. Blunt explains how imperialist states dealt with the anti-colonial struggle in the 1960s by viewing decolonization as a “smooth evolution of colonies from the condition of colonial ‘tutelage,’ through the graduation ceremony of decolonization, to the mature, adult, colonial economic and political dependency as continued evolution toward ‘modernity’ and as the only road to economic development” (1987:38). Blaut further explains how decolonized nations remain subordinated within some system in which dominant states continue to manage their affairs. This essentially is the continuation of “the principles of colonial and semi-colonial rule, along with the counterpart of this as practiced by the United States, namely gunboat diplomacy and periodic invasion and occupation of small neighbouring state plus a dollop of ordinary colonialism in countries like Puerto Rico” (Blaut 1987:38-39). Therefore, one needs to situate UN resolutions on decolonization within the context of dominant nations like the US maintaining their control over Third World nations through various means.

The hegemony of the US imperialist state must be addressed if the aim is to understand the US and its continued colonialism in Puerto Rico because of the US’ ability to shape the parameters of the discourse for the Puerto Rican national question. One significant issue before us is explaining why the Puerto Rican national question has yet to be resolved. After all, Puerto Ricans fit the definition of a culturally distinct people from a nation that is “a human group conscious of forming a community, sharing a common culture, attached to a clearly demarcated territory, having a common past and a common project for the future and claiming the right to rule itself” (Guibernau 1996:47). However, according to Blaut, five well-known conditions define the national question or the national struggle and how they occur within the context of another nation – i.e., a more powerful nation. Puerto Rico fits the first condition that captures the efforts of “a colony to win independence from the occupying colonial power, and counter-efforts by the colonial power to prevent the colony from gaining its independence” (1987:13). The objective here is to centralize the US imperialism state’s role in Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination.

To understand hegemony in the colonial context, we refer to the literature from such political theorists as Franz Fanon 1961, 1959; Albert Memmi 1955; and Aimé Césaire 1950. These political theorists have analyzed how imperialist states have used counterinsurgency; racial ideologies that foster inferior psychologies, dependent on the colonial arrangement; and an intermediate native elite that serve as a buffer between the colonized and the colonizer. According to Ángel Collado Schwarz, the term “Stockholm Syndrome” describes much of this colonial psychology…where the captive colony begins to identify with, and then embrace, the will of their masters” (2015). Even with the US’ history of counterinsurgency against Puerto Ricans with its strategies at indirect rule (i.e., “commonwealth”), gain complete intelligence information (neutralized these who support independence), and having a hearts and minds program (e.g., co-optation in the administration of indirect rule, incorporation of the oppressed into the repressive apparatus, and the distribution of social aid provisions, and employment). Yet, even after the political repression of the National Party in the 1930s-1950s, the national liberation movement, both in Puerto Rico and in the US (1960s-1980s) (Montes 2003), that struggle for real national sovereignty continues and can be seen in the victory to remove the US military from Vieques (2003), the removal of corrupt and pro-statehood Gov. Ricardo Rossello from office in 2019.

The declining influence of the US-imperialist state has been felt in Puerto Rico for some time; its ability to shore up the colony with employment and social aid while it held a captive market, source of cheap labor, control of lands it used as part of it military geostrategic operations, and a supply of soldiers due to having no control over political or economic matters, had been evident for some time. The consequences of recent events, such as the imposition of the Fiscal Control Board in Puerto Rico’s financial affairs in 2017 (because of the colonial debt crisis), and the effects of Hurricane Maria, have exposed many Puerto Ricans to the actual colonial status of Puerto Rico.

The dominant view holds, with its various interpretations, that Puerto Ricans are (or should be) eternally grateful to the US for saving them from Spanish tyranny and for its civilizing mission, and assuming the “white man’s burden” (Hitchens 2004:63-97). In more current times, the US is viewed as a modernizing force, saving Puerto Rico from Third World poverty and establishing the “Commonwealth Government” in 1952, supposedly meeting the UN’s decolonization requirement. The legal basis for the UN involvement in Puerto Rico’s national question is Article 73 of the United Nations Charter (1946); this article states that it is to administer territories that have not obtained a “full measure of self-government” (Persusse 1990:59). However, these views that Puerto Rico in some unique and mutual political agreement with the US government and being shattered, with more Puerto Ricans learning the lesions from the Hurricane Maria with the growth of mutual aid and self-sustainable collectives.

Puerto Rico must not be analyzed based on the US-imperialist state’s hegemonic self-image as a liberator, civilizer, modernizing agent, or mutual partner but as an imperialist power that employs various repressive and facilitative modes of co-optation and appeasement to maintain and conceal its dominance (Montes 2009). The global realignment of global forces will likely present viable options for Puerto Rico’s autonomy in self-governance by opening opportunities to engage in mutually beneficial associations with other nations. Of course, this is predicated on the continued decline of the US, which appears to be occurring, as discussed above, and as such, will not be able to keep the colony afloat, causing Puerto Ricans and other colonized, oppressed, and exploited peoples to relied on themselves and form more mutual aid relations. Currently, Puerto Rico cannot enter trade and development arrangements based on its own national interests because of its colonial relationship with the United States.

Vince Montes is a lecturer in sociology. He earned a Ph.D. in sociology and historical studies at the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research, New York, NY.

REFERENCES

Blaut, James. 1987. The National Question. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Zed Books Ltd.

Césaire, Aimé. 1950 [2000]. Discourse on Colonialism. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press

Chomsky, Noam and Vijay Prashad. 2022. The Withdrawal. New York, NY: The New Press.

Churchill, Ward. 2002. The Justice of Roosting Chickens. Oakland, CA: AK Press.

Collado Schwarz, Ángel. “The Psychology of Puerto Rico.” Posted June 06, 2015. https://waragainstallpuertoricans.com/2015/06/13/the-psychology-of-puerto-rico/

Fanon, Franz. 2004. [1961] The Wrenched of the Earth. New York, NY: Grove Press.

Ferguson, Niall. 2005. Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Guibernau, Montserrat. 1996. Nationalisms. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Harvey, David. 2003. The New Imperialism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hitchens, Christopher. 2004. Blood, Class, and Empire: The Enduring Anglo–American Relationship. New York, NY: Nations Books.

Ikenberry, John G. 2004. “Liberal Hegemony or Empire?” in Held, D. and Koening-Archibugi, Mathias (eds), American Power in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Johnson, Chalmers. 2004. Blowback: Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.

Kagan, Robert. 2003. Paradise and Power, American and Europe in the New World Order. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Kushi, Sidita, and Monica Duffy Toft. 2023. “Introducing the Military Intervention Project: A New Dataset on US Military Interventions, 1776–2019.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 67(4), 752–779.

Memmi, Albert. 1965. The Colonizer and the Colonized. New York, NY: Onion Press.

Montes, Vince. 2009. “The Web Approach to the State Strategy in Puerto Rico.” Pp. 99-118 in Bureaucratic Culture and Escalating Problems: Advancing the Sociological Imagination, edited by D. Knottnerus and B. Phillips. Boulder, CO, Paradigm Publishers.

___________. 2003. Cycles of Protest: Puerto Rican Contentious Action, 1960s-1980s. Unpublished Dissertation. New School for Social Research, New York, NY.

Norton, Ben. 2022. “U.S. govt’s Summit of the Americas fails: Boycott by presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, Honduras, Guatemala.” MR Online. (Posted June 08)

Nye, Joseph. 2002. The Paradox of American Power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Parenti, Michael. 2011. The Face of Empire. New York, NY: Routledge.

Perusse, Roland I. 1990. The United States and Puerto Rico. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.

Ross, John. 2022. “What is propelling the U.S. into increasing international military aggression?” MRonline. (Posted April 24)

Sachs, Jeffrey. “The West’s false narrative about Russia and China.” Transnational. (September 19)

Tan, Huileng. 2023. “China’s yuan is emerging as a strong challenger to the dollar’s dominance. Here are 5 countries that recently turned to the yuan instead of the USD for trade.” Insider. (Posted May 08)

Volscho, Thomas. 2015. “The Revenge of the Capitalist Class.” Critical Sociology, Volume: 43 issue: 2, page(s): 249-266

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

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

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

***

May 25 represents the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) created by 33 independent states in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1963. Nearly four decades later in 2002, the African Union (AU) came into existence with a renewed commitment to greater unity and coordinated development.

The events in Ethiopia during May 1963 represented a watershed in the struggle for national liberation and Pan-Africanism which can be traced back centuries to the heroic resistance against enslavement and colonization. A series of Pan-African Conferences and Congresses took place between 1893 and 1945 which brought together Africans from various geopolitical regions of the globe to discuss their common interests aimed at charting a methodology to win freedom and social justice.

Since 1963, many more colonies have gained their independence while the economic and military liberation of the continent remains elusive. Today, the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) along with French and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops are operating in numerous states throughout the region.

As a direct result of this renewed militarization of the continent by the imperialist centers of global power, there has been deepening levels of instability and displacement. Africans are being human trafficked across North Africa and the Mediterranean in a manner reminiscent of the Atlantic Slave Trade between the 15th and 19th centuries.

The increasing presence of peoples of African descent in the nations of Europe and in North America has provided an ideological rationale for the emergence of neo-fascist organizations and political officials. On the southern border of the U.S., 1,500 troops along with thousands of law-enforcement personnel and vigilantes are patrolling to keep people of color out of the country.

Despite these harsh realities, there have been awakenings throughout the world in which Africa is very much involved. Although there is the reemergence of military coups in several West African states, the mass sentiment from the workers, farmers and youth is decisively anti-imperialist. This rising consciousness is reflected in many of the foreign policy positions articulated by African heads-of-state and envoys in their speeches annually before the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

This same outlook permeated the anti-imperialist governments in existence at the time of the founding of the OAU. Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the then President of the First Republic of Ghana exemplified the concept of “positive action” which was employed in the independence struggle which he led in the British colonial Gold Coast from 1947-1957.

Nkrumah’s pioneering work entitled “Africa Must Unite” was released to coincide with the inaugural summit of the OAU. The book covers all aspects of the struggle for national liberation and the dangers of disunity and the continuing threat of imperialist domination.

In the introduction to Africa Must Unite Nkrumah says

“For freedom is not a commodity which is ‘given’ to the enslaved upon demand. It is a precious reward, the shining trophy of struggle and sacrifice. Nor do the struggle and sacrifice cease with the attainment of freedom. The period of servitude leaves behind tolls beyond what it has already taken. These are the cost of filling in the emptiness that colonialism has left; the struggle and the toil to build the foundation, and then the superstructure, of an economy that will raise up the social levels of our people, that will provide them with a full and satisfying life, from which want and stagnation will have been banished. We have to guard closely our hard-won freedom and keep it safe from the predatory designs of those who wish to reimpose their will upon us.” (p. Introduction xvi)

These words written in 1963 are quite prophetic. The struggle against neo-colonialism–which Nkrumah called the last stage of imperialism, the title of a study he published in book form two years after the first OAU gathering–continues after the acquisition of national independence with the purported “departure” of the colonial powers. It was these same colonial powers in the former Belgian Congo who were instrumental in thwarting the efforts of the first democratically elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba during 1960 and early 1961.

The collective imperialism led by Washington and Wall Street were identified by Nkrumah in 1965 as the principal enemies of the African Revolution. Despite the U.S. attempts to distance itself historically from the rise of colonialism in Africa, their ruling interests were also present at the Berlin Conference of 1884-85 where the continent was carved up among the leading imperialist centers. Even prior to the establishment of independence for the 13 British colonies in what later became the U.S., Native removal and African enslavement were thoroughly entrenched into the political economy.

Successive administrations in Washington have viewed the movement towards genuine independence in Africa as a threat to U.S. interests. This is why Lumumba, Nkrumah, and many others were targeted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the State Department.

In Africa Must Unite Nkrumah goes on to emphasize:

“New nations like ours are confronted with tasks and problems that would certainly tax the experience and ingenuity of much older states. They would be difficult enough if we existed in a peaceful world, free of contending powers and interested countries eager to dabble in our internal affairs and manipulate our domestic and external relations in order to divide us nationally and internationally. As it is, our problems are made more vexed by the devices of neo-colonialists. And when we attempt to deal with them in ways which, having regard to all the facts that are known to us, seem most appropriate in the endeavor to maintain the internal unity upon which our viability and progress depend, we are misrepresented to the outside world to the point of distortion.” (Introduction, xvi)

In the contemporary African context, the states of Sudan and Libya provide a clear illustration of the contradictions which have arisen since the dawn of national independence and the later founding of the OAU. Each nation-state embodies tremendous potential for the economic emancipation, sovereignty and unification of Africa. Nevertheless, the legacy of European colonialism and modern-day neo-colonialism has hampered the capacity of Sudan and Libya to claim their rightful places as leaders in the sustainable development of the AU member-states.

The Crisis of Governance in the Republic of Sudan and the Role of Imperialism

Sudan has been in the international media since the eruption of clashes between the two military structures in charge of the administration of the transitional state on April 15. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have long held a position of authority within various governments since independence from British imperialism in 1956. There have been extended periods in the post-colonial political history of Sudan where the military seized control of the government while ruling in the interests of imperialist states and their allies.

The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) grew out of the military campaign to end the insurgency in the western Darfur region in the first decade of the 21st century. Both institutions, the SAF and RSF, apparently had no intentions of relinquishing political power to the civilian population which had been organized through the Sudanese Professional Association (SPA), the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) and the Resistance Committees which have been essential to the mobilization of mass demonstrations and strikes since emergence of the democratic movement in 2018-19.

Peace negotiations have taken place between the armed opposition groupings in Darfur and the border areas in the Abyei, Blue Nile and South Kordofan regions of the country with the Transitional Military Council (TMC) which was headed by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and General Mohamed Hamden Dagalo (Hemitti). The character of these discussions over the last four years has resulted in a reconfiguration of alliances in Sudan. After the October 2021 coup carried out by the TMC against the Transitional Sovereign Council (TSC) represented by the then interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, several of the armed opposition groupings within the Sudanese Revolutionary Front (SRF) supported the SAF/RSF coup.

The popular resistance committees along with the other mass and professional organizations, opposition groupings, including the Communist Party, have been deliberately sidelined by the imperialist states along with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and the United Nations in their extensive deliberations on a transitional framework towards a democratic dispensation. A systematic policy of empowering the military apparatus of the Sudanese state has resulted in the current crisis.

Reports indicate that between 700 and 1,000 people have been killed in the fighting since April 15, with an additional 5,000 or more injured. In addition, over 1 million have been displaced with hundreds of thousands being forced across the borders into neighboring states. Hospitals, residential neighborhoods, educational facilities have been paralyzed by the clashes taking place in the Khartoum-Omdurman twin cities. There have been fierce clashes over the control of the airport, military bases and the defense ministry in and around the capital.

The recent eruptions have reignited the fighting in Darfur. Port Sudan on the Red Sea has been the focus of evacuations by foreign states as well as a further militarization by the Pentagon.

It is to be noted that efforts by the Republic of South Sudan to hold talks aimed at achieving a negotiated settlement in the first few days of the war were rejected by the SAF and RSF. Saudi Arabia and the U.S. were the only two states which were able to bring representatives of the two belligerents together in Jeddah where agreements were signed ostensibly to guarantee safe passage for convoys distributing humanitarian aid and for those wishing to evacuate.

However, heavy fighting continues while a lasting ceasefire and sustainable peace agreement has not been realized. The domination of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in the internal affairs of Sudan has complicated the transition to a democratic political system.

Since the early phase of the independent African states in the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. intelligence apparatus has often preferred the rule of post-colonial military structures. Ruth First, the South African journalist and social scientist, published a groundbreaking study in 1970 on the role of the armed forces in various states. Her book entitled “Power in Africa”, later renamed, “The Barrel of a Gun”, analyzed the role of the CIA and Pentagon in the destabilization of African states. Even after the eruption of a civil war, U.S. corporations guided by intelligence provided by their operatives set out to control the process of “national reconstruction.”

When the initial Transitional Sovereign Council in 2019-2020 was set up, numerous conditions were laid down by the former U.S. administration of President Donald Trump along with his successor, President Joe Biden, for the “reentry” of Khartoum back into the “international community.” These conditions included, and were not limited to, the repayment of restitution to the survivors of those killed in attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the bombing of the USS Cole in the Gulf of Aden in 2000. Sudan was also required to “normalize” relations with the State of Israel as part of the Abraham Accord initiatives aimed at undermining solidarity with the Palestinian national struggle. The commitment to officially recognize Tel Aviv goes against the Sudanese Israel Boycott Act passed by their parliament in 1958.

The absence of any type of representative government in the Republic of Sudan has opened the floodgates for foreign military and intelligence manipulation and subversion. As Ruth First wrote in Power in Africa as it relates to the role of imperialism in the former Belgian Congo:
“It was as a result of United States preoccupation with the Congo that we have the single major instance of a coup d’etat—two, in fact, in the same country, at an interval of five years—engineered by external forces. Lumumba’s offense was to have asked the Soviet Union, once the West had refused, for transport for his troops to defeat the Katanga secession. The issue was not whether the Congo should have a government headed by Lumumba, Kasavubu, Mobutu or Tshombe; but whether an African state should seek an option other than dependence on the West.” (Armies in Stalemate, p. 420)

The role of the resistance committees has been admirable as reported by some news agencies. They have sought to assist the people in their needs for medical care, food and refuge from the clashes.

An independent Sudanese news agency reported: 

“The resistance committees active in the neighborhoods of eastern Khartoum said in a press statement on Tuesday (May 2) that the usual ‘binary position (with/against the army/ militia), does not concern us as civilians in anyway’. According to the resistance committees, ‘the two positions express a direct interest for each of the parties to the conflict in power,’ while ‘our position necessarily favors the only one affected by this war, the Sudanese people – whom the conflicting parties are attempting to get on their side and their allies, in order to gain popular and political support. ‘The most important position now is the preservation of people’s lives and their livelihood, peace and security, and access to basic services’.” 

In reality, the people of Sudan will be the entity which determines the future of the country. The military and its supporters have been thoroughly exposed for their failure to place the interests of the people above their quest to maintain political and economic power in Sudan. Moreover, the imperialist powers and their allies led by Washington have forfeited the right to have any say related to the stability and development of Sudan.

Libya: A Case Study in Modern Neo-Colonial Destabilization

Twelve years ago in 2011, AFRICOM under the administration of President Barack Obama spearheaded and carried out the destruction of the North African state of Libya, the most prosperous and stable country on the continent. The overthrow of the Jamahiriya government led by Col. Muammar Gaddafi represented the first full scale operation of AFRICOM.

The destruction of Libya was given legal cover by two resolutions, 1970 and 1973, passed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). These measures provided a false narrative for the intervention by the imperialist countries prompting a migration trail which has impacted tens of millions in Africa and other geopolitical regions.

In recent years, Libya has been de facto partitioned by two political groupings in the east and west of the country, neither of which represents the national and class interests of the masses. The developments in this oil-rich North African state represents a stark lesson to the rest of the continent that imperialism and its collaborators must be defeated in order to fulfill the Pan-African project enunciated by the founding documents of the OAU and the AU.

Since 2011, the instability and displacement engineered by the CIA and the State Department has impacted the entire regions of North and West Africa. This mass migration has fueled the human trafficking industry while placing pressure on the military and security structures of the nations of Southern, Central and Western Europe. The phenomenon of conservative and neoliberal administrations is undoubtedly a by-product of the displacement caused by the interventions of the NATO countries and their allies. The campaign of former President Donald Trump in 2016, played up the fears of whites in the U.S. of being overwhelmed demographically by migrants from Mexico and Latin America as a whole.

Imperialism and the Shifting Character of World Politics

However, these regime changes and direct occupations have not brought any relief–let alone prosperity–to the working classes of Western Europe, the United Kingdom and the U.S. since the economic conditions have worsened due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the supply chain shortages in industry and commerce along with an inflationary spiral which has skyrocketed since the early months of 2020. Consequently, the central banks of the capitalist states have raised interest rates, tightened credit availability, prompting layoffs in the high-tech, real estate and service industries. The Biden administration has not come to grips with the drastic changes within the labor market since 2020. Rather than impose price controls on the capitalist corporations, Biden has concentrated on the war in Ukraine which has drained the national treasury of at least $115 billion.

The advent of industrial actions in France and the UK in the early months of 2023 portends much for the current volatility of the world capitalist system. In the U.S., a new leadership in the United Auto Workers (UAW) has withheld—at least for now—an endorsement of Biden in the 2024 presidential race. A key player in the delivery sector, United Parcel Services (UPS), is being threatened with a nationwide strike by workers represented by the Teamsters Union.

At some point it is inevitable that the proletariat in the U.S. will exercise its labor power against the corporate interests. African Americans and Latin Americans, who are mainstays of the Democratic Party electorate, are not content with the institutional and policy neglect of their constituencies by the Biden administration.

The peoples of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean are the natural class allies of the working class and oppressed in the imperialist states. Propagandists for capitalism and imperialism have no solid arguments which support their positions related to the expansion of U.S. and NATO influence throughout the world.

Sudan and Libya are continuing to reveal the negative impact of neo-colonialism in the 21st century. As Nkrumah pointed out in his book “Class Struggle in Africa” published in 1970:

“The African Revolution, while still concentrating its main effort on the destruction of imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism, is aiming at the same time to bring about a radical transformation of society. It is no longer a question of whether African Independent States should pursue a capitalist or non-capitalist path of development. The choice has already been made by the workers and peasants of Africa. They have chosen liberation and unification; and this can only be achieved through armed struggle under socialist direction. For the political unification of Africa and socialism are synonymous. One cannot be achieved without the other.” (p. 84)

These same axioms enunciated in 1970 holds true for the African Diaspora as well. In the U.S. and Western Europe, the intensification of racist repression and super-exploitation serves to further institutionalize the national oppression of peoples of color. Mass demonstrations and urban rebellions which resurfaced in the aftermath of the police execution of George Floyd, three years ago on Africa Liberation Day 2020, illustrates the potential for revolutionary change in the citadel of world imperialism.

However, it will take the mass mobilization and organization of the most oppressed elements within capitalist society to reach the desired abolition of exploitation and oppression. Undoubtedly, based upon the history of African peoples over the previous six decades, they will play a pivotal role in the elimination of imperialism in the modern world.

***

Author’s Note

These remarks were prepared for and delivered in part at a webinar in honor of the 60th anniversary of the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor to the African Union (AU) formed in 2002.

This virtual event was sponsored and organized by the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) on Thursday May 25, 2023. Other panelists were Dr. Abdiwahab Sheikh Abdisamad, a Somali Kenyan and Kenyan citizen. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Horn of Africa Studies and a specialist in political science, conflict resolution, and rural development; Essam Elkorghli, an education specialist who has studied the impact of the United States and NATO destruction of Libya; and the moderator, Yolian Ogbu, a first-generation Eritrean American studying political science and communications. She has served as the youngest Student Government Association (SGA) president in the University of North Texas history on the first all-women of color ticket no less. An organizer at heart, Yolian was also on the National Women’s March 2019 Youth Empower Committee and works within her cohort to increase the wave of civic engagement in young women across the country. The live stream of the webinar can be viewed on Facebook

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.a

a

***

“Having talked to people, having talked and participated in primarily economically-focused conferences, I would say that the Russian economy has been extraordinarily resilient. I mean, if you consider what Joe Biden wanted to do: reduce the Ruble to rubble and, you know, sanction the Russian economy back into the 19^th Century. Well, none of this has happened.”

– Radhika Desai (From this week’s interview)

“It is highly irresponsible for the leader of Ukraine to be, you know, inculcating in the population this delusional belief that this is a part of the, you know, the contested regions of the country that can be retaken by force. Because that – if they believe him, if they take him seriously, they’re going to continue to support a war which will ultimately end in Ukraine’s destruction. And that’s exactly where this is heading.”

 – Dimitri Lascaris (From this week’s interview)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Since Global Research’s inception more than twenty-one and a half years ago, the website has been dedicating its efforts to delivering crucial information buried in the mainstream media narratives, documenting NATO imperialist ambitions, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the growing risk of a nuclear war. We uphold truth, peace and justice! [1]

In the case of the current Russo-Ukraine war, especially following the recent talks at the G7 meeting, NATO members are now announcing even more weapons going into Ukraine, and the U.S. granting its Western allies an allowance to supply advanced fighter jets, including America’s F-16s. And they refused even to commit to concrete resolutions to eliminate nuclear weapons or even the right to use them. The summit was ironically conducted in Hiroshima! [2]

But on a grander scale, it seems that Canada, given a history of emphasizing diplomatic tendrils toward other nations, either allies or enemies, is now increasingly abandoning the principle, quoted inappropriately to Winston Churchill as “jaw, jaw is better than war, war.” Canada was the lone G7 country to not engage in any dialogue with Russia over the build-up to the February 24th invasion. Even the top diplomat, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, had not accepted the open invitation to visit Russia. [3]

There are however many Canadians who are advocating intensively for peace talks and a ceasefire negotiations. The peace crusader Tamara Lorincz made a trip to Moscow in defiance of Canadian government sanctions and travel advisories in the name of meeting with the people there. The need to broker a dialogue now by grass roots citizens is necessary if government officials won’t do it.

On this week’s Global Research News Hour, like the rest of Global Research, we are endeavoring to see the conflict through the eyes of Russians and others not drowning in a sea of media propaganda about finding a way to peace, rather than “fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.”

Appearing on the show is Canadian political scientist Ivan Katchanovski who studied much of the data around the Maidan Massacre in February of 2014, and reveals the role of fascist elements of the Maidan and their higher level contacts abroad in a coup d’etat! He then talks about the implications at the heart of the war and the prospects that the conflict can possibly reach a peaceful conclusion. This is followed by two other “Canadian ambassadors to Russia” – Dimitri Lascaris and Professor Radhika Desai – about their own journeys recently to “Putin-land,” and what they learned most prominently about what the people on the ground, in official fora and in the streets had to tell them.

Ivan Katchanovski is a Canadian Political Scientist originally born in Lutsk Ukraine. He teaches at the school of political studies at the University of Ottawa and specializes in research in democratization, comparative politics, political communication, and conflicts, in particular, in Ukraine, and especially the origins of Russo-Ukrainian War.

Dimitri Lascaris is a lawyer, a journalist and an activist. From 2004 to 2016 he was a member of Canada’s leading class action law firm Siskinds LLP. He now works pro-bono legal cases. In 2020, he ran for the leadership of the Green Party of Canada and placed second with  45.5% of the membership.

Radhika Desai is  Professor in the Department of Political Studies and Director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group (GERG) at the University of Manitoba in Canada; she edits newcoldwar.org, a project associated with GERG, and is the Convener of the International Manifesto Group.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 393)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Transcript of Dimitri Lascaris and Radhika Desai, May 23, 2023

Part One

Global Research: Thanks to both of you for joining us. Maybe you can each give us a sketch of the economic situation in Russia. I mean, Radhika, you’ve been to Russia before. Now that sanctions have been levelled against the giant power – the West’s attempt to punish them for their behaviour – what have you noticed about the situation in the centres you visited? I mean, how impoverished are the people? Are their businesses shutting down? Or is there any other major changes from the last time you were there?

Radhika Desai: Sure. I mean, so obviously, there are some big brand name shops which were indeed boarded up, but they were actually few and far between. What I was surprised by is the number of Western firms that are still operating there. Like we saw shops, you know, of Subway and United Colours of Benetton, and then we also saw Citibank branch. So, it’s amazing how many Western businesses are still operating there. So, that’s just on the completely, you know, subjective observational point of view.

But more generally, you know, having talked to people, having talked and participated in primarily economically-focused conferences, I would say that the Russian economy has been extraordinarily resilient. I mean, if you consider what Joe Biden wanted to do: reduce the Ruble to rubble and, you know, sanction the Russian economy back into the 19^th Century. Well, none of this has happened. Yes, the Russian economy took a bit of a – back in 2021 – you know, I think it went down a couple of percentage points. But nevertheless, it has proved extremely resilient.

It’s defence production, of course, has been far better than Western countries and it has been brought under planning. And if you ask me, one of the criticisms I heard of the government there, was that it could do a lot more to mobilize the economy on a war footing. And had Putin done that, it wouldn’t even have had a two percent drop, it would have actually boomed. And so, this is the sort of broad picture I’m looking at.

GR: Okay. Dimitri, could you add anything to Radhika’s analysis? I mean, did you see anything that surprised you or impressed you in any way about the state of the economy post-sanctions?

Dimitri Lascaris: Well, I saw no evidence of economy crisis or stress. You know, the shops were full, the shelves were full, the grocery stores were full. The prices, by Canadian standards, I thought were quite reasonable. Also, by European standards, even more reasonable. I completely concur with what Radhika said about the continued presence of, you know, major Western corporations.

I think that my overall impression of the economic situation in Russia is that the country has done remarkably well in adapting to the, you know, a set of sanctions which were quite plainly designed to destroy the economy. And in fact – and I think James Galbraith, an eminent US economist, progressive economist commented recently – what these sanctions have done is actually forced, obliged the Russian government to adopt structural reforms which in the long run are going to make Russia’s economy stronger, more self-sufficient. And if anything – and this is something that The Guardian of all newspapers, it’s intensely pro-Ukraine – acknowledged through its principle economics columnist – his name escapes me for the moment – in an article this week, you know, the sanctions are a failure. And the fact that they’re tightening the sanctions is in fact a sign of how much they have failed.

