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.

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

***

Despite the occasional polite nod to Alfred Nobel, the committee — which will name this year’s award on Saturday — has never made known his vision of peace through global demilitarization, writes Fredrik S. Heffermehl.

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.

***

Following the failure of the far-right Kapp Putsch in Berlin (13–17 March 1920) General Erich Ludendorff, Germany’s military ruler during the latter half of World War I and who had partaken directly in the coup, relocated by train in late March 1920 to the southern German state of Bavaria.

With the prompt return of the Weimar government politicians to Berlin from Stuttgart after the Kapp Putsch’s fall, the German capital city, restless and war weary, was no place for General Ludendorff to stay in. He sought residence near the Bavarian city of Rosenheim, in the rural town of Stephanskirchen, positioned at the far south of Germany beside the Austrian border.

Ludendorff was granted refuge on the country estate of Baron von Halkett. Another conspirator in the coup, Lieutenant-Commander Hermann Ehrhardt, a former German naval officer, joined Ludendorff in Bavaria after the collapse of the Kapp Putsch, named after Dr. Wolfgang Kapp, a politician and civil servant who fled Berlin to Sweden after the putsch folded on 17 March 1920.

Ehrhardt, a diehard German soldier who had plenty in common with the older Ludendorff, became personally known to the general during the Kapp Putsch. Shortly after the coup’s disintegration, the 38-year-old Ehrhardt and his Marine Brigade paramilitary unit – which had executed the Kapp Putsch – were invited to Bavaria by Ernst Pöhner, Bavaria’s notorious Chief of Police. He was a hardline anti-Semite and anti-communist.

Pöhner offered Ehrhardt the role of Chief of the Emergency Police in Bavaria, a position that Ehrhardt, who was a fugitive, gratefully accepted. It is ironic that Ehrhardt was given such a post, while at the same time he was wanted by the Berlin police for his part in the Kapp Putsch. Ludendorff could not forever remain a lodger on Baron von Halkett’s estate in Stephanskirchen. Later in 1920 he moved the short distance to the village of Ludwigshöhe, just outside Munich, where he acquired a large villa encompassed by spacious gardens and high walls. At Ludwigshöhe, Ludendorff was closer to the operations of Ehrhardt and his soldiers in Munich.

With Ludendorff under perhaps genuine threat of assassination from leftist militants, Ehrhardt went out to see Germany’s former autocrat at his Ludwigshöhe house, so as to become reacquainted with the general. In agreement with Ludendorff, Ehrhardt dispatched a contingent of his men to guard the Ludwigshöhe residence at all hours of the day, until the perceived leftist menace was eliminated.

From late 1920 and into early 1921 Ehrhardt established a fascist murder association, known as the Organization Consul, which went about its business in high secrecy. It consisted of around 5,000 men and was formed from members of Ehrhardt’s Marine Brigade. Historian Robert Waite, who often focused on fascism in Germany, noted that the Organization Consul was indeed a murder group which inflicted instant death upon “traitors” of Germany. (1)

The Organization Consul would be one of the most feared terrorist factions to operate in Germany after the First World War, rivalling even Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party. The left-wing groups sometimes claimed that Hitler was capitalism’s last despairing effort to ward off the inevitable victory of communism. This was a convenient explanation and not a true one. Hitler was the result of all of the history that had gone on before and especially of the First World War. Defeat in that conflict, humiliation, injustice and economic hardships were all life-giving blood to the Nazis.

The Organization Consul was also a by-product of World War I. A German political author Emil Julius Gumbel wrote in 1923, “There have, without doubt, been no political murders in Germany in the recent past in which the Organization Consul has not participated”. Gumbel outlined that there were hundreds of killings perpetrated in Germany from 1918 to 1922. The Organization Consul was responsible for at least 354 assassinations from late 1920.

Rather disturbing, in only 27 of the 354 murder cases were the Organization Consul killers punished, Gumbel estimated. For those convicted the sentences were usually light. The German judges were accused of abetting terrorism by their flagrant bias to rightist assassins. Out of 22 murders committed by leftist assassins, 17 of them were convicted.

According to a close colleague of Ehrhardt, Manfred von Killinger, in 1919 the Marine Brigade received three million marks of state money to fund Ehrhardt’s military actions. Most of the cash remained unspent into 1920, and it seems probable that much of this state funding ended up in the coffers of Ehrhardt’s Organization Consul.

The Organization Consul’s main goals were as they stated “the widest cultivation and dissemination of the national idea” and “the combating of everything anti-national and international, Jewry, social democracy, and the left radical parties, the combating of the anti-national Weimar constitution in word and print” and “to make disarmament impossible and to preserve for the people its army and armaments”.

The Organization Consul unleashed its assassinations with the approval, and assistance, of the Bavarian police under Pöhner. When Pöhner was approached by “an alarmed statesman” who said to him there are nationalist death squads operating in Germany, Pöhner replied, “I know – but there are too few of them!” (2). While Pöhner was collaborating with Ehrhardt’s assassins he had tried to purge Bavaria of “Eastern Jews”, following the defeat of the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic at the beginning of May 1919.

The victims of Organization Consul were Republican politicians and Jewish people, individuals who revealed secret arms depots to the Allied Control Commission, and also rival members of the many patriotic societies, ex-servicemen’s associations and defense leagues in Bavaria. Despite such developments, Germany overall was a fine place to live during the years it was led by the Weimar government, before degenerating to Hitler’s dictatorship from early 1933.

American philosopher and analyst Noam Chomsky stated, “The peak of Western civilization in many ways was Germany in the 1920s in the arts, the sciences, and even as a model for democracy. Within 10 years, it had descended to the depths of barbarism in a post-fact society. The propaganda was extremely effective in creating a world of illusion in which the Aryan race was under attack by Jews and Bolsheviks, and only Nazi Germany could protect the white Aryan race from destruction”. (3)

Among the most prominent victims of Organization Consul, meanwhile, was Matthias Erzberger, the former German Minister of Finance and a member of parliament (MP). Erzberger had been regarded as a traitor by the radical German right, ever since he signed the armistice with the Western Allies at Compiègne, France, on 11 November 1918 officially ending the First World War.

On the rainy afternoon of 26 August 1921, when Erzberger was walking in the Black Forest of southwest Germany, he was approached by two of Ehrhardt’s underlings, ex-naval officers Heinrich Tillessen and Heinrich Schulz. They asked Erzberger to identify himself. Erzberger replied and was then shot 12 times in the head by the gunmen. He was left lying there on the wet grass. Tillessen and Schulz eventually escaped to Hungary.

On the morning of 24 June 1922 Walther Rathenau, the new German Foreign Minister, and who pragmatically favored fulfilling the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, was driving through central Berlin unaware of who was approaching his vehicle from behind. As Rathenau reached a bend in the street called the Königsallee, pulling up alongside him were three members of the Organization Consul, named Ernst Werner Techow, Erwin Kern and Hermann Fischer. Techow was driving their car, a Mercedes, while Kern and Fischer sat in the back seats.

When the pursuers were level with Rathenau’s vehicle, the bullets of a submachine gun were fired by Kern into the politician’s body. A hand grenade was then thrown into Rathenau’s car by Fischer resulting in a dreadful explosion. Rathenau was killed within seconds by the hail of bullets. Rathenau, who had been a leading member of the center-left German Democratic Party, was assassinated in part because of his Jewish origins; the Organization Consul was also deeply anti-Semitic.

Almost three weeks before Rathenau’s killing, on 4 June 1922 the Organization Consul targeted Philipp Scheidemann, a founder of the Weimar Republic, ex-leader of the Social Democratic Party and a German MP. While Scheidemann was out walking with his daughter, two Organization Consul members, Hans Hustert and Karl Oehlschläger, approached him by foot. As they came close to Scheidemann they threw prussic acid at his face (4). The acid did not enter Scheidemann’s nose and mouth. Though shaken, Scheidemann, who went armed with a gun, was not seriously hurt remarkably enough. The above-mentioned Hustert later served as an adjutant to SS chief Heinrich Himmler.

What would General Ludendorff have thought of the murderous activities taking place in Germany? We can assume that he would have approved. Ludendorff said repeatedly, “If I once get back to power there will be no quarter. I should hang up Ebert, Scheidemann and their comrades with a clear conscience and watch them dangle!” Friedrich Ebert, who Ludendorff mentioned, became the first German president on 11 February 1919.

In the late spring of 1923, Ludendorff was visited at his Ludwigshöhe residence by a young Rudolf Hess, one of Hitler’s earliest followers. Hess had to make his way past Ehrhardt’s troops who were still guarding Ludendorff’s villa. On entering, Ludendorff asked Hess to sit down; and Hess began to speak about an organization founded quite recently in Munich called the Nazi Party (5). After Hess rambled on for a while, he finally suggested that the Nazi Party leader, Hitler, come out and see Ludendorff at his home. The general agreed.

A few days later Hitler, aged 34, arrived at Ludendorff’s house. This may not have been Hitler’s first meeting with Ludendorff, as has been claimed. Author Michael Kellogg wrote that Ludendorff was introduced to Hitler as early as March 1921, under the umbrella of the Aufbau Vereinigung, a far-right conspiratorial group based in Munich. (6)

Two years later, having entered Ludendorff’s study, Hitler outlined his views and the Nazi Party’s aims to the older man. Ludendorff was impressed with what he described as Hitler’s “driving determination”, along with his opinions on what Germany’s future should hold. Ludendorff agreed with much of what Hitler said, he often thought the same things. Nor was Ludendorff put off by Hitler’s coarse manners and street talk. Like Hitler, Ludendorff came from a modest background, which had not helped his career in the German Army.

Ludendorff found nothing socially objectionable to the rough and brutal Nazis. That Ludendorff would soon be collaborating openly with the Nazis on the streets of Munich, shows how far he had fallen since the war years. During the war he had worked in harmony with Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, a figure of moderation and stability in Germany.

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky.

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

Notes

1 Howard Stern, The Organization Consul, Jstor

2 Arthur D. Brenner, “Feme Murder: Paramilitary ‘Self-Justice’ in Weimar Germany”, link.springer.com

3 Noam Chomsky talks Trump, Free Speech, and the Virtues of Resistance, Chomsky.info, 12 January 2017, Updated 14 June 2017

4 Wolfram Wette, The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality (Harvard University Press, 2 November 2007)

5 Donald J. Goodspeed, Ludendorff: Soldier: Dictator: Revolutionary (Hart-Davis, 1 January 1966)

6 Michael Kellogg, The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Emigres and the Making of National Socialism, 1917–1945 (Cambridge University Press; First Edition, 2 February 2001)

Featured image: Bundesarchiv Bild 119-1983-0007, Kapp-Putsch, Marinebrigade Erhardt in Berlin (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

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.

***

Yes, prices are rising, but not for the reasons the Federal Reserve says. When I say inflation is a hoax, I mean the purported cause is a hoax. The Fed is fighting a consumer inflation, a “demand-pull” inflation.  But what we are experiencing is a supply-side inflation caused by the Covid lockdowns and economic sanctions that closed businesses, disrupted supply chains, and broke business relationships while reducing energy supplies to the UK and European countries, thus forcing up costs in a globalized economy.  One of the many neglected problems of globalism is that inflations and recessions are no long simply a national problem. Interconnectedness sends adversity globally, although in varying degrees. 

The Fed thinks that the inflation is the result of the trillions of dollars of Covid payments that were dumped into the economy.  To the extent that this money was simply replacing the lost wages, salaries, and business earnings from the lockdowns, there would be no net addition of money, just a replacement.  I don’t have the data on the lost earnings from the lockdowns, but it is obvious that there was a large supply disruption.

Monetarists think that the inflation was caused by 12 years of Quantitative Easing during which the Fed’s balance sheet expanded five-fold.  But it is not supposed to take 12 years for monetary expansion to result in inflation.  All the while the Fed, still believing in the Phillips Curve that President Reagan’s supply-side policy had eliminated, said it was trying to get inflation up to 2% annually, which neoliberal economists, junk economics in Michael Hudson’s view with which I agree, say is the inflation needed to spur economic growth.  

Demand side inflations appear gradually and rise with a booming economy.  They don’t suddenly appear overnight as the present inflation has.  It is sudden supply shortages that produce instantly higher prices.

The Fed fights a demand-pull inflation by reducing the growth of money and credit, thereby reducing sales and employment.  But this and the higher interest rates reduce supply.  If sales fall off, so does production.  Higher interest rates raise costs and adversely impact supply.  Thus, the Fed’s interest rate policy can raise, rather than lower, inflation.

The way inflation is measured today adds to the problem. Inflation is no longer measured in terms of weighted prices in a constant basket of goods.  The goods in the basket change as items with smaller price rises are substituted for those with larger rises.  There is a subjective element in this substitution. Also, some price rises are attributed to quality improvements, and this decision also has a subjective element.  If the agenda is to have a lower inflation rate, there can be more substitution and more quality improvements.  If the agenda needs a higher inflation rate, minimize the substitutions and quality improvements.   

If inflation is coming down, and it is not just a product of manipulating subjective elements, how do we know it is not from increased supply from reopened businesses and repaired supply chains? If there is reliable data, this could be studied.  But neoliberal economists are locked into explaining everything in terms of demand.  I have spent 40 years trying to teach them supply-side economics, but they are incapable of learning.

Just as inflation was redefined by changing its measurement, now recession is being redefined. Whether or not 3 down quarters mean a recession, the view is that the second half of next year will be bad and that the Fed will stop raising interest rates and begin lowering them.  At that point or earlier if sufficiently anticipated, the stock and bond markets will begin another rise.  Recession means that the Fed injects liquidity and the financial markets rise with liquidity. 

This is the way it has been, but the landscape has changed, and we are faced with a new development.  Gradually over the years government through the many welfare programs, which in the Biden regime includes handing money to illegal immigrant-invaders, has accumulated a constituency that is paid but does not work.  These people have money to spend on goods and services, but do not contribute to the supply of goods and services. This constituency introduces an inflationary bias and this constituency is rapidly growing with the millions of immigrant-invaders who are allowed to enter the country each year.  If a substantial part of the population is supported with purchasing power but does not work, whether because welfare exceeds their prospective wages or it is illegal to employ them or they prefer sustainable leisure to work and higher income, consumer demand grows relative to output.  This gives us demand-pull inflation with a vengeance.  Military spending is similar to welfare. The associated wages and salaries pump money into consumer demand, but there are no corresponding goods and services to absorb it.  Consumers do not purchase tanks, missiles, fighter aircraft, and warships. The size of the US military budget makes it inflationary.

What can the Fed do?  Throwing people out of work reduces demand from the productive part of the population, not from the subsidized part.  Throwing productive people out of work also reduces supply, which acts on prices in a counter direction to reduced demand. Which force prevails?

Large cities tend to accumulate subsidized populations  that boost consumer demand but not supply. Even rich cities can find themselves with budget outlays that exceed their revenues. I will use New York to illustrate it, with thanks to Nicole Gelinas writing in the Autumn 2022 issue of City Journal.

New York City, the home of Wall Street and the largest banks, is a high income city.  But only in part and less and less as the city fills up with welfare dependent people.  New York City and its host state today have to rely on vice to bring in the revenues to keep  afloat. NYC has gone from a lottery, to a planned casino in Manhattan, to sports gambling, to legalizing cannabis, all of which can be taxed, and now the city is talking about legalizing prostitution  in order to benefit from taxing the revenues.  What is the future if New York has to turn into Sodom and Gomorrah in order to survive?

The Democrat vote is forcing the richest city in the US  to go into the business of marketing vice industries that its police formerly arrested the Mafia for operating.  To me this shows desperation.  If NYC cannot cope without creating and marketing vice industries for revenue purposes, what can, for example, St. Louis, once one of America’s great cities, do?

St. Louis was one of America’s cities devastated by the offshoring of manufacturing jobs.  Its population has shrunk.  The city is 45% black, and its government is in black hands.