GR: Now I know that there’s an economic forum, the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, it launches next month actually. But it will host not only the BRICS states, but 81 other nations. Yeah, so much for a nation abandoned by the international community, but… The de- dollarization seems to be under discussion which would be devastating under the current circumstances for America, I believe. You know, given with the bank failings or the major banks that are going under. You know, is the – is that economic forum on Russian mines the way, say, the G7 meetings of last week are the talk of the town out here. And is, in particular, is de-dollarization in particular more of a talking point than it is here? Radhika Desai, I know this is right up your alley, you talk about it on your regular show regularly. What do you think?

RD: Well, first of all let me say that the person that Dimitri was thinking of is Larry Elliot. And indeed, for Larry Elliot to come out and say that sanctions are not working is a pretty big deal, particularly considering that as Jimmy Galbraith also said, there is a certain kind of, you know, mutually reinforcing consensus that everybody just sings the same tune in the West, and so, everybody believes the lies that are being put forward.

So, that’s one thing. And secondly, I just wanted to say, these are the sanctions that – you know, there is a very interesting column if you look for Nicolai Petro and sanctions against Russia I’m sure you’d find it. He basically says that the sanctions have not worked, they are not working, but more and more of them keep being slammed on. Why? And he says, they – it’s just like a shaman, you know? That they think that they are going to have an effect. But the effect of these is – there is no effect. But they have no other tricks up their sleeve, so they keep imposing more sanctions. So, you have to understand what a psychological bin d we are – the West is in, you know? They are not working.

Anyway, on SPEC , yes, I would say that it’s a pretty big event and for the Russians, I would say that I’m sure they will be keeping a keen eye on which countries are coming. There is definitely a sense in which the Russians feel that the Western nations have abandoned them. So, they are working double-hard to try to get more allies and more support in the rest of the world. Indeed, one of the other things that happened in one of the conferences I was attending is that the Russians have coined a new term. It’s called the “world majority.” Because the Russians are trying to define what is the grouping they are joining. They are very aware that Russia is not a third world country. Russia is, you know, has a much better, higher standard of living than the overwhelming majority of peoples – of countries that are called “third world.” They have a huge technological sophistication, a very, very highly trained workforce, et cetera. So, they have decided to dub this grouping that they are now joining the “world majority,” which I think is a rather good way of putting it.

And so, I think they will definitely be looking to see who attends, and so on. And I think that, you know, there will be, you know – I think more and more the West is beginning to have to admit, as Larry Elliot’s column shows that, sanctions are not working. And I think the West will have to open up a lot more. There will probably be more Western presence there than we imagine.

On de-dollarization, Russian interest in de-dollarization is not new. I have been there many times, and every – almost every time I ask to speak on a subject that somehow relates to de-dollarization or write on the subject of de-dollarization itself. It’s very important for Russians and I think for the whole world. Because the dollar system – I mean, I have argued in my book Geopolitical Economy that the dollar system never worked. But somehow, this ramshackle machine kept going for a while, but it is actually about to come apart. It’s about to come apart for two reasons: number one, its internal contradictions are mounting.

One of my points I’ve made in various places about the debt ceiling negotiations is it doesn’t matter if they come up with an agreement on the debt ceiling. The fact of the matter is that the market for US Treasuries, which is the foundation of the dollar system, is already deeply troubled. And as the United States – the political dysfunction, economic decline continue, it can only get worse. And I should also add to that, financial mismanagement continues. And financial mismanagement continues because everything has been staked on a low interest rate regime, and now, the financial sector is facing increasing interest rates and that is already leading to bank collapses, bottom following out of various asset markets, and so on. And this is already going to mean that the rest of the world is not going to put its dollars in the dollar system anymore, in the US dollar denominated financial system. And the less that – and this has been going on, by the way, since 2008. The more this accelerates, the closer we come to the end of the dollar system.

One final point – sorry to go on for so long, but one quick final point: the dollar system will not be replaced by another currency taking its place, it is not possible. The dollar system itself was without foundation because it was already not possible when the dollar system was attempted to – it was imposed on the world. And somehow, through various contrivances, it has continued so far. But it is not going to be replaced by any other currency, but by a series of arrangements, inevitably regional, because the US will not take part in them. They will inevitably be regional, but they will be a serious of different arrangements which eventually will, I think, acquire political gains.

GR: Well, for sure. Certainly it was the fact that the dollar was such a powerful force for the United States for so long and it looks like that era is coming to a close. Dimitri, I believe you and Radhika and Al had actually met there for a time. It was concerning the dollarization. I don’t know if you have anything to add, but I wanted to also get you on the question of Crimea. I mean, Zelensky himself had said that his forces would liberate Crimea from Russia and return the people back to Ukraine, but… Talking to the Crimean people there, did you get a sense from anyone that you visited as to the attractiveness of that suggestion?

DL: Not a single person. You know, I don’t want to qualify my answer, but I say that of course, I didn’t conduct any kind of a scientific poll while I was there. I spoke to a few dozen people. Some of them just, you know, ordinary citizens going about their daily jobs —

GR: Were you just in certain areas or did you go pretty much all across the region?

DL: I was all over Crimea. I went to Yalta, I was in Simferopol which is the capital of Crimea. I was in Sevastopol which is, of course, the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet, the Russian Black Sea Fleet. I went up to the north, the border of Crimea and Kherson region and spoke there with people who were volunteers in a refugee transitional centre, you know, from all over Russia: from Siberia, from St. Petersburg, from Moscow. And I did not encounter a single person who expressed a desire to see Crimea returned to the rule of Kyiv. And in fact, everybody was intensely hostile to that idea.

But at the same time, and this is something that I thought was most impressive, was that I didn’t encounter a single person who expressed hostility towards the people of Ukraine. Their revulsion was directed entirely to the government of Ukraine, and one word that I heard over and over again to describe Zelensky was “comedian.” Nobody takes him seriously, people think that he’s a buffoon. And this notion that the Ukrainian military is going to retake Crimea by force is not one that I think – certainly not one that anybody I met – took seriously.

And I’ll tell you, you know, Michael, based on what I saw, I’m not a military expert. I think the idea that Ukraine is going to take – the military of Ukraine is going to retake Crimea by force is delusional. You know, they’re – the peninsula of Ukraine is attached to the mainland, you might call it, of Ukraine, the peninsula of Crimea is attached to the mainland of Ukraine by two narrow channels of land, each of which is heavily fortified. There are multiple lines of trench works and tank obstacles. They’re flat, they’re wide open, there’s no tree cover. There are no mountainous areas. Each of them is flanked by large bodies of water. And if, you know, the Ukrainian military tried to insert large numbers of forces into those, one or both, of those two narrow bits of land, I imagine that they would be massacred. They would get bogged down and they would be met with ferocious artillery assaults and it would be a pure bloodbath and it would be completely irresponsible for any military political leader of Ukraine to attempt that.

The only other way to retake Crimea would be by an amphibious landing. The problem with that, of course, is that Ukraine has no navy to speak of, whereas Russia has a very powerful naval force, the Black Sea Fleet, circling the waters around Crimea. So, I think that that also would be equally suicidal.

So, you know, you don’t have to take my word for it, you can listen even to, you know, prognostications of people like Antony Blinken and Mark Milley and other pro-Ukraine Western military experts who have, in the last several months, expressed, you know, considerable skepticism about Ukraine being able to take Crimea by force. And I’ve said this before and I’ll say this again: it is highly irresponsible for the leader of Ukraine to be, you know, inculcating in the population this delusional belief that this is a part of the, you know, the contested regions of the country that can be retaken by force. Because that – if they believe him, if they take him seriously, they’re going to continue to support a war which will ultimately end in Ukraine’s destruction. And that’s exactly where this is heading.

GR: Hm.

DL: It cannot be said enough: this war is going to end in the destruction of Ukraine. And the harder Ukraine tries, that its military and its government tries to retake territories that are practically beyond their ability to re-conquer, the more Ukrainian people are going to suffer.

-Intermission-

Part Two

GR: Could you talk a little bit about the media? Because I know polls suggest that Putin is way more popular today among Russians than either the Canadian prime minister among Canadians or the American preside nt among Americans. One of the reasons cited by sources is that – the Western sources is that the Putin – Putin’s misinformation is going out on its networks, so the Russian people are not as informed about the war in Ukraine as we in the West, I guess. Based on media you were exposed to while in the country, did you get that sense of patterns of misinformation on the airwaves or any false information appearing or shady facts or anything like that? Radhika Desai?

RD: Well, no. I would say that in Russia, there is a – there is no doubt that there is a section of the population that is not comfortable with the war. There may be certain, shall we say, members of the globalized classes that are, you know, chiefly concerned about their image in the rest of the world and their inability to travel and things like that. But on the whole, I would say that the overwhelming majority of Russians are not against the war. If there is any feeling that there is something wrong, it is that they think ‘Why is this taking as long as it is? Why don’t we simply win it sooner?’

And I completely agree with Dimitri. I – and I think this is a fact worth emphasizing: there is no nationalist, chauvinistic feeling in Russia. What they realize is that had this not – had this war not taken place Russia’s security would have been in danger. And so, they are – they support what has happened, not happily, but reluctantly as something that had to be done.

And I would say that also, I have noticed this for a long time, I hardly know any Russians who don’t have some personal connections, often kinship connections, with Ukraine. And there is a great feeling of sadness that what was once a very close relationship, there is a historical, long-standing relationship between Russia and Ukraine going back hundreds of years, a thousand years probably, and that this is being broken in such a way is a source of great sadness.

And I should also add one final thing: in the West, Putin’s speech in which he referred to this historic closeness of the two nations was interpreted as questioning Ukraine’s right to exist. But this is complete nonsense. If you look at what Russia – how hard Russia tried to keep the border, the post-2014 borders of Ukraine intact – and I can go back into that, if you want. But if you think about how hard they were going to Minsk One Agreement, Minsk Two Agreement, simply to keep that country together, provided that there was some autonomy given to the Russian-speaking minority, you would understand what the Russian position is. It is not to question Ukraine’s right to exist.

If any country has questioned Ukraine’s right to exist, or any part of the world, it is the West. Because again, I’d like to reinforce something Dimitri said: everybody who is talking about supporting Ukraine and giving it all the arms and supporting it as long as it takes, is not supporting Ukraine. It is supporting the destruction of Ukraine.

GR: Hm. Okay, well, I don’t know. Dimitri, I mean, did you see any instances of, say, counter-viewpoints to the government line available in the mainstream – in the press?

DL: I certainly didn’t hear any vigorous criticisms of the Russian government from the left. I heard a fair bit of criticism from – about the Russian government. Not particularly intense criticism, but some modest criticism about the Russian government from what might – one might consider ‘the Right.’ And what I mean by that is that, I heard from a number of people that they felt that the Russian government was being too restrained in how it was dealing with, you know, what they regarded as a far-right Russophobic, militaristic and very threatening regime in Kyiv.

And I should add that, you know, everybody I spoke to did not view this as being a war between Russia and Ukraine. They viewed this as being a war between Russia and NATO, or sometimes they referred to it as the “collective West,” and the Ukrainian government was a corrupt proxy of NATO and the collective West. Some people, a number of people, expressed to me the view that the Russian government should have been more forceful. They also expressed the view that the Russian government should have intervened much earlier before NATO built up the Ukrainian military to the point that it became a difficult adversary, and it has evolved into that.

And by the way, one should – you know, we need to be cognizant of the fact that NATO has pumped into Ukraine – putting aside all the weapons they’ve sent there before the invasion began in February of last year – since then, in the last 15 months or so, the dollar value of the weaponry they’ve put into Ukraine is approximately equivalent to the annual military budget of Russia.

So, it’s not surprising that the Russian people, many of them, feel that they are actually at war with NATO and not Ukraine. And they feel that the government needs to be more forceful about this, some of them do. And that it should have intervened more quickly.

Now, having said all of that, you know, it is a difficult environment and I don’t think this is particularly surprising for a country that is at war with the world’s largest and most aggressive military alliance. And that is, you know, genuinely existentially threatened as Russia is, that it’s difficult to criticize in that environment Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine. I think that that is something that one ought to take into account.

But at the same time, you know, polls have shown consistently – and I’ll refer people to the Levada Polling Agency which is widely regarded as a reputable polling agency and one that’s very critical of the Russian government – has shown consistently that the level of support long before the military intervention in Ukraine last year, the support for Vladimir Putin was, you know, never lower, I think in his entire tenure as the president of Russia, than 60 percent. And it’s currently hovering around 80 percent, which obviously is much higher than the, you know, the kinds of approval ratings we see amongst Western leaders. And if you compare the circumstances, the conditions in which Russians lived in the ‘90’s under the drunken buffoon and Clinton-vassal Boris Yeltsin to the living conditions in Russia today, it shouldn’t surprise anybody, frankly, why so many Russians feel a level of appreciation for the president. And not just the president, but the people who surround him, who formed an important part of that government over the past 20 years.

Living conditions in Russia is something that’s not talked about in the West at all – not at all – have improved dramatically during the time that Vladimir Putin has been the president of the country. That’s just a fact. You can consult the World Bank statistics yourself and that will bear it out very clearly. So, we in the West need to start having an honest conversation about why the Russian people support this government and whether it actually is democratic for us to be trying to overthrow it.

GR: Okay. I just have one last question, because I know you’ve got to go in a minute. But I just wanted to know: were you asked a lot of questions about what Canadians are thinking and how did you respond to that? Go Radhika first, and then…

RD: Well, I think that, you know, I feel that obviously, if you look at our mainstream media, whether it is the Globe and Mail or the CBC, there is an unrelenting barrage of anti-Russian propaganda which, at the same time, is exceedingly flimsy. Because there is often never any fact, it’s always ‘Kyiv says this,’ and you know, it is believed that, and sources say this, and so on. So, I would say that, on the one hand, there is this barrage and undoubtedly for a lot of people who may not be thinking, they just end up believing this.

But I have also no doubt that there is a very large section of the Canadian population that does not take the government and dominant media version of things for granted. And indeed, that is why we have seen that there is a lot of interest in alternative news media websites, such as for example, Michael your own, and many others. Because, you know, the fact of the matter is that we’ve been interested in alternative media going back to the 1990’s because already then it was clear, there’s more and more people around the world that are – certainly the Western world – that the dominant media is not giving us the truth. And with this war in Ukraine, the level of smoke and mirrors, the disinformation, the systematic fake news produced by the dominant media has taken on a new level of reality and I think that people realize that.

GR: Okay. And Dimitri, quickly.

DL: On the one hand, I was treated very respectfully when I told people that I’m a Canadian. No one expressed hostility to me because of the fact that I’m Canadian. But I frankly didn’t have the impression that people in Russia are particularly concerned about what Canadians think. And they were very candid about this because they think, and with considerable justification, that the Canadian government, at the end of the day, is just going to do what Washington does. And so, they think the real decision makers in the collective West are in Washington. And it’s not just about Canada, it’s also about, you know, European states, that they are going to follow the lead of the Biden administration. And that’s the real interlocutor and the real opponent of Russia today, the Biden administration.

---

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

Other stations airing the show:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/twenty-one-years-ago-global-research-embarked-its-mission-spread-truth/5792805
2. https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2023/05/21/nobel-peace-prize-winner-denounces-g7-failure-to-deliver-on-nuclear-disarmament-in-hiroshima/
3. Allan Woods (February 25, 2022), ‘Canada supports Ukraine, but why aren’t we talking to Russia?’, The Toronto Star;  https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/02/19/canada-supports-ukraine-but-why-arent-we-talking-to-russia.html

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.

*** 

Background

The governor of the Central Bank of Pakistan, as the former chairman, handed over the presidency to the governor of the Iranian central bank, Mohammad Reza Farzin. Jameel Ahmad said the union can come up with new ideas for alternative currencies that would bring more benefits. Farzin, for his part, expressed hope for more cooperation between the ACU members (ACU = Asian Clearing Union).

The Governor of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) has underlined the need for the member states of the Asian Clearing Union (ACU) to trade in their national currencies and other not commonly used currencies.

The CBI governor said that the ACU was established in 1974 with the aim of de-dollarization and using local currencies and fostering barter trade among the nine member countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka.

The Vice president of Iran and top banking officials of the member states have attended the meeting. The Asian Clearing Union, that has 9 members, was established in 1974 with the aim of reducing dependence on global currencies, especially the US-dollar. The main objective of the union is to facilitate payments among member countries for eligible transactions.

*

PressTV: Could you please comment on dedollarization, Iran’s capability of evading US sanctions?

Peter Koenig: Although in existence since 1974, the Asian Clearing Union (ACU) has hardly been on the radar of the west in at least almost 50 years. Of course, it is not convenient for the west to show the world that an alternative to the western-controlled SWIFT international transfer system is possible.

Definitely – a strengthened and even enlarged ACU would help Iran and all adhering members to dedollarize.

Dedollarization has already made enormous headways. At present international reserves consist only of a mere 45% of US dollar denominated assets.

Some 20 years ago, 90% or more of all reserves were designated in US dollars. Likewise with trading. Once upon a time, still 10-15 years ago, the US dollar was the main trading currency in the world. No more.

There has been a gradual shift away from trading in US dollars, and instead countries adopted trading in their local currencies, or in a currency of common use by the trading partners, for example the Chinese Yuan.

Latin America – especially Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela – are consistently using local currencies or the Chinese Yuan to avoid the dollar.

Avoiding the dollar is foremost for own protection from US sanctions. Increasingly more country will use this new mode of trading – equitable and peaceful.

PressTV: What about the New World Order?

PK: The New World Order as foreseen by the Great Reset and UN Agenda 2030 is a pipe dream of the west.

It will not happen – as too many countries see through the game and will object, and start creating new alliances as we see already emerging in the east, in the form of the enlarged BRICS+ (Iran), as well as in monetary / exchange terms with the Asian Clearing Union.

These may evolve into parallel economies – eventually leaving the west behind.

Let us not forget, the Global South is part of the Eastern Alliance – and most of the natural resources left on the planet are in the East – Russia is a good example – and in Africa and Latin America.

The west will starve without the resources of the Global South.

Important question but we cannot prove it: Are man-made climate change – ENMOD technologies (Environmental Modification) — causing extreme crop and infrastructure damage, by floods and droughts, cold and heat waves, even causing earthquakes?  It all goes under the indoctrinated narrative of “climate change”.

Most people on planet earth have no clue about the truth. They have been brainwashed with a criminal lie for the last at least 30 years. It is now difficult to convince them of the truth.

Eastern Alliances – and a coordination mechanism, or union, like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – will make the East, eastern or alternative economies independent.

After all the East and Global South comprise more than two-thirds of the world population and already now, in its limited form, close to 40% of the world’s GDP.

PressTV: Can you, please, comment on the capacity of Iran’s economy in the region and the world?

PK: Under the new premises of an enhanced ACU, the Iranian economy may expand exponentially – even more so, if the member countries expand and create a common trading / reserve currency like an Asian SDR = ASDR. In this case they would be way ahead of the west.

PressTV: What do you mean by an Asian SDR (Special Drawing Right)?

PK: As mentioned earlier, until recently little was known to the rest of the world about the 1974 created Asian Clearing Union. It is now the moment to activate ACU, expand it, making it a reliable platform for trade and monetary transfers, a force to outmaneuver SWIFT – for eastern alliances, for trading.

In short, ACU should become a fully non-SWIFT trading / money-transfer platform for further dedollarization, as well as for lending eastern economies stability – independence from the western dollar-dominated, sanction-prone SWIFT system.

If possible, more countries may join with “stronger” currencies – China, Russia, and why not ALL BRICS — perhaps ACU may also partner with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to build up strength.

If I may, let me advance an idea – the currencies of participating ACU countries could be grouped into some kind of Asian SDR  where each currency within the Asian SDR – ASDR – would be weighed according to its own economy, and the ASDR could act as a trading currency – as well as a reserve currency for participating as well as non-participating countries.

This concept, at one point, was behind the IMF established Special Drawing Right (SDR) which today consists of the world’s five major currencies – US-dollar, Chinese Yuan, Euro, British Pound and Japanese Yen. They figure within the IMF-SDR with their weighted average according to their country’s economic strength.

However, the SDR has major flaws. The IMF being dominated by the US, the Chinese Yuan is considerably undervalued. Every discussion and argument China wants to engage in with the IMF / US for adjusting the Yuan’s weight within the SDR is being “avoided”.

Therefore, an Asian SDR (ASDR) – could be named differently, applying the principles of the IMF SDR — would be a tremendous step towards dedollarization, towards independence from the western currencies.

ASDRs might not only be used for trading but also as a reserve currency. The more countries join the ACU / ASDR system, the stronger the ASDR, the more pressure to dedollarize the world.

It would allow escaping the “sanctions regime” of the US and Europe and lead into a new more balanced monetary system.

As this new exchange-trade progresses, more countries – even from the so-called west — may join.

A more balanced monetary / economic system – a better equilibrium of the world economy  — is a natural precursor for PEACE.

*

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.

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.

First published on May 15, 2023

*** 

This is an URGENT message from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Team about the World Health Organization’s (WHO) impending Power Grab. If we do not intervene and stop it NOW, WHO will take over power and dominion on all matters of health over and above the sovereignty of WHO member states, and over our right to decide over our own body.

Please sign the petition below.

The World Health Assembly (WSHA) in the week of 21 May 2023 is scheduled to voting on a new set of International Health Regulations (IHR), including an intimately related Pandemic Treaty. If these criminal rules were to be approved; they would abolish some of our basic Human Rights.

These made-to-order rules, would be called “laws”, for which there is no legal basis whatsoever. They would allow WHO to impose their health rules over and above every sovereign country, of over their 194 members.

The mega-monsters behind this planned tyranny have the corrupt UN system on their side. WHO and the UN follow the WEF’s Great Reset Agenda, alias UN Agenda 2030 which pursues identical goals – massive population reduction, the introduction of chipped humans to make them transhumans, also called “cyborgs” and full control of the world and its surviving “cyborgs” under a One World Order (OWO).

A cyborg is a human being whose body has been taken over in whole or in part by electromechanical devices.

On population reduction, read and see this (below) which follows the blueprint of the 1972 written “Limits to Growth” by the Club of Rome – which has nothing to do with Rome, and was initiated by Rockefeller — a renown eugenist.

The Club of Rome was created in 1968, by David Rockefeller, Aurelio Peccei, Alexander King, and Co- Presidents: Sandrine Dixson-Declève and Dr. Mamphela Ramphele. The Club of Rome is registered as a tax-free NGO with headquarters in Winterthur, Switzerland.

This article contains a short video by one of the authors of “Limits to Growth”, Dennis Meadows. In this 2017 10-min video, Meadows propagates an inevitable genocide of 86% of the world population, hoping it could be accomplished peacefully under a “benevolent” dictatorship. See video embedded in the article below.

Club of Rome “Limits to Growth” Author Promotes Genocide of 86% of the World’s Population
Dennis Meadows, one of the main authors of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth, is a member of the World Economic Forum. (4 May 2023)

Please sign the petition highlighted in the CHD message below. Please circulate this memorandum widely. There is no time to lose.

We, the People, must stand up NOW.

In case this Power Grab, the new revised International Health Regulation (IHR) and related “Pandemic Treaty” are accepted within the coming two to three weeks – it needs a two thirds majority of the voting WHA members to be ratified – to save our human rights and to save our rights over our bodies, We, the People, and, We, Representatives of our Nations, have no choice but to EXIT WHO; to EXIT the entire compromised, bought UN system.

---

From Children’s Health Defense

In the last three years, we’ve witnessed the obliteration of our rights under the guise of safety and public health measures.

During the pandemic, countries around the world utilized governing bodies to impose mandates, enact executive orders and coerce compliance with untested, unsafe experimental mRNA shots. The people were ultimately stripped from their fundamental rights, restricting our ability to travel, seek proper healthcare, or choose alternative methods to maintain health.

Sign the Health Freedom Bill of Rights.

All of these tyrannical efforts were orchestrated by the government in concert with Big Tech and Big Pharma and propagated by mainstream media. Now the powers that be want this tyranny to continue — so they’re outsourcing it to a group of unelected bureaucrats to usher in a one-world global government.

Despite catastrophic public health failures during the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) is preparing amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). These amendments would transfer the management of future pandemics to the WHO Director-General, who can deem a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) at will.

The U.N. is preparing a similar “Emergency Platform” at this very moment to be a part of this power grab.

The proposed changes to the legally binding IHR would give WHO unprecedented power over national governments to dictate how we live our lives and the choices we will be allowed to make for our health, freedom, and families. We must oppose this coup d’etat against our constitutional republic and preserve our national sovereignty and fundamental rights.

The Great Reset vs. The Great Freeset. Which side of history will you stand on? Will you allow the ushering in of a one-world government to undermine the powers of sovereign nations and our individual rights, or will you defend your rights and choose freedom?

Here are three things you can do to take part in #TheGreatFreeset

1. Sign the Health Freedom Bill of Rights to let the WHO and the U.N. know that we are paying attention and will not comply with this consolidation of power at the hands of unelected global leaders.

2. Help us send a simultaneous global message! Share this video on all your social media channels tonight, Friday, May 5, at 7:00 p.m. Eastern.

3. Even though, the date may have past, it is never too late to share this important message. Becoming aware of its contents and standing up against it in unison, may indeed make a difference between life and death.

4. Stay tuned for action alerts and share our campaign to help spread mass awareness of this threat of tyranny that will usher in a one-world government. There is strength in numbers. Please share this campaign far and wide!

It is critical that we act now to protect our nations from these global power grabs. Join us in finding a new way forward!

In solidarity,

The Team at Children’s Health Defense

*

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 Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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 September 23, 2022

***

Stefan Oelrich, head of Bayer’s pharmaceuticals department, admitted at the World Health Summit that the COVID-19 vaccine is gene therapy. He smugly stated that the drug companies knew people would reject the vaccine if they knew it was in fact a gene-altering injectable. They lied to us for profits as the vaccine certainly did not prevent anyone from contracting or transmitting the virus.

“If we had surveyed two years ago if people were willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate,” Oelrich admits while forgetting many took the “gene therapy” through force.

Twitter has already flagged retweets of this video as “misleading.” The conspiracy theorists who were told they had no place in society were right as Big Pharma and governments worldwide used the public as guinea pigs for the largest gene therapy study in history. We still do not know the long-term health implications but have seen a variety of health issues and lingering side effects in the short-term. Revolutions have occurred over much less.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

First published on March 23, 2023

***

Three years ago the Western World came to a standstill. The official Covid-19 narrative depicted a strange suddenly-super-spreading, deadlier-than-flu virus hailing from China that landed in Northern Italy.

On February 20, 2020 the first alleged case of Covid-19 was discovered in the West in the Lombardy town of Codogno, Italy. Later that day the Italian government reported their first “Covid-19 death.”

Dramatic media reports emerging from Northern Italy were hammered into and onto the Western psyche giving the impression there was a mysterious “super spreading” and “super lethal” novel virus galloping across the region infecting and killing scores of people.

Harrowing reports out of Bergamo, a city in the alpine Lombardy region of Northern Italy, spoke   of coffins stacked high, “covid-related deaths growing relentlessly” and the alarming need for military assistance to remove the grim volume of dead bodies piling up.

In early March 2020 hospitals in Northern Italy were reporting a “tsunami of deaths” due to the Covid crisis and overcrowded conditions due to “fighting the coronavirus outbreak”, which were pushing hospitals and staff to the breaking point as doctors were “taking the dead from morning until night.”

Using the entire machinery of the state, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte began issuing a rolling set of government decrees culminating in Italy becoming the first country in the world to implement a national lockdown. These mandates would set the stage for lockdowns throughout the Western world.

Three years later a comprehensive evaluation of the story about the alleged Italian medical emergency in Spring 2020, reveals a tale of the disturbing epidemiological history of Northern Italy, mass media manipulation and deceptive reporting utilized to create the illusion of a new epidemic.

A multitude of questions and inconsistencies surrounding the Italian story soon surfaced. Ascribing this strange set of convergent circumstances to a viral event strained credulity.

Were these overcrowded conditions in Italian hospitals genuinely the result of a unique viral pathogen or were there other causal factors?

Were these anomalous spikes in excess deaths in Northern Italy verifiably caused by the arrival and spread of a novel deadly virus?

How was it that this virus spread across thousands of kilometers within days and peaked synchronously in selected locations?

How was it that this virus was able to spread so fast across thousands of kilometers, peaking at the same time in those selected locations, yet wasn’t contagious enough to spread to nearby locations?

How was it that this virus waited for a government decree and only then began to create excess death?

How was it possible that all countries in the West and beyond adopted similar “health” measures as carried out in Italy, virtually “overnight”, measures that resembled a de facto police state rather than medical initiatives?

Why Italy?