What is the black mayor doing?  She has created a commission to decide on reparations paid by white St. Louis residents to black residents.  In other words, white residents of St. Louis, none of whom ever owned a slave and only a minuscule number descended from plantation owners who did, are targeted to have some portion of their income or wealth confiscated and given to black beneficiaries of St. Louis’ reparations scheme. See this.

Here we see the inability of St. Louis’ mayor to think.  Why live in St. Louis if you have to pay a tax to blacks to live there?

Like every other tax, once institutionalized the tax  will rise.  It is the United States of America that is resurrecting the feudal order in which there are class rights and whites are the underclass paying tribute to black aristocrats like serfs paid to lords.  You can pretend this is not the case.  But it is.

What incentive does this give whites to be productive, or to stay in areas under black political control?

The United States is already merely a name as the states are clearly disunited. Will the country devolve into separate political entities on a racial basis and even into city states?

The Democrat Party has turned its back on white Americans, labeling them “Trump deplorables,” “white supremacists,” and “threats to democracy.”  The Rino Republican Party will not defend white Americans or stand by any politician, such as Trump, who does.  What stake do Trump Americans have in a country in which they are labeled as undesirables?

The white liberals, indoctrinated into their racial guilt, will simply submit, but the “Trump deplorables” will organize into separate communities.  They will be aided by US over-reach abroad and the subsequent demise of the dollar and empire as the rising power of a reinvigorated China and Russia take the lead from the culturally exhausted Western world.  

Meanwhile the Fed yesterday raised interest rates another half a percentage point in the face of expectations of a bad recession in the coming year.  This is the high level of incompetence that today rules Americans.

Personally, I am suspicious of this inflation.  If it is, as I believe, the result of supply disruptions, the resumption of productive activity following the disastrous lockdowns would itself have brought prices down without need of Fed action.  I also suspect that the inflation resulted in part from announcements of its arrival, in which announcements executives and boards saw opportunity to boost profits and obtain their bonus rewards by raising prices.  A lot goes on that passes unnoticed by economists and pundits.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from 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.

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

***

In what can be described as a major escalation, the United States announced they are sending “Patriot” SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems to the Kiev regime. CNN claims that their chief Pentagon correspondent confirmed the information through multiple sources, including unnamed US defense officials, apparently also involving a senior member of the Biden administration. The sources claim the White House is “currently finalizing plans to send Patriot missile defense systems to Ukraine.”

“The Biden administration is finalizing plans to send the Patriot missile defense system to Ukraine that could be announced as soon as this week, according to two US officials and a senior administration official. The three officials told CNN that approval is expected,” the report states.

If the reports are true, the move could trigger a wider escalation. Thus far, the SAM systems NATO sent were mostly short to mid-range and were largely inconsequential as they provide little to no protection against Russian long-range cruise missiles. However, Patriot missiles, although hardly groundbreaking weapons, are much more advanced, as their capabilities are closer to those of the older S-300 variants the Kiev regime forces already operate. How helpful this could be to the Neo-Nazi junta is up for debate and it also depends on the number of systems the political West is ready to provide. For months, the US has been quiet and hasn’t provided a public response to pleas by the Kiev regime officials regarding their requests for the deployment of “Patriot” batteries to Ukraine. The US has been reluctant to do so, as there are many risks involved. The Guardian also analyzed the dangers of sending the SAM system. According to the London-based daily:

“Long sought by the Ukrainians, the missiles have a range of up to 300 km, but so far the US and its allies, including the UK, have declined to supply them because they could be used to hit targets inside Russia. Supplying them would help ‘bring the war to an end as soon as possible,’ former UK prime minister Boris Johnson said.”

The alleged Western “concerns” about the system being used against targets within Russia are quite laughable, as the Kiev regime forces have already targeted Russian bases hundreds of kilometers away from Ukraine. However, the actual concerns are most likely connected with the performance of the “Patriot”, as well as the strong possibility of the system being destroyed by the Russian military. The VKS (Russian Aerospace Forces) have already conducted numerous SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) operations and neutralized hundreds of mid to long-range SAM systems operated by the Kiev regime forces, including the S-300 and “Buk” air defense systems which are generally comparable to the “Patriot”.

The US SAM system’s capabilities against Soviet-made missiles are questionable at best, since it hasn’t provided much protection to neighboring Poland. Although it has already been deployed there for months, on November 15 the “Patriot” showed it provides only a false sense of security after it failed to intercept missiles fired by the Kiev regime forces which hit a Polish border village of Przewodow, killing two civilians. Still, the Neo-Nazi junta has been quite persistent in its requests to have the systems deployed in Ukraine. Their insistence has also been supported by former UK prime minister Boris Johnson, who urged the political West to send “Patriot” missiles in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal last week. According to CNN, the deployment of the SAM systems is likely to take some time given that the Kiev regime forces will need months of training. They are expected to be instructed on operating the “Patriot” systems at the US Army base in Grafenwoehr, Germany.

For its part, Moscow doesn’t seem particularly concerned by the announcement. According to Reuters, “the Kremlin said on Wednesday that US ‘Patriot’ missile [air] defense systems would be a legitimate target for Russian strikes, should the United States authorize them to be delivered to support Kiev.” Deputy Head of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev responded to the reports in a statement on his Telegram account:

“If, as Stoltenberg hinted, NATO supplies Kiev fanatics with ‘Patriot’ complexes along with NATO personnel, they will immediately become a legitimate target of our Armed Forces. I hope the Atlantean impotents understand this.”

On the other hand, the Washington Post reports that “the plan is not yet approved by President Biden or Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, but it could be soon, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail sensitive internal deliberations.” It further notes that the “Patriot-launched missiles can fly to altitudes as high as 79,000 feet [24 km], with an operational range, depending on the type of munition used, from a dozen to 100 miles [160 km], for use against ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as aircraft. It was not clear what kind of munitions the Pentagon will propose supplying.”

As the report states, it’s still unclear which of the many variants of the system could be sent to the Kiev regime forces, but it’s highly unlikely it will be the latest version, as it can take years to properly train even NATO personnel to operate such weapons. In addition, the risk of losing expensive systems such as the “Patriot” SAM is far greater in a fight against countries like Russia. The SAM system’s combat performance record left much to be desired both against Iraq during the 1991 US-led invasion of the country and more recently over Saudi Arabia against Houthi drones and missiles. The weapons that the “Patriot” failed to intercept in both cases were technologically over half a century behind those fielded by the Russian military nowadays.

*

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.

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.

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

***

Damascus is now bitterly cold and is soon to be blanketed with snow. About 12 million Syrians are facing a deadly winter without heating fuel, gasoline for transportation, and dark houses each evening without electricity. Aleppo, Homs, and Hama are also extremely cold all winter. 

Imagine being ill and having to walk to the doctor or hospital.  The ambulances in Syria will now respond only to the most life-threatening calls because they must conserve gasoline, or face running out entirely. Gasoline on the black market costs Syrians an equivalent of 50 US dollars for a tank of 20-liter fuel.

Sanctions against Syria were imposed by the European Union, the United States, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, the Arab League, as well as other countries beginning in 2011. The sanctions were aimed at overthrowing the Syrian government, by depriving it of its resources. US-sponsored ‘regime change’ has failed but the sanctions were never lifted.

For 12 years the US and EU have been imposing economic sanctions on Syria which have deprived the Syrians of their dignity and human rights.

New UN report asks for lifting sanctions on Syria

UN Special Rapporteur on human rights, Alena Douhan, urged sanctions to be lifted against Syria, warning that they were adding to the suffering of the Syrian people since 2011.

“I am struck by the pervasiveness of the human rights and humanitarian impact of the unilateral coercive measures imposed on Syria and the total economic and financial isolation of a country whose people are struggling to rebuild a life with dignity, following the decade-long war,” Douhan said.

After a 12-day visit to Syria, Douhan said the majority of Syria’s population was currently living below the poverty line, with shortages of food, water, electricity, shelter, cooking and heating fuel, transportation, and healthcare. She spoke of the continuing exodus of educated and skilled Syrians in response to the economic hardship of living at home.

Douhan reported that the majority of infrastructure was destroyed or damaged, and the sanctions imposed on oil, gas, electricity, trade, construction, and engineering have diminished the national income, which has prevented economic recovery and reconstruction.

The sanctions prevent payments from being received from banks, and deliveries from foreign manufacturers. Serious shortages in medicine and medical equipment have plagued hospitals and clinics. The lack of a water treatment system in Aleppo caused a severe Cholera outbreak in late summer, and the system cannot be bought, installed, or maintained under the current US sanctions against Syria.

Douhan said,

“I urge the immediate lifting of all unilateral sanctions that severely harm human rights and prevent any efforts for early recovery, rebuilding, and reconstruction.”

US sanctions are not effective

In 1998, Richard Haass wrote, ‘Economic Sanctions: Too Much of a Bad Thing’.  He cautioned US foreign policymakers that sanctions alone are ineffective when the aims are large, or the time is short.  The overthrow of the Syrian government is a massive aim, and the sanctions did not accomplish that goal.

Haass predicted that sanctions could cause economic distress and migration.  In the summer of 2015 about half a million Syrians walked through Europe as economic migrants and were taken in primarily by Germany.

There is a moral imperative to stop using sanctions as a foreign policy tool because innocent people are affected, while the sanctions have failed.

The US steals Syrian oil, and will not allow imported oil to arrive

According to the US government, the sanctions on Syria “prohibits new investments in Syria by US persons, prohibits the exportation or sale of services to Syria by US persons, prohibits the importation of petroleum or petroleum products of Syrian origin, and prohibits US persons from involvement in transactions involving Syrian petroleum or petroleum products.”

There is a waiver that can be requested from the Department of Commerce, to circumvent the sanctions; however, it only applies to sending items to the terrorist-occupied area of Idlib. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria and is the only terrorist group now holding territory in Syria.

On October 22, the media Energy World reported the US occupation forces had smuggled 92 tankers and trucks of Syrian oil and wheat stolen from northeastern Syria to US bases in Iraq. The theft is ongoing and continuous.

The US has partnered with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) which is a Kurdish militia that has a political wing following the communist ideology begun by the PKK’s Abdullah Ocalan. President Trump ordered the US military to remain to occupy northeastern Syria and he ordered the US soldiers there to steal the Syrian oil so to prevent the Syrian people in the rest of the country from benefiting from the gasoline and electricity produced from the wells.

The Syrian Oil Ministry said in August that the US forces were stealing 80 percent of Syria’s oil production, causing direct and indirect losses of about 107.1 billion to Syria’s oil and gas industry.

Because the Damascus government is deprived of the oil its wells produce, it is forced to depend on costly imported oil, usually from Iran. The US routinely commandeers Iranian tankers, such as the incident recently when the US Navy took a tanker hostage off the coast of Greece on its way to Syria but was eventually released by Greece.

Gasoline shortage 

The government has instituted a three-day weekend for schools and civil offices, as well as suspended sports events to save fuel.

Maurice Haddad, Director of the General Company for Internal Transport in Damascus, told the al-Watan newspaper that the government has set stricter diesel quotas, leading to fewer daily bus services.

Athar-Press news website reported that several bakeries in Damascus have had to shut down because of the lack of fuel.

Fuel is needed to generate electricity in Syria, and the lack of domestic or imported fuel means most homes in Syria have about one hour of electricity at several intervals each day, and the amount is diminishing daily.

Sanction exemptions for Idlib and the Kurds only

The only two areas in Syria which are not under the Damascus administration are Idlib in the northwest and the US-sponsored Kurdish region in the northeast.  The US sanctions are exempt from sending items to those two places only. But, those two places represent a small number of Syrians in comparison to the civilians across the country, and the main cities of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Hama, and Latakia.  The US makes sure the people who are against the Syrian government continue to be rewarded with supplies and reconstruction, while the millions of peaceful civilians are kept in a constant state of suffering and deprivation.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from Eva Bartlett

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.

***

For nearly 60 years, the Israeli state believed that by duping US President JFK by the covert building of a secret nuclear bomb facility in the Negev Desert, it would be outside the inspection of the UN’s IAEA or subject to any control whatsoever by international agreements or treaties, and that by assuming a position of ‘nuclear ambiguity’ within the international, global community, it would afford the Israeli state a unique and unchallengeable position within world affairs.

That strategy might have had some validity a half a century ago, but in 2022, it means that the Israeli state holds the dubious title of being the only undeclared, nuclear weapon state in the world: estimates of its unknown arsenal varying between 40-400 nuclear warheads plus other WMD, either chemical or biological, or both. Such a profile being hardly advantageous, rather it means that such a state is a constant danger to world peace, and could well be the point of ground-zero, where WW3 will start.

Israel today, has the largest number of ethnic Russians, outside Russia itself. At least one million Israeli citizens have Russian as their mother tongue and they form nearly 15% of the population.  Most have roots and relatives in Russia, their acculturation being Russian not Israeli.

Netanyahu and Putin have been close political partners for many years and when Russia declared war upon Ukraine, the Israeli government was in a quandary – which side to choose, its trading partners and arms suppliers in the west, or its political allies in the east? Eventually Netanyahu chose the west which it needs to survive economically and politically.  Unfortunately, he backed the wrong horse when he failed to foresee a close military alliance between Russia and Iran, and that means that, at a stroke, Israel’s future as an independent state is now in jeopardy because Putin has the most comprehensive and advanced nuclear weapons program in the world.

Just one, 10 or 20 k-ton nuclear bomb detonated 50m above Tel Aviv, would mean that Israel would cease to exist, within minutes.

Whether Netanyahu would manage to fire-off one of his own ICBM’s in retaliation, from its underground silo in Dimona, is probably not the point. The damage would have been done. Israel would have ceased to exist and the US would doubtless respond, but how exactly?  By declaring WW3 on Russia that would ensure their global destruction?

Russia is reported to be offering Iran an unprecedented level of military and technical support that will transform the current relationship into a full-bodied, defence partnership that will impact both the Middle East and the world, as the most powerful, global, nuclear entity of WMD.

*

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.

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

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

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

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

***

On 5 December 2022, Daniel Estulin, doctor of conceptual intelligence, researcher writer, public speaker and geopolitical analyst, interviewed Peter Koenig, economist and geopolitical analyst, for the Estulin TV Program.

Prime topic was the climate farce. Also discussed was the Green Agenda, the neofascist “New Green Deal”, as well as the coming Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) – and more.

See the 45-min video: The Climate Farse – and More – Interview Daniel Estulin with PK

*

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.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

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.

***

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.

***

Operating in the shadows is easy in the United States secondary food market, as few question what happens to food that exceeds its expiration date in leading supermarket chains across the nation. Well, truth be told, expired food gets reprocessed, repackaged, relabeled, and resold to institutions, discount retailers and restaurants.

With scant regulations in place for repurposed food, and institutional purchasing specifications silent, food liquidators underbid their competitors and win contracts nearly every time. In the secondary food market, you get what you pay for, and never has the saying “garbage in, garbage out” been more appropriate.

No matter how much hot sauce or gravy is added as camouflage, spoiled food products are unfit for human consumption and cause foodborne illness. Here, what you don’t know can kill you.

In its most recent public report posted on its website, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimate that, each year, roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases. However, “recent” is a misnomer here as the CDC’s report is shamelessly outdated by more than ten years. It was issued in January 2011.

Considering that food poisoning is an embarrassing indicator that reveals in its gory horror the systemic corruption of what turns out to be an unregulated food market, it is highly probable that there was undercounting back in 2011—especially in institutional settings. And it is more than likely that things are even worse in 2022.

When oversight agency reports are no longer published, it is clearly because industry statistics and agency performance metrics do not look good. Cover-ups at the federal level are routinely done by appointing incompetent or industry-compromised agency heads, and by defunding key reporting departments, and reducing analytic staff positions and field inspectors.

Despite oversight agency neglect, both schools and prisons have been independently studied for foodborne illness outbreaks. While these reports/articles are also outdated, their shallow analysis remains current. The accepted prevailing narrative blames foodborne illness outbreaks on food handlers that failed to follow U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) protocols for cleanliness and neglected to maintain the proper temperatures for food storage and service.

While not to detract from standards set by the USDA, there are no reports that expose the lethal dangers of the secondary food market. Moreover, unlike the primary food market, these repackaging facilities are not inspected, despite their erroneous claims of USDA or FDA certifications.

A media spokesperson for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) explained that “the FDA doesn’t oversee meat and poultry, only dairy products.” And that “expiration dates are not regulated, only food safety.”

This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, food that is spoiled, contaminated, or toxic but within its expiration date is unquestionably unfit for human consumption. On the other hand, expiration dates are necessary as packaging, coloring and processing conceal food quality from consumers, as well as purchasing agents and food handlers.

When a food product’s expiration date is concealed by repackaging and relabeling, all food safety bets are off. The reselling of expired food is a black market in broad daylight.

Source: daily.slickdeals.net

Most individuals interviewed at the BOP for this article were not familiar with the existence of the secondary food market. Interviews included procurement personnel, a dietitian, an attorney, a policy analyst, and two media representatives. Only the National Food Service Administrator (NFSA) understood that, when bid specifications are silent on this fundamental go/no go criterion, food vendors selling fresh primary market products cannot compete fairly against secondary market expired food liquidators.

Undeniably, recycled food has a lower price point than fresh food. Thus, secondary food liquidators can dominate the market by selling inferior products.

Within this context, rigged specifications may be considered a form of procurement fraud. Publicizing bid tabulations for the lowest three bidders would level the playing field.

Value and Shelf Life

However, in procurement, value and shelf life need to be decision-making factors, as well as the acquisition cost. For example, if cafeteria meals make school children, hospitalized patients, and prison inmates sick and perishable food products are being thrown out prematurely—because their shelf life was already compromised prior to delivery—the initial cost savings is immaterial.

Further, any acquisition cost savings realized in purchasing food from the secondary market is dwarfed by incidences of foodborne illnesses. Symptoms of food poisoning require costly medical attention, result in higher staff absences and increased overtime for alternate staff, and increase cleaning costs to manage uncontrolled bodily fluids.

Additionally, foodborne illnesses bring psychological stress to all involved—especially when there is a significant outbreak. According to the CDC, a foodborne illness outbreak in prison affects, on average, 60 inmates.

One complaint shared in nearly all prison riots is the quality and quantity of subsistence food. Riots are dangerous to inmates and correction officers, expensive to taxpayers, and can significantly damage facilities. In Texas, inmates set a jail ablaze in 2009, and in Michigan, a 2017 riot cost taxpayers nearly one million dollars.

When asked why BOP’s national bid documents do not specify that food is purchased fresh from the primary food market, BOP’s NSFA explained that “this requirement is left up to each facility’s discretion.”

However, research showed that BOP headquarters sets bid specification standards, and these standards are replicated downstream. Local procurement staff do not reinvent base specifications.

After reviewing multiple national BOP and Miami FDC bid solicitations on SAM.gov and Unison Marketplace, it was confirmed that “New Food” specifications are utterly absent. Specifications set by headquarters and replicated at the local level only require that kitchen equipment be “New” as detailed below:

“New Equipment ONLY; NO remanufactured or ‘gray market’ items. All items must be covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.”

Based on this research, institutional specifications could require:

New Food ONLY; NO repackaged or reconditioned “secondary market” food items.

The specification that “Manufacturer’s letters will NOT be accepted in lieu of labeling” sounds good at face value. However, what is the point of a label if its only purpose is to hide the fact that expired food was reconditioned and repackaged?

Reporting “Problems with Food”

Presently, consumers can report “a problem with food” at “restaurants,” or they can report a rotten “egg,” etc., on the FoodSafety.gov website or on the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) webpage. However, evidence is required, such as the original container or packaging. This information is not readily available in institutional settings as most subsistence meals are devoid of their original packaging. It appears, by design, there is intentionally no place to report unsafe institutional food.

Recommendations are made on the FoodSafety.gov website to contact local health departments to report foodborne illnesses. However, in the case of federal prisons, no oversight authority inspects its kitchens.

A cornered representative from BOP’s press office reluctantly admitted their kitchens are only inspected by BOP personnel but countered this unsavory news with the fact that there is a “food safety manual.” Unfortunately, the manual, like BOP’s procurement process, is full of holes but more about that later.

Source: thecrimereport.org

Problems with Administrators, Oversight Authorities, and Elected Officials

Personal negligence and corruption are revealed when elected officials refuse to ask agency administrators hard questions or demand reports that enable meaningful analysis. Reports from agencies that provide services such BOP, as well as oversight authorities such as the FDA, USDA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the CDC are essential for a functional government that is answerable to its constituents (taxpayers and not just lobbyists).

The revolving door between industry and regulatory authority personnel is well documented, as is the negative impact on democracy that industry lobbyists hold over elected officials. And let’s not forget how donations by “charitable” organizations are used not only to achieve tax evasion but to push agendas that serve their principals’ profitable business ventures.

Not only has this trifecta of foul play led to agency capture and the outright abandonment of taxpayer rights and consumer protections, but it violates international human rights law. The United Nations’ Pocketbook of International Human Rights Standards for Prison Officials requires “wholesome and adequate food” be provided to the incarcerated.

Lack of Indicators that Measure Performance in Institutions and Oversight Authorities

If they exist, indicators that reveal operational issues, measure performance, and provide a cost/benefit analysis in institutions and their oversight authorities are often concealed and require Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. FOIA requests take months, if not years, to produce and often require lengthy litigation due to agency obstructionist claims that releasing “sensitive” information somehow compromises industry trade secrets, privacy laws, etc.

In BOP, a simple request for a line-item budget and an analysis comparing various prison allocations and expenditures was claimed to compromise its security. It shouldn’t; they don’t. Budget figures given in aggregate that do not drill down to specific medical and food costs are intentionally impossible to analyze, as shown here in the DOJ’s 2023 budget. It only lists “Inmate Care and Programs,” totaling just $3 billion, or 37.5%, from a nearly $8 billion budget.

According to a representative from BOP’s research/policy area, “line-item budgets and comparative facility analytics can be misinterpreted and are rightly protected by FOIA.” So FOIA, in effect, protects the public from learning the truth about high costs, failed programs, mismanagement, and malfeasance. So, are white-collar criminals running the prisons? More about this later.

CDC Reports

Often symptoms of food poisoning such as vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain—and flu-like symptoms such as fever, headache, and body-ache—are dismissingly attributed to stomach viruses or influenza by institutional administrators. However, when food poisoning cannot be concealed due to a large number of students or inmates affected, it may be reported to the CDC. Allegedly, the CDC maintains an active Foodborne Outbreak Surveillance System; but it has not issued a report since 2017.

Its 2017 report indicates that only eight outbreaks of foodborne illness occurred in schools and on average 31 students were affected, with the total number of cases at 253. Additionally, it revealed that only twelve cases of foodborne illness occurred in jails/prisons and on average 60 inmates were affected, for a total of 724 cases.

As foodborne illness is more easily reported when it occurs in restaurants, as explained in the section titled Problems with Food, it is dominant in the CDC’s analysis. But on average, a restaurant outbreak only affects ten patrons (which is still terrible in its own right). Also, restaurant patrons are not captive customers. They can elect not to return to a restaurant, whereas students, hospital patients and inmates are dependent on institutional cafeteria food for sustenance.

Secondary Food Market

Yes, there are many ways to contract food poisoning in any kitchen by unclean conditions and the food handlers’ failure to observe USDA/FDA protocols, but the probability of illness is increased exponentially when food products are delivered already expired.

Also, repackaging temperature changes, more staff and equipment handling, and re-exposure to air additionally compromise the already marginal shelf life of these highly perishable food products. Modifications that hide the identity of expired poultry, beef, pork and fish, such as grinding these products into hot dogs, beef patties, sausages, chicken nuggets and fish sticks are gross—as is turning expired milk and eggs into dehydrated/powdered products. It is disgusting to know that these food products are routinely sold to institutions and restaurants nationally.

According to the USDA media representatives, the USDA’s FSIS does not inspect secondary food processing facilities. Therefore, repackaging facilities that advertise they have FDA and USDA certifications misrepresent themselves. However, most secondary food market liquidators do not have websites or list principals. This omission allows LLCs to form and dissolve easily when their contractual performance issues become so severe that their principals are debarred from bidding on government contracts.

Green Eggs and Ham/Cat in the Hat

One major subsistence food service provider with Miami FDC is named Wholesome Food Products, LLC. It has no website and lists no principals. In what is believed to be a tribute to Dr. Seuss, it is comprised of two mysterious LLCs named, Thing1. LLC and Thing2. LLC.

Source: corporationwiki.com

Consider that there is no limit to the secondary market’s reselling capabilities. Expired food products travel a conga line until the liquidator finds a buyer so desperate, inept, or corrupt that it will purchase anything. For example, food rejected by restaurants and discount stores can be sold to schools. Food rejected by schools can be sold to hospitals and prisons. Finally, when prisons reject the delivery, it is sold to the military. Consider that every delivery and site inspection affects temperature and deducts time from expired products’ shelf life. Unquestionably, both factors further reduce product safety.

A former sailor stationed aboard the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk in the Persian Gulf during Operation Enduring Freedom reported that a food delivery contained beef stamped with REJECTED DOC (Department of Corrections). Still, the kitchen staff was ordered to cook and serve it because there was “a ship full of sailors and not enough food to last them until the next delivery.”

In prisons, food handlers who complain about serving meals that are not fit for human consumption are disciplined, relocated or fired.

“They had about 100 bags of rotten potatoes,” Pine said. “You could smell them,” and “they had black and green mold all over them.”

“They told me I was trying to start a riot,” Pine said. “I said: ‘No, you’re serving rotten potatoes. That’s going to get to the yard.”

BOP’s Food Safety Manual

The BOP’s Food Safety Manual does not follow USDA basic protocols which are based on fresh food procured from the primary food market and processed by facilities under FSIS inspections.

As discussed in the section titled Secondary Food Market, repurposed and reprocessed foods are not inspected by the USDA/FSIS and have a shorter shelf life. This results in the inevitable serving of spoiled food and beverages—even when its manual’s recommended storage time duration and temperatures are precisely followed.

BOP’s manual instructs staff that food storage must be limited to a maximum of “5 days or the manufacturers’ use by date.” Since the food is not in the manufacturers’ packaging, this “use by date” requirement is merely window dressing. Five days for fresh food is too long, according to the USDA for poultry and seafood, which specifies one to two days of storage before cooking or freezing and refrigeration for three to four days after cooking for all foods.

The below-listed paragraph is from the BOP Food Safety Manual, Chapter 10, page 47:

FOOD SAFETY LIMITATION OF GROWTH OF ORGANISMS OF PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN

“Refrigerated, ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared and packaged by a USDA-inspected food processing plant [they don’t exist according to USDA and FSIS media spokespersons in the secondary food market], and not offered for immediate service when the original container is opened, or unused portions of these items from any meal, are clearly marked to indicate the date by which the food must be consumed or discarded. The date is based on a 5-day maximum when stored at 41 [degrees], not exceed a manufacturer’s use-by date.” [With frequent rehandling over five days, it is a no-brainer that a 41-degree temperature cannot be maintained.]

The below-listed paragraph is from the USDA’s website:

USDA KNOWLEDGE ARTICLE

“Refrigeration slows but does not prevent bacterial growth. Therefore, it’s important to use food in a timely fashion before it spoils or becomes dangerous. For raw ground meats, poultry, seafood, and variety meats (liver, tongue, chitterlings, etc.), refrigerate them only 1 to 2 days before either cooking or freezing. Beef, veal, lamb, and pork roasts, steaks and chops may be kept 3 to 5 days. After cooking, meat, poultry, and seafood can be safely stored in the refrigerator 3 to 4 days.”

The BOP manual instructs staff that their Budget Projection Report should ensure the “contracting specialist purchases supplies at wholesale and other favorable prices and conditions.” Quality and shelf life are not considered when setting up a food order.

Another issue with the manual is its failure to require that temperature logs be kept. This omission is suspiciously bad since temperature taking is the only way it directs potentially hazardous food to be checked. Additionally, logs more easily enable problem food liquidators to be disqualified from bidding.

The below-shown paragraph is from the BOP Food Safety Manual, Chapter 7, pages 35 and 36:

FOOD RECEIVING REQUIREMENTS

“Temperature of potentially hazardous food is checked when it is received. Items impractical for probe temperature monitoring (eggs, milk, etc.) are determined to be in compliance by monitoring the temperature of the transport container. Immediate notification is made to the FSA, AFSA, or designee to determine disposition of any item not within the limits described below. Due to the immediate notification and disposition requirements, logs documenting receiving temperatures are not required.”

Oddly, there is no requirement in the BOP manual for a written report to “the FSA, AFSA, or designee.” Tracking what happens to rejected prison food is essential to thwart an even more sinister black market comprised of rejected food (one step down from expired food)—as evidenced by the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier receiving beef marked REJECTED by the DOC.

Corruption in Prison Food Procurement

While most of the articles involving corruption in Miami FDC involve assault, rape and the smuggling of contraband, state-run and privately run facilities describe the mechanics of crime in food procurement. Bid specifications that eliminate primary market competition combined with manuals that allow expired and spoiled food items to be accepted by food handlers and that do not track rejected food create an environment ripe for kickbacks, bribes, and hush money.

However, prosecutions might be more embarrassing for BOP than simple staff dismissals. Moreover, keeping negative information from the public might have a higher value to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)—as its Attorney General is answerable to the president—than preventing and/or prosecuting white-collar criminals.

Consider that the following headline is not good publicity for the facility’s warden: Oregon DOC Food Manager Takes Over $1 Million in Bribes, Feeds Prisoners “Distressed” Food.

According to Prisonlegalnews.org, “between mid-2000 and December 2006, the Food Service Administrator (FSA) ‘supplemented’ his $79,000 annual salary with at least $1,132,000 in bribes and kickbacks from brokers who sold dubious quality food to the ODOC.

Under the FSA’s watch, daily food costs in Oregon’s prison system dropped from $3.95 per prisoner ($1.32 per meal) in 1997 to $2.38 ($0.79 per meal) in 2006—a 40 percent reduction.”

Wardens are evaluated on the cost to shelter inmates, and up-front savings are a more highly valued indicator than foodborne illnesses, which can mostly be swept under the rug or blamed on viruses.

According to the CDC, “Incarcerated people are more likely to have foodborne illness that is related to an outbreak than non-incarcerated people.”

DOJ’s Inspector General released a report dated October 2022 that identifies BOP issues. Granted, violent attacks and contraband make bigger headlines, its silence on white-collar crime involving procurement, foodborne illness, and the secondary food market is deafening, especially when considering the crime ring in Oregon, uncovered by FBI and IRS raids, led to California and Maryland food brokers pleading guilty to bribery and tax fraud. They faced 13 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

Misusing Health Protocols to Obscure Operational Issues and Inmate Conditions

According to its webpage, Miami FDC has 1,082 inmates and remains under COVID level IIIprotocols, which suspends all visitations. Out of 122 institutions, only three facilities are level III at the time of this writing.

However, its seriously outdated report from September 29, 2021, only lists two inmates in medical isolation. Thus, family members, elected officials and the press cannot physically monitor its operations and inmates’ health for no apparent or documented reason. Corruption grows in secrecy. What is Warden Eugene K. Carlton hiding?

A 2021 Associated Press (AP) investigation revealed that the nearly $8 billion annually budgeted to the federal Bureau of Prisons is a hotbed of abuse, graft and corruption. BOP accordingly seems to have turned a blind eye to employees accused of misconduct and, in some cases, the agency failed to suspend officers arrested for crimes.

“The main concern with the Bureau of Prisons is that wardens at each institution decide if there’s going to be any disciplinary investigation or not,” said Susan Canales, vice president of the union at FCI Dublin. “Basically, you’re putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.”

Source: prisonpolicy.org

Cost to Taxpayers

According to a 2017 report done by prisonpolicy.org, the mass incarceration system costs the government and families of justice-involved people at least $182 billion every year.