Image: At the entrance to the hospital, a sign reads: “You are the real heroes”, Bergamo, Italy, March, 2020. | Photo: Twitter/ @orlandoQva

A brief timeline of the series of events as they unfolded in Northern Italy in Spring 2020:

January 31,  2020 –  The Italian Council of Ministers declares a 6-month national emergency handing the coordination of the COVID-19 emergency responses to the Head the Civil Protection Department, following the detection of the first two COVID-19 positive people in Rome – two Chinese tourists traveling from Wuhan;

February 20, 2020 – First Covid-19 case of Italian citizen diagnosed in Codogno.

78-year-old Adriano Trevisan, a retired bricklayer from the village of Vo’ Euganeo near Padua in the Veneto region became the first Covid death of a European recorded. The deceased tested positive for the virus and died in the hospital while being treated for pneumonia.

February 23, 2020 – The Italian government introduces the first movement and access/exit restrictions around hotspots, known as ‘lockdown red zones.’

On this same day the Italian Ministry of Health issued PCR testing guidance to 31 labs across Italy. Cases surge.

February 25, 2020 – Further restrictive measures introduced across Italy.

February 27, 2020 – A National Surveillance system, coordinated by the ISS (National Institute of Health) is set up to oversee the collection and collation of daily data.

March 1, 2020 – Creation of ‘lockdown red zones’ expands.

March 4, 2020 –  Nationwide closure of schools and universities are declared in Italy.

March 8, 2020 – Decree Of The President Of The Council Of Ministers expands restrictions to all Lombardy and large areas of Northern Italy.

March 9, 2020 – The government of Italy under Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte extends the lockdown to the whole of Italy restricting the movement of the population except for necessity, work, and health circumstances.

March 11, 2020 – The World Health Organization declares the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak a global pandemic. Italy declares closure of all restaurants, pubs, theaters and social activities.

March 18, 2020 – European Central Bank announces huge money printing program to keep the financial system functioning. 750 billion euro bailout given to financial sector to fight the “coronavirus crash.”

March 22, 2020 – Cessation of all non-essential productive activities complete lockdown factories are closed and all nonessential production is halted across Italy.

March 25, 2020 – Further restrictions imposed to people’s movements except for essential reasons (e.g. work, health and getting supplies).

March 27, 2020 – Peak in number of daily Covid deaths in Italy.

April 9, 2020 – ‘Liquidità’ Decree goes into full effect, including temporary measures to facilitate access to loans, support business continuity and corporate liquidity and measures to support export, internationalization and business investment.

May 4, 2020 – Reopening of most factories and various wholesale businesses, within pre-set health safety protocols.

While such a chronology can serve to refresh our memory and provide a coherent understanding of the sequence of events, it is not a substitute for real history.

As they say– the devil is in the details.

The details in Northern Italy start with massive pollution problems and the accompanying long-standing chronic health conditions which have afflicted the region for years.

Pollution and Chronic Illness

Everyday life in the Lombardy region is bedeviled with dangerous living conditions and health challenges– numerous acute health problems facing an aging population have been documented for a long period of time.

The Po River Valley in Northern Italy is cited as having the worst air quality in all of Europe. The air quality in the region has been deteriorating for many years. The cities in the Po River Valley are cited as having the highest mortality burdens associated with air pollution in all of Europe.

Along with the sheer volume of pollutants, the Po River Valley is known for its unique characteristics of low winds and prolonged episodes of climatic inversions turning it into a holding tank for atmospheric pollution.

The Lancet Planetary Health report from January 2021 estimated death rates associated with fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide pollution in 1000 European cities. Brescia and Bergamo in the Lombardy region held the morbid distinction of having the highest death rate from fine particulate matter in Europe. Two other Northern Italian cities, Vicenza and Saronno placed fourth and eighth respectively, in the list of top ten cities in this category. These locations correspond precisely with the highest incidents of upper respiratory infections occurring in Northern Italy as reported in the official pandemic narrative.

Ongoing and accelerating “epidemics” of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, (a severe and progressive lung disease), interstitial lung disease and high rates of bronchial and lung cancer were signature epidemiological features of Northern Italy long before an alleged virus ventured onto the scene.

In the Lombardy region there is also an ongoing asbestos problem from occupational asbestos exposure in the 1960s and 1970s.  A 2016 study, “Incidence of mesothelioma in Lombardy, Italy: exposure to asbestos, time patterns and future projections, predicted a rise of malignant mesothelioma (MM), an aggressive and deadly form of cancer primarily impacting the linings of the chest and abdomen. “This study documented a high burden of MM in both genders in the Lombardy Region, reflecting extensive occupational (mainly in men) and non-occupational (mainly in women) exposure to asbestos in the past. Incidence rates are still increasing; a downturn in occurrence of MM is expected to occur after 2019.”

A further study, “Investigating the impact of influenza on excess mortality in all ages in Italy during recent seasons (2013/14–2016/17 seasons)”, reveals that rates of death due to the common flu have increased markedly over the past decade. This study described a nearly fourfold increase in flu mortality during the covered time period. By the 2016/17 season the totals skyrocketed to 24,981 excess deaths attributable to flu epidemics.

Adding to the ongoing problems of air pollution, residents in the Po River Valley are plagued by high levels of industrial livestock runoff in rivers and tributaries.

The Lombardy region creates vast amounts of animal waste as it produces more than 40 percent of Italy’s milk production while over half of Italy’s pig production is located in the Po River Valley.

Throughout Italy issues with poisoned soil caused by past and present industrial activities and accidents have beset the land and its people.

Heavy industrial activity and past industrial poisoning in northern Italy afflict the region with yet another mass of toxic exposures. 

In 1976 Seveso, Italy experienced “one of the worst industrial accidents in the past century. The Seveso disaster occurred in a chemical manufacturing plant 12 miles north of Milan in the Lombardy region of Italy. It resulted in the highest known exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in residential populations in history and became a “testament to the lasting effects of dioxin.”

Dioxin is a known cancer-causing agent and many people who were living in and around Seveso at the time would be at increased risk of  cancers later in life. Someone who turned 20 years of age in 1976 would now be in their 60’s during the Covid Era.

This is consistent with what has been widely reported among Nembro men, with cancer being theleading cause of death in this demographic and lung cancer being the most common type of cancer.

Austerity Measures and Health Infrastructure

Compounding the abysmal environmental conditions facing the people of Northern Italy are  austerity measures of the past two decades which have decimated Italian public services, severely decreasing health care resources.

Examining the state of the hospitals in northern Italy, long before the “pandemic”, a pattern starts to emerge.

A 2019 review on the current state of Italian hospitals, “Health & Hospitals in Italy. 17th Annual Report”, noted a “significant increase in 2019 of people on waiting lists and for longer times, compared to the already problematic situation in 2018,” and a, “pronounced deterioration, over the last 5 years, of the “connection” systems between general medicine and hospitals and between these and post-hospitalization services (rehabilitation, long-term care, assisted living homes and home care service).”

The charged atmosphere and resulting firestorm created by a trumpeted “viral invasion” brutally exposed the effects of 20 years of cuts to the national health care system.

A 2013 Oxfam report on the impacts of austerity measures, “THE TRUE COST OF AUSTERITY AND INEQUALITY Italy Case Study” highlighted the decline in Italian health services.

The report noted that in 2000, Italy was 2nd in the world for health coverage. The reports cited thatby 2011, due to yearly declines in health spending, “more than nine million people declared that they could not access some health services for economic reasons.”

Further cuts magnified an already volatile situation. Over the period 2010–19, the Italian National Healthcare Service suffered financial cuts of more than €37 billion as it experienced a progressive privatization of health-care services. Government spending on healthcare, decreasing for years, spiraled down to a rate below what the WHO considered capable of offering basic health care.

These comprehensive cuts also had severe effects on the healthcare workforce and available hospital beds and equipment, effectively hampering the ability of care facilities to effectively treat patients.

The period from 2009 to 2017 saw 5.2 percent of healthcare staff cut. In the last 10 years, 70,000 beds were lost.  In acute medical units bed availability dropped from 922 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1980 to 262 per 100,000.

Data from 2020 show a total of 5,179 beds in intensive care units (approx. 8.9 beds per 100,000) for all of Italy, a population of just over 60 million in 2020.

At regular operational level in 2020 the 74 Lombardy hospitals, servicing a population of 10 million, had approximately 720 ICU beds, with up to 90% of them usually occupied in the winter.

By  March 10, 2020 there were 877 people hospitalized in ICUs, units in Lombardy were saturated and requests to transfer patients to other regions were prevalent.

The net effect of these radical cuts to hospital infrastructure and services in the context of the covid hysteria were predictable; for years Italian ICU physicians have been reporting that flu outbreaks cause ICU units to fill up as was the case in locations across the world.

The roaring silence from the media on these inconvenient facts kept the public in the dark on the realities of the crumbling Italian health care system.

Only “the virus.”

In light of this data, it is no surprise that individuals with routine and mostly reversible seasonal respiratory infections once admitted to hospitals might not be treated appropriately or successfully.

Iatrogenic deaths/hospital protocols

In Spring 2020 Italian health officials introduced unprecedented health protocols specifically for Covid.

These new protocols, including early intubation and accompanying sedation, were deemed necessary to protect doctors and nurses at a time when the viral load of the alleged lethal pathogen was purportedly lower.

Were these new protocols appropriate for treating upper respiratory problems?

Mechanical ventilators, that push oxygen into patients whose lungs are failing, quickly became the accepted go-to practice throughout the Italian hospital system. Doctors made extravagant claims that ventilators had “become like gold.”

Employing ventilators involves sedating the patient and placing a tube into the throat. Drugs such as midazolam, morphine sulfate and propofol are used in accompaniment with this procedure; drugs that come with contra-indications and warnings of side effects including respiratory depression and respiratory arrest. Midazolam and propofol are two drugs that are regularly used for assisted suicide and to put down death row inmates.

During the initial wave of hysteria in March 2020 the Italian government requested and received an emergency procurement of midazolam from Germany as their hospitals “suddenly needed  3-4 times the normal amount of this drug.”

The Italian Civil Protection undertook a fast-track public procurement to secure 3800 additional respiratory ventilators.

As early as April 2020 the reliance on mechanical ventilation came under fire from Italian experts. Luciano Gattinoni, a world-renowned Italian intensive care specialist suggested that “mechanical ventilation was being misused and overused.”

Marco Garrone, an emergency doctor at the Mauriziano Hospital in Turin, Italy remarked, “We started with a one-size-fits-all attitude, which didn’t pay off,” Garrone said of the practice of putting patients on ventilators right away, only to see their conditions deteriorate. “Now we try to delay intubation as much as possible.”

Even as some health officials pushed to get more ventilators to treat coronavirus patients, some doctors were moving away from using them.

Questions surrounding actual causes of “Covid deaths” of the frail and elderly placed on ventilators began to surface for the simple reason that doctors were noticing  unusually high death rates for coronavirus patients on ventilators.

Could it be that it was medical malfeasance, and not a novel pathogen, that was igniting this tinderbox in the hospitals and creating a feedback loop of public panic?

Could it be that what spread through the Italian hospitals in Spring 2020 was an epidemic of iatrogenesis?

Was it possible that the Spring 2020 mortality event in Northern Italy was not an epidemiological or biological aberration but the result of an unprecedented set of administrative mandates by the Italian government and public health officials?

Emergency Measures and Lockdown Impacts on population

Image: March 1, 2020 shows medical supplies, including masks, gloves and protective suits, donated to Italy by Lishui City, east China’s Zhejiang Province. (Xinhua)

The Italian government, public health officials and  regional doctors  proclaiming a “novel virus” had landed in Northern Italy, insisted that emergency preparations be activated to prepare for this “massive” increase in Covid-19 patients. That these forecasts were speculations, using linear model forecasts, coming from doctors with conflicts of interest  was of little interest to reporters.

A progressive set of restrictive decrees, including lockdowns of villages and cities, were  swiftly implemented. These directives served to further terrify and disorient an already panicked populace.

Citizens were told to stay home and were banned from entering certain areas; fines were levied for those who transgressed. Most shops and businesses were ordered to shut down.

Residents described the abandoned streets as surreal and “fearful.”

Farm owner Rosanna Ferrari said, “We’re experiencing a bit of a panic. Supermarkets have been stormed since last Friday. There are queues outside of the chemist. They said they’ll come, house to house, to collect saliva samples today.”

Angelo Caperdoni, the mayor of Somaglia, described the alarming situation, “It was difficult to contain the panic at first, especially as a lot of false news was circulating on social media that people believed to be true. There is still panic regarding food provisions. Many people went to Codogno yesterday to try and stock up.”

Franco Stefanoni, the mayor of Fombio, also under lockdown, described the harried scene in military terms as he noted the town’s two mini-markets had been “besieged”, as “people have been racing to the supermarket to buy 20kg of pasta or 30kg of bread.”

Former president of Italy’s higher health council, Roberta Siliquini, provided a more reasonable explanation for the excitement:  “We have found positive cases in people who probably had few or no symptoms and who may have overcome the virus without even knowing it.”

Cooler heads advising calm were systematically buried beneath a barrage of draconian government edicts, manufactured hype from vested interests and the sustained onslaught of media agitation and deceptive reporting.

Deceptive Reporting

Mainstream news outlets and social media channels kicked into high gear warning of “waves of death” cutting across Northern Italy from a rampaging virus which was creating overcrowded emergency rooms and requiring convoys of army vehicles to transport corpses.

Television images of stacked coffins in Bergamo were catapulted across the airwaves and reported in lockstep, terrifying the Italian populace and much of the world.

A detailed inspection of these reports revealed that the media fear mongering fastidiously avoided all reasonable explanations when not outright lying.

The media kept silent on the fact that as recently as 2018 hospitals in Milan were overrun with viral lung infections. Due to the aforementioned pollution problems, decimated health infrastructure and aging population, overrun hospitals have become a seasonal feature of the  national profile of Italy over the last few decades.

Mainstream news also refrained from mentioning the reality of hospital worker shortages and the reasons for this. Due to panic-mongering and the government edict of border closures the Eastern European workforce of nurses, who comprise a large portion of the labor force in Italian health care, quickly fled the country leaving the hospitals and care centers with skeleton crews.

This resulted in sudden abandonment of the fragile elderly and the disabled by those who normally attend to them leading to an avalanche of deleterious consequences as many of the abandoned elderly from care homes  were shipped to already overstretched hospitals.

This vicious cycle of worker shortages in care homes leading to runs on short-staffed hospitals led to complete collapse of care for the elderly and the disabled adding to the chaos in hospital systems in regions where harsh government policies were enacted.

Covid Case Creation

Upon entry into the hospital the de facto response for incoming patients was the ubiquitous PCR swab used to determine if the patient had “Covid-19.” If deemed a “positive case” this activated the deployment of deadly hospital protocols – yet another vicious cycle of medical malfeasance which ensured the proper dosage of fear would continue.

Though it was noted as early as March 2020 that there were major problems with PCR as a diagnostic tool, the media, and general public, accepted at face value the validity of this technique as a diagnostic method.

High cycle thresholds were one of the problems cited. This created absurd numbers, as high as 97%, of “false positives”, leading to a grossly exaggerated number of Covid cases and deaths.

Even earlier, in February of 2020, test reads from PCR results in Italy were called into question. as they were using a single SARS-CoV-2 target gene as clinical proof of a “positive” test.

Italian Nobel Prize Candidate Dr Stefan Scoglio, in noting this scientific fraud stated: “Today I discovered a new element of this real fraud, the choice to reduce the positivity to the swab by detecting only one of the three genes that would define SARS-CoV-2. If the virus were present, all 3 would have to be found, because if the virus is intact, the only case in which it can have a pathogenic role and infect, the test must find all 3 genes.”

The misuse of PCR led to the confounding issue of whether people in the Italian hospitals were

actually dying from “Covid” or from the effects of mass social breakdown and then being mislabeled as a “Covid death” as determined by this fraudulent process.

Manufacturing Covid Deaths

The answer to that question is found in later reports which made clear that nearly all of the “Covid deaths” were not in fact caused by a viral pathogen- nearly all of the individuals who died from the alleged pathogen had multiple comorbidities.

A March 17, 2020 report from the Italian Institute of Health (ISS) noted that 99.2% of Covid-related deaths were from people who had pre-existing chronic conditions.

One week later, as reported in a March 23,2020 article in the UK Telegraph, professor Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health remarked:

“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.

On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 percent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 percent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three.”

Ricciardi was citing a March 20, 2020 follow-up report from the ISS (in English here) and either misread the actual figures in the report or was misquoted. While 12% having zero comorbidities indicated a gross exaggeration of the impacts of “Covid”, the accurate figure in the report was 1.2% meaning 98.8% of the listed “Covid deaths” had pre-existing chronic conditions.

By the early summer of 2020 even the mainstream press admitted that virtually all Covid fatalities from Italy suffered from previous chronic conditions.

By October 2021 Italian newspaper Il Tempo reported that the Italian Institute of Health revised the number of people who have died “from covid” rather than “with covid” from 130,468 to 3,783.

It is a well established fact that Italy labeled anyone who died with a “confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection”, confirmed via a dubious PCR result regardless of the real causes of death, as a victim of “Covid-19.”

At the same time according to Istat (National Institute of Statistics) there was a general increase in mortality from all causes from March 1 to April 4, 2020 compared with the average for the same period in 2015-2019. Bergamo sat at the top in the growth of mortality among municipalities with a staggering 382.8% increase in deaths.

This mortality increase resulted not from a host of causes associated with alleged SARS-CoV-2 infection but from multiple other factors. Canceled cancer screenings, delayed treatments, reluctance to call ambulance services in the event of an accident or emergency became commonplace in the midst of the Corona hysteria allowing conditions to worsen beyond possible treatment.

Delayed medical care is known to increase morbidity and mortality  associated with both chronic and acute health conditions.

A mere two day delay in seeking treatment of a myocardial infarction can turn a simple and treatable condition into a dangerous and life threatening defect.

Research by the Italian Society of Cardiology established that heart attack mortality more than tripled during the Covid emergency as patients fearing infection stayed away from the hospital.

Ciro Indolfi, Professor of Cardiology at the Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, noted that, “the organization of the hospitals… in this phase was dedicated almost exclusively to Covid-19 and many cardiological wards were used for infectious patients. Furthermore, for fear of contagion, patients delay access to the emergency room and arrive at the hospital in increasingly serious conditions, often with arrhythmic or functional complications, which make therapies that have proven to be life-saving such as primary angioplasty much less effective.”

Reports of exaggerated and manipulated “deaths from covid” were kept far from public view and certainly no match for stories of military trucks hauling away human carcasses and images of piled up coffins in Bergamo that were burned into people’s brains.

Always and only “the virus.”

The Lies of Bergamo

The now infamous Bergamo image of three long rows of lined up coffins spread like wildfire and shocked the world without any investigation of the veracity of the photos by the duplicitous media hyenas who instead fanatically fanned the Covid flames at every turn.

Responsible reporting would have authenticated that the photo in question was taken in a hangar at Lampedusa Airport back on October 5, 2013.

The coffins in that photo were filled with corpses of African migrants who perished in a shipwreck, the body count was an estimated 360 deaths, off the coast of Lampedusa, an Italian island off the coast of Tunisia.

The reports of trucks hauling away corpses and crematoria in Lombardy being overrun had more mundane explanations which were anathema to the prevailing media narrative.

The need for trucks to haul away corpses, which the media repeated elsewhere, was readily explained by a combination of congruent factors. The dead were being removed by the military as funeral directors fearing “the killer virus” refused to pick up the bodies as they would during normal times.

The fabricated and magnified fear that made funeral directors eschew their normal duties was compounded by an emergency national law banning civil and religious ceremonies, including funerals. This unprecedented move, for an overwhelmingly Catholic country that normally relied on ritual burial, was put into effect in early March.

The danger of a “highly transmissible and deadly new disease” now firmly etched into the psyche of Italian citizens added to the frenzied situation.

Families who would normally follow the Catholic practice of burial were opting for cremation of the deceased in unprecedented numbers for fear of catching the disease from the dead.

In the north of Italy there was a 50% increase in requests for cremation which quickly overwhelmed the few small crematoria that did exist in Italy.

A Regional Curiosity

Interestingly not all of Italy was hit by the purportedly “super-spreading” virus. The excess deaths in Spring 2020 were limited to Northern Italy and to specific areas within Northern Italy.

The epicenter of the covid virus was reportedly located in the Lombardy region. The localized Lombardy crisis, portrayed to the world as the “Italian” zombie apocalypse, appeared not in the streets, shops or homes in Lombardy, but solely in hospitals and care homes situated in urban centers.

How did the alleged deadly pathogen bypass Central and Southern Italy which have similar demographics?

Data from March 26, 2020 confirms “the virus” did not migrate South honoring jurisdictional boundaries. Four regions in Northern Italy accounted for 89 percent of all Covid “cases.” This pattern would remain the same even as an onslaught of testing was rolled out across the country.

One theory that surfaced suggested that since Lombardy has a high number of Chinese workers in the garment industry the “virus” was brought to Italy by Chinese migrant workers and spread through the region. This hypothesis fell apart when it was noted that Tuscany, a region in Central Italy, which has the largest concentration of Chinese people in Italy and all of Europe, somehow wasn’t hit by the “virus.”

The fact that Southern Italy didn’t get hit by the “virus” also turned the official narrative on its head.

A significant difference in the social structures between North and South Italy entails most elderly in the South living with or very near to their children. This tradition of extended familial support is known to create conditions conducive to well-being and security.

Per capita there are  more long term care facilities (LTCF’s) in the north of Italy with many more residents living in these precarious conditions.

With what we now know it is reasonable to conclude that for a large number of individuals in the north residing in LTCF’s, where conditions are often unhygienic, the nutrition is poor and the care is often negligent, a perfect storm for wholesale death was created.

The subsequent mass departure of overburdened and terrified staff and creation of mass anxiety within a disabled, fragile and abandoned populace virtually guaranteed  a mass death event in this sector of the Northern Italian populace.

Critical thinking 101 informs us that with 50 percent of the “COVID deaths” in Italy occurring among nursing home residents and the average age of “Covid death” being at or above normal life expectancy, this was decidedly not an issue of “COVID deaths” per se but an issue of social conditions.

Terrorizing and isolating elderly people living in care homes, denying them visits from relatives and reducing or eliminating in-person visits from health and social carers combined with any respiratory illness could, and does, sweep through any unsanitary nursing home and wipe out a significant number of the frail.

There was no need to invent a new contagion to explain why people were dying.

The social contagion of government mandates and the media hysteria from social networks became a disease more dangerous than any alleged biological contagion.- but the machinery of the state can conveniently sweep these factors under the rug by curating the swirling madness of “The Virus.”

Why Italy?

To suggest that there was no aberrant viral event in N Italy in Spring 2020 and theorize that Italy was chosen as the launching pad for the Covid Operation, as the evidence indicates, we have to ask, “Why was Northern Italy chosen as the stage set for this pandemic screenplay?

Did Italy possess the means and the motive?

In order to launch the shock-and-awe phase of the Covid Operation into the Western world it was necessary to create the illusion of a viral invasion.

To conjure a post-modern Potemkin plague and the perceived need for shutting down a country’s social and economic order, Italy possessed all the ready-made ingredients. With its already soaring rates of interstitial pneumonia, panoply of pollution induced upper respiratory problems and high cancer rates, Northern Italy needed only a tiny flame to ignite a wildfire of fatalities. That spark came in the form of media generated hysteria, lockdown orders and deadly hospital protocols.

Italy also had the motivation which becomes apparent once you understand the Covid story through the lens of money, power, control, and wealth transfer.

A financially bankrupt country with a financial sector desperate for bailouts and a command structure run by central bankers made for a willing and compliant government.

For reasons unrelated to the poor health of its citizens Italy has been dubbed “the sick man in Europe” for the past decade by the EU financial sector.

Like much of Europe the Italian government was facing extreme economic pressures in 2019.

While Europe as a whole was economically stagnant Italy officially slipped into recession in early 2019. Anxieties in the Eurozone were high with concerns that the “Italian problem” would spread and trigger a meltdown across an already teetering global economy.

Italy’s government debt had mushroomed to the fourth-largest in the world and the biggest in the EU. This crushing debt was placing a strain on the EU creating tension between Rome and Brussels.

By May 2019 Italy’s financial crisis was said to be “posing major threats to the monetary targets of the European Central Bank” and if not reined in, “could shatter market confidence in the entire Euro area, putting the EU in big trouble.”

The predicted tsunami of financial collapse” staring European Central Bankers in the face came to a head in 2019.

With no time to spare, the tried and true bailout scheme was proposed in order to rescue large investors. European commissioner for economy, Paolo Gentiloni, warned “A whopping €1.5 trillion ($ 1.63 trillion) could be needed to “deal with this crisis.”

All chatter about the financial industry bankrupting the nation by looting public funds, politicians destroying public services at the behest of large investors and the depredations of the casino economy were washed away with the fresh telling of a crisis sparked by the ‘outbreak of Covid-19.’

Predators who saw their financial empires coming apart at the seams resolved to shut down society and loot the world in an attempt to salvage their crumbling financial empires.

In order not to solve the problems they created these financial predators needed a cover story.

A cover story big enough to disguise the countless financial crimes they committed and suppress the social problems they created.

That cover story magically appeared in the form of a “novel virus.”

Ultimately the European Central Bank (ECB) agreed to a €1.31 trillion ($1.46 trillion) bailout of European banks followed up by the EU agreeing to a €750 billion recovery fund for European states and corporations.

This fat package of “long-term, ultra-cheap credit to hundreds of banks” was sold to the public as a necessary and benevolent program to cushion the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on businesses and workers.

As part of the EU recovery plan the €750 billion was divided in two parts. One included €500 billion to be allocated as grants based on each country’s “recovery needs.” Italy would be getting the biggest slice of the pie.

Europe’s ‘sick man’ received a much needed infusion- strings attached.

Conclusion

Three years later the indispensable truth of the Italian story is once you scratch beneath the surface of the official narrative of the Covid Pandemic it turns out to be a bottomless snake pit of distortions, manipulations and outright lies.

Any excess deaths in Spring 2020 in Northern Italy were an artifact of already existing health conditions in an aging population, the obliteration of the existing health care infrastructure, massive industrial pollution creating chronic conditions, media generated hysteria, savage government lockdowns and administrative murder of the already fragile.

These iatrogenic deaths of fragile people were the result of the social order and public health despotism and then used to give the impression that there was “a deadly virus” circulating.

The only pandemic was one of violent government and biomedical assault against people.

The evidence from Italy in 2020 exposes the official “Covid” narrative for what it is- a cold-blooded organized deception.

There was no pandemic.

*

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

This article was originally published on 21st Century Wire.

Featured image is from 21CW

---

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

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

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

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.

First published on April 17, 2023

*** 

Pork producers have been using customizable mRNA-based “vaccines” on their herds since 2018, without telling the public

All customized mRNA “vaccines” are untested. Only the mRNA platform itself has been approved

According to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, “there are no current mRNA vaccines licensed for use in beef cattle in the United States.” However, a lobbyist for the association claims to have “double-vaccinated” his own herd with an mRNA “vaccine” against bovine respiratory disease

Iowa State University began trialing an mRNA “vaccine” against bovine respiratory syncytial virus October 1, 2021

Missouri House Bill 1169 would require labeling of products that can alter your genes. Big Ag lobbyists strongly oppose it

*

Last week, I reported that pork producers have been using customizable mRNA-based “vaccines” on their herds since 2018¹ — without telling the public. This issue really only rose to the surface after attorney Tom Renz started promoting new legislation in Missouri (House Bill 1169,² which he helped write) that would require labeling of mRNA products.³ In an April 1, 2023, tweet (and no, this was not an April Fool’s joke), Renz stated:⁴

“BREAKING NEWS: the lobbyists for the cattleman and pork associations in several states have CONFIRMED they WILL be using mRNA vaccines in pigs and cows THIS MONTH. WE MUST SUPPORT MISSOURI HB1169. It is LITERALLY the ONLY chance we have to prevent this … NO ONE knows the impacts of doing this but we are all potentially facing the risk of being a #DiedSuddenly if we don’t stop this.”

The Transhumanist Agenda and Its Focus on Food

Within days, alternative media was abuzz with this story and Renz started making the rounds sharing evidence that shows the U.S. government has been working on the integration of vaccines into foods for at least two decades. In an April 2, 2023, interview with Naomi Wolf, Ph.D., Renz said:⁵

“[Bill] Gates, the WHO [World Health Organization], a ton of these universities: they’re all talking about including mRNA vaccinations as part of the food. They’re going to modify the genes of these foods to make them mRNA vaccines.”

Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know What They’re Doing 

The pushback by Big Ag lobbyists against this bill to require industry transparency on this important issue has been enormous, and one potential reason for that is because they’d have to admit that all sorts of foods may have been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines, have genetic modifications, or be modified to serve as vaccinations for humans.

Not only might this destroy Big Ag, but it would also seriously impact any surreptitious attempts by Big Pharma to use the food supply as a tool to distribute vaccines unbeknownst to consumers.⁶ In short, Renz suspects the globalists’ transhumanist agenda is being secretly pushed forward using gene therapy in food production.

I can’t help but wonder whether the industry simply doesn’t understand how mRNA gene therapy in livestock might affect consumers, or whether they want to conceal the fact that they’re using gene therapy because they DO know it can also affect humans.

Globalists like World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab have openly admitted that they intend to alter humanity — both on the genetic level and through the incorporation of artificial intelligence and nanotechnology into the human body.

And, using COVID-19 as the cover, they managed to turn the entire world population into test subjects for this dangerous experimentation. As noted by Renz in the Real America’s Voice interview above, we know for a fact that the mRNA COVID shots have no beneficial impact in terms of preventing COVID infection.

mRNA ‘Vaccines’ in Livestock Are Untested

If the mRNA COVID shots don’t prevent infection, why would we assume mRNA shots for viral and bacterial infections in swine work any better? One of the most disturbing aspects of using mRNA “vaccines” in swine is the fact that all of them are by definition untested. As explained by Merck on its website, its “custom swine vaccine,”

Sequivity, is not a vaccine but, rather, a platform that allows for the endless customization of “mRNA vaccines.” The customized mRNA shots that are created using it are completely untested. Here’s how it works:⁷

1. A pathogen is collected and sent to a diagnostic lab.
2. The gene of interest is sequenced and sent electronically to Sequivity analysts.
3. A synthetic version of the gene of interest is synthesized and inserted into the RNA production platform.
4. The RNA particles released from incubated production cells are harvested and formulated into a customized “vaccine.”

As noted by Zoetis, the largest producer of veterinary drugs and vaccines:⁸ “Sequivity has safety and efficacy studies based on the platform with a historical initial isolate, not likely the isolate that customers would be requesting in their product.”

What was that initial isolate? Will mRNA against a bacterial disease affect the animals in the same way that mRNA against a viral infection does? What “genes of interest” are being chosen? If spike proteins are selected, might they be as pathogenic as the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein?

In CAFO environments with high populations of animals, won’t mutations become rampant as the bacteria and viruses are subjected to constant “customized” vaccination pressure to adapt and become more dangerous? These are just some of the questions that need answers.

At the end of the day, the fact that mRNA shots can be endlessly customized without safety testing shows just how broken the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration are.

There’s simply no way they can guarantee that customized mRNA shots are safe. The fact that the platform itself works and allows for this customization does NOT prove the safety and effectiveness of the shots being cooked up. Approval of the platform also does not prove the food is safe for consumption after it’s been treated with mRNA.

Cows Milk Used to Immunize Mice

As reported by Dr. Peter McCullough,⁹ Chinese researchers have demonstrated that food can indeed be turned into a vaccine.¹⁰

“The nation’s food supply can be manipulated by public health agencies to influence population outcomes … Now an oral route of administration is being considered specifically for COVID-19 vaccination using mRNA in cow’s milk.

Zhang and colleagues have demonstrated that a shortened mRNA code of 675 base pairs could be loaded into phospholipid packets called exosomes derived from milk and then using that same milk, be fed to mice.

The mice gastrointestinal tract absorbed the exosomes and the mRNA must have made it into the blood stream and lymphatic tissue because antibodies were produced in fed mice against SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein (receptor binding domain) …

[G]iven the damage mRNA vaccines have generated in terms of injuries, disabilities, and deaths, these data raise considerable ethical issues. The COVID States project has shown that 25% of Americans were successful in remaining unvaccinated.

This group would have strong objections to mRNA in the food supply, particularly if it was done surreptitiously or with minimal labelling/warnings …

For those who have taken one of the COVID-19 vaccines, having milk vaccines as an EUA offering would allow even more loading of the body with synthetic mRNA which has been proven resistant to ribonucleases and may reside permanently in the human body.

These observations lead me to conclude that mRNA technology has just entered a whole new, much darker phase of development. Expect more research on and resistance to mRNA in our food supply. The Chinese have just taken the first of what will probably be many more dangerous steps for the world.”

Will Beef Be Treated With mRNA Too?

At present, there’s no evidence to suggest beef cattle are being treated with customizable mRNA “vaccines,” either in Europe¹¹ or the U.S. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has also denied it, saying “there are no current mRNA vaccines licensed for use in beef cattle in the United States.”^12,13

That said, the Cattlemen’s Association previously confirmed they do, eventually, intend to use mRNA shots in cattle,^14,15 which might affect both dairy and beef. Time will tell whether public outrage will halt such plans. Clearly, the Cattlemen’s Association is concerned about internet rumors that it’s already in use.

April 3, 2023, Texas Department of Agriculture commissioner Sid Miller issued a statement promising to conduct a risk assessment of the technology before its adoption:¹⁶

“Since news of the development of mRNA vaccines and mRNA-related treatments for livestock came to the attention of the Texas Department of Agriculture, we have been working towards developing a fact and science-based assessment of the risks associated with this technology.

Our analysis will include the clinical research, the structure of existing Texas law, and the public policy, economic, and production impact of the different policy prescriptions we may adopt. I aim to ensure that Texas agriculture remains safe, trusted, healthy, and wholly uninfected by dangerous or unproven technology.

I personally take this issue very seriously. No political hot takes. Just a well-reasoned and well-researched proposal based on a wide range of input from stakeholders, scientists, agriculturalists, and other experts. We are looking at this issue at TDA and will share your concerns. Please stay tuned …”

Confusion Caused by Cattlemen’s Association Lobbyist

Here is where the National Cattlemen’s Association says no there is no #mRNA in our cows: https://t.co/k7cnEQzxH0. Below are clips (edited for time) from the testimony of the lobbyist from the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association before the #Missouri House. Hmmm – seems they aren’t… pic.twitter.com/dCE9yCJKVb

— Tom Renz (@RenzTom) April 10, 2023

What’s causing significant confusion on this issue is a statement made by National Cattlemen’s Beef Association lobbyist Shannon Cooper¹⁷ before the Missouri House.¹⁸ Cooper told the House members he had recently “double-vaccinated” his herd with “vaccinations that have this mRNA.” According to Cooper, the mRNA “vaccine” given was for bovine respiratory disease.

Is he confused? Did he mistakenly believe the vaccine he gave had mRNA in it? Or is the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association incorrect in stating there are no approved mRNA vaccines for cattle in the U.S.? Or, are experimental mRNA shots being used without approval? Who knows at this point?

What we do know is that mRNA “vaccines” against bovine respiratory disease are being developed. Iowa State University began trialing an mRNA “vaccine” against bovine respiratory syncytial virus October 1, 2021.¹⁹ The project end date is listed as September 30, 2026.

According to the trial submission, mice would be used to establish proof of concept. Cows would be used in year two of the trial. Assuming they’re on schedule, that means cows will be experimented on somewhere in late 2023 and/or 2024.

Is mRNA Jabbed Livestock Safe to Eat?

Considering health authorities insist the COVID shots are safe, it’s no wonder they also insist there are no problems associated with eating mRNA-treated meat. But can we trust them? What about the cells now highjacked by the foreign mRNA instruction to create novel proteins? Are these proteins safe to consume? How long are the nano-lipid particles preserved in the tissue?

Livestock such as swine are routinely vaccinated against several diseases,²⁰ and many of these vaccines must be administered at specific times to ensure there’s no residue left in the meat. So, just when are swine receiving these customized mRNA shots? And could there be mRNA vaccine remnants in the pork you buy?

Vaccines are nearly always given in the hindquarter of the animal, and according to mRNA jab developers, the mRNA remains at the injection site. This theory has long since been proven false, as the mRNA in the COVID jab gets has been shown to be distributed throughout the human body.

But it makes sense that the mRNA might be more concentrated at the injection site. In livestock, this could be bad news, seeing how the hindquarters are usually where the prime cuts of meat come from.

So, knowing whether there’s any mRNA left in the animal at the time of slaughter is important. At present, we have no way of knowing this. We don’t even know exactly how long the synthetic lipid-enveloped mRNA stays in the body.

We also don’t know how long the antigen produced by the animal’s cells in response to a customized mRNA shot sticks around, and whether ingesting that antigen might have repercussions for human health.

Stanford researchers found the spike protein produced in response to the COVID shot remains in the human body for at least 60 days,^21,22 and the spike protein is what’s causing most of the health problems associated with the jab. Could the same be true for mRNA jabs used in animals? Hogs can be killed anywhere from the age of 6 weeks to 10 months, which doesn’t allow a whole lot of time for the mRNA and/or antigen to get flushed out.²³

Notorious Industry Mouthpiece Defends Livestock mRNA Jabs

Aside from the many open questions, the fact that notorious Big Pharma mouthpieces are the ones cited by media, ensuring us that mRNA jabbed animals are safe to eat is yet another red flag. In this case, we have Dr. Kevin Folta insisting the mRNA is harmless.

Folta, a University of Florida horticulture professor, is a longtime advocate for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). He has also advocated for the safety of glyphosate, and in 2015, he was caught lying about his financial ties to Monsanto. Now, he’s taken up the advocacy for mRNA shots in livestock. As reported by Cowboy State Daily:²⁴

“Lawmakers in Arizona, Idaho, and Missouri have introduced legislation related to the use of mRNA vaccines in food. The Arizona bill only restricts labeling such food as organic. The Idaho bill amends state law to prohibit the sale of such foods unless conspicuously labeled that the presence of the vaccine is in the food.

The Missouri bill requires a conspicuous ‘Gene Therapy Product’ label. Dr. Kevin Folta told Cowboy State Daily the proposed ‘gene therapy’ label is inaccurate.

It ‘means they have no idea what they are trying to regulate,’ Folta said, because ‘there is no integration into the DNA. It’s a transient set of instructions, like a USB drive. Not a hard drive’ … Messenger RNA occurs naturally as part of the function of cells in the body. ‘mRNA is everywhere, and you cant live without mRNA,’ Folta said …

Folta said that the vaccines can’t get into the food people eat. ‘mRNA is an extremely unstable molecule. That’s why it works. It’s very temporary. So when an animal is slaughtered or when a plant dies, mRNA is the first thing to go,’ Folta said.”

Many of you will know exactly what’s wrong with Folta’s arguments that mRNA is “everywhere” and therefore harmless, and that its activity is temporary because it’s so unstable. The mRNA in the shots is synthetic and does NOT break down the way normal mRNA does.

He is clearly misleading people, and it’s hard to believe it’s not intentional, considering the fact that everyone who knows even the slightest bit about mRNA jab technology knows the synthetic mRNA has been designed to prevent rapid breakdown and is further stabilized by the nanolipid. So, Folta’s arguments are null and void from the get-go.

Final Thoughts

Moving forward, it’s going to be extremely important to stay on top of what’s happening to our food supply. Many of us were surprised to realize mRNA shots have been used in swine for several years already. Soon, cattle may get these customizable mRNA shots as well, which could affect both beef and dairy products.

For now, I strongly recommend avoiding pork products. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding these untested mRNA “vaccines,” pork is also very high in linoleic acid, a harmful omega-6 fat that drives chronic disease. Hopefully, cattle ranchers will realize the danger this mRNA platform poses to their bottom-line and reject it. If they don’t finding beef and dairy that has not been “gene therapied” could become quite the challenge.

There is talk about domesticated food animals soon being vaccinated with #mRNA. We want our customers to know that we will not vaccinate our animals with #mRNAvaccines. We believe there is a time and place for vaccinations, but they must be used sparingly. If livestock are raised… pic.twitter.com/pcN5fbxeOY

— White Oak Pastures (@whiteoakpasture) April 10, 2023

Will Harris, from White Oak Pasture in Bluffton Georgia, is a rancher who has already come out against mRNA “vaccines” in cattle. An April 10, 2023, White Oak Pastures tweet stated:²⁵

“There is talk about domesticated food animals soon being vaccinated with mRNA. We want our customers to know that we will not vaccinate our animals with mRNA vaccines. We believe there is a time and place for vaccinations, but they must be used sparingly.

If livestock are raised in an environment where they can express their natural instincts, they probably wont need many (if any) vaccines. We hope to one day move away from all vaccines on our farm — we are close, but not there yet.

Everyone should know that over 80% of the antibiotics produced today are consumed by domesticated food animals … It would only make sense that in order for vaccine companies to move from ‘very profitable’ to ‘obscenely profitable’ would be to capture the animal agriculture market.

I’m not sure that this would ever pass legislation, but law or not, Big Ag is highly influenced by Big Pharma. The multinational meat companies would certainly choose to mandate this if there was an opportunity for a shared profit.

In closing, please know: We don’t believe in a blanket, one-size-fits-all approach to our health or our livestock. We will not add vaccinations for our livestock — we are moving in the other direction hoping to give fewer. (And, we already give very few).

If this is adopted and there is a ‘panic’ for food from livestock that hasn’t had the MRNA vaccine, we will choose to honor the demand from our loyalty members and employees first. If you are not a part of that group, we cannot guarantee we will have any product for you.

We are certainly not trying to promote panic — but, we do intend to notify our customers of how we will operate in times of growing demand. We screwed up during the pandemic — we won’t do that again.”

Think Globally, Act Locally

National vaccine policy recommendations in the U.S. are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being seriously threatened.

Not only are lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws, but global political operatives lobbying the United Nations and World Health Organization are determined to take away the human right to autonomy and protection of bodily integrity.

We must take action to defend our constitutional republic and civil liberties, including the right to autonomy, in America. That includes reforming oppressive mandatory vaccination laws and stopping the digital health ID that will make vaccine passports a reality for us, our children and grandchildren if we don’t take action today.

Signing up to use the free online Advocacy Portal sponsored by the National Vaccine Information Center at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state and federal legislators on your smartphone or computer so you can make your voice heard.

NVIC will keep you up to date on the latest bills threatening to eliminate — or expand — your legal right to make vaccine choices and give you guidance about what you can do to support or oppose those bills. So, please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal. Click here to join.

Share Your Story With Your Legislators and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up.

If you want to protect your legal right to say “no” to vaccines you do not believe are safe or effective, make an appointment to personally talk with someone you have elected to office at the local, state and federal level or write a letter in your own words stating your concerns.

Attend school board and city council and town hall meetings in your community that will impact your right to know and freedom to make decisions about how you or your children will live and stay healthy. If you have a different perspective on a story about vaccination that appears in your local newspaper, write a letter to the editor.

I must be frank with you: You have to be brave because there is a lot of censorship of conversations that challenge “official” narratives about vaccination. You likely will be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story and for defending your informed consent rights. Be prepared for it and have the courage to stand your ground.

Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

While our rights are being threatened, the vaccine injured are being swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than statistically acceptable “collateral damage” of one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination laws. Way too many people are being put at risk for injury and death and there is nothing scientific or moral about that. We should not be treating human beings like guinea pigs.

*

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 YouTube Global Ag Media 2018

² Missouri House bill 1169

³ Conservative Treehouse April 9, 2023

^4, 14 Twitter Tom Renz April 1, 2023

⁵ Daily Clout April 2, 2023

⁶ Tom Renz Substack April 2, 2023

⁷ Merck Animal Health, Sequivity

⁸ ZoetisUS.com Product Comparison Chart

⁹ Peter McCullough Substack April 7, 2023

¹⁰ bioRxiv December 20, 2022

¹¹ Vaccines December 2021; 9(12): 1403, Section: 5.6. mRNA Vaccines

¹² NCBA Statement April 6, 2023

¹³ Southeast AgNet April 10, 2023

¹⁵ Agri-pulse June 22, 2022

¹⁶ Texas Department of Agriculture April 3, 2023

¹⁷ Missouri Times Lobbyist Profile

¹⁸ Twitter Tom Renz April 10,k 2023

¹⁹ Iowa State University Novel mRNA Vaccine for Bovine Respiratory Syncytial Virus

²⁰ Swine Vaccine Protocol

²¹ Cell January 24, 2022; 185(6): 1025-1040.E14

²² Clark County Today February 14, 2022

²³ FAO Meat Cutting

²⁴ Cowboy State Daily April 5, 2023

²⁵ Twitter White Oak Pasture April 10, 2023

The shocking numbers are based on government data from the United Kingdom and were brought to Senator Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) attention by Josh Stirling, one of the nation’s top insurance analysts and formerly Senior Research Analyst for U.S. nonlife insurance at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.

“Worst of all – the people who only took one dose of the vaccine have an approximately 145 percent worse mortality rate,” Stirling said and explained that this even higher death rate applies to those who took the first shot and then had adverse reactions, making them stop the planned vaccination schedule.

“If you were to take these numbers and apply them to the United States, that ends up being something like 600,000 excess deaths per year,” Stirling concluded.

Watch Josh Stirling’s and former Blackrock executive Edward Dowd’s testimony on vaccine-induced excess mortality below.

‘The One Chart That Tells the Entire Story’: Analysis Shows 26% Worse Mortality Among the Vaccinated

And “the people who are under the age of 50 who took the vaccine now have a 49% higher mortality rate,” stated top insurance analyst Josh Stirling.

“And if you were to take… pic.twitter.com/7O4kR8Z2Xa

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) April 7, 2023

 

 

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 the end of April of this year, the two of us ventured together to Russia. We went with the purpose of fact-finding and also to make a point that we do not believe that Russia should be isolated from the world through sanctions and travel bans.

At this moment, Russia is more isolated from the West than it has ever been, quite possibly in history. As just one example, while V.I. Lenin was able to famously travel from Finland via train to St. Petersburg, even during the height of WWI, the train from Finland to Russia ceased operating after February 24 of 2022. And indeed, it was through Finland that we decided to travel to Russia, simply because there are now very limited ways to travel there. Thus, while for years, even during the Cold War, one could easily fly directly from the US to Russia on Aeroflot and other airlines, that is no longer possible due to sanctions. Now, one can only fly there through Serbia, Turkey or the UAE, but those flights are quite expensive.

And so, we ended up choosing to fly to Helsinki, Finland and have a Russian friend who has a non-Russian passport (Russians with only Russian passports cannot travel to Finland) drive from St. Petersburg to pick us up. This turned out to be more easily said than done as our friend’s car broke down at the Finnish/Russian border. And so, we took a very expensive, three-hour cab ride to the border, met up with our friend and crammed ourselves into the cab of a tow truck to drive the remaining three hours to St. Petersburg – a quite inauspicious beginning to our journey.

Saint Petersburg (Leningrad)

Our first several days were spent in St. Petersburg, formerly “Leningrad.” We stayed strategically at the Best Western in Uprising Square – so named by the new Bolshevik government in 1918 to commemorate the Great October Revolution of 1917. In the Square is located the Moscow train station which we used to great effect during our journey, as well as the Leningrad Hero-City Obelisk. The Obelisk commemorates Leningrad’s designation as one of 13 “hero cities” in the Soviet Union which distinguished themselves for their exceptional sacrifices in resisting the Nazis during WWII. Two other cities we visited on our trip (Moscow and Sevastopol, Crimea) are also honored with this designation, as is Kiev, Ukraine and of course Volgograd (formerly “Stalingrad”).

During our stay, the city of St. Petersburg sure seemed more like Leningrad, for it was beginning to be decked out in red flags with hammers and sickles and stars to commemorate both May Day and Victory Day over the Nazis on May 9. We were told by long-time residents that the ubiquitous display of such symbols of the USSR was something new (at least since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991), and was spurred on by Russia’s Special Military Operations beginning in February of 2022. It appears that the Russian people, and the Russian government as well, are looking to the legacy of the Soviet Union as a source of strength, pride and unity during this time of war – a war that they view, we believe quite rightly, was forced on them.

Dan takes his turn playing guitar on St Petersburg street at 11 pm (Source: Rick Sterling)

The newly released Russian Federation “concept” on foreign policy states quite explicitly that Russia’s current foreign policy is informed by the two main objectives and successes of the USSR – the defeat of Nazism and global decolonization. Certainly, on paper at least, this belies the claim of some Western leftists that Russia is motivated in its relations with other nations by imperialist concerns.

While in St. Petersburg, we visited the site of the terrorist attack which claimed the life of Russian journalist Vladlen Tatarsky and wounded over 30 others, at least 10 gravely. The attack involved the bombing of a cafe in the picturesque University district of St. Petersburg along the Neva – a soft target if there ever was one. The cafe remains closed, and three sets of memorials for Tatarsky are set up around it, consisting of flowers and photos. Of course, the Western press has tried to do everything it can to justify this vicious attack upon civilians, writing off Tatarsky as “pro-Kremlin” and “pro-war” (as if the Western press can’t be fairly characterized as “pro-war” and “pro-Pentagon”) and simply glossing over the numerous other civilians wounded in the assault as collateral damage.

Rick and Dan at the site where Russian journalist was killed (Source: Rick Sterling)

Moscow

As planned, we left St. Petersburg by train to Moscow after several days. We took the faster “Sapsan” (Falcon) train to Leningrad Station in Moscow (it is still called that). The train ride, reaching 120 mph,  was smooth and comfortable. We sat across from two Russian women, one of whom was quite friendly. She told us of her son who lives in Boston and who, quite sadly for her, she hasn’t seen in years. She kept sliding over hard candy to share with us. And, when she saw Dan nervously biting his nails, she kindly handed him her nail filer for him to use. This type of sharing on the train is quite common in Russia as we would continue to discover on our journey.

Rick with train compartment companions (Source: Rick Sterling)

Moscow too was being decorated for the May 9 Victory Day celebration. Red Square was sealed off from the public to prepare for the event, and the city was on high alert for possible terrorist attacks, one of which would come while we were in Russia with the drone attack upon the Kremlin itself. Despite the fears of attack, Muscovites were out on the streets day and night. Both Moscow and St. Petersburg were incredibly vibrant – much more so than our cities back home which are still feeling the effects of the lockdowns during the pandemic. Gorky Park was particularly lively with throngs of families with children enjoying the spring weather, swings and slides. Colorful tulips were in full bloom.

From appearances, Russia largely did not appear to be a country at war. However, everyone we talked to confided in us about their concerns for the war – for the loss of life on both sides, the fact that it was lasting much longer than people had expected, and the danger that the war could expand into a greater conflagration. Some Russians expressed their fear that nuclear weapons would end up being used before this was all over, though they believed that the US would be the first to launch them. At the same time, the Russians showed their usual stoicism in the face of such dangers, with one family with whom Dan had dinner stating almost matter-of-factly that “Russia has always had difficult times, and it will have them again.”

Memorial to Children of the Donbas on Arbat Street, Moscow © Daniel Kovalik

After several days in Moscow, and our hopes for visiting the Donbass falling through, we took the long, 27-hour train ride to Crimea – a region now fully in the crosshairs of the proxy war.

Arriving in Crimea

Ukrainian President Zelensky says he will “take back” Crimea. US leaders Victoria Nuland and Jake Sullivan say they support him. Indeed, Sullivan recently suggested Ukraine is free to use the F-16 fighter jets in attempting to “recapture” Crimea.” We traveled to Crimea to see the situation and learn details of how and why Crimea seceded from Ukraine in 2014.

A highlight of the train ride was passing over the new 12-mile long Kerch Strait bridge which connects mainland Russia to the Crimean peninsula. As our train approached the bridge, we could see that saboteurs had been active. There was a fuel tank on fire in the near distance. A couple passengers did not want us to photograph this, probably thinking it gives publicity to the enemy.

As we departed the train in Crimea at the beautiful station in the Capitol city, Simferopol, the loudspeakers on the platform greeted us with traditional Russian songs.

We then drove the roughly two hours to Yalta where we stayed while in Crimea. Along our drive, we saw the giant mosque which the Russian government is building along the highway in an area where Tatars, who generally practice the Islamic faith, protested to have land to live and worship. The Tatars had been persecuted during WWII as suspected collaborators and forcibly removed from Crimea to other Soviet Republics.

A number of Tatars have moved back to Crimea over the years and now make up about 12 percent of the population of Crimea.  Meanwhile, about 65 percent of the Crimean population is ethnic Russian and about 15 percent is Ukrainian, though about 82 percent of the population overall speaks Russian on a daily basis.

As we were told while in Crimea, one of the first things President Putin did after Crimea returned to Russia in 2014 was to try to make good relations with the Tatar community by “rehabilitating” them from the claims of collaboration made by Stalin government, giving them the land they protested for, providing them with modest monetary reparations and building them the new Mosque.

Historical Background 

All in all, we spent five days seeing the sights and meeting people in the capital Simferopol, Sevastopopol and Yalta. We were guided by translator and native Crimean Tanya. In the past, Tanya worked for US Aid for International Development (USAID), teaching Russian to US Peace Corps volunteers.

Crimea has a rich agricultural sector. It was severely hampered after Ukraine dammed the canal bringing fresh water from the Dnieper River. After Russian forces intervened, they removed  the dam and agriculture is once again thriving. Crimean cities are busy with the streets and sidewalks full. In the parks, there are teens skate boarding and seniors playing chess.

The situation in Crimea is emblematic of the Ukraine crisis overall. In both Crimea and the Donbass (eastern Ukraine), the majority of people are ethnically Russian, their native language is Russian and they voted overwhelmingly for the elected but overthrown President Yanukovich.

From the 15th century Crimea was part of the Ottoman Empire. It became part of the Russian Empire in 1783 after the army of Catherine the Great defeated the Turks.

In 1921, Crimea became the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as part of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic.

In 1954, Soviet Premier Khrushchev designated Crimea to be part of the Ukraine republic. This was done without consulting the Crimean people but it was not a major change since they were all part of one country, the Soviet Union. As we were told in Crimea, “Nobody could imagine the Soviet Union breaking up.”

As the Soviet Union was breaking up, Crimeans held a referendum in January of 1991. They voted overwhelmingly (94% in favor) to become the “Autonomous Republic of Crimea” and to separate from Ukraine. There was contention with Kiev and ultimately it was agreed that Crimea would be autonomous but within Ukraine. There was desire but not the urgency to secede from Ukraine at this point.

Mural of an old woman protecting the red flag in Donbas © Daniel Kovalik

The desire to separate from Ukraine became more urgent in late 2013 and early 2014 as Crimeans watched with alarm as Russophobic ultra-nationalist and neo-nazi groups increasingly dominated violent protests in Kiev’s Maidan plaza. The book “To Go One’s Own Way” documents how the Crimean parliament and presidency issued statements, pleas and warnings about the threat to Ukrainian unity beginning in November 2013.

As we discuss in an upcoming article, the government of Ukraine reacted to the Crimean referendum to reunite with Russia quite punitively, and it continues to punish the Crimeans for their decision. At the same time, Russia has actively invested in the peninsula and made major improvements in the overall infrastructure there. In light of the foregoing, it is safe to say there are relatively few Crimeans who ever wish to return 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.

Dan Kovalik is a human rights attorney and author of seven books.

Rick Sterling is a journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area.

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.

*** 

Russians are proverbially slow to react, but when they do get started … it is prudent to be careful. We have been wondering what Russia’s war crimes Investigative Committee was doing since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine and what legal instruments it was prepared to use in the pursuit of its objectives. The answers to these questions even now are not entirely clear, but at least some encouraging news has recently emerged on the legal front.

Readers scarcely need to be reminded of the political weaponisation of the International Criminal Court [ICC] which took place in March 2023, when at the behest of its masters that Court issued a preposterous arrest warrant targeting the President of Russia. The rationale behind it was that, allegedly for their own nefarious purposes, Russian authorities had “kidnapped” an unspecified number of ostensibly Ukrainian children in the Donbas and moved them involuntarily to Russia.

Missing from this “rationale” are key pertinent facts. For years since 2014, long before the current conflict started, along with the rest of the population of the Donbas, those children were targets of relentless and lethal Nazi Ukrainian bombardments which have claimed 14,000 lives. The children eventually were evacuated to Russia for their safety, which ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan regards as kidnapping. Those children were being killed, maimed, and orphaned in artillery and missile bombardments staged by the neo-Nazi Ukrainian proxies controlled by Prosecutor Khan’s bosses.

And that explains a great deal about ICC’s legal travesty. In fact, a more manifest clue to the existence of an egregious conflict of interest is difficult to find. As a consequence, Khan did not take the trouble, even pro forma, to inquire into those long-standing and grave violations of international humanitarian law presumably committed by his mentors. Neither has he evinced the slightest professional interest in using the legal tools at his disposal to call the perpetrators of those crimes – on whose munificence his job, salary, and benefits depend – to account.

On his bosses’ orders (and most likely also to repay them the favour for dropping paedophilia charges against his brother, a “Conservative” member of the British Parliament) Khan instead filed an indictment against the head of the state which acted with impeccable propriety, to ensure the safety of the Donbas children. Khan was untroubled that since 2014 those children, for whom he feigns concern, have been targeted with lethal weapons furnished by his controllers and operated by their Ukrainian Nazi proxies.

Now, chickens have come home to roost, as they say, for servile colonial lackey Karim Khan. Khan himself has been indicted by the Russian judicial authorities and his name has been placed on a wanted list. Russian investigative organs have sent him a clear message that the party is over and that there is a steep personal price to be paid for recklessness and impertinence. And not just by Khan, but by his gang as well. Also indicted with him are a number of ICC judges who thought that in the “rules based order” political opportunism was the name of the game and that when sitting on their masters’ bench they did not really have to practice what they were taught in law school.

There is evidence already that the message was received and understood. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the ICC is whining that it “regrets  these acts of intimidation and unacceptable attempts [by Russia] to undermine the mandate of the International Criminal Court to investigate, sanction and prevent the commission of the gravest international crimes.”