Cost to Feed Inmates/Per Capita Budget (COIF)

Reportedly, Miami FDC’s Food Service Department has a per capita budget. But since this document combines food items with equipment and cleaning products, it makes isolating food costs difficult. This budget is also not available without FOIA. The DOJ’s 2021 report has no useful indicators for comparing food cost or illness by facility.

Prisonpolicy.org research indicates that, in 2003, Florida prisoners’ daily food cost was $2.32. This is a nominal fraction of the annual Cost of Incarceration Fee (COIF).

Source: prisonpolicy.org

According to a report in the Federal Register that is based on FY 2020 data, the average annual COIF for a federal inmate in a federal facility in FY 2020 was $39,158 ($107.28 per day).

Commissary

Despite a nearly $40,000 annual cost to taxpayers, inmates at Miami FDC spend up to $360.00 per month ($4,320 per year) on items such as sodas, ice cream, food, clothing, electronics, and shoes at the commissary. Commissary vendors rake in $1.6 billion a year, according to a 2016 study done by the Prison Policy Initiative. Are subsistence foods compromised to promote the use of this lucrative market?

Claims by Liquidators

Advertising claims by liquidators are unappetizing.

Lewisco Holdings

“When food reaches its expiration date, it becomes worthless, right? Not so fast, says Lewisco Holdings. As buyers of expired food inventory, we can take your trash and make it treasure. Liquidation is the process of buying unusable goods, clearing them out of the primary market, and moving them into secondary lines of distribution. Lewisco Holdings operates in the realm of expired food inventory. We purchase these goods and then distribute them to discrete buyers throughout the continental U.S.

As liquidators, Lewisco Holdings does not sell to restaurants, convenience stores, primary supermarkets, or full-line distributors. These entities are our clients’ customers, and we respect the boundary. We also pledge to work with confidentiality—not advertising, not selling to buyers outside the geographic boundaries, and not selling to any buyer who doesn’t also respect these rules.

Examples of our typical buyer include:

• Deep-discount salvage stores
• Small, privately-owned grocers
• Community food banks
• Correctional facilities
• Schools
• Farmers’ markets

Source: lewiscoholdings.com

Natural Choice Foods

“As one of the few companies nationally—in the secondary market—to gain FDA and USDA certification [according to the FDA and USDA media spokespersons, certifications do not exist] in repacking food products, Natural Choice Foods is the partner you can trust to safely repack your products into private label packaging, eliminating any risk to your brand. In our recently expanded certified repack facility, our trained staff safely repacks fresh and frozen food products for our customers. We have the capacity to repack over 1 million pounds of food per month.”

“How can you offer a variety of menu options and keep food costs low? Well, the answer is Natural Choice Foods. We buy overstock food items from food companies all across the country. We buy it, warehouse it safely, repack it for food service or retail and resell it to foodservice programs at colleges, nursing homes, correctional facilities, and restaurants.

Food Items We Provide

• Low cost, high-quality proteins like chicken, beef, and pork
• Frozen appetizers and desserts
• Dry storage food items”

Source: naturalchoicefoods.com

Conclusion

As established by the United Nations, the provision of “wholesome food” is a human right. Therefore, it should be served not only to prisoners but to school children, hospital patients, military personnel, restaurant patrons, and discount shoppers. Food not fit for human consumption must be removed from the marketplace.

Public institutions, private food businesses and the regulatory authorities that oversee them must be answerable to elected officials, the press and taxpayers. To achieve transparency, line-item budgets, comparative performance metrics, and bid tabulation results for the lowest three bidders on publicly funded contracts should be posted on agency websites. Besides limiting corruption and upholding human rights, public scrutiny makes government, administrators and politicians accountable and, ultimately, results in efficiency, effectiveness and cost savings. Food safety and good government are not partisan issues.

*

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.

Lauren Smith is CAM’s correspondent on location. Lauren’s work has been published by the Alliance for Global Justice, Black Agenda Report, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Global Research, Monthly Review, and Telesur amongst others. She holds a BA in Politics, Economics, and Society from SUNY at Old Westbury and an MPA in International Development Administration from New York University. Ms. Smith is also a member of the Green Party and Sanctionskill.org.

Featured image is from vertassets.blob.core.windows.net

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.

***

Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) said it has received preliminary information that criminals in Finland might have captured military arms, such as assault rifles, meant for Ukrainian forces.

“Weapons shipped [by various countries] to Ukraine have also been found in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands,” NBI Detective Superintendent Christer Ahlgren told Yle.

International media outlets have reported that the European law enforcement agency Europol has anticipated criminal gangs stashing weapons in border areas. This past summer Europol issued a statement (siirryt toiseen palveluun) warning that the proliferation of firearms and explosives in Ukraine could lead to an increase in firearms and munitions trafficked into the EU via established smuggling routes or online platforms.

“We’ve seen signs of these weapons already finding their way to Finland,” Ahlgren said.

The NBI has not released more details about weapons trafficked to Finland, saying that investigations are ongoing.

The routes and contacts for trafficking illegal weapons from Ukraine to Finland are, however, already in place, according to Ahlgren.

“Three of the world’s largest motorcycle gangs—that are part of larger international organisations—are active in Finland. One of these is Bandidos MC, which has a unit in every major Ukrainian city,” he explained. “We know that contacts and routes are being warmed up, so that they’re in place.”

Since the war in Yugoslavia, Balkan countries have dealt with illegal arms trafficking.

“Ukraine has received a large volume of weapons and that’s good, but we’re going to be dealing with these arms for decades and pay the price here,” Ahlgren said.

He also pointed out that the war in Ukraine has created more work for law enforcement, but this has not translated into additional police funding, according to a government report published this past February.

Police are, for example, tasked with following up on a growing number of drone sightings near critical infrastructure.

“Decision makers have forgotten that the war in Ukraine has also increased police work,” he said, alluding to Finnish entry points.

Today security checks are mandatory for airport staff but similar screenings are not required for dock workers, giving criminals a backdoor in Finnish ports, according to Ahlgren. “Criminal organisations have their networks in Finnish commercial ports. Stopping this is in everyone’s interest.”

*

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

Featured image: NBI Detective Superintendent Christer Ahlgren stands near the port of Vuosaari in Helsinki at the end of October 2022. Image: Silja Viitala / Yle

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.

***

On December 9, the Associated Press reported that President Vladimir Putin stated Russia could adopt a US-style concept of “preemptive strikes”, stressing that Moscow is in possession of advanced weapons to conduct such operations.

“We are just thinking about it. They weren’t shy to openly talk about it during the past years,” Putin said at an EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union) summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. The statement clearly applies to the United States and its foreign policy framework, including the so-called “preemptive strikes” concept. The program, called PGS (Prompt Global Strike), is a US attempt to develop a capability that enables it to attack enemy strategic targets with precision-guided weapons anywhere in the world within just one hour.

“Speaking about a disarming strike, maybe it’s worth thinking about adopting the ideas developed by our US counterparts, their ideas of ensuring their security,” Putin added, noting that such strikes are intended to knock out command facilities. Putin also stated that Russia is already in possession of hypersonic weapons suitable for carrying out such operations, while the US still hasn’t deployed its own equivalents. The Russian president also added that Moscow has long-range cruise missiles that surpass US analogs, most likely referring to the state-of-the-art scramjet-powered “Zircon” hypersonic cruise missile. Putin noted that Russia’s long-range weapons would certainly be conventional PGMs (precision-guided munitions), while the US never ruled out the possibility of the first use of thermonuclear weapons.

“If the potential adversary believes that it can use the theory of a preemptive strike and we don’t, it makes us think about the threats posed by such ideas in other countries’ defensive posture,” the Russian president said. The political West’s massive mainstream propaganda machine cherry-picked Vladimir Putin’s statements in order to misrepresent them as supposed “saber-rattling” while ignoring the pure logic behind his words. As per usual, Putin pointed out the glaringly obvious hypocrisy of the US political establishment, which quite clearly thinks it’s “indispensable” and “unique” in the sense that Americans are the only ones who have the right to attack others with impunity while they watch helplessly or simply turn a blind eye to the blatant US aggression against the world.

With Russia having actual conventional military capabilities to implement such a “preemptive strike” foreign policy framework almost instantly (unlike the US), Putin warned that if everyone behaved the way America does, the world would certainly become an extremely dangerous place. To make his point even stronger, it could be argued that Moscow would certainly have more reasons to implement such policies than the US itself. Unlike America, which has dozens of vassals and satellite states, Russia doesn’t exert such “soft power” influence over other countries, including its neighbors. On the contrary, the political West even tried to stage coups against Moscow’s close partners such as Belarus and Kazakhstan, forcing Russia to come to both countries’ rescue in recent months and years.

Needless to say, never again would the Eurasian giant tolerate the instalment of hostile puppet regimes so close to its borders. Russia’s leadership is well aware of the mistakes it made by ever trusting any promises given by the political West. After the 2014 NATO-backed coup which brought Neo-Nazis to power in Kiev, Moscow decided to never again allow such occurrences from happening in its geopolitical backyard. In this regard, Putin’s remarks are twofold. First, as previously mentioned, they expose the sheer hypocrisy of the political West, and second, they show that it would certainly come in handy for Russia to use its overwhelming “hard power” to prevent the establishment of anti-Russian regimes so close to its borders. Had Moscow deployed its version of PGS against the Neo-Nazi junta back in 2014, it wouldn’t even have the current problem in Ukraine.

However, the political West keeps insisting that Putin’s remarks are a “clear sign that Russia is planning to use nuclear weapons”, although he specifically stated that Moscow’s potential PGS-style program would include only conventional weapons. For months, the troubled Biden administration has been parroting the accusations that Russia is supposedly planning to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The US has been spinning the narrative on virtually every statement by Putin, claiming alleged “nuclear saber-rattling”. The premise is usually based on Russia’s official strategic military doctrine that gives Moscow the right to use thermonuclear weapons in response to a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) or a large-scale conventional attack.

In reality, Putin never mentioned anything about the Eurasian giant’s thermonuclear deterrence. The statements were clearly his critique of the US PGS concept, which Russia has been warning about for years, especially as the weapons used within the framework of such a program would be effectively indiscernible from regular ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles). Precisely this could lead to uncontrollable escalation, as other superpowers would not be able to confirm if the weapon in question is conventional or nuclear-armed. For instance, US PGS missiles spotted by Russian and/or Chinese early warning systems might prompt both (Eur)Asian giants to respond with nuclear-tipped weapons, leading to a world-ending conflict.

Russia’s response to the PGS program could be instantaneous if the Kremlin ever decides to proceed with it. With the Mach 12-capable “Kinzhal” air-launched hypersonic missile carried by modified MiG-31K/I interceptors and Tu-22M3 long-range bombers, the Mach 28-capable “Avangard” HGV (hypersonic glide vehicle) deployed on various ICBMs and the Mach 9-capable scramjet-powered “Zircon” hypersonic cruise missile deployed on naval (both submarines and surface ships) and (soon) on land platforms, Russia is the only country on the planet with the capability to immediately implement its own PGS-style program. And yet, the Eurasian giant still refrains from going ahead with such plans, although its justification for this would hold much better than that of the US.

*

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.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from The Last Refuge

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

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

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

***

The White House says recent comments made by Elon Musk about Anthony Fauci are “dangerous” and “disgusting.”

“They are disgusting, and they are divorced from reality, and we will continue to call that out and be very clear about that,” said White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in a Monday presser, before praising Fauci’s public handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Jean-Pierre is asked about @elonmusk calling for Fauci to be prosecuted:

"These personal attacks that we have been seeing are incredibly dangerous. They are disgusting and they are divorced from reality… We should be thankful to him." pic.twitter.com/lAadqXpPgQ

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 12, 2022

Over the weekend, Musk tweeted: “My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci,” eliciting widespread shrieks from the collective, including from astronaut Scott Kelly, who said “Elon, please don’t mock and promote hate toward already marginalized and at-risk-of-violence members of the #LGBTQ+ community.”

“Furthermore, Dr Fauci is a dedicated public servant whose sole motivation was saving lives,” he added.

Bitch please.

“I strongly disagree,” Musk replied the the left-wing brother-in-law of former Arizona congresswoman, Gabby Giffords.

“Forcing your pronouns upon others when they didn’t ask, and implicitly ostracizing those who don’t, is neither good nor kind to anyone,” he added.

“As for Fauci, he lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people. Not awesome imo.”

I strongly disagree. Forcing your pronouns upon others when they didn’t ask, and implicitly ostracizing those who don’t, is neither good nor kind to anyone.

As for Fauci, he lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people. Not awesome imo.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 12, 2022

Fauci indeed funded gain-of-function research – offshoring it to Wuhan, China after the Obama administration banned it in 2014.

What’s more, House Republicans think he may have been involved in a cover-up.

“We write to request a transcribed interview of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Excerpts of emails we are making public today (see enclosed Appendix I) reveal that Dr. Fauci was warned of two things: (1) the potential that COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute Virology (WIV) and (2) the possibility that the virus was intentionally genetically manipulated. It is imperative we investigate if this information was conveyed to the rest of the government and whether this information would have changed the U.S. response to the pandemic,” reads a January, 2022 letter from Reps. James Comer and Jim Jordan to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra.

🚨BREAKING🚨

We've released never before seen emails showing Dr. Fauci may have concealed information about #COVID19 originating from the Wuhan lab & intentionally downplayed the lab leak theory. @RepJamesComer & @Jim_Jordan want Fauci under oath. Time for answers. 1/2👇 pic.twitter.com/p8aIBJ3nom

— Oversight Committee Republicans (@GOPoversight) January 11, 2022

*

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

Featured image is from ZH

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

A former MI6 chief and an ex-CIA officer are offering a programme for budding intelligence practitioners at Magdalene College, Cambridge – one of several UK universities with links to British intelligence.

The Cambridge Security Initiative (CSI), an organisation founded and chaired by Sir Richard Dearlove – the former chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, known as MI6 – is advertising a course on spycraft run at Magdalene College, Cambridge.

The four-week course, to be held next summer and called the International Security and Intelligence Programme, addresses “various mechanisms of intelligence collection, analysis and dissemination, counter-intelligence and covert operations” as well as “cyber and information operations”.

It is co-convened by Professor David Gioe, who is the CSI’s director of studies and also an associate professor at West Point – the US military academy – and a fellow at the US Army Cyber Institute.

Gioe spent over two decades working in the US intelligence community, including roles in the FBI, CIA, Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Office of Naval Intelligence.

He worked as a CIA officer for nearly 10 years from 2001 to 2011, and was involved in “political and terrorism analysis as well as counterintelligence, overseas clandestine operations, and covert action”.

Gioe’s biography at West Point states that “he served multiple overseas tours as an operations officer in the Middle East and Europe”.

Declassified understands Gioe was a reserve naval intelligence officer between 2002 and 2016, and then transferred to become a reserve naval attaché (known as a ‘Foreign Area Officer’ in the US Department of Defense) which he remains.

His assignments included service as a Division Officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence and as a Department Head in the Joint Analysis Centre (JAC) at RAF Molesworth in Cambridgeshire – the military intelligence centre for the US European Command.

Defence Intelligence

Gioe was until March this year assigned to the DIA’s Defense Attaché Service (DAS). The DIA, which provides military intelligence to the US Department of Defense, notes that members of the DAS are “part of an elite group of specially trained personnel who represent the US and DoD”.

“While working in a defense attaché office”, it continues, “these service members represent DoD to the host-nation government and military, assist and advise the US ambassador on military matters, and coordinate other political-military actions within their area of responsibility”.

The DIA adds: “The Defense Attaché Office plays a vital role in supporting the [sic] US interests. During a time of crisis or military contingency, the DAO is often at the center of the action”.

Gioe is also a professor at the British Academy, where he works on the “weaponisation of disinformation”. His project examines how state intelligence services harness emerging technologies and social media platforms “to shape the information environment for strategic ends”.

The British Academy’s Global Professorships programme is funded by the government’s Department Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Intelligence programme

The CSI programme is run in partnership with the Department of War Studies at King’s College, London, where Gioe is a visiting professor of intelligence and national security. King’s is known for its links to the UK and US intelligence community.