Oh, the touching complaint of righteous innocents! From the standpoint of the bully, unaccustomed to being opposed, any resistance is “intimidation,” just as moving children from a war zone to safety when politically expedient is “abduction.” Not just Khan, but all his associates, partners, and mentors have now been put on notice that they better think their actions through before undertaking them.

One of the reasons ICC finds the arrest warrant issued for its Prosecutor “unacceptable” is that it “did not specify his alleged offence.” But why should such a lapse bother ICC? It mirrors exactly the practice of ICC itself and its inglorious model, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [ICTY]. Both of these quasi-judicial institutions have amply engaged in the practice of indicting first, and contriving the grounds later. After Khan is arrested and put in the dock to answer for his legal buffoonery, there will be plenty of time to specify all the particulars.

I have repeatedly argued that the bad faith conduct of collective West political tool ICC requires a robust mirror response.

Issuance of the arrest warrant to apprehend and call to account juridical hack Karim Khan is a step in the right direction. But much more conceptual and practical work needs to be done to lay the groundwork for the accountability of his evil globalist string pullers and their pathetic errand boys, perfectly exemplified by Karim Khan. (For Russian speakers, Andrei Fursov’s elaboration of this general topic is highly recommended, starting at about 6:20 minutes.)

To someone with an insiders’ understanding of the Western (or in the words of ICC’s distinguished Russian indictee, “Anglo-Saxon”) mind-set, especially in conjunction with the practice of their bogus “courts,” ICC and ICTY, it is crystal clear where the accusation of child abduction and deportation is going. Slobodan Milošević put his finger on it when he said that “they are not attacking Serbia because of Milošević, they are attacking Milošević because of Serbia.” The head of the Russian state, for plenty of reasons, is the subject of their venomous hatred, but their real and ultimate target is Russia itself.

The accusation involving the involuntary transfer of children was formulated with a specific goal in mind, and that is to pin on Russia the charge of genocide. All other charges from their arsenal that could have been and perhaps will eventually be concocted have been put on the back burner, in the expectation that this one will gain traction. The objective is to destroy Russia morally prior to its hoped for partition into a dozen or more repentant, prostrate, and plundered statelets. The Genocide Convention and the “jurisprudence” of the Hague Tribunal have set the stage and the only additional tool they need is a corrupt court to pronounce the verdict. They have it in the ICC.

It is all there in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2(e) declares that forcible child transfer committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, amounts to genocide. Note that ICC’s perfidiously formulated allegation against the head of the Russian state dovetails precisely with Convention language and requirements. The inclusion of the forcible child transfer clause in the Genocide Convention was ostensibly connected with the vulnerability of children, their “dependence, futurity, and malleability” as well as the destructive consequences of this practice for the viability of group survival, it is argued in a scholarly article on this topic.

To debate with moral and intellectual perverts is useless. Their twisted mind-set and satanic world system, including the entire range of its pernicious manifestations, must be uprooted and demolished. Otherwise, neither Russia nor mankind will be likely to survive.

*

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.

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

Featured image:  ICC prosecutor Karim Khan meets with Ukrainian President Zelensky, March 2023 (Source: The Grayzone)

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 Hill reported that US military funding to Ukraine could be suspended indefinitely due to proceedings in Washington over the public debt ceiling. Effectively, the public debt situation will force the US to reduce its financial support to Ukraine since it is no longer possible to expect as much support as before.

Congressman Andy Kim, a House Armed Services Committee (HASC) member, was quoted by The Hill as saying that lawmakers had conversations about what needs to be a part of the following package but expressed doubts about the timing of the legislation and highlighted that the ongoing fight over the debt ceiling was putting Ukraine aid at risk.

“It’s delaying our ability to focus on these issues,” Kim said. “That really shows that it has national security implications because we’re not able to have that kind of earnest conversation about Ukraine or the [National Defense Authorization Act] until they’re done with that.”

For his part, Congressman Bill Keating said aid to Ukraine would ultimately depend on its counteroffensive, something that will seemingly miss its long-anticipated spring deadline.

“It’s not a precise science to say what because it could be gains that were made that make more support less necessary,” Keating said. “Or there could be damage inflicted where there has to be more” assistance.

Ukrainian authorities have been promoting its upcoming counteroffensive, and NATO officials have indicated Ukraine has nearly all the promised weapons and equipment needed. Last year’s support was phenomenal, but sustaining such aid at this level is difficult. The public debt situation has affected and will continue affecting public opinion because out of all the spending, people will sacrifice those least sensitive to American society, and not such huge expenses as funding a war in Eastern Europe.

Congress is determined to cut spending, making funding difficult for Ukraine. The only thing that was announced by Congress Speaker Kevin McCarthy and confirmed by the White House was the spending cuts. Military spending is not discussed, but the funding for Ukraine now is many times less than last year. Ukraine can hardly expect the same funding it received as in the past.

The Treasury Department warned in a letter to Congress that as early as June 1, the US may not be able to fully meet its obligations if lawmakers do not authorise an increase in the borrowing limit by that time. Normally, Congress almost automatically raises the borrowing limit, but this time, the Republican opposition, who controls the House, has demanded that it reduce spending by several trillion dollars. The Republican bill passed the House of Representatives but has no chance of being approved in the Senate by Democrats, and even if the document reaches Biden, he will most likely veto the bill.

At the same time, the US finds it very difficult to accept the loss of Artemovsk (Bakhmut). With Ukrainian forces losing control of Artemovsk, the long-mooted counteroffensive becomes more politically urgent than ever for Kiev.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky tried to keep his promise to launch a counterattack and for this reason, he continually requested the West for more weapons. As they lost control of Artemovsk, launching an offensive operation is the best way for Kiev to restart its plea for weapons from its NATO allies.

Zelensky is clearly in a difficult situation because the Ukrainian army is not ready for a counterattack and desperately needs ammunition. However, the Russian army almost immediately destroys any weapon concentration, which is starting to raise a series of questions about the success or failure of the Ukrainian counterattack.

This comes as many high-ranking military officials, including Polish Chief of the General Staff Rajmund Andrzejczak and US General Christopher G. Cavoli, acknowledged Russia’s ability to continue fighting without significant loss. Meanwhile, 40% to 60% of Ukrainian soldiers who completed their training in France in 2022 have no contact with their trainers and have likely died in battle or abandoned the battlefield.

Despite the propaganda pushed by the Kiev regime and Western media, Ukraine is clearly unable to launch its long-awaited spring offensive, and instead this is all a show to procure more weapons. The desperate situation for Ukraine coincides as Republicans and Democrats face off over the debt ceiling, proving problematic for Kiev’s quest to rearm.   

House Republicans insist on spending cuts before they approve raising the nation’s debt ceiling past $31 trillion. Democrats claim Congress has already spent the money and must be allowed to repay America’s debtholders without leading to an economically disastrous default.

Negotiations are continuing to unfold to reach a debt limit deal, but the US default clock is ticking down despite it not being entirely clear when the US will officially run out of cash. When seen through this context, it is understandable why massive and reckless funding of the Ukrainian military is increasingly scrutinised.

*

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 an 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.

*** 

A recent report published by the Russian Federal News Agency suggests that NATO is preparing wide scale use of chemical weapons against civilians in Donbass and in ongoing military campaigns.

The news agency spoke to the advisor of the Head of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Jan Gagin.

According to the article during the defence of Artemovsk (Bakhmut) Ukraine used drone-delivered ammunition containing toxic substances. The neo-Nazi ‘Birds of Madyar’ air reconnaissance team were identified as deploying these weapons. Since April 2023, Ukrainian-manufactured Teren 6 gas grendades have also been delivered by UAVs. Jan Gagin stated:

The enemy uses chemical weapons not only in Artemovsk but in other areas of the Front. The end of last year myself and my comrades came under attack by such ammunition in the direction of Ugledar. I experienced eye pain, nausea, respiratory spasm, dizziness and general weakness

The gas grenades were either foreign manufactured or local Ukrainian production. We saw this in videos shared by the Madyar Brigade or other Nazi groups: foreign marking was visible on the grendades. They did not conceal it. It is clear that NATO member states were deliberately supplying these weapons.

A video of one of these attacks has been circulated by Ukrainian Telegram channels and can be seen here.

It is worth pointing out that terrorist groups in Syria, which include ISIS, have been accused of deploying chemical weapons against civilians, Syrian Arab Army and in 2016 against members of the REAL Syria Civil Defence in Aleppo interviewed by myself in 2018:

The RSCD team leader spoke:

“We arrived at the area and knew we had to enter the tunnel to save the soldiers who were trapped down there. We got to the deepest part of the tunnel and we started to feel the effects of whatever gas had been used. One of my crew radioed me that he couldnt feel his limbs. I shouted for him to come back and we grabbed him to pull him out of the tunnel” ~ RSCD team leader.

Then the affected RSCD crew member told me what happened to him:

“I entered the tunnel and immediately began to feel strange. My whole body seemed to lose control. I couldnt breathe. I pulled on the rope. Red spots appeared on my hands and there was a strange smell in the air, I still cant describe it” ~ RSCD crew member.

It has recently been proven that there are ISIS or ISIS-friendly militants fighting alongside the various Nazi battalions in Ukraine. So, the alleged use of chemical weapons in the NATO war against Russia should come as no surprise.

All this while in Syria the same NATO member states, the corrupted OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) and other aligned UN agencies are maintaining the discredited narrative that the Syrian government carried out alleged chemical weapon attacks against their own civilians. Civilians that the Syrian Arab Army was liberating from NATO-member-state-proxy-terrorist occupation.

According to Jan Gagin the efficacy of the Ukrainian gas grenades was compromised due to their being deployed in open areas with high winds. For these weapons to be effective, they should be used in enclosed, urban areas according to Gagin.

Gagin points out that the Ukrainian forces have used other prohibited weapons against civilian targets which include lethal petal mines described by journalist Eva Bartlett on one of her many visits to Donetsk. Flechette shells have also been used:

“an anti-personnel weapon that is generally fired from a tank. The shell explodes in the air and releases thousands of metal darts 37.5mm in length, which disperse in a conical arch 300 metres long and about 90 metres wide”.

Flechette darts kill and maim indiscriminately as do the “petal” mines that are often trodden on by unsuspecting children causing terrible mutilation. Jan Gagin reiterated:

Ukraine does not hide that it uses prohibited weapons precisely against civilians. There were official statements on their part about the physical destruction of the inhabitants of Donbass and Crimea. Similar actions — are nothing more than the genocide of the Russians in these territories. And the use of chemical munitions and other similar prohibited methods proves that Ukraine — is a terrorist state.

We must understand that Ukraine in this war has no limiters at all, no “ stops ”. Great Britain supplied depleted uranium shells. And what did it lead to? To the mass flight of citizens from those areas where warehouses with these ammunition were destroyed. And this is not we measuring the radiation background in Ukraine, it is the citizens themselves who measure it and see that the level has risen.

It is also worth following Professor Chris Busby on the radiological fall-out from the use or destruction of Depleted Uranium weapons in Ukraine. Busby, a British scientist and radiation expert said the following after the huge explosion near the city of Khmelnytskyi in Western Ukraine earlier in May:

The radiation detectors sited in Poland to the NW of the explosion in Ukraine show a highly significant increase in gamma radiation. The wind direction is SE so this fits with a plume from the explosion site. Uranium daughters Thorium-234 and Protoactinium 234m have gamma ray decays. The 94kev gamma ray from Th-234 is a 6% decay but there is a lot of Uranium. So they would show up on the Eurados detectors.

Access to the European gamma detectors network has been blocked by the German server.

The IAEA have predictably dismissed such claims as “false” but watch this interview with Prof. Busby to decide for yourself:

*

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 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.

*** 

Whichever way one games it out, there’s close to no chance that Kiev’s counteroffensive will meet the Western public’s expectations absent some black swan event, which means that Biden will be running for re-election with two losses under his belt in Afghanistan and Ukraine. It’s difficult to imagine that Americans will give him and his team another four years in office after they humiliated the US so badly, but tens of thousands more might still die before these warmongers are removed from power.  

Senior Ukrainian presidential advisor Mikhail Podolyak told Italian media that his country’s much-hyped counteroffensive already began a few days ago, which is curious since that timeframe coincides with its proxy invasion of Russia’s Belgorod Region that was just copium for deflecting from Artyomovsk’s loss. That media-driven stunt tremendously failed to achieve any tangible gains, however, thus raising even more questions than ever before about whether the counteroffensive will succeed at all.

The Washington Post raised awareness in March about how poorly Kiev’s troops were faring in the NATO-Russian proxy war, which was followed by Politico citing unnamed Biden Administration officials a month later who worried about the consequences of it failing to meet the public’s expectations. Former Russian chess champion Garry Kasparov then concocted a conspiracy theory wildly speculating that Kremlin agents infiltrated the White House and sabotaged the counteroffensive before it even began.

This popular pro-Kiev figure seemed to have been spooked by Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Michael McCaul telling Bloomberg that “I think there’s going to be a lot riding on the line with this counteroffensive. If Ukraine is successful in the eyes of the American people and the world, I think it will be a game-changer for continued support. If they are not, that will also have an impact, in a negative way, though.” In other words, its failure could lead to the US severely curtailing aid to Kiev.

Therein lies the real reason why the counteroffensive is still going ahead despite the overwhelming odds against its success that were detailed in the preceding months by the Washington Post and Politico. Biden’s re-election hinges on the success of this campaign after NATO already sent over $165 billion in taxpayer-provided aid to Kiev, the vast majority of which came from the US. He needs anything that his perception managers can spin as a victory to justify this ahead of next year’s election.

It’s not just for the sake of placating taxpayers either in this increasingly partisan conflict that’s seen a rising number of Republicans calling for more pragmatism and restraint as opposed to their Democrat rivals who remain gung-go about going all in for as long as it takes. Biden presided over the US’ most humiliating military loss in history after August 2021’s chaotic evacuation from Afghanistan, which infamously resulted in leaving a large number of Americans and allied locals behind to an unknown fate.

He and his team don’t care how many tens of thousands of Ukrainians have to be sacrificed in this conflict so long as they can achieve something that the Democrats can distort as having made the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II worth provoking. A failed raid into Russia and an unsuccessful assassination attempt against President Putin aren’t considered by most Americans to be worth the risk of a Third World War by miscalculation.

After 15 months of fighting, Kiev has only managed to reconquer part of the territory that it claims as its own, which is unimpressive when considering that it has the full backing of what the US portrays as supposedly being the world’s most powerful military alliance in history. The NATO chief’s self-proclaimed “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with Russia that he declared in February inadvertently proved that Russia’s military-industrial complex can compete with the entire West’s.

That was an unintended self-inflicted blow to this de facto New Cold War bloc’s reputation of being a military superpower and also thus discredited their information warfare narrative that the Russian economy is collapsing. In late January, the New York Times admitted that the West’s sanctions failed, and then they admitted at the end of February after the NATO chief’s dramatic declaration that they also failed to isolate Russia too.

The abovementioned facts already make Biden look like a bumbling fool for provoking this conflict, which only proved just how limited the US’ influence and power have become in recent years, but he looks even worse when considering the bigger picture. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, former US National Security Council member Fiona Hill, and Goldman Sachs’ President of Global Affairs Jared Cohen all acknowledged earlier in May that multipolarity is now a geopolitical reality as a result of this conflict.

It’s only the Biden Administration and allied propagandists abroad that remain in denial about this, which places even more pressure on their proxies in Kiev to achieve something tangible throughout the course of its counteroffensive that they can then spin as having made it worth provoking this conflict. The clock is ticking too since there’s a growing consensus across the globe that this is their side’s “last hurrah” prior to likely commencing ceasefire and peace talks by year’s end or early 2024 at the latest.

The West’s military-industrial crisis will inevitably limit the pace, scale, and scope of armed aid to Kiev, not to mention the US’ election season that’ll see this conflict unprecedentedly politicized. Instead of soberly admitting his side’s shortcomings and proactively trying to reach some sort of peace agreement that could then be exploited as the pretext for him winning the Nobel Peace Prize and thus boosting his re-election prospects, Biden is gambling against the odds that the counteroffensive will succeed.

Even Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley foresaw in late January that it’ll likely be impossible for Kiev to remove Russia from all the territory that it claims as its own by this year, which means that Biden and his team are trying to prove the US’ top military official wrong. This in turn confirms that they’re prioritizing politics over military advice, thus extending credence to the claim that this counteroffensive is all about Biden’s re-election and not pushing Russia back to its pre-2014 borders.

If it fails to achieve this maximum objective as expected by Milley and the earlier cited US media, then the Republicans will rightly pounce on Biden to accuse him of cooking up the worst conflict since World War II in a desperate bid to win re-election by deflecting from his humiliating loss in Afghanistan. With his back against the wall, it can’t be discounted that his team will advise him to escalate to unthinkable levels, though Russia’s hypersonic missiles will likely keep him from crossing the ultimate red line.

Whichever way one games it out, there’s close to no chance that Kiev’s counteroffensive will meet the Western public’s expectations absent some black swan event, which means that Biden will be running for re-election with two losses under his belt in Afghanistan and Ukraine. It’s difficult to imagine that Americans will give him and his team another four years in office after they humiliated the US so badly, but tens of thousands more might still die before these warmongers are removed from power.  

*

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 Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from 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.

*** 

Back in late February, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Moscow will suspend its participation in the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between Russia and the United States. Putin cited several major reasons for such a decision, including the illegal sanctions imposed by the political West. These restrictions led to an effective halt of the treaty’s implementation in early 2022, as Washington DC refused to honor it by allowing regular mutual inspections, which was an integral part of the New START. As Russia had no legal or practical way of verifying any of the Biden administration’s claims about the state of the US strategic arsenal, it was forced to suspend its participation in what essentially became a mere formality.

“Russia did its best to solve the problem in Ukraine peacefully, but the statements of Western leaders turned out to be fraudulent and untrue,” Putin slammed the behavior of Western political elites during his February 21 speech.

And indeed, the Eurasian giant simply had no other choice as the treaty became largely ceremonial. In addition, considering the series of recent admissions by various Western leaders that nearly all treaties with Russia were there to “just buy time”, Moscow has every reason to doubt every single word uttered by any US/EU/NATO official. However, Putin also stated that his country would continue abiding by the New START limitations on its strategic arsenal and that the suspension concerned only the mutual inspections and further direct cooperation with the political West in matters of nuclear disarmament. However, as per usual, the belligerent power pole saw this as a perfect opportunity to escalate instead of doing the opposite.

On May 18, Tom Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkansas (and an aspiring warhawk), introduced a bill that would formally accuse Russia of breaching the New START and use that as a pretext for the US to completely withdraw from the agreement. Worse yet, Cotton’s No START Treaty Act would also introduce plans to expand America’s strategic arsenal while placing major limits on US participation in any potential arms control negotiations and treaties in the future. As of this writing, at least 10 other senators (all of them Republican) supported the bill, so this piece of legislation is yet to get any Democrat co-sponsors, but given the recent bipartisan support for escalation virtually everywhere, including the sending of US F-16 jets to the Kiev regime, this is only a matter of time.

“The New START Treaty handcuffed America while Vladimir Putin has taken advantage of the treaty’s flaws for years. President Biden should never have extended this treaty that has only made Russia and China stronger and America weaker. We should withdraw from the treaty and bolster our nuclear forces,” Cotton said in a public release.

The No START Treaty Act would also effectively ban any future arms control talks between Russia and the US if it didn’t include China. This issue is most likely the main reason why Washington DC did everything in its power to undermine the New START in the first place. The bill would further “prohibit unilateral reductions and prohibit the bargaining away of US missile defenses”, as well as “prohibit the use of funds to implement the New START Treaty or any future arms control agreement unless it meets the bill’s required stipulations”. Such requirements would put severe constraints on America’s ability to ever negotiate a potential arms control agreement with both Russia and China, either separately or otherwise.

Very influential senators such as Florida Republican Marco Rubio and his Idaho counterpart Jim Risch publicly supported and spoke in favor of the bill, with Risch stating: “Our legislation will correct these mistakes by conditioning future arms control agreements with Russia to include all classes of nuclear weapons as well as China. We must be prepared for a strategic environment in which the United States faces two nuclear peers – China and Russia.”

Russia’s response to the No START Treaty Act shows clear confidence in its deterrence capabilities, but Moscow’s top-ranking officials still expressed concern with Washington DC’s incessant escalating rhetoric and actions. Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that “we can now only state with regret that there are no serious, substantive contacts on these issues between Moscow and Washington”, adding that “the last remnants of the international legal framework in this area are slipping away”. It should be noted that this is only the last in the long line of US violations and unilateral withdrawals from crucial international arms control agreements, starting with the 2002 ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty under former president Bush.

In addition, Washington DC’s obsession with including China in potential future nuclear arms control treaties is perhaps the best proof of the rising strategic schizophrenia in America’s foreign policy, where the belligerent thalassocracy is creating enemies wherever it can and then continuing to escalate to a point where it now faces two global superpowers, both of which are either already heavily armed (Russia) or have the potential to get heavily armed in the foreseeable future (China).

While Beijing’s thermonuclear arsenal is nowhere near that of either Russia or the US, it has been growing steadily, precisely in response to America’s “geopolitical containment” policies directed against China. Taking this into account, China has already started revamping its strategic posturing, a move Russia already implemented in response to similar US/NATO aggression on its borders.

*

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.

*** 

It’s hardly breaking news that the relationship between the Kiev regime and its armed forces has been anything but harmonious. However, in recent months, growing fault lines and factionalism have continued to escalate and are reaching dangerous levels, almost to the point that serious military opposition to Zelensky and his henchmen is currently being formed. Nowadays, the former Ukrainian military is a largely dysfunctional conglomerate of the old Soviet cadres, the more recent “NATO-ized” officer corps and special services, as well as the various openly Neo-Nazi units that have certain NATO training, although their combat experience mostly comes from fighting the Donbass republics.

As of last year, we could also add tens of thousands of mercenaries and volunteers to this volatile mix, as well as NATO special forces that have been operating, training and directing the regular Kiev regime troops. It truly is a laborious task to coordinate and command so many divergent groups within the junta’s armed forces, particularly when taking into account that the political West is imposing effectively impossible tasks on these people, ones that are designed for an infowar rather than actual military operations that accomplish attainable goals. The recent abortive attack on several villages in the Belgorod oblast (region) serves as a gory testament to that.

For the Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky, it’s rather easy to order such operations, because he’s not the one being sent to certain death just so the political West can use those strategically (and even tactically) meaningless “offensives” to denigrate the Russian military. This is precisely why many of the aforementioned groups within the armed forces are deeply dissatisfied with Zelensky and his administration. Although this is not to say there’s a “Ukrainian Claus von Stauffenberg” or a “conspiracy of generals” going after him, the outlines of a strong military opposition are already certainly visible. This could be extremely dangerous for Zelensky, particularly if these groups were to set aside their differences.

Zelensky isn’t only disliked (to say the least) by the old Soviet cadres, but also “NATO-ized” commanders, involving top-ranking officers whose careers are intertwined with former president Petro Poroshenko. This includes the Chief of the General Staff Serhiy Shaptala, former commander of the Airborne Assault Troops Mykhailo Zabrodsky, Navy commander Oleksiy Neizhpapa and Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces Oleksandr Syrsky, to name a few. These military leaders received both Soviet and NATO military education, a laborious and time-consuming process that lasted decades. Thus, they are disappointed and even disgusted by the sudden rise of Zelensky’s henchmen such as the head of GUR Kyrylo Budanov.

On the other hand, Zelensky is treated with undisguised contempt by the top commander Valery Zaluzhny, who enjoys almost unquestioned authority in the military. This includes virtually all of the aforementioned divergent groups, but particularly the Neo-Nazi units that are disgusted by the propaganda that lionizes Zelensky. The regime frontman’s attempts to self-promote as some kind of a military leader despite the sore absence of a clearly defined plan of action have pushed most of the military elite into opposition. This mostly revolves around the fact that Zelensky essentially turned the military into some sort of a theater of his with the sole purpose of waging an infowar, resulting in needless massive casualties for the Kiev regime forces.

Bakhmut is the best (or perhaps the worst) example of this. Despite Zaluzhny’s repeated requests for a withdrawal, Zelensky insisted on its defense, as he was afraid that the loss of the city could reduce Western support and cash flow. Such militarily unsound decisions have resulted in an atrocious death ratio for the Neo-Nazi junta forces. Sources on this vary significantly, but the best-case scenario is that approximately 250,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and severely wounded so far. On the other hand, back in February, the Turkish press (citing Israeli intelligence services) reported in detail that irretrievable losses amounted to nearly 400,000, of which approximately 160,000 were KIA, with the rest being severely wounded.

The Kiev regime’s horrendous casualties have been confirmed by several high-ranking officials, including its own UK ambassador Vadym Prystaiko, Zaluzhny himself in a conversation with US counterpart Mark Milley and even Ursula von der Leyen, although her admission was later censored by the mainstream propaganda machine. All the while, Zelensky has been hoarding massive wealth outside Ukraine, with his family’s lavish lifestyle being starkly contrasted by the deteriorating living conditions of millions of regular Ukrainians. This is also mirrored by Zelensky’s associates, including the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk (moved his family to Poland) or the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Oleksiy Danilov (son Maxim evaded conscription and fled to Miami).

Zelensky must be perfectly aware of just how unpopular such behavior is among Ukrainians, particularly the military that has been trained by NATO for approximately a decade and is now stuck fighting a war against a military superpower next door in ways that the belligerent alliance itself never could (complete lack of air superiority). Perhaps all this could explain Zaluzhny’s strange disappearance, as he hasn’t appeared in public since April 13. We can only make assumptions about his fate and many sources do, as some have suggested that Zaluzhny had been arrested and isolated from his supporters, while others are going as far as to say he’s been killed. Whatever the truth may be, the growing divide within the Kiev regime is bound to escalate.

*

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.

*** 

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 UK is using job search outlets to recruit mercenaries from North Africa NA and the Middle East ME to take part in Ukraine’s counteroffensive, under the guise of “military maintenance technician,” a job advert published on Adzuna revealed.

The job network platform operates in 20 countries and has monthly visitor traffic of at least 10 million work seekers and employers.

“We invite citizens from the Middle East and North Africa to participate in a voluntary program to assist Ukraine on a competitive basis… Military specialists with good health and psychological stability are required to participate in the Ukrainian counteroffensive,” the job ad said.

The vacancy post was advertised by the London-based EU Citizenship Program, looking for applicants in NA and the ME to join a “High Contract” payment program of 20,000 pounds sterling ($24,816).

The employer also guarantees that, upon contract expiration, accelerated citizenship in the UK or the EU would be provided to individuals enlisted in the program.

“Participants must understand all risks and sign a waiver of claims,” the ad stressed.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry earlier provided data showing that thousands of mercenaries from more than 60 countries were recruited to Ukraine to fight alongside Kiev forces.

The total UK military aid to Kiev has surpassed £2.3 billion since the start of the Ukrainian crisis, which makes Britain the second largest supporter of Zelensky’s regime after the US.

Earlier this week, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he opposes any peace initiative for a ceasefire in Ukraine that does not entail a complete Russian withdrawal. 

His comments came in the British Parliament after Jeremy Corbyn, former leader of the Labour Party, had asked Sunak to comment on the ceasefire initiative proposed by South Africa and condoned by the UN Secretary-General and the Pope.

“A ceasefire is not a just and lasting peace for Ukraine,” Sunak stated.

The UK has also promised earlier that it would train Ukrainian pilots this summer and would aid Kiev “hand in hand” in “efforts to work with other countries on providing F-16 jets” to Zelensky’s government.

*

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: UK instructors train Ukrainian marines as part of Operation Orbital in Odessa, Ukraine in January 2019. Image: Ukrainian Naval Forces

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.

*** 

Arriving for my bone density test at a downstate New York hospital, I’m delighted to again find Belinda in Radiology. When she does my annual mammogram, I learn more than about cancer. Although she readily shares her own breast cancer experience as she prepares her half-million-dollar machine. How she delights in describing its new features. 

Our conversation begins with my observation about heightened security at the hospital. “More guards at the main door?” I note. “Yes, more protocols. Now they’re armed!”, she adds. 

The bone scanning machine is a sleek new model: silent too; our chat can proceed uninterrupted. “Registration took unusually long today; are there staff shortages here too?” I ask, stepping onto the table. “Don’t get me started”, replies Belinda. “Lots of money some places – not where it’s needed. Nurses work just to pay off student debt.” 

How this led to China, I’m unsure; maybe something about growing public anxiety. The radiologist, watching her computer screen as the scanner slides over me, offers a simple assessment. “It’s China. There’s going to be war!” 

I risk disagreeing; then proceed: “Why should we expect war with China?” I begin. (If she’s not listening, there’s no harm. So I continue.) “A remarkable country; I visited there in ’82. What advances – barely 25 years. What are the signs of their aggression? How many places has China invaded compared to USA?” (I left Tibet aside; it was the only invasion I remembered.)

My remark sets Belinda off, but not in the direction I feared. “Yes. And what did we get from Afghanistan? All our equipment left there (planes, tanks – just abandoned), billions of dollars stolen). PTSD; nuts in our streets; homeless vets everywhere!”

“My son is in the military; he says it’s China we have to watch.”