Held annually at Cambridge since 2017, the course also includes access to a conference where “attendees can expect to hear about Great Power challenges to global order, such as those offered by Russia and China”, the CSI states.

Lecturers have in recent years included former heads of MI5, MI6, GCHQ and the French Security Services, as well as the CIA Deputy Director for Operations.

The course is open to students and “practitioners with an intellectual or professional interest in statecraft and the interlocking themes of intelligence, security, defence and foreign policy”.

They are asked on application to send “a photo of yourself from the shoulders up”. The programme incurs a fee of £2,745 before accommodation costs of over £2,000.

The CSI says that it “seeks to bring the best of the Cambridge teaching and learning experience to suitably qualified participants through a Programme that offers all the main ingredients of Cambridge University life while focusing on a subject of enormous contemporary relevance”.

Dr Alan Dawson, one of the CSI’s directors, told Declassified: “Magdalene College provides housing and teaching spaces for participants in the International Security and Intelligence Programme but neither it nor the University is responsible for the design, content or management of the programme”.

He added: “The ISI Programme and Conference are geared primarily towards undergraduate and graduate students with an interest in Intelligence and Security Studies which is a growth area in academia, especially in North America and the UK”.

Neither the Magdalene College nor Cambridge University websites appear to mention the CSI or the course. Pembroke College’s website has some links to the CSI course when Dearlove served as master there after he left MI6.

Cambridge intelligence

Dearlove’s CSI, which was established in 2017 as a charity, involves a number of other intelligence-related figures.

One of the four directors of the CSI alongside Dearlove is Stefan Halper, who has been described as a “CIA operative” and who has advised four American presidents in the White House and State Department. Halper is also a Life Fellow of Magdalene College.

On CSI’s advisory board sit two former directors of GCHQ, the UK’s largest intelligence agency – Sir Iain Lobban and Sir David Omand.

Also a CSI adviser is Professor Michael Goodman, Head of War Studies and Professor of Intelligence and International Affairs at King’s College. Goodman is Gioe’s co-convener of the CSI course and has spent many years seconded to the Cabinet Office as the official historian of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

Goodman, who is also a British Army reservist, manages King’s Intelligence and Security Group, whose members include David Gioe as well as Dorothea Gioe. Declassified understands Dorothea Gioe is David Gioe’s partner, who spent seven years in the CIA and is also a former Intelligence and Analytics Lead for the Cambridge Security Initiative.

Universities

Goodman and David Omand have written, in a paper published by the CIA, that the agency has long recognised “how beneficial it would be to use universities as a means of intelligence training”.

The paper, from 2008, added that “Exposure to an academic environment, such as the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, can add several elements that may be harder to provide within the government system”.

Other UK universities have connections to British intelligence. For example, the University of Buckingham’s Centre for Security and Intelligence (BUCSIS) was co-founded and is managed by Julian Richards, a former MI6 officer.

Dearlove has since 2014 been chair of the board of trustees at the University of London. He is said to have been recruited at Cambridge in the 1960s.

The university is notorious for the Cambridge spy ring of former students in the 1930s who became Soviet spies, most notably Kim Philby. MI5 and MI6 subsequently engaged in a massive effort to cover up the activities of the spy ring and avoid embarrassing prosecutions.

The current master of Magdalene College, who has been in post since 2020, is Sir Christopher Greenwood, a former judge at the International Court of Justice.

Greenwood – then professor of international law at the London School of Economics – was asked by the Blair government in 2002 to examine the arguments over the legality of using force against Saddam Hussein, which culminated in the invasion of Iraq the following year.

Greenwood concluded that the use of force was justified under certain circumstances.

Dearlove was head of MI6 at the time and sat on the Joint Intelligence Committee which approved the Blair government’s misleading dossiers – including the notorious ‘45-minute’ claim – on Saddam Hussein’s weapons programme before the invasion of Iraq.

Operations

Before becoming chief of MI6 from 1999-2004, Dearlove served as Director of Operations in a 38-year career in the agency.

He went on to earn more than £2m from his role on the board of American oil and gas company, Kosmos Energy, and is also Chair of Ascot Underwriting at Lloyd’s of London and senior adviser to insurance corporation AIG.

Dearlove made widely-covered public interventions during the 2017 and 2019 UK election campaigns warning that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was a “danger” and “threat” to Britain’s national security.

Cambridge Student Union (SU) told Declassified: “Cambridge SU is committed to the demilitarisation of the University of Cambridge and its Colleges. We feel it is inappropriate for Magdalene College to host a course run by a former SIS Chief and a former US intelligence officer.

“This feeds into a broader trend in which the University collaborates with and thus legitimises the arms and defence industries, which fuel war and violence internationally. We will continue to lobby against events such as these because, while the University of Cambridge and its Colleges endorse them, it will never be a safe environment for marginalised students”.

David Gioe and Magdalene College were approached for comment.

*

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.

Mark Curtis is the editor of Declassified UK, and the author of five books and many articles on UK foreign policy.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

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

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

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

***

Retired General Michel Yakovleff went on French television on December 11 and called for attacking Russia’s Victory Parade.

The parade, held in Red Square on May 9, celebrates Russia’s victory over Nazi Germany. Russia lost close to 30 million people during the war, beginning with Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia and Eastern Europe by Hitler. For Russians, the parade signifies the defeat of an exceptionally vicious external enemy determined to exterminate them as subhumans, Untermenschen. The very same mentality and desire to slaughter Russians is alive and well 80 years hence in ultranationalist Ukraine.

Yakovleff appears to be rather dim-witted for a general. He apparently doesn’t realize that an attack on the Victory Parade would undoubtedly result in a patriotic desire on the part of the Russian population to once again defend the motherland from vicious external enemies—namely NATO, the USG, and its European satraps—all dedicated to taking down Russia and immiserating millions of its citizens.

Of course, this will not happen. Not again.

Mr. Yakovleff is lost in his violent fantasies, delusions going back years. In 2014, he declared the beginning of WWIII.

Meanwhile, the officiel du gouvernement, France’s Emmanuel Macron, is also living in a fantasy world of his own design. “Ultimately, there will be a need for negotiations with Russia, Macron says. He has also insisted that the terms of any talks must be decided by the Ukrainian themselves,” reports the AP.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made it perfectly clear negotiations will not occur until Russia leaves Ukraine and abandons its “annexed” territories. In other words, a return to the ultranationalist status quo—ethnic cleansing and killing of Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk.

“The only way to find a solution would be through negotiations.”

French President Emmanuel Macron says he believes the only way to end the conflict is a peace deal that is acceptable to Ukraine.https://t.co/kk5MW94zgx pic.twitter.com/hnpl4zQ9SC

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) December 5, 2022

Russia has repeatedly spelled out the objectives of its SMO. First, to disarm Ukraine, force its neutrality and prevent a NATO foothold, and second, to eliminate the indiscriminate murder of civilians in eastern Ukraine by ultranationalist Banderites.

Forget the silly and destructive portrayal of Russians as Hun-like rapists and killers. Facts on the ground (ignored in the West) reveal that characterization more accurately reflects the mentality and behavior of Ukraine’s Bandera worshipping neo-Nazis.

TIME magazine, with its history of cooperation with the CIA, lately put the green t-shirt guy on its cover. “Volodymyr Zelensky portrays himself as a ‘man of the people’, especially now that he can wear green combat fatigues on Ukrainian and international TV. But looking into this election in 2019 and the position of ordinary workers in the Ukrainian economy presents a different picture: he has always been more ‘a man of the oligarchs’ than a man of the people,” writes John Pickard.

The following recreation of the TIME cover is far more accurate.

Fixed it for you #UkraineNazis pic.twitter.com/1hl26boI29

— Matreshka 🇷🇺🇧🇾🇰🇿🇷🇸🇨🇦 (@MatreshkaCB) December 7, 2022

*

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

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

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

***

The “free market is the globalist thought Word, the yardstick by which the democracy degree of a country is measured. But it is precisely its preachers who demonstrate how free it actually is. The situation in Italy is emblematic.

While the prices of petrol and diesel continue to rise, causing a generalized increase in the cost of living paid by all of us, NATO and the EU forbid us to buy Libyan oil and petroleum products that the Government of Benghazi offers us at a bargain price. In Benghazi – Michelangelo Severgnini shows in his documentary broadcast by Byoblu on December 12 – petrol costs 3 euro cents per liter, about 60 times less than in Italy. 

At the same time, we are forbidden to buy gas that Russia offers us at prices that are extremely lower than the ones we pay on the basis of quotations determined by the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, controlled by a powerful US financial group. The start-up of a new gas field in Western Siberia with a capacity of more than 320 billion cubic meters of recoverable reserves, takes Russian gas production to a record level.

Russia is increasingly exporting its cheap gas to China, India, and other Asian countries, as it is impossible exporting it to Europe. The European Union is moving to block after the Nord Stream sabotage the only gas pipeline that still carries Russian gas to Europe, up to Hungary and Austria, through the Balkans. At the summit in Tirana between the EU and the Western Balkans, Ursula Von der Leyen declared that the countries of this region must “get out of Putin’s gas blackmail“, i.e. block the arrival of Russian gas in Europe through the Balkans. “The Western Balkans – enjoined Von der Leyen in a threatening tone – “must decide which side they are on: either with the European Union or with Russia”.

*

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

This article was originally published on byoblu.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website 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.

***

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a law to abolish the Kiev District Administrative Court, a court which had no hesitation in prosecuting neo-Nazis. Zelensky also boasted that he is a leader who fights corruption internally whilst also fighting Russian troops. However, it appears that this latest scheme is a way for the British to dominate Ukraine’s judicial system.

“The history of reforms continues. Even in times of war,” Zelensky said on December 14 after announcing the end of the Kiev District Administrative Court, chaired by Pavlo Vovk, a judge that the White House had its sights on for a long time already.

The US Department of State, in a report titled Combating Global Corruption and Human Rights Abuses, published a list of sanctioned people and organisations, in which the name of Pavlo Vovk appears, among many others. It is not lost that the report was published only a few days before the Ukrainian president announced the end of the Kiev District Administrative Court.

The State Department accuses the Ukrainian judge of “soliciting bribes in return for interfering in judicial and other public processes. As part of this action, two immediate family members are also designated.”

Vovk was the president of the Kiev District Administrative Court, a body that since April 2021 has attempted to liquidate the Zelensky government through a parliamentary process that had been blocked for months. In this light, The Kyiv Independent newspaper describes Vovk as “Ukraine’s most scandalous judge”.

The Biden Administration has not explained anything else about why it sanctioned this judge, whom the National Anti-Corruption Office of Ukraine accused of various crimes associated with corruption. Four other judges from the same court, in which two were close to Vovk, were also named.

Vovk was appointed to the court by the former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014), who was deposed in a coup eight years ago following Maidan. At that time, the Court insisted on the illegality of the opposition to Yanukovych.

Just as importantly, the now defunct Kiev District Administrative Court was the authority that repeatedly prohibited the propagation of Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols and support in Ukraine. In June 2019, the court ordered Kiev City Council to change the name of two important streets, which since 2016 had been named after two prominent Ukrainian Nazi collaborators, Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych.

In May 2020, the Kiev District Administrative Court prohibited the symbols of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), a Nazi formation that was made up predominantly of Ukrainian military volunteers from the Galicia region.

The Ukrainian organisation Dejure Foundation – which received financial awards in 2021 from the United Kingdom, a country that has sent millions of dollars in weapons to Ukraine already – says that “some of the decisions” by the Court “are openly pro-Russian, which threatens national security and effective attempts to counter Russian influence.”

Seemingly not satisfied with providing vast finances, weapons, and aid to Ukraine, now the UK has also promised to train Ukrainian judges in the hope of later prosecuting Russians for alleged war crimes.

“These 90 judges will go back after some really intensive training, able better to run those courts,” UK Attorney General Victoria Prentis told Sky News, adding that she will ensure potential trials are conducted “at an unprecedented scale” while the conflict continues.

According to the British media outlet, the first group of magistrates attended sessions in a secret location in Eastern Europe in early December. Over the next few months, more meetings will take place thanks to an investment of £2,500,000.

Zelensky and his wife Olena, who visited the UK in late November, have been advocating the establishment of a special court for Ukraine, which they have disingenuously compared to the Nuremberg trials. In this regard, Prentis said that all options are being considered with the Ukrainian authorities.

However, the Ukrainian president’s proposal has not been explicitly endorsed by the British government.

“But I’m also sure the international community will want to have a moment where justice is done, and seen to be done. We don’t yet know exactly what form that will take. All options are on the table,” said the Attorney General.

At the same time, the abolishment of the Kiev District Administrative Court occurs at a time when the EU is demanding that Ukraine, if it wants to become a member of the bloc, must carry out a series of political and administrative reforms to end corruption. Before the conflict broke out on February 24, according to data from liberal institutions like the Transparency International, Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe.

It is unsurprising though that the “corruption” being purged only ended up being the only court willing to prosecute neo-Nazism in Ukraine. Now it appears that the UK is wanting to deepen its influence in the Ukrainian judicial system by training judges, judges which will inevitably tolerate neo-Nazism, unlike the court that Zelensky abolished.

*

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

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

Featured image is from National File

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.

***

On December 5 yet another transitional political framework was signed in the Republic of Sudan by the military regime and the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC), the broad-based democracy organization inside the country.

The agreement is designed to break the existing stalemate which has been in existence since the military coup which removed former President Omar Hassan al-Bashir in April 2019.

This new accord was met with much skepticism and angry protests from various political tendencies throughout Sudan. The Resistance Committees which have organized street demonstrations over the last four years have categorically rejected the new agreement saying it does not bring about the removal of the military as the dominant political and economic force inside the country.

The Sudanese Communist Party has condemned the new agreement while continuing to call for mass mobilizations to end military rule. “No negotiation, no partnership, no legitimacy” with the military institution has been the rallying cry of the Resistance Committees and the Communist Party.

In addition, several Islamic parties have opposed the deal as well. These parties want a greater role for religious leaders within the overall structures of governance.

Violence and mass arrests have occurred since the outbreak of protests over high food and fuel prices during December 2018. Massive demonstrations and strikes prompted the military to seize power in the hopes that the unrest would subside.

However, the democracy movement which includes many youth and workers continued to demand national elections and the departure of the military after April 2019. A sit-in outside the Ministry of Defense in the capital of Khartoum continued until it was broken up in June of the same year resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people at the hands of the Sudanese security forces encompassing the military and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

Negotiations led by the African Union (AU) provided the initial political framework creating a Transitional Sovereign Council which included both the military and the pro-democracy leaders tasked with preparing the country for multi-party elections. Nonetheless, since the June 2019 transitional agreement peace and social stability has not been achieved.

The initial transitional framework which ushered in the Sovereign Council was supposed to last for 39 months. In that time period the military would first serve as the Chair of the Sovereign Council, later relinquishing control to a civilian.

Before the civilian leadership could take hold of the Sovereign Council, the military dissolved the body and arrested the interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok on October 25, 2021. The latest coup did not bring a halt to the mass demonstrations and rebellions against the military leadership of General Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan and Commander of the RSF Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemeti).

Although Hamdok was briefly reinstated as interim prime minister several weeks later, he would soon depart again realizing that the military was not committed to relinquishing power to a democratically elected civilian government in Sudan. The Central Committee of Sudan Doctors, one of the important professional groupings in the democracy movement, has reported that 120 people have died at the hands of the security forces since the October 2021 coup.

In an article published by Al Jazeera on December 6 it notes that:

“Critics fear the deal extends a lifeline to the army and the powerful paramilitary group, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), both of which spearheaded the putsch. Sudan’s resistance committees, which are neighborhood groups leading the street pro-democracy movement, say the deal effectively restores a partnership between political and security elites and thereby betrays the aspirations of the 120 people killed in anti-coup protests. ‘We believe that if there is no justice then the killing and raping will continue,’ said Ahmed Ismat, a spokesperson for the Khartoum south resistance committees. ‘We are just repeating the same cycle.’”

In essence the December 5 agreement does not provide definite timelines for the transition to democratic rule. Nor does the framework address the demands among the democracy movement that the military be held accountable for the brutality and deaths of people over the last four years.