My turn. “That’s the picture media and our government give. They’re stirring Americans’ fears to justify money for weapons? How is China going to invade the US, and for what?” Silence from Belinda; I continue: “We have 800 foreign bases, many of them encircling China and Russia. Ask your son how many bases China has near us.”

“Good point. Never thought about that.” 

Belinda returns to the issue of PTSD and veterans. “They return home traumatized, unable to manage.” She must have seen some extreme cases, maybe a family member, surely inside this hospital. “They’re taught their gun is their best friend; they’re ready to shoot at anyone; they’re scared.”

Even to strangle someone, I think. I remember Jordan Neely being attacked in a NYC subway car just 3 weeks ago. 

Belinda stops the machine to set my leg at a better angle for the camera. 

Am I disturbing you Belinda? “Not at all. Do you know they’re charging that veteran with murder?” I hadn’t heard. But I see she’s angry about that. “Well,” I argue; “He did kill someone.” 

“But the guy was acting crazy; he could have a gun, a knife. People were afraid.”

“We can’t go around killing like that; he wasn’t armed. There are other ways to subdue a person: grab his arms, stop the train. But to choke the guy to death? Likely learned that in the military”, I venture.

I continue: “Everyone is afraid, even in the countryside now—we’re all on edge. Look at our schools; doors locked; armed guards there too. Kids are told to hide – in classrooms!”

Belinda had thought about this: “Know what I’d do? I’d build a fence around every school and lock it, lock it. Keep everyone out.”

“Come on Belinda. Schools are already locked; cameras all over the place. Next, it will be armed teachers. Fencing will make everyone more nervous. We can’t imprison ourselves!” 

The scanning ended, not our talk. “Well, look at all the crazies! Doped up, won’t work, expect free housing. I see plenty in the hospital”, Belinda confides. “They dope themselves to deal with the fear. Look at our homeless veterans; most are doped. Boys in Vietnam were shot up before going into battle. They brought their addictions home.”

“Like they bring their guns home”, I retort.

Belinda, having passed her lunch break, is wound up about government waste and is eager to return to excess spending. “We’ve got to look after our own people. Why billions to Ukraine? Let them deal with their problem. Why take money from Americans for them?” This I did not expect; no one where I live dares criticize Washington’s largesse to Ukraine.

“Don’t get me started on that Belinda. I can’t discuss this even with friends (who say they’re progressive).” But I can’t help adding, “I’ve read that weapons we give to Ukraine were being exported from there for sale – to where, we don’t know.” 

“Yeh? I haven’t heard; I believe it though.”

“I haven’t had a talk like this in months Belinda”, thanking her as I prepare to dress. 

“Me too; I can’t talk politics to my husband. We stopped long ago.”

As I gather my things, Belinda announces: “I have to escort you to Reception. Increased security; every wing is locked; more protocols, more security even for us staff.”

Exiting past two of the hospital’s three armed guards, I thought: Hmm. Which party Belinda votes for never occurred to me. I expect she didn’t think about me through that lens either.

*

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.

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

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from FX Mislang / Flickr

---

“Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”

By Barbara Nimri Aziz

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to order.

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

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.

*** 

Two very establishment, Anglo-American media in the UK finally – and bitterly – have admitted it, ‘out loud’: Sanctions on Russia failed. The Spectator (once edited by Boris Johnson), writes, the West adopted a two-pronged strategy: one was military support for Ukraine, and the other was:

“Unleashing financial ‘shock and awe’ on a scale never before seen. Russia was to be cut off almost entirely … Putin’s Russia, went the theory, would be impoverished into surrender”.  Few people in the West are aware of how badly this aspect of the war is going. Europe has itself paid a high price to effect a partial boycott of Russian oil and gas.

“But [any limitations to the EU energy boycott] do not explain the scale of the failure to damage the Russian economy. It soon became clear that while the West was keen on an economic war, the rest of the world was not. As its oil and gas exports to Europe fell, Russia quickly upped its exports to China and India – both of which preferred to buy oil at a discount than to make a stand against the invasion of Ukraine. 

 “The West embarked on its sanctions war with an exaggerated sense of its own influence around the world…The results of the miscalculation are there for all to see…The Russian economy has not been destroyed; it has merely been reconfigured, reorientated to look eastwards and southwards rather than westwards”.

Allister Heath in The Telegraph too laments:  

“Russia was meant to have collapsed by now.  Britain, America and Europe’s gambit was that drastic trade, financial and technological sanctions, a cap on the price of Russian seaborne oil, and substantial help to Ukraine would be enough to defeat Moscow. It hasn’t worked…The reason? China has quietly stepped in, bailing out Putin’s shattered economy on a transformational scale, swapping energy and raw materials for goods and technology. The sanctions are a joke”.

For some, reading these words, their reaction will be one of utter amazement: How come it took this long for the British Establishment to ‘wake up’ to that which all the world knew?

The Spectator, in fact, gives us the answer: An ‘exaggerated sense of Western influence around the world’. Or simply put: delusionary hubris placed ‘blinders’ on western policy-makers; they could not see what was before their own eyes.

American and British Intelligence analysts, consumed by their conviction that Russia’s was a small, fragile economy that could never withstand the entire weight of the western economic system, ranged against it; they persuaded the Europeans that Russia’s ‘collapse’ was a ‘Slam Dunk’ certitude.  The Russian financial collapse would de-stabilise Moscow’s élites, and President Putin would be ‘out’.  And, under reaffirmed US hegemony, Russia’s economic affairs would be returned to ‘how they were’ — Russia as purveyor of cheap commodities to the West.

It was a huge error (on a par with that of claims that war on Iraq would generate a ‘New Middle East’). And now, Europe is paying the price. And will continue to pay the price for a long time to come.

It would be difficult however, to under-estimate the effect of these ‘insights’ percolating to the surface of the western Establishment ‘mind’.  Clearly, someone in the US ‘Permanent State’ wanted them surfaced in ‘twin’ vehicles (UK media regularly serves this function for spreading messages unattributably).  

Hybrid financial war — since the Iraq conflict — has been the mainstay of the Western strategy for extending its hegemony.  To see that strategy so iconically debunked in Russia; to behold the ‘rest of the world’ saying that Ukraine may be a European concern, but it is not their’s; to see the widespread abandonment of the dollar for trade becoming the key mechanism for replacing the US-led unipolar world, with a multipolar world, explains much of the bitterness expressed in the two British editorial think-pieces.

That The Spectator should say that this episode of strategic miscalculation hails from over-inflated Western self-importance and represents an extraordinary moment of self-reflection, even if it is one drenched in bitterness at what ‘the mirror’ reflected back to the two authors.

But let us not get carried away. Such delusions are not about to vaporise. The Western neo-cons do not possess ‘reverse gear’; when defeated in one sphere, they never apologise; they simply move on to the next colour-revolution.

Even as I write this piece, a bill introduced by Rep Wilson and Sen McCaul, aims to bar the US government from recognizing President Assad as Syria’s President, and as a warning to other countries contemplating normalising with President Assad’s government that they could face severe consequences (i.e. financial sanction), under the Caesar Act. 

The West is preparing to sanction Turkey for its links to Russia; the US continues to sanction Iraq as part of an attempt by Washington to pressure Iraq into avoiding energy cooperation with the Islamic Republic of Iran; and the US is preparing to boost its ‘defence posture’ in the Persian Gulf, with officials claiming that the Pentagon will deploy additional assets to the region to patrol commercial shipping lanes and ‘protect private vessels’ from Iran. 

The sanctions mindset will not fade until the West experiences a catharsis sufficient to bring transformation to its zeitgeist.  The revelation that sanctions have not worked — and that the rest of the world now sees emancipation from the hegemony of the dollar to be emancipation from US political hegemony — has come as a traumatising experience.

*

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.

Alastair Crooke is Director of Conflicts Forum; Former Senior British Diplomat; Author.

Featured image is from AME

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.

*** 

According to a May 11, 2023, report by the British Express, Britons are dying by the tens of thousands, “but no one knows why”

Between May and December 2022, there were 32,441 excess deaths in England and Wales, according to data released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), and that doesn’t include COVID-related deaths

In 2022, the No. 1 cause of excess deaths in the U.K. was signs and symptoms of “ill-defined conditions.” In England, this nebulous cause of death was 36.9% above the five-year average, and in Wales, it was 30.4% above average

The U.K. was the first European country to approve the Pfizer COVID jab and began its mass injection campaign December 8, 2020. It currently has the highest COVID-19 jab rate in all of Europe

The misuse of mechanical ventilation created the appearance that COVID was exceptionally deadly, which in turn helped promote acceptance of the experimental COVID shots that are now a leading cause of frequent sickness, chronic disability and excess deaths

*

According to a May 11, 2023, report by the British Express,¹ Britons are dying by the tens of thousands, “but no one knows why.” Between May and December 2022 alone, there were 32,441 excess deaths in England and Wales, according to data² released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), and that doesn’t include COVID-related deaths. As reported by the Express:³

“Excess deaths are defined as the number of people who died above the five-year average — worked out excluding 2020 due to how COVID spiked death figures that year … The shock revelation has raised alarm bells amid health professionals …

Professor David Coleman, Emeritus Professor of Demography at Oxford University, told the Mirror that no one knew for certain what had caused so many deaths throughout last year.

He pointed out that, post COVID, the UK’s population had been changed through the deaths of a significant proportion of the elderly due to the virus. He explained: ‘Once those poor people have been packed off, the remaining population should be healthier, there should be a period afterwards where deaths are lower than usual but that hasn’t happened.’”

No. 1 Cause of Excess Deaths: ‘Ill-Defined Conditions’

According to the Express, two of the primary causes of excess deaths were ischemic heart diseases and dementia. This, the article suggests, might be an indication that obesity and an increasingly older population are to blame for the excess mortality.

However, if the population was altered due to a significant portion of the elderly dying from COVID in 2020, leaving a younger and supposedly healthier population, as stated by professor Coleman, those puzzle pieces don’t exactly fit together. 

What’s more, the Express failed to specify that dementia and Alzheimer’s were only the leading causes of death during the month of December 2022. For 2022, the No. 1 cause of excess deaths was signs and symptoms of “ill-defined conditions.”⁴

In England, this nebulous cause of death was 36.9% above the five-year average, and in Wales, it was 30.4% above average.⁵ Now, what does that remind you of? “Sudden adult death syndrome” perhaps — a historically rare cause of death that suddenly skyrocketed after the COVID jabs came on the scene.

As illustrated in the video above, during 2021 and into 2022, mainstream media kept drilling the false and incredibly offensive narrative that the unvaccinated were the enemy, that every COVID death meant they had blood on their hands and ought to be punished accordingly.

And now, as countries where most people have been jabbed experience skyrocketing excess death rates unrelated to COVID, they feign mind-numbing ignorance.

An experimental gene transfer injection was introduced as a vaccine and death rates continue to climb even as COVID is vanishing. What a mystery! Everyone is stumped. The scientific consensus is at a standstill. No one knows why people are dying.

Possibly, not enough people got the jab. That’s what the BBC insinuated in early 2023.⁶ No one wants to admit that medical experimentation on the public was a terrible idea. No one wants to consider the possibility that too many took the toxic jab, and that’s why excess mortality is so far above norm.

As cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough has repeatedly stated, we had a clear safety signal all the way back in February 2021, and it’s only gotten more pronounced over time. Despite that, not a single safety review has been conducted, and our health authorities refuse to address the astronomical death toll.

UK Has Highest COVID Jab Rate in Europe

In the U.K., 2020 was the deadliest year on record since 1918. More than 695,000 deaths were logged that year. The culprit at that time was COVID, or suspected COVID. But what happened next?

The U.K. was the first European country to approve the Pfizer COVID jab and began its mass injection campaign December 8, 2020. It currently has the highest COVID-19 jab rate in all of Europe, in large part due to having “the most positive attitudes to vaccine safety in Europe,” according to Statista.⁷

If the COVID shots were safe and protective, you’d expect excess mortality to decline from there on, but that didn’t happen. The third week of January 2021 saw a huge spike above norm, and the rate has dipped and peaked ever since.⁸ In 2022, excess deaths exceeded 650,000, which was 9% higher than 2019. So, why are so many people dying? And why are so many dying from inexplicable causes or “ill-defined” conditions?

In January 2023, BBC news blamed the excess death rate in 2022 on “pandemic effects on health and NHS pressures.”⁹ Ambulance response times were more than doubled, hospital waits were long, and “people are more likely to have heart problems and strokes in the weeks and months after catching COVID,” the BBC said.

The BBC also claimed there was “no evidence of vaccine effect,” and that cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were “too rare — and mostly not fatal — to account for the excess in deaths.”

But myocarditis and pericarditis are FAR from the only side effects caused by these shots, so the fact that these conditions aren’t among the top causes certainly doesn’t mean that the shots are safe and aren’t causing people to die prematurely.

Aside from foolhardy medical experimentation, the excess death rates may also have something to do with the fact that hospitals around the world have been killing “suspected” COVID patients with lethal treatment protocols, as detailed in “How COVID Patients Died for Profit.”

Massively Anomalous Data Put COVID Shots in the Crosshairs

In the March 24, 2023, “Ask Dr. Drew” interview above, Drew interviewed Ed Dowd, author of “Cause Unknown.” As noted by Dowd, data from the insurance industry, funeral home industry and various government databases strongly indicate that the COVID shots are killing people, primarily working age adults, many of whom had to get the shot to keep their jobs.

While some countries are now pulling back from the shots, in the U.S., the COVID injections have been added to the childhood and adult vaccination schedules, and no one has proposed removing them.

According to Dowd, Denmark, for example, stopped recommending COVID boosters for anyone younger than 50, as their excess deaths in 2021 and 2022 shot up to around 20% above norm. Clearly, decision-makers there connected the dots and decided it was better to be safe than sorry.

Dowd goes on to review absence rates and lost worktime data¹⁰ for the U.S. Among full-time employees aged 25 to 54, there was a stark deviation in 2020, 2021 and 2022 from the 2002 through 2019 trend. In 2020, it was a three-standard deviation, which is reasonable considering governments were shutting down businesses. But then, in 2021, it rose to five standard deviations and in 2022, it skyrocketed to 11 standard deviations, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Compared to 2019, the absence rate for working age adults was only 3.6% higher in 2020, when lockdowns were in effect and many businesses were closed. In 2021, the absence rate was 10.7% higher than 2019, and in 2022, it was 28.6% higher. In short, in 2022, nearly one-third more employees missed days of work compared to 2019, which amounts to an enormous loss of productivity, and this at a time when there were no lockdowns in the U.S.

Looking at the number of hours lost per absence, the 2022 numbers were 13 standard deviations higher than 2019, which Dowd says is “unheard of.” Compared to the 2019 baseline, lost worktime rates were 28.6% higher in 2020 and 2021, and then suddenly jumped to 50% in 2022. This too equates to a major loss of productivity and therefore economic losses.

So, what is going on? In short, people are missing work due to vaccine-related sickness. As noted by Dowd, we have studies showing the shots impair your immune function, and these data show that, yes, people are getting sick and calling out from work at an unprecedented frequency and they’re out sick 50% longer than normal.

mRNA COVID Jabs Had No Effect on Mortality

In related news, we now also have evidence¹¹ showing the mRNA COVID jabs have no mortality benefit. As reported by Epoch Health:¹²

“The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines did not impact overall mortality, a reanalysis of clinical trial data found.

The two vaccines, both based on messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, protected against deaths from COVID-19 but that effect was offset by vaccinated trial participants being more likely to die from cardiovascular problems, Christine Stabell Benn, a health professor at the University of Southern Denmark, and other researchers reported in April in the Cell journal.¹³

The research analyzed data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reported by the companies that manufacture the vaccines. ‘In the RCTs with the longest possible blinded follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against some COVID-19 deaths.”

Meanwhile, the Johnson & Johnson shot, which uses an adenovirus-vector, was associated with lower non-COVID-19 mortality and overall mortality, but had NO effect on COVID-19 mortality. So, in essence, all the COVID shots are useless in one way or another. The mRNA versions cause greater overall mortality, and the adenovirus-vector ones don’t protect against COVID-related death. Take your pick.

Interestingly, out of all the brands, AstraZeneca’s adenovirus-vector shot performed the best, and that’s the one that was maligned the most by health regulators and media across the world, as it was associated with lethal blood clots early on.

More Evidence COVID Jab Does More Harm Than Good

Another reanalysis of randomized COVID jab trials concluded that the shots are far more likely to land you in the hospital than COVID-19 itself. This study,¹⁴ which focused on serious adverse events highlighted in a World Health Organization-endorsed priority list¹⁵ of potential adverse events relevant to the COVID-19 shots, found Pfizer’s shot was associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events at a rate of 10.1 events per 10,000.

The rate for Moderna’s jab was 15.1 events per 10,000. The researchers also stressed that this level of risk for a post-injection event was significantly greater than the risk reduction for COVID-related hospitalization, which was only 2.3 per 10,000 participants in the Pfizer trial and 6.4 per 10,000 in the Moderna trial.

In short, for every 800 jab recipients, one person will suffer a serious injury. Meanwhile, some 5,000 must get the Pfizer jab to prevent a single COVID hospitalization. This is what risk-benefit analysis is all about — comparing and weighing the benefit against the risk — and when it comes to the mRNA COVID shots, they clearly do more harm than good.

Considering the high rate of injury, is it hard to believe that people are calling out sick from work more often or that excess mortality is skyrocketing? There’s not a single piece of evidence so far that exonerates the COVID shots, yet the media want you to believe it’s an inexplicable mystery.

AI Links COVID Deaths to Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

Another piece of news that’s been making the rounds is that artificial intelligence (AI) has linked COVID mortality to unresolved ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), basically, a secondary bacterial infection caused by intubation that didn’t respond to treatment. As described in the abstract, published April 27, 2023, in the Journal of Clinical Investigation:^16,17

“We performed a single-center prospective cohort study of 585 mechanically ventilated patients with severe pneumonia and respiratory failure, 190 of whom had COVID-19, who underwent at least one bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL].

Given the relatively long ICU length of stay among patients with COVID-19, we developed a machine learning approach called CarpeDiem, which groups similar ICU patient-days into clinical states based on electronic health record data.

CarpeDiem revealed that the long ICU length of stay among patients with COVID-19 is attributable to long stays in clinical states characterized primarily by respiratory failure. While VAP was not associated with mortality overall, mortality was higher in patients with one episode of unsuccessfully treated VAP compared with successfully treated VAP (76.4% versus 17.6%, P < 0.001).

In all patients, including those with COVID-19, CarpeDiem demonstrated that unresolving VAP was associated with transitions to clinical states associated with higher mortality.

Conclusions: Unsuccessful treatment of VAP is associated with greater mortality. The relatively long length of stay among patients with COVID-19 is primarily due to prolonged respiratory failure, placing them at higher risk of VAP.”

Use of Ventilation Is Likely the Core Problem

While many have argued that this study shows secondary infections are to blame for many a COVID death, Modern Discontent¹⁸ on Substack calls for prudence when interpreting these results, stating that upon closer scrutiny, the study doesn’t offer much in terms of substantial evidence.

Moreover, whenever you’re using AI, what comes out depends on what was put in, and in this case, CarpeDiem did not supply important data variables, and this may have skewed the results. Since “key factors have been excluded from the analysis there’s going to be several flaws in interpreting the correlative power of some of CarpeDiem’s results,” Modern Discontent warns, adding:

“Overall, I’ll argue that the study has serious issues in outlining their data. There’s a ton missing here, including which bacteria were cultured from BAL samples.

The timing of BAL collection is up in the air, and the study also doesn’t make it clear early on how many patients actually experienced an episode of VAP, whether in the COVID group or the other groups (you have to dig into the actual body to find a reference to VAP episodes).

The lack of organization makes the study rather difficult to read, and I won’t say that I have it figured out yet … It’s quite clear that many of these individuals are already in various states of severe respiratory distress and failure as noted by the clinical states and relative mortality rates, making these people more at risk of death irrespective of from SARS-COV2 or a bacterial infection …

It’s not necessarily the secondary infection that is cause for concern, but the fact that many patients require ventilation.

Upon ventilation, the secondary concern may be the secondary bacterial infection, although the researchers don’t provide any insights into why some patients were not able to resolve their VAP episode. This is, again, an issue with the lack of data provided by the researchers themselves.”

COVID Jab Accepted Due to Ventilator-Driven Death Toll

Now, aside from the massively coercive PR campaign, one of the reasons that many accepted the COVID shot without much deliberation was the fact that hospitalized COVID patients were dying in droves. They didn’t want to end up on a vent and die, and all the pundits said the shots would prevent you from getting seriously ill and dying.

The problem, of course, is that mechanical ventilation should not have been a standard treatment for COVID, and some doctors realized this within a few weeks. High-flow cannulas and proning were far more effective.¹⁹

The reason mechanical ventilation was promoted as an early intervention was not because it was helpful for the patient, but because it was thought to protect the staff from the virus. It was a strategy to reduce contagion.²⁰ This was detailed in provider guidance²¹ from the World Health Organization in March 2020.

The guidance recommended²² escalating treatment to mechanical ventilation as rapidly as possible to isolate the virus inside the mechanical vent machine. In other words, they put patients on a treatment they knew would likely kill them to “save” staff and other, presumably non-COVID, patients.

Considering this context, blaming the death of vented patients on secondary infections may be little more than an attempt to shift blame away from hospitals that adhered to these ineffective and dangerous protocols.

I disagree with Modern Discontent when he or she says that the primary concern is “the fact that many patients require ventilation.” There’s plenty of evidence that says they don’t, and without ventilation, the risk of ventilator-associated secondary bacterial infection drops to zero, does it not? Secondary bacterial infections may still occur, but they won’t be VAP.

So, in conclusion, the misuse of mechanical vents created the appearance that COVID was exceptionally deadly, which in turn helped promote acceptance of the experimental COVID shots, which are now a leading cause of frequent sickness, chronic disability and excess deaths.

*

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, 3 Express May 11, 2023

^2, 4, 5 ONS Mortality Analysis, England and Wales, December 2022

^6, 9 BBC January 10, 2023

^7, 8 Statista Excess Deaths UK and Wales

¹⁰ Phineas Technologies US Absence Rates and Lost Worktime Data March 2023

^11, 13 Cell May 19, 2023; 26(5): 106733 (Archived)

¹² Epoch Health May 13, 2023

¹⁴ Vaccines September 22, 2022; 40(40): 5798-5805

¹⁵ SPEAC October 26, 2021

¹⁶ Journal of Clinical Investigation April 27, 2023

¹⁷ Journal of Clinical Investigation April 27, 2023 Full Text PDF

¹⁸ Modern Discontent Substack May 16, 2023

¹⁹ Newswise April 23, 2020

²⁰ Wall Street Journal December 20, 2020 (Archived)

²¹ WHO Clinical Management of Severe COVID-19

²² WHO Infection Prevention and Control for COVID

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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.

*** 

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky made an unexpected trip to Britain last week on a whistle-stop tour of European capitals, pleading for more powerful and longer-range weapons to use in his war against Russia. 

What was hard to ignore once again was the extent to which the UK is playing an outsize role in Ukraine.

Last year, shortly after the start of the war, the then-prime minister, Boris Johnson, hurried to Kyiv – presumably on Washington’s instructions – apparently to warn Zelensky off fledgling peace talks with Moscow. 

At around the same time, the Biden administration made clear it favoured an escalation in fighting, not an end to it, as an opportunity to “weaken” Russia, a geo-strategic rival along with China.

Since then, the UK has been at the forefront of European efforts to entrench the conflict, helping to lobby for the supply of weapons, training and military intelligence to Ukrainian forces.   

British tanks and thousands of tank shells – including, controversially, some made from depleted uranium – are being shipped out. Last week, the UK added hundreds of long-range attack drones to the inventory. 

And an unspecified number of £2m-a-blast Storm Shadow cruise missiles, with a range of nearly 300km, have started arriving. Last week Ben Wallace, Britain’s defence secretary, said the missiles were already in use, adding that Kyiv alone was deciding on the targets.

Storm Shadow allows the Ukrainian military to strike deep into Russian-annexed parts of Ukraine – and potentially at Russian cities too.

A recent leak revealed that the Pentagon had learnt through electronic eavesdropping of Zelensky’s eagerness for longer-range missiles so that his forces were “capable of reaching Russian troop deployments in Russia”.

Lip service 

Britain now pays little more than lip service to the West’s claim that its role is only to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian aggression. The supply of increasingly offensive weapons has turned Ukraine into what amounts to a proxy battleground on which the Cold War can be revived.

During Zelensky’s visit to the UK last week, Johnson’s successor, Rishi Sunak, effectively acted as an arms broker for Ukraine, joining with the Netherlands in what was grandly dubbed an “international coalition” to pressure the Biden administration and other European states to supply Kyiv with F-16 fighter jets. 

Washington appeared not to need much cajoling. Three days later, Biden dramatically changed tack at a G7 summit in Japan. He effectively gave a green light for US allies to supply Ukraine not only with US-made F-16s but similar fourth-generation fighter jets, including Britain’s Eurofighter Typhoon and France’s Mirage 2000.

Administration officials surprised European leaders by suggesting the US would be directly involved in the training of pilots outside Ukraine. 

After a highly staged “surprise” visit by Zelensky to the summit at the weekend, Biden said he had been given a “flat reassurance” that the jets would not attack Russian territory.

British officials, meanwhile, indicated that the UK would start training Ukrainian pilots within weeks. 

‘Rightful place is in Nato’ 

No 10 has made clear that Sunak’s purpose is to build “a new Ukrainian air force with Nato-standard F-16 jets” and that the prime minister believes “Ukraine’s rightful place is in Nato”.

These statements seem intended once again to block any potential path towards peace. President Vladimir Putin repeatedly spoke out against Nato’s growing, covert involvement in neighbouring Ukraine before Russia launched its invasion 15 months ago.

It is hard to imagine that the UK is heading off-script. More likely, the Biden administration is using Britain to make the running and soften up Western publics as Nato becomes ever more deeply immersed in the military activities of Russia’s neighbour.

Ukraine is being gradually turned into the very Nato forward base that first set Moscow on course to invade.

At the same time, Britain appears to be exploiting the Ukraine war as a showcase for its weaponry. After the US, it has been the largest supplier of military equipment to Ukraine. 

This week it was reported that UK arms exports hit a record £8.5bn, more than double last year’s total. The last time Britain was so successful at selling weapons was in 2015, at the height of the Syrian war. 

Risk to health

Europe’s weapons largesse is, we are told, the precondition for Ukraine to mount a long-awaited counter-offensive to take back territory Russia has seized in the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine. 

Speaking candidly in Florence this month, Josep Borrell, the European Union’s top diplomat, ruled out peace talks. Ukraine needed massive supplies of arms because otherwise “Ukraine will fall in a matter of days”, he said.

Borrell’s warning not only suggested the precariousness of Ukraine’s situation but implied that, out of desperation, its leaders might be prepared to approve ever riskier combat scenarios.

And thanks to British meddling, the heavy toll of casualties as the war rages on – among the Ukrainian population and Russian soldiers, as well as potentially inside Russia’s borders too – may be felt not just over the coming months but for decades.

In March, Declassified broke the story that some of the thousands of tank shells Britain is supplying to Kyiv are made of depleted uranium (DU), a radioactive heavy metal produced as waste from nuclear power plants. 

Keir Starmer’s opposition Labour party has said it “fully supports” the UK government’s supply of these armour-piercing shells to Ukraine, despite the long-term risk they pose to those exposed to the chemically toxic contamination left behind.

DU shells fragment and burn when they hit a target. One analyst, Doug Weir, from the Conflict and Environment Observatory, told Declassified that the ammunition produces “chemically toxic and radioactive DU particulate [microscopic particles] that poses an inhalational risk to people”.

Nonetheless, British ministers insist the threat to human health is low – and worth the risk given the military gains in helping Ukraine to destroy Russian tanks. 

Cancer deaths 

As Declassified has highlighted, however, a growing body of evidence following the use of such shells by the US in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and by Britain and the US in Iraq a decade later undermines these reassurances.

Italian courts have upheld compensation claims against the country’s military in more than 300 cases where Italians who served in the police or as soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo have died of cancer after being exposed to DU. 

Many thousands more Italian former service-people are reported to have developed cancers.

In 2001 Tony Blair’s government downplayed the role of DU in Italy’s deaths to avoid upsetting the new administration of George W Bush. Both leaders would soon approve the use of DU rounds in Iraq, though the UK admitted a “moral obligation” to help clean up some of the contamination afterwards.

The West has taken little interest in researching the effects of DU weapons in Iraq, even though local civilian populations have been the most exposed to its contamination. DU shells were used extensively during both the 1991 Gulf war and more than a decade later during the US and British-led occupation of Iraq.

Iraqi government statistics suggest the rates of cancers leapt 40-fold between the period immediately before the Gulf war and 2005.

The city of Fallujah, which the US devastated after the 2003 invasion, is reported to suffer “the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied”. Birth defects are said to be roughly 14 times the rate in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki regions of Japan, where the US dropped atomic bombs. 

In 2018 the British government reclassified a 1981 report into the dangers of DU weapons by the Ministry of Defence’s Atomic Weapons Research Establishment it had made available three years earlier. 

Meanwhile, James Heappey, the armed forces minister, has misleadingly suggested that international bodies such as the World Health Organisation and the United Nations have found no long-term health or environmental hazards associated with DU weapons.

But as Weir told Declassified in March: “None of the entities cited by the MoD has undertaken long-term environmental or health studies in conflict areas where DU weapons have been used.” 

In other words, they simply don’t know – and possibly don’t care to find out.

Weir added that the WHO, UN and International Atomic Energy Agency had all called for contaminated areas to be clearly marked and access restricted, while at the same time recommending that risk awareness campaigns be targeted at nearby communities.

British officials have also recruited the Royal Society to their efforts to claim DU is safe – as the US did earlier, in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, citing two of its reports published in 2001 and 2002.

However, the Royal Society has vocally distanced itself from such claims. A spokesperson told Declassified that, despite the British government’s assertions, DU was no longer an “active area of policy research”. 

Back in 2003, the Royal Society rebuked Washington, telling the Guardian that soldiers and civilians in Iraq “were in short and long term danger. Children playing at contaminated sites were particularly at risk.”

At the same time, the chairman of the Royal Society’s working group on depleted uranium, Professor Brian Spratt, warned that corroding shells could leach DU into water supplies. He recommended removing ordinance and conducting long-term sampling of water supplies.

Voices silenced 

By lobbying for more overtly offensive weapons and introducing DU shells into the war, Britain has raised the stakes in two incendiary ways.

First, it is driving the war’s logic towards ever greater escalation, including nuclear escalation.  

Russia itself possesses DU weapons but is reported to have avoided using them. Moscow has long warned that it regards use of DU in Ukraine in nuclear terms: as the equivalent of a “dirty bomb”. 

In March Putin responded to the UK’s decision to supply DU tank shells by vowing to move “tactical” nuclear weapons into neighbouring Belarus. Meanwhile, his defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, said it put the world “fewer and fewer steps” away from “nuclear collision”.

But Britain is also creating a situation where a catastrophic move, or miscalculation, by either Russia or Ukraine is becoming ever more likely, as events last week highlighted only too clearly.

Russia struck a military ammunition depot in western Ukraine, creating a giant fireball. Rumours suggested the site may have included British DU shells.

Whether true or not, it is a reminder that Moscow could hit such a storage site, intentionally or accidentally, spreading contamination widely over a built-up area.

With Ukraine soon to be in possession of a full array of offensive weapons, largely courtesy of the UK – not only long-range drones, cruise missiles and tanks but fighter jets – it is not hard to imagine terrifying scenarios that could quickly bring Europe to the brink of nuclear conflict.

Moscow hits a DU ammunition depot, exposing a large civilian population to toxic contamination. Ukraine retaliates with air strikes deep inside Russia. The path to a nuclear exchange in Europe has never looked closer.

Those who warned that peace talks were urgently needed rather than an arms race in Ukraine are looking more prescient by the day. For how much longer can their voices continue to be silenced, not only by western leaders but by the western media too?

*

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 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.

*** 

Just when one is tempted to conclude that Ukraine’s sycophantic backers in the West can’t embrace policies that are more detached from reality, leading figures in that faction manage to plumb new depths of absurdity. The latest example is a May 22 Wall Street Journal op-ed by Bernard-Henri Lévy. He fumes that one of Vladimir Putin’s chief weapons in his war against Ukraine “is Russia’s status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, which entails the power to block any resolution. It’s a legacy of World War II and the decision to reserve this status to the five victors, including the Soviet Union.”

But “the Soviet Union no longer exists,” Lévy emphasizes. Consequently “Russia’s permanent membership and the veto power it confers have no legal basis.” After delineating Russia’s “war crimes” since 1991 (real or exaggerated) while ignoring similar international behavior by the United States and its European allies, Lévy finally comes to the meat of his proposal. “Ukraine can and should inherit the rights of a fallen Russia. Remove the Russian Federation from its seat as a permanent member and transfer it to Ukraine.”

Unfortunately, Lévy is not the only figure to advocate expelling Russia from the Security Council. In October 2022, the Helsinki Commission made a similar proposal. Representatives Steve Cohen (R-TN) and Joe Wilson (R-SC) introduced a congressional resolution in December 2022 endorsing that objective.

Expelling a permanent member of the Security Council from its seat is dubious from a legal standpoint and recklessly provocative from a geopolitical one. The closest legal analogy for removing Russia was the U.N.’s decision in 1971 to transfer China’s Security Council seat from the exiled Kuomintang government of Taiwan to the communist government in Beijing. However, that situation was vastly different from what Lévy and Ukraine’s other advocates are proposing. Beijing effectively ruled all of mainland China, but Ukraine inherited only a small portion of the defunct Soviet Union. Most of the USSR’s territory, the majority of its population, as well as the bulk of its military and economic infrastructure, went to Russia.

From a geopolitical standpoint, expelling Russia from the U.N. Security Council makes even less sense. Supporters of the United Nations habitually overemphasize the organization’s importance. The U.N. is primarily an arena for diplomatic posturing and a dumping ground for annoying issues that the great powers regard as low-priority. The one exception is that the five permanent members on the Security Council routinely use their veto power to shield their own unsavory actions and those of favored allies. Small countries that do not have such protection are fair game for either unilateral or multilateral coercion—including military coercion. Serbia, Iraq, Georgia, and Libya are among the recent, pertinent examples.

Depriving Russia of its Security Council veto would constitute a dangerous escalation of the West’s already alarming confrontation with Moscow. Russian leaders increasingly charge that the United States and its allies are determined to eliminate Russia as a great power—and remove the country as a barrier to their aspirations for global hegemony. Putin and his colleagues portray the Ukraine fight as a NATO proxy war against Russia to achieve those goals.

U.S. officials have given such accusations considerable credibility. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin candidly admitted that NATO’s goal in Ukraine was to severely weaken Russia. A gratuitous move regarding Russia’s U.N. Security Council seat would fully confirm Moscow’s suspicions about the West’s motives and objectives. Any hope of a post-Ukraine war rapprochement with Russia would evaporate, and the world would become decidedly more dangerous.

The most preposterous aspect of Lévy’s scheme, though, is his proposal to transfer Russia’s seat to Ukraine. If he had suggested Germany, Japan, India, or Bazil, the idea would at least be relevant to the real world and great power relations. But Ukraine? That country is a second or third-tier power by any measurement.

Its $112 billion economy ranks a meager 60th in the world in terms of annual Gross Domestic Product—just ahead of Morocco and just behind Sudan. No person could suggest adding either of those countries to the U.N. Security Council and expect to be taken seriously. Ukraine’s population of 43.7 million puts it 35th in the world, just ahead of Iraq and just behind Sudan (again). Ukraine is a nondescript, middling power, at best.

Why would anyone propose making such a minor country a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, and by implication, according it the status of being a major player in the international system? It is another measure of the foreign policy establishment’s intense love affair with Ukraine. People who contend that Volodymyr Zelensky is a champion of democratic liberty and the second coming of Winston Churchill are capable of any fawning measure of devotion to Ukraine.

For those of us in the real world, America’s support for Ukraine is seen as both unprincipled and reckless. Fortunately, the latest proposal to give Russia’s seat on the U.N. Security Council to Ukraine likely will be greeted with the dismissive laughter it deserves, as it was immediately by knowledgeable analysts such as Eunomia’s Daniel Larison. The United States should work to repair relations with Russia, not engage in feckless, needlessly provocative posturing.

*

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.

Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, following a 37-year career at the Cato Institute. Dr. Carpenter is the author of 13 books and more than 1,200 articles on international affairs. His newest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).

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 April 4, 2023 I wrote a substack article titled: “Pregnant women having heart attacks, strokes and dying – a dark side of Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccination no one is talking about – 15 cases”

This is a continuation of that article, as there have been many new deaths. Recent sudden deaths of pregnant women include:

• Sue Maroroa Jones (age 31) – died on May 11, 2023
• Crystal Candler (age 35) – died April 27, 2023
• Dr. Sheena Nageli (age 34) – died April 25, 2023
• Meaghan Riley Elizabeth Seipp (age 29) – died April 21, 2023
• Kelsey Holder (age 32) – died March 21, 2023
• Rocio “Rose” Michelle Roberts (age 27) – died March 15, 2023
• Alona White (age 25) – died March 13, 2023
• Laura MacDonald Seymour (age 44) – Died Oct.30, 2022

New Zealand – International NZ Chess Champion Sue Maroroa Jones, age 32, died suddenly after giving birth to her 2nd child, on May 11, 2023, due to “post natal complications” (click here)

Narrows, VA – 35 year old Crystal Candler, who worked as a Child Care Director, died while pregnant at 35 weeks on April 27, 2023 (click here)

She suffered an unspecified “medical emergency” at 35 weeks gestation and died 5 days later on April 27, 2023. Her baby survived.

Boerne, Texas – 34 year old Dr. Sheena Nageli, a pediatric chiropractor, delivered baby Juliette on April 20, 2023 and died on April 25, 2023 (click here)

Sheena had her baby girl with a home birth on April 20, 2023. In the process of recovering from the birth, it was determined on April 24, 2023 that she was battling a localized infection “unrelated to her pregnancy”. Sadly, that infection, for inexplicable reasons, spread quickly. Despite quick medical intervention she died the following day on April 25, 2023. (click here)

Saskatchewan nurse, 29 year old Meaghan Riley Elizabeth Seipp died during delivery on April 21, 2023

This has been my most controversial Twitter post this year. I have been threatened repeatedly over it. But why?

“It couldn’t have been the vaccine”, I was repeatedly told.

This is the longest version of the story I received privately on Instagram:

“She was induced because her doc wasn’t going to be there the next week so babe wasn’t ready. Due to the storm, the surgeon couldn’t get to the hospital so an inexperienced doctor had to perform the C-section after hours of pushing since the babe’s heart rate was dropping and he was so stuck they broke his leg getting him out. They stitched her back up and noticed how pale she was so reopened her and she was internally bleeding due to missing something. Due to the storm, helicopter couldn’t come so doc was FaceTiming another and being coached through a certain stitch to stop the bleeding. She was transferred to a bigger hospital by ambulance, but, the closest one is an hour and a half away and she didn’t live long after arriving.”

There are too many questions with this story to simply say “couldn’t have been the vaccine”. Bleeding/clotting issues are central when it comes to COVID-19 vaccine complications.

Brentwood, TN – 32 year old 5th grade teacher Kelsey Holder, died suddenly on March 21, 2023 with her stillborn baby (click here)

Guatemala – Pennsylvania mother of two boys, 27 year old Rocio “Rose” Michelle Roberts died suddenly on March 15, 2023, 4 days after giving birth, from a pulmonary embolism. (click here)

Detroit, MI – 25 year old Alona White died of brain bleed 5 days after giving birth to her 2nd child on March 13, 2023 (click here)

Puyallup, WA – 44 year old mother of 5 Laura MacDonald Seymour died suddenly and unexpectedly during birth of her sixth child and first daughter on Oct. 30, 2022 (click here)

My Take…

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were never tested for safety in pregnancy. But these vaccines were pushed on unsuspecting pregnant women en masse. To this day, Alberta Health Services continues to recommend unsafe, toxic experimental mRNA products to unsuspecting pregnant women.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have caused a sharp increase in miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as perinatal maternal complications including death.

Pregnant women who take COVID-19 mRNA vaccines face the same or higher risks of serious adverse events as the rest of the population: cardiac arrests, strokes, pulmonary emboli, blood clots, bleeding, infections and more.

Any unexpected death of a COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant woman, occurring in the perinatal period, must be viewed with a strong suspicion of having been caused by COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

*

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

---

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.

*** 

Whether Israel’s escalating threats of war with Iran over its nuclear program are saber-rattling or something more serious is a mystery even to the CIA, according to a portion of a top-secret intelligence report leaked on the platform Discord earlier this year. The uncertainty about the intentions of one of the U.S.’s closest allies calls into question the basis of the “ironclad” support for Israel publicly espoused by the Biden administration.

The report — which was first covered by the Israeli channel i24 News and subsequently posted by DDoSecrets, a group that publishes leaked documents — reveals an undisclosed military exercise conducted by Israel. “On 20 February, Israel conducted a large-scale air exercise,” the intelligence report, produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on February 23, states. The exercise, it says, was “probably to simulate a strike on Iran’s nuclear program and possibly to demonstrate Jerusalem’s resolve to act against Tehran.” There have been several joint U.S.-Israeli military exercises in recent months, including one proudly billed by the Pentagon as the largest “in history.” 

“CIA does not know Israel’s near term plans and intentions,” the report adds, speculating that “Netanyahu probably calculates Israel will need to strike Iran to deter its nuclear program and faces a declining military capability to set back Iran’s enrichment program.”

That the U.S.’s premier intelligence service indicated it had no idea how seriously to take Israel’s increasingly bombastic threats to Tehran means that, in all likelihood, neither does the White House. But despite this lack of clarity, Biden has not opposed a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran — and his national security adviser recently hinted at blessing it. 

“We have made clear to Iran that it can never be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon,” Jake Sullivan said in a speech earlier this month, reiterating the administration’s oft-repeated line. The rhetoric reflects what military planners call “strategic ambiguity,” a policy of intentional uncertainty in order to deter an adversary — in this case, around how far the U.S. might go to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But Sullivan went a step further, adding, “As President Biden has repeatedly reaffirmed, he will take the actions that are necessary to stand by this statement, including by recognizing Israel’s freedom of action.” 

Sullivan’s statement represents the strongest signal yet that the administration would not oppose unilateral action by Israel. The rhetoric has also been echoed by other administration officials. In February, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Tom Nides, said that “Israel can and should do whatever they need to deal with [Iran] and we’ve got their back.” 

“In the current context this constitutes glibness,” said Paul Pillar, a retired national intelligence officer for the near east, of Sullivan’s statement. Pillar is now a senior fellow at Georgetown’s Center for Security Studies. “I believe the administration is playing with fire with this kind of rhetoric and with the joint military planning.” Last week, Axios reported that the U.S. recently proposed cooperating with Israel on joint military planning around Iran but denied they would plan to strike Iran’s nuclear program.

“Biden has dangerously shifted America’s policy on Israeli military action against Iran,” Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told The Intercept. “Previous administrations made it crystal clear to Israel – including publicly – that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program would be destabilizing, would not prevent a nuclear Iran and would likely drag the US into a war it could do well without.

“Obama’s clear opposition played a crucial role in the internal deliberations of the Israeli cabinet in 2010 and 2011 when Israel was on the verge of starting war,” Parsi pointed out. In 2009, after then-Vice President Biden said “Israel can determine for itself … what they decide to do relative to Iran,” Obama clarified that his administration was “absolutely not” giving Israel a green light to attack Iran.

Israel’s own military officials concede that an attack on Iran would likely metastasize into a broader regional war. Earlier this month, retired Israel Defense Forces Brig. Gen. Amir Avivi reportedly said that “Israel might have to deal with the Iranian nuclear program,” adding that “this will mean an Israeli attack on Iran which will probably result in a regional war.”

IN JANUARY, JUST weeks before Israel’s secret exercise referenced in the intelligence report, the U.S. and Israel conducted what the Defense Department touted as their largest joint military exercise in history. Called Juniper Oak, the exercise involved “electronic attack, suppression of enemy air defenses, strike coordination and reconnaissance,” which experts said “are exactly what the U.S. and Israel would need to conduct a successful kinetic attack on Iran’s nuclear program.” 

The unprecedented exercise was made possible by a little-noticed order by President Donald Trump just days before Biden’s inauguration. Using his authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Trump ordered Israel be moved from European Command’s area of responsibility, where it had been located since 1983 to avoid friction with its Middle East neighbors, to that of Central Command, the Pentagon’s Middle East combatant command. 

Under Biden, CENTCOM, whose area of responsibility includes Iran, has continued to coordinate closely with Israel. In March, Biden’s CENTCOM chief, Gen. Michael Kurilla, said in Senate testimony thatthe decision to move Israel from EUCOM to CENTCOM “immediately and profoundly altered the nature and texture of many of CENTCOM’s partnerships,” adding that “CENTCOM today readily partners with Arab militaries and the Israel Defense Force alike.”

“In fact, the inclusion of Israel presents many collaborative and constructive security opportunities,” Kurilla said. “Our partners of four decades largely see the same threats and have common cause with Israel Defense Forces and the Arab militaries in defending against Iran’s most destabilizing activities.”

Put simply, for the first time, the U.S. and both its Arab and Israeli allies are structurally aligned against a common foe: Iran.

At the same hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton, who had advocated for the relocation of Israel to CENTCOM weeks before Trump gave the order, raised the possibility of training Israeli pilots in the use of mid-air refuel aircraft. The lack of such aircraft, which allow fighter jets to travel long distances, is a key impediment to Israel’s ability to reach Iranian nuclear facilities.

“One of the opportunities I see is having Israeli Air Force personnel training alongside American personnel on KC 46 tankers, which we expect to provide them in future,” Cotton said. Kurilla, for his part, demurred, replying that training might be better “when they get closer to getting their aircraft … so they can retain that training and go right into the execution of operating them.”

THOUGH BIDEN CAMPAIGNED on reinstating the Iran nuclear deal — also called JCPOA, which Obama established and Trump pulled out of — the deal is all but dead. 

“With Iran, any concerns about a nuclear program have sometimes been overwhelmed by a desire — based on partisanship in the U.S. and heavily influenced by the government of Israel — to isolate Iran and not do any business or negotiations with it at all,” Pillar told The Intercept. “Hence you had Trump’s reneging on the JCPOA agreement in 2018, with a direct result of that reneging being that there is now far more reason to be worried about a possible Iranian nuclear weapon than there was when the JCPOA was still in effect.”

Should Iran acquire a nuclear weapon, it would likely trigger a dangerous regional arms race. Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has made clear that Riyadh would “follow suit as soon as possible” with its own atomic bomb should Tehran obtain one. 

But one key fact is often left out of discussions about Iran and the bomb: There’s no evidence that it’s actually pursuing one.

As the Pentagon’s most recent Nuclear Posture Review plainly states, “Iran does not today possess a nuclear weapon and we currently believe it is not pursuing one.” More recently, CIA Director William Burns reiterated that point in an interview with CBS in February. “To the best of our knowledge,” Burns said, “we don’t believe that the Supreme Leader in Iran has yet made a decision to resume the weaponization program that we judge that they suspended or stopped at the end of 2003.”

Iran’s policy could, of course, change. And tensions are rising in large part because of the U.S.’s recent posturing. For example, following the Juniper Oak exercise, Iran responded with its own military exercises, which Iranian military commander Maj. Gen. Gholam-Ali Rashid said they consider a “half war” and even a “war before war.”

In April, CENTCOM announced the deployment of a submarine armed with guided missiles in the Mediterranean Sea. This was likely a message directed at Iran, which quickly responded by accusing the U.S. of “warmongering.” 

Earlier, in October, CENTCOM issued an extraordinary press releasefeaturing Kurilla, the CENTCOM chief, aboard a submarine armed with ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads in the Arabian Sea — another message for Iran.

On May 9, Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder announced that the military would be increasing its patrols in the Strait of Hormuz, through which many Iranian vessels travel. In his remarks, Ryder made particular mention of the P-8 Poseidon aircraft and the role it would play in bolstering maritime surveillance of the area.

The same aircraft made international news in 2019, when Iran disclosed that it almost downed a P-8 carrying U.S. service members that it claimed had entered its airspace, opting instead to shoot down a nearby drone. The U.S. military scrambled jets to strike Iran in retaliation, only to be called off by Trump 10 minutes before the attack when a general told him that the strikes would probably kill 150 people. The strikes would not, Trump said, have been “proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.”

*

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.

*** 

 On May 24, the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies released a critical new analysis of the militarized budget in the United States, “The Warfare State: How Funding for Militarism Compromises our Welfare.”

The new report found that this past year, out of a $1.8 trillion federal discretionary budget, the U.S. spent a staggering $1.1 trillion – or 62% – of that budget on militarism and war.

Threats to cut spending for vital domestic programs have featured prominently in the debt ceiling debate in recent weeks, but spending on militarism has been almost entirely exempt from the discussion. Meanwhile, clawing back failed military, homeland security and law enforcement spending could instead fund programs and measures to address the true needs of American communities.

Read the full analysis.

Key findings: 

•  In FY 2023, out of a $1.8 trillion federal discretionary budget, $1.1 trillion – or 62% – was for militarized programs that use violence or the threat of violence or imprisonment, including war and weapons, law enforcement and mass incarceration, and detention and deportation.
• Less than $2 out of every $5 in federal discretionary spending was available to fund investment in people and communities, including primary and secondary public education, housing programs, child care programs, federal disaster relief, environmental programs, and scientific research.
• The U.S. spent $16 on the military and war for every $1 that was spent on diplomacy and humanitarian foreign aid. The vast majority of militarized spending was for weapons, war and the Pentagon, at $920 billion. Only $56 billion was spent for international affairs, diplomacy, and humanitarian foreign aid.
• The U.S. federal budget allocated twice as much for federal law enforcement ($31 billion) as for child care and early childhood education programs.
• Federal spending on nuclear weapons ($32 billion) was four times spending on substance abuse and mental health programs ($7.5 billion), even as opioid use remains a major cause of death.
• The U.S. spent $51.1 billion for homeland security, approximately half of which goes to ICE ($8.8 billion) and CBP ($17.4 billion), two punitive border enforcement agencies that separate families and terrorize immigrant communities.

“When we invest so heavily in militarism at home and abroad, we deprive our own communities and people of solutions to problems that pose immediate security threats,”  said co-author Lindsay Koshgarian, Program Director of the National Priorities Project. “We underfund programs to end poverty, provide affordable housing, bolster public education, and protect clean air and water at our peril. Spending on militarism takes up the majority of the federal discretionary budget, and it has grown faster than all other spending. If we keep up these patterns, we are hurtling toward a future where we can’t afford the basics of a civilized society.

“We keep hearing that our government can’t afford nice things — or necessary things — for everyone. And yet militarized spending in the US has almost doubled over the past two decades, and the military budget is now approaching its highest point since World War II,” said co-author Ashik Siddique, Research Analyst at the National Priorities Project.

“All this serves the profits of a wealthy few war profiteers, at everyone else’s expense. Meanwhile, public goods that benefit all of us are under attack. For a fraction of the cost of U.S. militarism since 2001, we could have instead ended homelessness in this country, or invested in a fully renewable national electric grid to help address the climate crisis. A better world is possible, if we build the power we need to make it happen.”

“Our leaders need to stop putting immigration on the back burner. Tens of billions of dollars is funneled into ICE and CBP every year in an effort to militarize the border, separate families, and detain and deport immigrants and people seeking asylum. People’s lives and well being are at stake here. Immigrant communities are a large makeup of the richness of culture, diversity and the economy of the U.S. and we need to invest in care-based approaches to these communities, such as in rehabilitation and resettlement services and legal pathways to residence and citizenship, instead of turning them away,” said co-author Alliyah Lusuegro, Outreach Coordinator of the National Priorities Project.

Recommendations:

• Immediately reduce the budget for the Pentagon and nuclear weapons by $100 billion or more, and reinvest the savings in non-militarized discretionary priorities. 

• Make any future Pentagon spending increases contingent on the Department of Defense passing an audit. 

• Increase congressional oversight to make it harder for the U.S. to go to war.

• Restructure the country’s immigration system to support robust legal immigration and current undocumented residents, and cut spending for structures that are built to deter immigration and deport immigrants, including Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
• End federal support for racist and counterproductive carceral and policing practices, including the war on drugs. 

Read the full report.

*

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 IPS

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 Ukrainian intelligence service is making multiple attempts to kill Russian President Vladimir Putin. A high-ranking official admitted to actively plotting the Russian leader’s assassination after a recent drone attack on the Kremlin. 

“Putin is noticing that we are getting closer and closer to him,” Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy head of Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate, told Welt in an interview. He added, Putin is number one on the kill list “because he coordinates and decides what happens.”

The Ukrainian intelligence official claimed his agency had failed to kill Putin because he “stays holed up.” Skibitsky suggested another attempt could be made soon as the Russian leader “is now beginning to stick his head out.”  

Ukrainian officials have admitted to previously attempting to kill Putin. Last year, Kyrylo Budanov, the Head of the Chief Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, in an interview with Ukrainska Pravda claimed, “There was an attempt to assassinate Putin…[It was an] Absolutely unsuccessful attempt, but it really happened… It was about [March 2022].”

Three weeks ago, two unmanned aerial vehicles were downed over the Kremlin, where Putin keeps an office. Although, the Russian leader was not present at the complex when the attack occurred. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Moscow considered the drones to be an assassination attempt against Putin.

Kiev has denied any involvement in the attack. However, the New York Times reported on Wednesday that American officials say the attack was orchestrated by the Ukrainian government.

In the first month of the war, then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett engaged Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in talks that nearly ended the war. The peace talks were blocked by Washington, but Putin pledged not to target Zelensky with any assassination attempts during those talks. The Kremlin appears to have upheld that agreement until the most recent attempt on Putin’s life. 

It is unclear if Moscow will continue to abide by the pledge. Zelensky has spent several weeks outside of his nation, traveling to allied countries and meeting with his counterparts. 

In response to the drone attack on the Kremlin, Dmitry Medvedev, a high-ranking Russian defense official, called for Zelensky’s “physical elimination.” A statement from Putin’s office said, “Russia reserves the right to take countermeasures wherever and whenever it deems appropriate.”

Skibitsky revealed another name on Kiev’s kill list is Wagner Group head Yevgeny Prigozhin. “We’re trying to kill him.” He added, “Our priority is to eliminate [Prigozhin] who orders his men to attack.” 

The intelligence official went on to name two more targeted high-ranking officials in Moscow. “But in the end, everyone will have to answer for their actions.” He continued, “Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu planned the attack and now they cannot turn back.”

Welt asked Skibitsky if civilians in Russia could be added to the kill list. “We are at war and these are our enemies. If an important figure manufactures and finances weapons for [Russia], then his elimination would save the lives of many civilians,” he said. “According to international conventions, this is a legitimate goal.”

The US government believes Kiev has already carried out targeted assassinations inside Russia. Last year, Darya Dugina was killed by a car bomb. It is suspected her father, Alexander Dugin was the target of the attack.

*

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.

Kyle Anzalone is news editor of the Libertarian Institute, opinion editor of Antiwar.com and co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Will Porter and Connor Freeman.

Featured image is from TLI

The COVID “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s a Criminal Undertaking

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 24 , 2023

An Interview with Satan on the Eve of His Retirement

Dr. Emanuel Garcia, May 19 , 2023

Look Up! Wake Up, People! You Are Being “Suicided in Warp Speed”.

Peter Koenig, May 20 , 2023

Don’t Let Them Rewrite History: Ventilators Killed People… and It Was No Accident

Kit Knightly, May 23 , 2023

Excess Deaths in the UK: 10,000 More Brits Are Dying. Experts Not Sure Why.

Dr. William Makis, May 19 , 2023

COVID-19: Camouflaging Even Greater Threats to Democracy and Public Health: Dr. Naomi Wolf

Michael Welch, May 19 , 2023

The WEF “Cyber Attack” Scenario: Another Crisis “Much Worse Than COVID”, Paralysis of Power Supply, Communications, Transportation

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 21 , 2023

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the COVID Pandemic: A “Truth Bomb” Explodes to Illuminate the War on Humanity

Prof. Anthony J. Hall, May 21 , 2023

Video: A Jewish-Russian Proxy President: Zelensky Transformed into a Nazi?

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 22 , 2023

The United States Has Been Destroyed by Its Ruling Elites

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 18 , 2023

The Battle of Bakhmut: Russian Forces Take Full Control of the Province

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, May 23 , 2023

“The Treason of the Intellectuals”

Emanuel Pastreich, May 19 , 2023

Neo-Nazism and the War in Ukraine: Interview with Michel Chossudovsky

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 22 , 2023

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the COVID Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence Is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 20 , 2023

Small Percent of Vaccine Batches Responsible for Large Number of Adverse Reactions, Analysts Claim

Patrick Delaney, May 12 , 2022

1500 Scientists Say “Climate Change Not Due to CO2” – The Real Environment Movement Was Hijacked

Mark Keenan, May 20 , 2023

Western Weapons to Ukraine: Black Market for Terrorists “On Command”

Peter Koenig, May 18 , 2023

Two UK Babies Dead From Myocarditis: Total of 16 Babies Developed “Severe Myocarditis” in Wales & England, Eight Ended Up in Intensive Care

Dr. William Makis, May 22 , 2023

COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries: Multiple Heart Attacks or Multiple Strokes

Dr. William Makis, May 23 , 2023

The Trump Presidency: RIP

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 19 , 2023

People’s Brains and Bodies Are Not Protected Against Attacks by Electromagnetic Waves and Neurotechnologies

By Mojmir Babacek, May 24, 2023

In 2020, the American Academy of Sciences wrote in the report on attacks of American diplomats in Cuba and China, well known as the Havana syndrome, that the most likely cause of their problems was directed pulsed radio frequency waves. It is well known that these attacks are accompanied by artificially produced acoustic hallucinations.