The Role of the United States in Imposing the Framework

State Department envoys to Sudan and the Horn of Africa have been visiting the country over the last year desperately seeking to negotiate a solution to the political impasse. Washington does not want a revolutionary democratic government to emerge in Sudan which could challenge U.S. foreign policy in the region.

Under the previous administration of President Donald Trump, former interim Prime Minister Hamdok was pressured into making several concessions which would ensure that Khartoum remained within the western sphere of influence. During 2020, the Trump administration pressured Hamdok to recognize the State of Israel in violation of the 1958 law which mandated a boycott of Tel Aviv by Sudan.

Later the interim administration of Hamdok agreed to pay hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars to the families of people killed in terrorist attacks. These attacks did not occur in Sudan but in other African states and in the Gulf of Aden.

These concessions by Hamdok and the military leadership were designed to make Sudan eligible for renegotiating financial obligations to the banks and foreign governments along with the procurement of additional loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Sudan would be removed from the “state sponsors of terrorism” list which has been utilized as a foreign policy weapon of Washington.

This same pattern of interference and the imposition of policies which betray the interests of the majority of the Sudanese people has not been altered under President Joe Biden. The latest framework agreement was adopted largely at the aegis of the State Department.

Sudan women march against US-imposed framework (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Secretary of State Antony Blinken in the immediate aftermath of the signing of the latest agreement issued threats to anyone the U.S. believes is undermining the accord. Sanctions, which is a hallmark of U.S. foreign policy, will be leveled against anyone opposing the transitional agreement.

The Middle East Eye news website emphasized in regard to the role of the State Department:

“This was a pact to rescue Sudan’s democratic transition after the 2021 military coup, Washington argued. It didn’t matter that the deal had little popular support, and had been outright rejected by many key players. ‘We have experience of agreements signed under international pressure … none of them led to a happy ending’, said Mohamed Badawi, Sudanese political analyst. ‘Just as we used our prior visa restrictions policy against those who undermined the former civilian-led transitional government, we will not hesitate to use our expanded policy against spoilers in Sudan’s democratic transition process,’ the US secretary of state said in a statement.”

Some Armed Rebel Groups Also Reject Framework Deal

Several rebel groups which have been fighting the Sudanese central government for years are opposed to the latest agreement. These groups include the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) led by Gibril Ibrahim, who is now serving as finance minister under the military regime.

Also opposing the agreement are Mini Arko Minawi, leader of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), and Mohamed Tirik a sectional leader from the Eastern region of the country around the strategic Port of Sudan.

Interestingly enough, these armed opposition groups were supportive of the October 25 coup and have taken cabinet positions in the administration established by the military over the last year. Since December 5 these organizations have publicly criticized the framework agreement.

At a December 13 public meeting held in Khartoum, the three leaders explained their respective positions. The Middle East Eye quoted the leaders of the armed groups who said:

“Our problem with what happened in the so-called political framework is the clear hijack of the fate of the country by specific forces and individuals. So we are against this methodology, which excludes us from participation in the management of the country,’ Minawi said. ‘We believe that this way is not correct, and it will neither lead to stability nor any progress of the democratic transition. We are one of the main actors in this country … we are Sudanese like others …. This mentality has to be stopped or otherwise Sudan will never see stability,’ Ibrahim warned. Tirik, meanwhile, has closed the road linking Eastern Sudan with Khartoum, cutting the capital from Port Sudan.”

It remains to be seen whether the December 5 framework can bring stability to the oil-rich state which is a gateway to North, East and Central Africa. With the dominant role of the U.S. in the negotiations for the current agreement, there will not be a genuine democratic solution that brings together all of the legitimate forces concerned with uniting the country independent of imperialism and its allies in the region.

*

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

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

Featured image: Sudan leaders sign new framework agreement on Dec. 5, 2022 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

FDA Records Show Significant Number of mRNA Test Rats Born with Skeletal Deformations

By Judicial Watch, December 15, 2022

Judicial Watch announced today that it received 699 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding data Moderna submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, which indicate a “statistically significant” number of rats were born with skeletal deformations after their mothers were injected with the vaccine.

COVID-19 Vaccines: What They Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries. U.S. Senator Johnson’s Roundtable

By Senator Ron Johnson, December 15, 2022

On Dec. 7, 2022, Sen. Johnson hosted a roundtable discussion, COVID-19 Vaccines: What they Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries, to shed light on the current state of knowledge surrounding the vaccine and explore the path forward. The experts and medical professionals who joined Sen. Johnson at the roundtable discussed the scientific background of the coronavirus, functionality of the vaccine, failures in the pandemic response, early treatment drugs, adverse reactions, vaccine injuries and plans for future research and response.

Israeli Election Results Shatter Illusion About the Possibility of a Two Party State

By John Kiriakou, December 14, 2022

The new Israeli government led by an enemy of peace is more right-wing, more reactionary, more nationalistically populist, and more religious than any previous government in Israeli history.

You’d Better Watch Out: The Surveillance State Is Making a List, and You’re On It

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, December 14, 2022

You’d better watch out—you’d better not pout—you’d better not cry—‘cos I’m telling you why: this Christmas, it’s the Surveillance State that’s making a list and checking it twice, and it won’t matter whether you’ve been bad or good.

Protests Spread in Peru Demanding President Pedro Castillo be Reinstated

By Abayomi Azikiwe, December 14, 2022

Unrest continued in the South American state of Peru after the December 7 impeachment of socialist President Pedro Castillo. The ousted leader remained in detention after an entire week of demonstrations and clashes between supporters and opponents of the former teacher and union leader who was just elected in a runoff vote during June 2021.

A Peek at Russia’s Response to the G7 Oil Price Cap

By Tsvetana Paraskova, December 14, 2022

Russian authorities have drafted a decree banning the sale of Russian crude oil to buyers part of the Price Cap Coalition or if the purchase is limited by the G7/EU price cap, as a measure to counter the $60 a barrel price ceiling set by the West, Russian daily Vedomosti reported on Tuesday, quoting a source with knowledge of the draft and government sources.

If They Get the Opportunity, They Will Transform Our Society Into a Dystopian Hellscape

By Michael Snyder, December 14, 2022

If the elite get their way, our world will eventually look far more bizarre than any science fiction author ever imagined.  If you haven’t figured it out by now, the elite are control freaks, and they are envisioning a future in which they are in control of all of our lives from birth to death.

‘Challenge the U.S. Justifications for This War’

By John Parker, December 14, 2022

Talk given at “Pushback Against Empire,” a holiday party and fundraiser for CovertAction Magazine in New York City on Dec. 1. CovertAction, founded by CIA whistleblower Phillip Agee in 1978, is one of the few publications that has published information exposing the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine, including John Parker’s eyewitness reports from Donbass for Struggle-La Lucha.

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the COVID Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence Is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 14, 2022

The report is a bombshell. The vaccine was launched in mid-December 2020. By the end of February 2021, “Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.”

Many People Fully Vaccinated for COVID Are Now Going Blind

By Ethan Huff, December 14, 2022

We have heard all about the many cases of myocarditis and pericarditis post-injection, as well as recipients repeatedly testing “positive” for the virus even after doing the deed. But there is another concerning side effect occurring in the “fully vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) that is rarely mentioned: blindness.

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.

***

For the first time in over 30 years, and in a tightly-controlled presentation, the United States unveiled a new strategic bomber on Friday. The nuclear-capable B-21 Raider is expected to enter service in 2027 and is seen as a major part of the States’ response to military buildup by China. The estimated cost was also revealed: The plane’s manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, can expect $700m per aircraft. Many other companies will also profit from the project, with the arms production company stating that 400 suppliers are involved in the project. One of these is Raytheon Technologies – whose subsidiary Pratt & Whitney will be manufacturing the engines for the new stealth jet.

Both Northrop Grumman and Raytheon feature on the ranking of the world’s largest arms-production companies. Despite a six percent fall in arms sales for Northrop Grumman, the aerospace and defensetechnology firm generated $30 billion in 2021, making it the fourth largest in the world by this measure. Raytheon’s arms sales grew by nine percent to $42 billion, putting it behind only Lockheed Martin with $60 billion.

As a glance at this infographic reveals, U.S. companies dominate the top of the list. Two Chinese companies also make it though – having both posted strong growth in 2021, Norinco and AVIC had combined arms sales of over $40 billion last year. According to the source, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), arms sales of the world’s largest 100 arms-producing companies grew by 1.9 percent to $592 billion in 2021, despite supply chain challenges.

*

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

Featured image: U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Alexander Cook

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.

***

On Dec. 7, 2022, Sen. Johnson hosted a roundtable discussion, COVID-19 Vaccines: What they Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries, to shed light on the current state of knowledge surrounding the vaccine and explore the path forward. The experts and medical professionals who joined Sen. Johnson at the roundtable discussed the scientific background of the coronavirus, functionality of the vaccine, failures in the pandemic response, early treatment drugs, adverse reactions, vaccine injuries and plans for future research and response. To read the press release about this event click here.

The data

The following chart was shown during the above roundtable discussion. This update chart of previously shown data was gathered from FDA and CDC worldwide data including data from the FDA FAERS System (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System) the CDC VAERS system (Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System)  The VAERS chart is updated with the most recently data available.

COVID-19: A Second Opinion

On Jan. 24, 2022, Sen. Johnson held his second panel discussion on COVID-19 with world renowned doctors and medical experts who provided a different perspective on the global pandemic response. The roundtable, COVID-19: A Second Opinion, discusses the current state of knowledge of early treatment, hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term.

The data

The following chart was shown during the panel discussion. The data was gathered from FDA and CDC worldwide data including data from the FDA FAERS System (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System) the CDC VAERS system (Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System)  The VAERS chart is updated with the most recently data available.

Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates

On Nov. 2, 2021, Sen. Johnson held a panel discussion on vaccine mandates and the consequences and the lack of compassion and response from federal health agencies to those who have experienced adverse events from the COVID-19 vaccine.  The panel included doctors, medical researchers, and vaccine injured.

The data

The following charts were shown during the Expert Panel.  The data was gathered from the CDC website and CDC’s early warning system called VAERS, Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System.  The VAERS chart is updated with the most recently data available.

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.

***

Judicial Watch announced today that it received 699 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding data Moderna submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, which indicate a “statistically significant” number of rats were born with skeletal deformations after their mothers were injected with the vaccine. The documents also reveal Moderna elected not to conduct a number of standard pharmacological studies on the laboratory test animals.

Judicial Watch obtained the records through a September 2021 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) failed to respond to a June 2021, FOIA request biodistribution studies and related data for the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson& Johnson COVID vaccines (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:21-cv-02418)).

The records include a “Nonclinical Overview” prepared by Moderna and submitted to the FDA for approval of its vaccine revealing that a number of rats were born with skeletal deformations, known as “wavy ribs” and “rib nodules,” to mothers injected with the mRNA vaccine. The study dismissed the anomalies as “not considered adverse:”

mRNA-1273-related variations in skeletal examination included statistically significant increases in the number of F1 rats with 1 or more wavy ribs and 1 or more rib nodules. Wavy ribs appeared in 6 fetuses and 4 litters with a fetal prevalence of 4.03% and a litter prevalence of 18.2%. Rib nodules appeared in 5 of those 6 fetuses. Skeletal variations are structural changes that do not impact development or function of a developing embryo, are considered reversible, and often correlate with maternal toxicity and/or lack of other indicators of developmental toxicity (Carney and Kimmel 2007). Maternal toxicity in the form of clinical observations was observed for 5 days following the last dose (GD 13), correlating with the most sensitive period for rib development in rats (GDs 14 to 17). Furthermore, there were no other indicators of mRNA-1273-related developmental toxicity observed, including delayed ossification; therefore, these common skeletal variations were not considered adverse.

(Non-adverse deformations receive a different perspective in the July 2009 Environmental Research article, “Dose–response relationships of rat fetal skeleton variations: Relevance for risk assessment:”

(Whether or not a substance-induced increase in the incidence of fetal skeleton variations should be taken into account for human risk assessment is a long-standing controversial issue. It has been argued that chemical-produced increases in variations are not to be considered for risk assessment because they are “unlikely to adversely affect survival or health.” The counter argument is that even not being overtly adverse and conveying no apparent selective disadvantage, a treatment-induced increase in the occurrence of variations means that the chemical agent has the potential to perturb skeleton development. According to this view, under a different condition of exposure, or in another species, this perturbation of normal bone formation may give rise to a different and more severe outcome.))

A “Pharmacokinetics Written Summary” marked “Confidential,” indicates that the information it contains is related to the mRNA-1273 (Moderna vaccine) strain, however, much of the data comes from work with mRNA-1647. The study states:

The results of a biodistribution study of mRNA-1647 support the development of mRNA-1273.

*

The biodistribution of mRNA-1647 was evaluated in a non-Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), single-dose, intramuscular (IM) injection study in Sprague Dawley rats…. mRNAs that are within an LNP of the same composition (e.g., mRNA-1273 and mRNA-1647) are expected to distribute similarly.

The “Summary” indicates:

• No absorption studies with mRNA-1273 [used in Moderna’s COVID vaccine] have been performed.
• No metabolism studies with mRNA-1273 have been performed.
• No excretion studies with mRNA-1273 have been performed.
• No PK [pharmacokinetic] studies with mRNA-1273 have been performed.
• No other PK studies with mRNA-1273 have been performed.

(According to PubMed.gov, “Pharmacokinetics studies are performed to clarify the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drug candidates…[and] are required for establishing the efficacy and safety in humans.”)

A separate study submitted to the FDA sponsored by Moderna Therapeutics Inc. and conducted by Charles River Laboratories in Montreal, Canada is titled “A Single Dose Intramuscular Injection Tissue Distribution Study of mRNA-1647 in Male Sprague-Dawley Rats” in which “[t]he objective … was to determine the tissue distribution of mRNA-1647,” as opposed to mRNA-1273 used in Moderna’s COVID vaccine.

In one appendix to the study, a “clarification” was issued in the toxicokinetic report regarding the half-life of mRNA injected into the rats, noting: “The average value of terminal half-life for the muscle (i.e. injection site) in Sections 4.2 and 5 of the toxicokinetic report should be read 14.9 [hours] instead of 8.39 [hours] based on the results of the toxicokinetic evaluation.”

The study further notes that the wording of the conclusion was modified to read, “The half-life … of mRNA-1647 was reliably estimated in muscle (site of injection), proximal popliteal and axillary distal lymph nodes, and spleen with average values for all construct t½ [half-life] of 14.9 8.39, 34.8, 31.1 and 63.0 hours, respectively.” [Emphasis in original]

Another appendix, titled “Summary Mean (±SE) mRNA-1647 Pharmacokinetic Parameters in Sprague-Dawley Rat in Plasma and Tissues Following 100μg Intramuscular Injection Administration of mRNA-1647 on Day 1,” reveals that, in addition to distributing to the muscle site, lymph nodes and spleen, the mRNA particles also distributed to the bone marrow, brain, eyes, heart, liver, lungs, stomach and testes.

A separate study indicates that the mRNA-1647 particles injected into rats were “observed in muscle (i.e. site of injection), followed by proximal (popliteal) lymph nodes, axillary lymph nodes and spleen, suggesting the mRNA-1647 distribution to the circulation by lymph flow.” (The mRNA was delivered via “lipid nanoparticle dispersion.”)

“These previously hidden records about the COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy studies raise a number of disturbing questions,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The fact that it has taken a federal lawsuit to get access to this material is yet another scandal.”

Through FOIA Judicial Watch has uncovered a substantial amount of information regarding COVID-19 issues:

• In October 2020, Judicial Watch received FDA records that detailed pressure for COVID-19 vaccine booster approval and use.
• NIH records revealed an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The records also show National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials were concerned about “gain-of-function” research in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about EcoHealth Alliance’slack of compliance with reporting rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.
• HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID.
• NIAID records showed that it gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.
• HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci ” email chain, citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer-funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international counsels as high level commitment from China.”
• HHS records included a grant application for research involving the coronavirus that appears to describe “gain-of-function” research involving RNA extractions from bats, experiments on viruses, attempts to develop a chimeric virus and efforts to genetically manipulate the full-length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone.
• HHS records showed the State Department and NIAID knew immediately in January 2020 that China was withholding COVID data, which was hindering risk assessment and response by public health officials.
• University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) records show the former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Dr. James W. Le Duc warned Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of potential investigations into the COVID issue by Congress.
• HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines show a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.
• Records from the Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) reveal safety lapses and violations at U.S. biosafety laboratories that conduct research on dangerous agents and toxins.
• HHS records include emails between National Institutes of Health (NIH) then-Director Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, the director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.
• HHS records show that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.
• Fauci emails include his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.

*

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

Featured image is from Judicial Watch

---

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

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

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

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

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

Revised on December 12, 2022

***

Sucking the Qatar Emirate into becoming a “Major Non-Nato Ally” and  “Friend of America” is intent upon eventually appropriating and/or exerting control through military means, corruption, regime change or otherwise over:

THE LARGEST MARITIME GAS RESERVES ON THE PLANET. 

***

Qatar: “Major Non-NATO Ally”

On January 31st, 2022, less than a month prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Biden designated Qatar as a “Major Non-NATO ally” of the United States.

Prior to the Ukraine war, Qatar had been pressured to join the US-NATO consensus against Russia as a “close ally”. In turn, Russia had been excluded by FIFA from participating in the Qatar World Cup. 

President Joe Biden informed the media prior to his White House meeting with Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar, that Qatar had accepted to become a “Major Non-NATO Ally” (MNNA).

The MNNA appointment is granted to “close allies” which are not members of NATO but which have “a strategic working relationship” with the U.S. Military. According to the US State Department the “Major Non-NATO Ally” (MNNA) designation 

“is a powerful symbol of the close relationship the United States shares with those countries and demonstrates our deep respect for the friendship for the countries to which it is extended.” (emphasis added)

Why was Qatar invited to become a Close Ally of America? 

President Biden had been informed and was fully aware that Russia would be invading Ukraine in the course of the month of February 2022. (See NYT report below)

Biden’s January 31, 2022 statement raised the issue of  America’s alliance with Qatar (which owns the World’s largest maritime gas reserves together with  Iran), while at the same time addressing how a possible Russian invasion could affect natural gas supplies in Europe:

“President Biden said Monday [January 31, 2022] that he would name Qatar as a “major non-NATO ally” of the United States, a designation that will clear the way for greater security cooperation and investment in the Gulf nation at a time when Mr. Biden is seeking help boosting natural gas supplies in Europe.

The president is eager to reassure European nations that they will not suffer natural gas shortages if a war between Ukraine and Russia breaks out in the weeks ahead. Russia is one of the largest suppliers of natural gas to Germany and other countries in western Europe.  …

I am notifying Congress that I will designate Qatar as a major non-NATO ally to reflect the importance of our relationship,” Mr. Biden said.” (NYT, emphasis added)

There is something “fishy” regarding the appointment of Qatar (a small country with about 300,000 citizens) to the status of a “major non-NATO ally”(MNNA).

On Behalf of the Pentagon?

Against whom? 

“Military Aid” to Qatar, America’s  New “Major Non-NATO Ally”

Exactly ten months later (following Biden’s contentious January 31st statement), coinciding with “Day Ten” of the FIFA World Cup, the Pentagon entered into a military cooperation agreement with its “Novel” Major Non-NATO Ally, namely the Emirate of Qatar.

A one billion dollar deal was announced for the purchase of sophisticated drone equipment to be used by Doha against an “unnamed foreign enemy”.

The US Department of Defense (the DOD’s DSCA) announcement  pointed to …”a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Qatar” of a sophisticated counter drone apparatus described as the:

“Fixed Site-Low, Slow, Small Unmanned Aircraft System Integrated Defeat System (FS-LIDS)”.

A “System of Systems” for a modest “estimated cost of $1 billion”.

The US military industrial complex is involved, with trainers, military advisors and consultants to be stationed in Qatar. The contractors are Raytheon Technologies, Scientific Research Corporation (SRC), and Northrop Grumman, which will be collaborating with the Emirate’s military.

It is all for a good cause. “Improve the security of a friendly country [Qatar]”. According to the Pentagon’s DSCA:

“This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country [Qatar] that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in [West Asia],”

Is this one billion dollar sale of anti-drone systems to Qatar intended to threaten Iran? Once installed, who will be pulling the strings?

What are Washington’s “Foreign Policy and National Security Objectives” Pertaining to Qatar?

QUESTION: Is it a ploy to create divisions within the structure of Qatar’s military alliance and partnership with Iran as well as trigger the entry of U.S. military personnel, advisers, etc. into the midst of the Emirati government and military?

ANSWER: There is an unspoken strategic objective behind this alleged military alliance with Qatar.

It’s “NATURAL GAS”. 

Sucking the Qatar Emirate into becoming a “Major Non-Nato Ally” and  “Friend of America” is intent upon eventually appropriating and/or exerting control through military means, corruption, regime change or otherwise over:

THE LARGEST MARITIME GAS RESERVES ON THE PLANET. 

The South Pars North Dome: the Planet’s Largest Maritime Gas Reserves

Qatar is not only a military ally of Iran, the emirate is a Partner in the development of the World’s largest Maritime Gas Reserves, jointly owned in an agreement between Iran and Qatar.

Carefully examine the data (Table Below). The South Pars North Dome reserves far surpass all major maritime gas reserves Worldwide combined held by Russia, Iran, Netherlands, Norway, Egypt, Turkmenistan, US, etc.

It has recoverable reserves of 35,000 km3. Compare that to the 25 largest maritime gas reserves (See Table below)

Needless to say, these joint Qatar-Iran gas reserves are strategic in regards to the ongoing energy crisis.

Source of Table wikipedia

Qatar and Iran share the largest maritime natural gas base in the world.  From an economic and energy point of view it’s absolutely strategic. They are allies, they are friends.

The U.S. foreign policy objective is to ultimately destroy and undermine that “friendship” with Iran which is highly valued and supported by Qatari citizens.

The export of gas from South Pars North Dome transits through Iran, Turkey and Russia.

Qatar, Russia and Iran are the largest holders Worldwide of  gas reserves. In 2009 they reached an agreement to create a ‘gas troika’, a trilateral gas cooperation entity including the development of joint projects.

A large number of countries including South Korea, India, Japan, China are importing NLG from Qatar.

In recent developments (November 27, 2022) ‘QatarEnergy signed a 27-year deal to supply China’s Sinopec with liquefied natural gas”.

Qatar has also a strategic alliance with China.

Washington’s objective under the disguise of America’s “Major Non-NATO Alliance” with Qatar is to:

–Break the Qatar-Iran Partnership

–Exclude Iran from the Joint Maritime Gas Field

-Exert US Control over the Maritime Gas Field in the Persian Gulf

-Weaken and Disable the “Gas Troika” (Russia, Iran, Qatar)

-Create Chaos in the Global Energy Market, 

-Undermine the Trade in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) to Numerous Countries

 

And it’s taking place in The Qatar Emirate. Will it Succeed? 

“Sleeping with The Enemy”: The Al-Udeid Air Force Base

Flashback to June 2019

In late June 2019, after Iran shot down a U.S. drone , US Central Command (CENTCOM) on the orders of President Trump, confirmed the deployment of US Air Force F-22 stealth fighters from the Al-Udeid airbase in Qatar.

At the last minute, the air raid was cancelled. President Trump “called off the swiftly planned military strikes on Iran” while intimating in his tweet that “any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force.”

Smoking Gun?

The media coverage of Trump’s June 2019 plan to attack Iran, failed to acknowledge that the Al-Udeid air force base in Qatar (America’s largest Air Force Base in the Middle East and Forward Headquarters of US Central Command) from which these U.S. air raids were to be launched was (in 2019) from a strategic standpoint located in enemy territory.

The military and intelligence pundits and advisers were silent on the matter, they didn’t take the trouble to examine the geopolitical implications pertaining to the location of America’s Al Udeid Air Force Base.

Al Udeid Base

The Role of US Central Command

USCENTCOM is the theater-level Combatant Command for operations in the broader Middle East region extending from Afghanistan to North Africa. It is the most important Combat Command of the Unified Command structure. It has led and coordinated several major Middle East war theaters including Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003). It is also involved in Syria.

In the case of a war with Iran, operations in the Middle East would be coordinated by US Central Command with headquarters in Tampa, Florida in permanent liaison with its forward command headquarters in Qatar.

“The base is technically Qatari property playing host to the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command.”

With 11,000 US military personnel, it is described as “one of the U.S. military’s most enduring and most strategically positioned operations on the planet”   (Washington Times). Al-Udeid also hosts the US Air Force’s 379th Air Expeditionary Wing, considered to be “America’s most vital overseas air command”.

Since the May 2017 split of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Qatar has become a staunch ally of both Iran and Turkey (which despite its role in NATO is also an ally of Iran and Russia).

From a legal standpoint, the Al-Udeid base is owned by the Qatar Emirate Air Force.

In 2019, Qatar was an ally of Iran and the Al-Udeid base was in enemy territory.

Following Biden’s January 31st 2022 announcement, Qatar’s “Major Non-NATO Ally” status signifies that the Al-Udeid Base is now located in the territory of a “close ally” of the U.S. 

The underlying objective is to disrupt enemy military alliances, destabilize the Iran-Qatar Maritime Gas Partnership as well undermine the trade in NLG to the detriment of Western Europe.

Qatar’s status as a “close ally” of US-NATO also provides a potential stepping stone towards a full fledged war against Iran?

Has “Sleeping with the Enemy” become the Mainstay of US Foreign Policy?

The US is sleeping with Turkey, a military heavyweight in NATO which just so happens to be operating  Russia’s S-400 air defense system. Turkey is a Double Speak, de facto ally of Russia.

Several allies of the US have adopted Russia’s S-400 defense system including Saudi Arabia, India, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt. The adoption of the S-400 implies de facto military cooperation with the Russian military.

What we are dealing with are complex, unstable and contradictory cross-cutting coalitions which could lead to military escalation. Reminiscent of World War I, shifting alliances and the structure of military coalitions are crucial determinants of history.

Today’s military alliances, including “cross-cutting coalitions” as well as “sleeping with the enemy” are equally dangerous, markedly different and exceedingly more complex than those pertaining to World War I, -i.e  the confrontation between “The Triple Entente” and “the Triple Alliance”.

 

***

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

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

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

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

***

The new Israeli government led by an enemy of peace is more right-wing, more reactionary, more nationalistically populist, and more religious than any previous government in Israeli history.

I had the good fortune during the last week of October and the first week of November to be in Israel to cover the Israeli election, its fifth if the last four years. I call this “good fortune” because it was a wakeup call for me and for any other American who still hangs on to that quaint, but utterly failed notion of a two-party state. But I’m getting ahead of myself. I’m going to begin on November 3, my next-to-last day in Jerusalem.

I was in Israel at the request of Sputnik News. The network wanted somebody to go from polling place to polling place to talk to Israelis of all political persuasions, as well as the handful of Israeli Muslims eligible to vote. I did that all around East and West Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Tel Aviv. By Thursday, I had done pretty much all the interviews I needed to do, leaving me with about five free hours to see the sites in Jerusalem that I hadn’t yet seen.

I climbed the Mount of Olives, visited the Garden of Gethsemane, stopped in at the Tomb of the Virgin Mary and a handful of other spots. I even took at look at former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s humble grave. I was pretty much done after three hours, so I decided to stop by a Palestinian pottery cooperative and buy something to take home with me. Google Maps told me to go all the way down from the Mount of Olives into the Kidron Valley, then up the back of the Temple Mount to the Iron Gate, the entrance to Jerusalem’s Old City that is closest to the Dome of the Rock, the third holiest site in Islam.

The Dome of the Rock. [Source: neshamah.net]

I’m 58 years old and 30 pounds overweight. So when I reached the Iron Gate, I decided to take a breather on a bench there. A woman from Brooklyn was also there and we chatted about the things we had seen in Jerusalem. The Iron Gate was busy, with mostly Palestinians going about their business, carrying fruits, vegetables, and other recently-purchased goods into the Old City. But there was one young Palestinian man, holding a small box, standing in the gate. Three Israeli police officers, standing about 10 feet away, approached him to ask what he was doing. The woman from Brooklyn and I were about 25 feet away.

As soon as the police officers reached the young man, he pulled a knife out of the box and in what seemed like one easy, fluid move, stabbed all three of them in the stomach, just under their bulletproof vests. Two fell to the ground, while a third pushed the Palestinian to the ground. Once he was down, the police officer drew his gun and shot the man in the head, killing him instantly. The woman from Brooklyn turned to me and said calmly, “My brain can’t process what my eyes just saw.” I responded, “Let’s get the hell out of here.” I dashed across the walkway onto the grounds of the Rockefeller Museum of Archeology, coming out on the other side and returning to my hotel.

Later, the Israeli media reported that the attack was one of four coordinated attacks in East Jerusalem, all of which were carried out at the same time. The three police officers in the attack I witnessed were only lightly wounded. The Palestinian I saw was the only person killed. Interestingly, on the Israeli news, only other Israelis were interviewed. There were no Palestinians. One witness said dramatically of Palestinians in general, “They hate us more than they love life itself.”

That witness, I believe, utterly missed the point of what happened. It’s not an issue of who hates whom more, or of who loves life less. It’s an issue of an oppressed people beaten so down over so many generations that many of them would rather be dead than to live under the yoke of Israeli occupation. It really is as simple as that. And the most recent example of the fallout from this occupation is the result of Israel’s November 1 national election.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog during the second week of November invited Benjamin Netanyahu to form a new Israeli government. This wasn’t a surprise. The Israeli election came down to two questions: Do you love Bibi or do you hate him? More people loved him than hated him.

Netanyahu has a reputation as being a superior politician, and he is highly skilled at forging alliances with other Israeli political parties, particularly far-right, racist, and Zionist parties. It’s that success that has put Palestinians in a hopeless position.

Netanyahu, of course, is well-known for his hatred of Palestinians. One only needs to look at the number of military actions against Gaza during his tenure. It has been Netanyahu who has overseen an unprecedented increase in the number of Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinians land. And it was Netanyahu who, during the Obama Administration, chose to turn against his Democratic supporters for even hinting that they preferred to see peace talks with the Palestinians.

Jewish settlements in the West Bank. [Source: newsmax.com]

That’s all in the past now. But the present and near future will be even worse. Several of Netanyahu’s rumored cabinet choices so far for his new government are positively alarming, and the appointments portend violence to come from both sides.

Perhaps the worst is Itamar Ben-Gvir, the leader of the ultra-nationalistic Religious Zionist Party and the new Minister of Security. Ben-Gvir’s party won 16 seats in the new 120-seat Knesset and now has the body’s third-largest presence. Ben-Gvir will be a disaster for peace, justice, and equality. I fear a marked increase in violence because I expect Ben-Gvir to provoke it.

This is the kind of person that he is: Ben-Gvir has been arrested literally dozens of times in the past decade for hate speech and hate crimes, for pulling a gun on unarmed Palestinians, and for physically attacking Palestinians. He bragged that he kept a framed photo of terrorist Baruch Goldstein on his living room wall. Goldstein massacred 29 Palestinians in a 1994 attack that became known as the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre.

And in 1995, after Israel and the Palestinians signed the Oslo Accords, Ben-Gvir stole the hood ornament from Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s Cadillac and told the media, “We got to his car, and we’ll get to him too.” Rabin was assassinated by another Jewish extremist two weeks later.

On election night, November 1, Ben-Gvir told supporters, “We have won. The time has come for us to return to being the landlords of our country. It belongs to us.”

He also called for the forcible deportation of all Palestinians from Israel, including Palestinian Christians, and of all Jews who support peace or rapprochement with the Palestinians. And just one week ago, Ben-Gvir and Netanyahu announced jointly that Israel would legalize a West Bank settlement that had been abandoned in 2005 as part of a “disengagement law” associated with the peace process. Israeli settlers are now free to repopulate the settlement, which has been built on stolen Palestinian land.