Kiev Used US-supplied Vehicles to Invade Russia

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, May 24, 2023

The US claims that the weapons sent to Ukraine are only used within the borders of the conflict zone, but it is increasingly clear that this equipment is being used by Ukrainian forces to carry out terrorist attacks in the undisputed Russian territory.

“Severe Post COVID-19 Vaccine Syndrome”: Diagnosis Only Available in UK and Europe (Not in Canada or USA)

By Dr. William Makis, May 24, 2023

I believe a diagnosis such as “post COVID-19 vaccine syndrome” is very important for victims of vaccine injuries, not only for the peace of mind that a firm diagnosis brings, but also in that it gives the victims something to work with.

Is This Why Pediatricians Push Vaccines?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 24, 2023

Primary care providers across the U.S. were bribed with incentive programs to coerce patients into getting the toxic COVID shot. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield paid doctors $50 for each Medicaid patient aged 6 months and older, who got the experimental jab.

Artificial Intelligence: The Release of the Upcoming Open AI Model, GPT-5

By Arjun Sha, May 24, 2023

It has been just over two months since the launch of GPT-4, but users have started anticipating the release of GPT-5. We have already seen how capable and powerful GPT-4 is in various kinds of tests and qualitative evaluations.

Visits of Justice: Stella Assange’s Plea to Australia

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, May 24, 2023

The cell Assange occupies is but a mere three by two metres, a situation scandalous in the absence of any conviction, and all the more so for that fact. The cold draft that comes in through the window is nullified, to some extent, by books, something poignant, given his intellectually curious state. In this sense, literature does not merely nourish the mind but literally offers a buttressing shield against the elements.

Biden Okays F-16s for Ukraine, US Weapons to Attack Crimea

By Caitlin Johnstone, May 24, 2023

The Biden administration has signed off on both F-16s for Ukraine and attacks on Crimea using US-made weapons. Both of these moves have drawn dire warnings from nuclear-armed Russia, and both would have been unthinkable a year ago.

Pentagon Keeping America Safe… Blowing Up Syrian Sheepherder, Father of Ten

By Walt Zlotow, May 24, 2023

Pentagon officials immediately trumpeted ‘We murdered an al-Qaeda leader bent on terrorizing the homeland’. That could well have been a recorded response that has been played hundreds, maybe thousands of times since the War of Terror began 22 years ago this September.

‘Palestine must be obliterated,’ Says Deleted Times of Israel Column

By The New Arab, May 24, 2023

The Times of Israel has deleted a column calling for the obliteration of Palestine on the same day extremist nationalists marched through occupied East Jerusalem chanting “death to Arabs”.  “Palestine must be obliterated,” the now deleted column read, “in order to make peace”. 

The EU Is Over-Invested in the Ukrainian War-Project

By Alastair Crooke, May 24, 2023

The European Union, by any standards, is over-invested in the Ukrainian war-project – and in its romance with Zelensky too. Just earlier this year, the western (and EU) narrative was that the coming post-Winter offensive by Ukraine would ‘break’ Russia and render a ‘coup de grace’ to the war.

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.

*** 

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently testified in front of a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee regarding the recent rise of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) and the potential for disruption to numerous industries.

In addition to OpenAI’s ChatGPT experiencing a surge in popularity, A.I. generated art and even A.I. generated photography winning prizes make it clear that the age of A.I. disruption has begun. The so-called Godfather of A.I. recently quit Google because he wanted to speak openly about the dangers posed by A.I. generated deep fakes.

In his prepared statements, Altman told the senators “the regulation of A.I. is essential.” Altman also called for what he termed “appropriate safety requirements, including internal and external testing prior to release”. He also expressed support for licensing and registration of certain A.I. systems.

Altman stopped short of calling for complete government regulation, instead stating that governance schemes must be “flexible enough to adapt to new technological developments” while balancing “incentivizing safety while ensuring that people are able to access the technology’s benefits.”

Fortune writes that “Altman’s advocacy for some rules is not surprising. Technology companies know that regulation is likely coming, and they are trying their best to shape it to their advantage”.

The argument is that Altman and other CEO’s of A.I. companies may decide licensing allows them to protect the code to their proprietary models. Also, Big A.I. may fear the rise of open source A.I. models and thus call for licensing schemes which place extra burdens on creators of open source software.

Fortune continues:

“Among the biggest competitive threats these companies face is open source A.I. software. In this rapidly moving field, no one is moving faster than the open source community. It has proved remarkably innovative and agile at matching the performance and capabilities of the proprietary models, but doing so with A.I. models that are much smaller, easier and less expensive to train, and which can be downloaded for free.”

Regardless of the reason, Altman has joined the growing chorus of A.I. advocates who are calling for regulation or licensing of A.I. The CEO’s concerns have also led to politicians and policymakers warning about the dangers of not regulating the technology. CNBC reported that during the Senate hearing on A.I. Senator Josh Hawley compared the emerging technology to the creation of the printing press and the nuclear bomb. Hawley stated that this may lead humanity to two potential futures: one which A.I. empowers humanity, or one with a “huge technological breakthrough” but “severe, terrible” consequences.

The Bilderberg Group in Portugal

Only days after testifying in front of the U.S. Senate, Sam Altman participated in the secretive Bilderberg Group meeting in Lisbon, Portugal. In the weeks and days leading up to the meeting there was not a single report from the mainstream corporate press, with only a handful of independent journalists reporting on the meeting, including Dan Dicks of Press for Truth.

Altman was joined by fellow A.I. proponents and CEO’s, including Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, Deepmind’s Demis Hassabis, and former Google CEO and current chair of the Bilderberg Group Eric Schmidt.

As The Last American Vagabond reported in February 2021, the Biden Administration assigned Schmidt to head the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), or the A.I. Commission.

According to a December 2022 report from Politico, Schmidt was funding the salaries of more than 2 dozens employees in the Biden administration. Since at least March 2022 Politico has outlined how Schmidt’s fingerprints were all over the Biden administration. Schmidt’s role as the former CEO of Google, a member of the Bilderberg Group, his role in the Biden admin, and his relationship with former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger are more than enough reasons to be concerned with the direction the A.I. conversation is headed.

In fact, Kissinger, a long-time adviser to U.S. Presidents, was also present at the Bilderberg group. Kissinger has been attending the Bilderberg meeting off and on since its founding in 1957. Kissinger has said that his interest in A.I. came after Schmidt persuaded him to attend a lecture on the topic while at the Bilderberg conference in 2016. The two men also co-authored a book in 2021 titled The Age of AI: And Our Human Future.

Sam Altman and fellow A.I. CEO’s were also joined by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, BP chief Bernard Looney, Børge Brende, the President of the World Economic Forum, and co-founder of PayPal and Palantir Peter Thiel. Thiel has come under attack in recent days because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Due to the lack of transparency surrounding the Bilderberg Group, details surrounding Altman’s involvement in the meeting have not been made public. However, based on the history of the Bilderberg Group shaping important world events, and even likely granting their approval of future political leaders, one can surmise that Altman’s attendance will bode well for his career and the continued rise of OpenAI.

While Sam Altman’s attendance at Bilderberg in Portugal may have something to do with his role at OpenAI, it’s also highly likely that his latest tech project is an even more relevant reason for his appearance.

Worldcoin

Sam Altman and fellow technocrat Elon Musk have a history of collaboration at OpenAI, as well as warning about the potential dangers related to the rapid rise in use of the technology. However, despite warnings, both men continue to fund projects which have the potential to contribute to the rise of the Technocratic State, with A.I. powering biometric digital identities, digital currencies, and the Internet of Things/Bodies.

For example, one day before Altman testified to Congress, the Financial Times reported that Altman was “close to securing around $100mn in funding for his plan to use iris-scanning technology to create a secure global cryptocurrency called Worldcoin”. The Times said three people with knowledge of the deal claimed the team behind Worldcoin is in “advanced talks” to raise the funds in the “next few weeks”.

Once a user submits to biometric iris scans they are assigned a “World ID” that allows them to receive 25 free Worldcoin tokens at launch of the token. The company claims once the unique identity is created the iris scans are deleted.

While the project is being touted as a method of softening the blow of A.I. disruption, it’s clear such a project also mimics calls for digital identity using biometrics being proposed by the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and a growing number of international governments. Perhaps, Altman and his cohorts believe the technology will be used for good in their hands, but the relationship to the Bilderberg Group, Silicon Valley, and Elon Musk are — at the very least — a cause for concern and reflection.

One way or another, it appears a world built around digital identities and digital currencies is indeed rapidly approaching. Will it be identities controlled by governments and corporations? Or will open source, decentralized, and distributed versions of technologies like A.I. rise to the top?

*

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.

Derrick Broze, a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers. https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/category/derrick-broze/

Featured image is from TLAV

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 US claims that the weapons sent to Ukraine are only used within the borders of the conflict zone, but it is increasingly clear that this equipment is being used by Ukrainian forces to carry out terrorist attacks in the undisputed Russian territory. Photos and videos shared on the internet show that US armored vehicles were used by pro-Kiev forces to attack Belgorod during recent terrorist hostilities. As expected, US officials are denying their involvement and suggesting the images are fake. Now, Washington needs to find a “justification” for the undeniable fact that its proxy regime is inappropriately and illegally using military aid provided by NATO.

The images are being published by Russian war correspondents who covered hostilities in Belgorod. It is possible to find among the equipment captured by the Russian forces several American-made weapons, including some armored vehicles such as M1151A1 Humvees and MaxxPro MRAP. The vehicles were mostly destroyed by Russian artillery or left behind by enemy soldiers as they tried to evade Russian fire.

Reacting to the case, the US authorities argued that there is not enough evidence to confirm the veracity of the photos and videos circulating on the networks. Speaking during a press conference, US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller emphatically expressed his skepticism about the veracity of the images, indicating that they could be some “fake” deliberately spread by the Russians to accuse the Americans. He made it clear that an official statement by Washington will only occur after the images are analyzed and there is absolute confidence on their accuracy.

“We’ve seen some of the reports circulating on social media and elsewhere making claims that US-supplied weapons were used in these attacks (…) I will say that we’re skeptical at this time of the veracity of these reports (…) We’ve seen a lot of reports on social media and fuzzy pictures on social media and a lot of kind of armchair intelligence analysts making claims (…) We’re skeptical that they’re accurate (…) We don’t have perfect clarity on the information (…) We’re looking at the same pictures you see, the same fuzzy images, and at this time, we are skeptical of their veracity”, Matthew Miller told journalists during a press conference.

Miller’s argument is vague and weak. Confirmation on the veracity of the images can be obtained in a short time through an expert analysis, which is enough to eliminate any doubts about the case. What Miller seems to be doing is avoiding giving a verdict on the subject, postponing the final assessment to a future that may take a long time or not even happen. With this, the US avoids giving a public response about the participation of its weapons in an illegal attack against Russia.

Some other American officials, however, are already using another argument. In an interview with journalists, the Pentagon’s press secretary, Air Force Brigadier General Pat Ryder, stated that his country has not approved any transfer of weapons to “paramilitary groups” outside the Ukrainian armed forces.

“So we’ve seen those reports [on images], something that we obviously continue to monitor very closely. I will say that we can confirm that the U.S. government has not approved any third party transfers of equipment to paramilitary organizations outside the Ukrainian Armed Forces, nor has the Ukrainian government requested any such transfers. So again, it’s something we’ll keep a close eye on”, he said.

His words come amid the current discussion about who really carried out the attack on Belgorod. Kiev alleges that those responsible for the attack were exclusively the neo-Nazi groups ‘Freedom of Russia Legion’ and ‘Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK)’, which are militias formed by expatriate Russian-born mercenaries.

The Ukrainian government believes it has no responsibility in the case, as it was not its regular troops who operated the attack. Consequently, the American government wants to avoid any accusation of co-participation due to the use of its weapons, claiming that Washington delivers this equipment only to Kiev, not being responsible in case of use by paramilitary groups.

However, these arguments are inconsistent with reality and international law. These paramilitary groups are at the service of Kiev and directly obey the Ukrainian state, regardless of whether their legal status is one of regular troops or not. These militias are excluded from the norms of humanitarian law, but it means nothing regarding their affiliation with Ukraine, which is why Kiev must be seen as directly responsible for the Belgorod attack.

Accordingly, Kiev’s sponsors are also co-participants in the crime. If pro-Ukrainian terrorists use US weapons to attack Russian civilians in demilitarized territory it is because Washington gives such weapons to Kiev even though the US knows that there are terrorists working for that regime. So, as much as they want to deny it, the US and NATO are in fact co-authors of the attacks on 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.

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.

*** 

The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), after several stages of negotiations has finally approved a 36-month arrangement under the Extended Credit Facility (ECF) in an amount equivalent to SDR 2.242 billion (around $3 billion, or 304 percent of quota) for the Republic of Ghana.

While this Credit Facility Arrangement for Ghana is presumably necessary for the country’s economic recovery, it is also necessary to examine the governance system adopted in the country. In recent years, Ghana has found itself in a condition of economic crisis – brought about by excessive borrowing – and a resulting need for debt restructuring. As the government seeks to navigate this difficult situation by returning to the IMF, it is important to outline economic restructuring including structural governance.

As we all know that life after COVID-19 will never be the same, several reports monitored indicated that the COVID-19 which began in 2019 combined with the current Russia-Ukraine crisis have had devastating effects across the world. African countries are hit the hardest. Many west African states like Ghana, located on the Atlantic coast and a member of the regional organization Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), are equally facing serious similar economic challenges.

But analyzing the implications of Ghana soliciting the assistance from the IMF, the country is on the brink of entering a period characterized by market stability and diminished uncertainties, following the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) approval of the $3 billion deal.

Many experts have blamed political, economic and energy crisis which spiral negative sentiments and discontent on mismanagement. For example, a renowned American Professor of Economics Steve Hanke has chastised Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta for mismanaging the Ghanaian economy.

Professor Hanke who is a hard critic of Ghanaian authorities in a tweet was surprised about Ofori-Atta’s position that he’s disappointed that foreign lenders have been slow to act in supporting Ghana’s quest to get a programme from the International Monetary Fund.

“As 33 African countries suffer from record debt burden, Ghana’s Finance Minister, Ken Ofori-Atta is disappointed that foreign lenders had been ‘slow to act’ but instead of recognising mismanagement, he is blaming creditors for Ghana’s debt burden,” Professor Hanke concluded.

As an experienced economist who has been teaching courses in economics or related subjects, I would like to suggest that Ghana takes advantage of the current economic challenges to reset interest rates to accelerate private sector growth and quicken the recovery of the economy. In this case, the private sector to lead the economic recovery process post the domestic debt exchange programme. It has further identified the opportunities in the current economic crisis which they can leverage to spur private sector growth.

The next step supports the private sector and their performances as the engine and driver for long-term growth, despite the turbulent economic situation particularly in the country and in the west African region and generally across the world.

Overall, the most critical steps now are improving the quality of governance in Ghana and that would require the government to address issues such as weak institutions, lack of accountability and ineffective public services. This would involve measures such as increasing transparency in government operations, strengthening institutions such as the judiciary, and improving public service delivery.

But one more significant question, as I have already pointed out, is to ensure good governance and confidence-building in the public institutions. It could be a positive indication that the economy needs to bounce back, and attract foreign investment in the areas of public-private collaboration.

Quite apart from that, it is an additional advantage that Ghana hosts the headquarters of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), described as a unique and valuable platform for businesses to access an integrated African market. This could be the strongest dimension to build intra-trade and cooperation with neighbors in West Africa.

With economic growth and sustainability concerns, it is highly suggested that Ghana reviews its imports, attempt to focus more on import substitution policies and the areas it has natural comparative advantages. It refers to the implementation of policies and measures that aim to address a country’s food security and self-sufficiency. It helps to cut import expenditure and redirect finances to supporting domestic food production. It reduces budget deficits and addresses financial imbalances leading to the improvement of economic sustainability.

One way to achieve this is through the implementation of policies and measures that reduce government spending and wastes. This could involve a combination of measures such as rationalizing government programmes, reducing subsidies and cutting non-essential expenditures. The goal is to create a leaner, more efficient government that is better able to manage its finances. This could involve strengthening budgetary controls, improving public financial management systems, and enhancing the transparency and accountability of government finances. By doing so, Ghana can ensure that public funds are used efficiently and effectively – and that the country’s fiscal position is sustainable over the long-term.

As the IMF reported, the authorities’ economic programme, supported by the ECF-arrangement, builds on the government’s Post COVID-19 Programme for Economic Growth (PC-PEG), which aims to restore macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability and includes wide-ranging reforms to build resilience and lay the foundation for stronger and more inclusive growth.

Securing timely debt restructuring agreements with external creditors will be essential for the successful implementation of the new Extended Credit Facility (ECF) arrangement. The Executive Board’s decision will enable an immediate disbursement to Ghana equivalent to SDR 451.4 million (about $600 million). The authorities have taken bold steps to tackle these deep challenges, including by accelerating fiscal adjustment, revenue administration and public financial management, as well as steps to address weaknesses in the energy and cocoa sectors.

However, it is focused on restoring macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability as well as implementing wide-ranging reforms to build resilience and lay the foundation for stronger and more inclusive growth. Ms. Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, explicitly said in her message that “An ambitious structural reform agenda is being put in place to reinvigorate private sector-led growth by improving the business environment, governance, and productivity.”

Ghana has an economic plan known as the “Ghana Vision 2020”. This plan envisions as the first to become a developed African country between 2020 and 2029 and a newly industrialized country between 2030 and 2039. In 2019, it was the seventh largest producer of gold in the world. It is a leading producer and exporter of cocoa to Europe. The Republic of Ghana with a population of over 32 million is located on the coast of West 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.

Professor Maurice Okoli is a fellow at the Institute for African Studies and Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences. He is also a fellow at the North-Eastern Federal University, Russia.

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 Biden administration has signed off on both F-16s for Ukraine and attacks on Crimea using US-made weapons. Both of these moves have drawn dire warnings from nuclear-armed Russia, and both would have been unthinkable a year ago.

In a Sunday interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper from the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan made it clear that Washington would approve of US weapons being used in an offensive to recapture Crimea, a horrifying prospect that many experts have agreed is the most likely scenario to lead to nuclear warfare in this conflict. Sullivan told Tapper that while the US has forbidden the use of American weapons to attack Russia, the US considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine, not Russia.

Here’s CNN’s transcript of the exchange:

TAPPER: In February on this show, you would not say whether the U.S. would support Ukrainian efforts to recapture Crimea. That’s one of the concerns that has been expressed about whether or not the Ukrainians are given the ability to hit Russian targets in Crimea. Do you think that Crimea is part of Ukraine?

SULLIVAN: Of course.

TAPPER: So, what would be the objection of giving…

SULLIVAN: Crimea is Ukraine.

TAPPER: Right.

SULLIVAN: I mean, that’s a very straightforward thing.

TAPPER: Well, yes you answered it directly. I mean, Russia doesn’t think so, obviously. But do you think that Ukraine should have weapons that can reach Russian targets in Crimea?

SULLIVAN: Yes. We have not placed limitations on Ukraine being able to strike on its territory within its internationally recognized borders. What we have said is that we will not enable Ukraine with U.S. systems, Western systems, to attack Russia. And we believe Crimea is Ukraine.

TAPPER: OK.

Also refreshing clarity from NSA Jake Sullivan "We have not placed limitations on UKR being able to strike within its international recognised territories… we will not enable UKR with US systems Western systems to attack Russia and we believe Crimea is Ukraine" pic.twitter.com/ffVYGilCr8

— Rym Momtaz ريم ممتاز (@RymMomtaz) May 21, 2023

Moscow has considered Crimea a part of the Russian Federation since its annexation in 2014, meaning efforts to recapture it would — at least in theory — be treated the same as an invasion of any other part of Russia. It was only by way of an arbitrary bureaucratic fluke that Crimea wound up a part of Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union, and Crimeans overwhelmingly prefer to be a part of the Russian Federation. That we may soon be staring down the barrel of a nuclear third world war over something so pedantic is a very dark shade of absurd.

In the same interview, Tapper questioned Sullivan about the Biden administration’s policy shift toward approving F-16 fighter jets to be sent to Ukraine, demanding to know why the war planes weren’t approved sooner.

“President Biden told the G7 leaders that the United States is going to support this joint effort to train Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16 fighter jets,” said Tapper. “As you know, just a few months ago, the president said there was no basis militarily for giving Ukraine jets and that Ukraine didn’t need them at all. What changed? And would these jets not have been more effective if Ukraine had been trained and had them in time for the upcoming counteroffensive?”

It’s so obnoxious how the only time you ever see these mass media propagandists challenging the US government on its warmongering is when they’re pushing it to be more warlike and demanding answers on why it isn’t warmongering more. This creates the illusion of brave adversarial journalism, when in reality these empire cronies are just manufacturing consent for the increased aggressions the US wants to wage anyway. 

CNN’s @jaketapper asks National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan why President Biden changed his stance on providing Ukraine F-16 jets. Watch his response below. #CNNSOTU @CNNSotu pic.twitter.com/fl4vJXXTSw

— State of the Union (@CNNSotu) May 21, 2023

These escalations have drawn stern warnings from Moscow, which have just been casually hand-waved away by Biden like he’s rejecting jello for dessert. In an article titled “Russia Says West Providing F-16s to Ukraine a ‘Colossal Risk’”, Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp writes the following:

A Russian official said Saturday that the Western plans to provide Ukraine with American-made F-16 fighter jets bring “colossal risks” after the US announced it would sign off on European countries delivering the aircraft.

“We see that Western countries are still adhering to the escalation scenario. It involves colossal risks for themselves,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko, according to TASS.

“In any case, this will be taken into account in all our plans, and we have all the necessary means to achieve the goals we have set,” Grushko added.

During the last day of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan, President Biden was asked about Russia calling the F-16 plan a “colossal risk.” He replied, “It is for them.”

Deciding to bring the world one step closer to nuclear war while in Hiroshima, how appropriate https://t.co/zuUOuTTpdM

— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) May 20, 2023

As Tapper noted, both the F-16 decision and the Crimea decision marked a sharp policy shift by the Biden administration in just a few months. This proxy war just keeps escalating and escalating, with aggressions once deemed unthinkable due to their likelihood of sparking a nuclear exchange now becoming commonplace. Every time a new once-unthinkable escalation is enacted, the hawks are already pushing for the next one.

As we’ve discussed previously, this pattern of continually escalating nuclear brinkmanship in Ukraine has built-in incentives for Russia to ramp up its own aggressions against NATO itself. Every time the west ramps up its brinkmanship and crosses another once-taboo line in the sand without Moscow responding with direct military confrontation, the west takes this as a sign that it can ramp up the escalations again. This has put things on a trajectory toward more and more direct western-backed attacks on the Russian Federation unless Russia lashes out at NATO powers in some way to show them it’s not worth it. Which would be about as dangerous an occurrence as you could possibly imagine.

It is not okay for our rulers to play games with our lives like this. It is not okay for them to keep rolling the dice on nuclear escalation more and more often in the name of securing US unipolar hegemony. These people are making it abundantly clear that sanity and level-headedness are not in the driver’s seat here. Everyone on earth should be shouting a loud, unequivocal “no” to this at the top of their lungs.

*

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.

*** 

Lotifi Hassan Misto was going about his business herding sheep in Syria’s Idlib province May 18 when a US drone strike blew him to smithereens.

Pentagon officials immediately trumpeted ‘We murdered an al-Qaeda leader bent on terrorizing the homeland’. That could well have been a recorded response that has been played hundreds, maybe thousands of times since the War of Terror began 22 years ago this September.

But the Pentagon fable quickly fell apart when family members came forward to defend Misto and were backed up by terrorism experts. They told the Washington Post Misto was likely not affiliated with al-Qaeda.

A Pentagon official offered an ‘oops’ stating “We are no longer confident we killed a senior AQ official. But another official claimed the person they killed was al-Qaeda without offering an iota of evidence. “Though we believe the strike did not kill the original target, we believe the person to be al-Qaeda.” With that the Pentagon has gone silent, refusing to release any details of the sheepherder killing attack.

That’s what we get folks for our trillion dollar annual military and intelligence budget. Murder and mayhem around the world. And less sheepherders to threaten the Homeland.

*

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.

---

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

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

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.

*** 

Burgess Hill, UK – Roz McGinty is one of the most athletic women in the world. She is also a nurse and she is COVID-19 mRNA vaccine injured.

Roz McGinty’s athletics resume is stunning: (click here)

• 12 time Ironwoman 
• World Long Course Triathlon Championships
• Has reached 7 podiums & 2 wins in 19 triathlons (click here)
• Innumerable Triathlon and Diathlon races spanning 22 years
• World & European Long Course Kona 22 VI Guide
• Nurse

Roz McGinty suffered serious COVID-19 vaccine injuries after her 2nd dose:

My Take on Roz McGinty…

Roz McGinty is one of the most athletic people in the world. She truly believed in the COVID-19 vaccine and after her 2nd dose, she was severely injured and has been injured for 2 years and 2 months.

It is extremely rare to see a top athlete diagnosed with “severe post COVID-19 vaccine syndrome” as Roz McGinty was.

The vast majority of people never get a diagnosis of any kind that they can work with.

Such a diagnosis would never be made in Canada, where the very existence of COVID-19 vaccine injuries is denied. I have seen this kind of diagnosis made in several countries in Europe.

Roz was COVID-19 vaccine injured starting March 25, 2021. She has cardiac injury (could be myocarditis, she doesn’t go into detail), several neurological injuries (tinnitus, tremor, skin numbness), and some autoimmune injuries (joint and muscle pain).

Roz talks about excruciating pain, struggling to work, “drugs I’ve had to take”, “fear for my life”.

She has clearly been through a lot and has put in a great amount of work to stay on top athletically. She doesn’t tell us what treatments she has taken to deal with her COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

Germany – 11 year old boy Nabil Maytan diagnosed with “Severe Post COVID-19 Vaccine Syndrome” (click here)

“Nabil has been sick and has not been able to attend school since November 2021. Instead of playing with friends, instead of playing sports and piano, instead of going for outings with his family Nabil is confined to a wheelchair and needs help with everything from using the restroom to getting dressed. He can’t move his legs, he can’t talk, he can’t sit up. He is extremely sensitive to sound which makes even going outside painful.

After over a year of doctors getting his diagnosis wrong, with treatments that made him worse doctors finally tested him for and diagnosed him with a severe case of post-vac syndrome. Nabil’s neurological symptoms developed soon after he had the covid vaccine. The medical community is still trying to figure out what helps and what doesn’t help with post-vac since it is so new. Also, each case can be very different with its own subset of diseases and symptoms. Right now, the agreed approach seems to be ‘trial and error’, trying various therapies and medications to see what works.

I should be clear and say that I’m not ‘anti-vax’. I know the vaccines have done a lot of good. I just want my boy to walk and talk again and live a normal 11-year-old life. I also want to say that like most other vaccine-injured people, we have registered this injury with our government.”

My Take…

I believe a diagnosis such as “post COVID-19 vaccine syndrome” is very important for victims of vaccine injuries, not only for the peace of mind that a firm diagnosis brings, but also in that it gives the victims something to work with.

We need more “Post COVID-19 Vaccine Syndrome” diagnoses to be made, but for that to happen, doctors in Canada and the US must find their courage and ethics again.

For now, COVID-19 vaccine victims are on their own.

*

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

---

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.

*** 

A neo-Nazi militia launched a cross-border raid from Ukraine into Russia’s Belgorod region on Monday using US armored vehicles, Financial Times reported Tuesday.

Denis Nikitin, leader of the Russian Volunteer Corps, said his fighters who attacked Belgorod were in possession of US armored vehicles, including at least two M1224 MaxxPro armored vehicles, known as MRAPs, and several Humvees. Videos and pictures posted by Russia’s military corroborated Nikitin’s claims.

Nikitin is a well-known extremist who has ties to neo-Nazis across the world and has his own white nationalist clothing line. According to Financial Times, the Russian Volunteer Corps “includes self-avowed neo-Nazis.”

The group was formed in 2022 and is said to be comprised of Russian citizens who have volunteered to fight for Kyiv. Some of its members signed up to fight in the Donbas war back in 2014 and are Azov Battalion veterans.

Nikitin would not say how his fighters acquired the US-made armored vehicles. Ukrainian intelligence officials have acknowledged that they cooperate with the Russian Volunteer Corps and another group that launched the assault, the Freedom of Russia Legion.

“Of course, we communicate with them. Of course, we share some information,” Andriy Chernyak, a Ukrainian military intelligence official, told Financial Times. “And, one might say, we even cooperate.”

Chernyak denied supplying the Russian volunteers with equipment and claimed that they launched the operation on their own. However, The Times of London reported that Discord leaks show Ukraine had been planning attacks on Russian territory using Russian volunteer groups for some time. One document said the Russian citizens fighting for Ukraine are armed with “various qualitative types of NATO weapons.”

State Department spokesman Matthew Miller was asked about the news of US weapons being used in attacks on Belgorod and said he was “skeptical” of the reports. He insisted the US does not “encourage or enable strikes inside of Russia” but said it’s “up to Ukraine to decide how to conduct this 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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image: International MaxxPro Category 1 MRAP (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)