There is no good news for peace between Israelis and Palestinians as Netanyahu puts his new government together. It will be more right-wing, more reactionary, more nationalistically populist, and more religious than any previous government in Israeli history.

Netanyahu proved long ago that he was an enemy of peace. Now he’ll be pushed even farther to the right by governmental partners who think he’s dangerously liberal. It’s going to be a rough ride for the rest of us.

*

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

John Kiriakou was a CIA analyst and case officer from 1990 to 2004. In December 2007, John was the first U.S. government official to confirm that waterboarding was used to interrogate al-Qaeda prisoners, a practice he described as torture. Kiriakou was a former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a former counter-terrorism consultant. While employed with the CIA, he was involved in critical counter-terrorism missions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but refused to be trained in so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” nor did he ever authorize or engage in such crimes. After leaving the CIA, Kiriakou appeared on ABC News in an interview with Brian Ross, during which he became the first former CIA officer to confirm the existence of the CIA’s torture program. Kiriakou’s interview revealed that this practice was not just the result of a few rogue agents, but was official U.S. policy approved at the highest levels of the government. Kiriakou is the sole CIA agent to go to jail in connection with the U.S. torture program, despite the fact that he never tortured anyone. Rather, he blew the whistle on this horrific wrongdoing. John 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.

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

***

“He sees you when you’re sleeping
He knows when you’re awake
He knows when you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness’ sake!”
—“Santa Claus Is Coming to Town”

You’d better watch out—you’d better not pout—you’d better not cry—‘cos I’m telling you why: this Christmas, it’s the Surveillance State that’s making a list and checking it twice, and it won’t matter whether you’ve been bad or good.

You’ll be on this list whether you like it or not.

Mass surveillance is the Deep State’s version of a “gift” that keeps on giving…back to the Deep State.

Geofencing dragnets. Fusion centers. Smart devices. Behavioral threat assessments. Terror watch lists. Facial recognition. Snitch tip lines. Biometric scanners. Pre-crime. DNA databases. Data mining. Precognitive technology. Contact tracing apps.

What these add up to is a world in which, on any given day, the average person is now monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother.

Every second of every day, the American people are being spied on by a vast network of digital Peeping Toms, electronic eavesdroppers and robotic snoops.

This creepy new era of government/corporate spying—in which we’re being listened to, watched, tracked, followed, mapped, bought, sold and targeted—has been made possible by a global army of techno-tyrants, fusion centers and Peeping Toms.

Consider just a small sampling of the tools being used to track our movements, monitor our spending, and sniff out all the ways in which our thoughts, actions and social circles might land us on the government’s naughty list, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong.

Tracking you based on your phone and movements:

Cell phones have become de facto snitches, offering up a steady stream of digital location data on users’ movements and travels. For instance, the FBI was able to use geofence data to identify more than 5,000 mobile devices (and their owners) in a 4-acre area around the Capitol on January 6. This latest surveillance tactic could land you in jail for being in the “wrong place and time.” Police are also using cell-site simulators to carry out mass surveillance of protestswithout the need for a warrant. Moreover, federal agents can now employ a number of hacking methods in order to gain access to your computer activities and “see” whatever you’re seeing on your monitor. Malicious hacking software can also be used to remotely activate cameras and microphones, offering another means of glimpsing into the personal business of a target.

Tracking you based on your DNA.

DNA technology in the hands of government officials completes our transition to a Surveillance State. If you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name. By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc. After all, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.” It can also be used to predict the physical appearance of potential suspects. It’s only a matter of time before the police state’s pursuit of criminals expands into genetic profiling and a preemptive hunt for criminals of the future.

Tracking you based on your face:

Facial recognition software aims to create a society in which every individual who steps out into public is tracked and recorded as they go about their daily business. Coupled with surveillance cameras that blanket the country, facial recognition technology allows the government and its corporate partners to identify and track someone’s movements in real-time. One particularly controversial software program created by Clearview AI has been used by police, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to collect photos on social media sites for inclusion in a massive facial recognition database. Similarly, biometric software, which relies on one’s unique identifiers (fingerprints, irises, voice prints), is becoming the standard for navigating security lines, as well as bypassing digital locks and gaining access to phones, computers, office buildings, etc. In fact, greater numbers of travelers are opting into programs that rely on their biometrics in order to avoid long waits at airport security. Scientists are also developing lasers that can identify and surveil individuals based on their heartbeats, scent and microbiome.

Tracking you based on your behavior:

Rapid advances in behavioral surveillance are not only making it possible for individuals to be monitored and tracked based on their patterns of movement or behavior, including gait recognition (the way one walks), but have given rise to whole industries that revolve around predicting one’s behavior based on data and surveillance patterns and are also shaping the behaviors of whole populations. One smart “anti-riot” surveillance system purports to predict mass riots and unauthorized public events by using artificial intelligence to analyze social media, news sources, surveillance video feeds and public transportation data.

Tracking you based on your spending and consumer activities:

With every smartphone we buy, every GPS device we install, every Twitter, Facebook, and Google account we open, every frequent buyer card we use for purchases—whether at the grocer’s, the yogurt shop, the airlines or the department store—and every credit and debit card we use to pay for our transactions, we’re helping Corporate America build a dossier for its government counterparts on who we know, what we think, how we spend our money, and how we spend our time. Consumer surveillance, by which your activities and data in the physical and online realms are tracked and shared with advertisers, has become big business, a $300 billion industry that routinely harvests your data for profit. Corporations such as Target have not only been tracking and assessing the behavior of their customers, particularly their purchasing patterns, for years, but the retailer has also funded major surveillance in cities across the country and developed behavioral surveillance algorithms that can determine whether someone’s mannerisms might fit the profile of a thief.

Tracking you based on your public activities:

Private corporations in conjunction with police agencies throughout the country have created a web of surveillance that encompasses all major cities in order to monitor large groups of people seamlessly, as in the case of protests and rallies. They are also engaging in extensive online surveillance, looking for any hints of “large public events, social unrest, gang communications, and criminally predicated individuals.” Defense contractors have been at the forefront of this lucrative market. Fusion centers, $330 million-a-year, information-sharing hubs for federal, state and law enforcement agencies, monitor and report such “suspicious” behavior as people buying pallets of bottled water, photographing government buildings, and applying for a pilot’s license as “suspicious activity.”

Tracking you based on your social media activities:

Every move you make, especially on social media, is monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line. As The Interceptreported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior. This obsession with social media as a form of surveillance will have some frightening consequences in coming years. As Helen A.S. Popkin, writing for NBC News, observed, “We may very well face a future where algorithms bust people en masse for referencing illegal ‘Game of Thrones’ downloads… the new software has the potential to roll, Terminator-style, targeting every social media user with a shameful confession or questionable sense of humor.”

Tracking you based on your social network:

Not content to merely spy on individuals through their online activity, government agencies are now using surveillance technology to track one’s social network, the people you might connect with by phone, text message, email or through social message, in order to ferret out possible criminals. An FBI document obtained by Rolling Stone speaks to the ease with which agents are able to access address book data from Facebook’s WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage services from the accounts of targeted individuals and individuals not under investigation who might have a targeted individual within their network. What this creates is a “guilt by association” society in which we are all as guilty as the most culpable person in our address book.

Tracking you based on your car:

License plate readers are mass surveillance tools that can photograph over 1,800 license tag numbers per minute, take a picture of every passing license tag number and store the tag number and the date, time, and location of the picture in a searchable database, then share the data with law enforcement, fusion centers and private companies to track the movements of persons in their cars. With tens of thousands of these license plate readers now in operation throughout the country, affixed to overpasses, cop cars and throughout business sectors and residential neighborhoods, it allows police to track vehicles and run the plates through law enforcement databases for abducted children, stolen cars, missing people and wanted fugitives. Of course, the technology is not infallible: there have been numerous incidents in which police have mistakenly relied on license plate data to capture out suspects only to end up detaining innocent people at gunpoint.

Tracking you based on your mail:

Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. For instance, the U.S. Postal Service, which has been photographing the exterior of every piece of paper mail for the past 20 years, is also spying on Americans’ texts, emails and social media posts. Headed up by the Postal Service’s law enforcement division, the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) is reportedly using facial recognition technology, combined with fake online identities, to ferret out potential troublemakers with “inflammatory” posts. The agency claims the online surveillance, which falls outside its conventional job scope of processing and delivering paper mail, is necessary to help postal workers avoid “potentially volatile situations.”

Now the government wants us to believe that we have nothing to fear from these mass spying programs as long as we’ve done nothing wrong.

Don’t believe it.

The government’s definition of a “bad” guy is extraordinarily broad, and it results in the warrantless surveillance of innocent, law-abiding Americans on a staggering scale.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people—weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands—haven’t made America any safer. And they certainly aren’t helping to preserve our freedoms.

Indeed, America will never be safe as long as the U.S. government is allowed to shred the Constitution.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

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.

***

Unrest continued in the South American state of Peru after the December 7 impeachment of socialist President Pedro Castillo.

The ousted leader remained in detention after an entire week of demonstrations and clashes between supporters and opponents of the former teacher and union leader who was just elected in a runoff vote during June 2021.

There are growing demonstrations in the capital of Lima where riot police have attempted to maintain control of the city. However, outside the capital in several rural areas, unrest has become intense as farmers placed rocks on highways seeking to block government security vehicles from entering their communities.

One protester named Laura Pacheco in Lima’s San Martin Square was quoted as saying:

“We don’t agree with the way our president was ousted, with lies and trickery. [Boluarte] doesn’t deserve to be president, she hasn’t been elected by the people. We are defending our democratic rights. We don’t want to be governed by a usurper.” (See this)

Reports indicate that 2,000 riot police on December 13 blocked people from entering San Martin Square, a center of anti-coup demonstrations. These events have raised the level of discontent as people view the security forces as a key element in enforcing the coup and the ongoing detention of Castillo.

A legal appeal for the immediate release of Castillo from detention was rejected by the Peruvian Supreme Court on December 13. The parliament and judiciary has accused the former president of rebellion along with dozens of other criminal charges. Castillo and his supporters have dismissed these allegations as being politically motivated.

As the political atmosphere becomes more contentious, the recently installed President Dina Boluarte has yielded in part to one of the key demands of the protesters to hold national elections. Former President Castillo on December 7, anticipating the plans to have him impeached, sought to dissolve parliament and hold another round of elections.

Boluarte has called for elections in 2024 contradicting her earlier statements saying she wanted to remain in office to serve out the original term for Castillo which would have ended in 2026. Nonetheless, this gesture on the part of Boluarte has only aggravated the supporters of Castillo as they refuse to leave the streets in the capital and the public spaces in the rural areas.

At the same time, Boluarte has declared a state of emergency outside the Peruvian capital designed to empower the military and security forces to end protests across the copper-rich nation. Just two days after the political coup against Castillo, Boluarte made a public appearance with the military, apparently sending a signal that she would not hesitate to utilize maximum force to consolidate her power obviously in support of the landowning and mining interests.

According to a report published by the Associated Press in the wake of the killing of two youth by the security forces which prompted thousands of people to come out and demonstrate:

“The anger of Peruvians against their government is nowhere more visible than in Andahuaylas, a remote rural Andean community where the poor have struggled for years and where voters’ support helped elect now-ousted President Pedro Castillo, himself a peasant like them…. Demonstrators across rural communities, including Andahuaylas, continued to call on President Dina Boluarte to resign and schedule general elections to replace her and all members of Congress. They also want authorities to free Castillo, who was detained Wednesday (Dec. 7) when he was ousted by lawmakers after he sought to dissolve Congress ahead of an impeachment vote.”

In Andahuaylas, where Castillo received 80% of the popular vote during 2021, the people were hopeful that the issues concerning their class and social interests would be addressed. Unfortunately, the Castillo government faced the same type of racism and bias experienced on a daily basis by the people of this region of the country.

Castillo had promised in the 2021 campaign a redrafting of the Peruvian constitution, which has not been updated in nearly three decades when in 1993 during the government of Alberto Fujimori, the repressive former president whose daughter, Keiko, was defeated by Castillo.

One person was killed in southern Peru as demonstrators blocked access to the international airport located in Arequipa. The runway at the airport was occupied delaying operations for five hours on December 12.

Castillo Issues Defiant Letter from Detention

The ousted leader in a communique issued on twitter from inside a detention facility categorically rejected the coup against him as illegal and unconstitutional. He accused the right-wing of being behind the ascendancy of Boluarte and that he remained the only legitimate president of the country until new elections were held.

A transcript of the letter read in part that:

“Dear great and patient Peruvian people. I, Pedro Castillo, the same who 16 months ago was elected by all of you to serve as constitutional president of the Republic, speak to you in the most difficult moment of my government, humiliated, incommunicado, mistreated and kidnapped, still clothed with your struggle, with the majesty of the sovereign people, but also infused by the glorious spirit of our ancestors. I speak to you to reiterate that I am unconditionally faithful to the popular and constitutional mandate that I hold as president, and I will not resign or abandon my high and sacred functions.”

Castillo referred to Boluarte as a usurper and that she represented the “snot and slobber of the coup-mongering right.” Boluarte, who was the running mate of Castillo during the 2021 campaign on the Peru Libre Party slate, has apparently abandoned his social vision of a renewed political system in the country. Both Castillo and Boluarte are no longer members of Peru Libre due to ideological and political differences.

The former president reiterated that he remains committed to the impoverished and oppressed people of Peru and would not acquiesce to the dictates of his successor and the security forces. His sentiments were echoed among many in Peru who accused Boluarte and anti-Castillo elements in parliament of being out of touch with the majority of people inside the country.

Resistance to the Coup Spreads Rapidly

Since December 7, the opposition to the coup has continued to intensify around Peru. The unrest has aggravated the already worsening economic crisis in the country.

Inflationary pressures which are plaguing capitalist states internationally have had a profound impact on Peru. At the same time, a fifth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic is now sweeping the nation.

In a report published by the Venezuelan-based Telesur, it emphasizes the growing uncertainty in the country, noting:

“Peruvians continue to intensify their protests without waning their demand that former President Castillo be released. Amid a media siege that seeks to prevent the dissemination of what is actually going on in Peru, social organizations took to the streets of Cusco to perform an indefinite strike against President Dina Boluarte and Congress.’They hold Congress responsible for the situation the country is going through,’ independent outlet Wayka reported, showing protests where people forcefully reject lawmakers, whom they describe as lazy and indecent. ‘Thousands of people marched in downtown Cusco demanding a Constituent Assembly, the closure of Congress, and a deep political reform,’ journalist Clarys Cardenas tweeted. ‘They also reject the state of emergency in the Arequipa, Ica and Apurimac regions, where there is strong police repression,’ she added as the protests raged even on Monday night.”

On December 13, the Peruvian Corporation of Airports and Commercial Aviation (CORPAC) announced the closure of the Cusco international airport while requesting that the security forces be deployed to protect the facility. As noted before in Arequipa, the Alfredo Rodriguez Ballon airport will also remain closed as a result of the damage done by the demonstrations on December 12. Transportation authorities as well suspended the train service to Machu Picchu, the historic location of an ancient civilization which is a center for international tourism.

The Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (AIDESEP), which is the largest Indigenous organization in the Amazon region, called for mass demonstrations against the coup, the continuing detention of Castillo and the holding of general elections at the earliest possible date. Castillo has strong backing among the Indigenous communities in the rural areas particularly in the south of the country.

On a regional level, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has expressed his support for President Castillo saying that he was elected to office and should be released to serve his full term of office. Other governments in South America including Bolivia, Colombia and Argentina have come out against the coup demanding the release of Castillo and the respect for the human rights of the people of Peru.

*

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

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

Putin Shrugs-Off Washington’s Provocations and ‘Sticks to Business’

By Mike Whitney, December 13, 2022

Last week’s drone attacks on Russian military bases represent a serious escalation in Washington’s proxy war on Russia. One of the attacks involved an airfield that is located less than 200 miles from Moscow.

If They Get the Opportunity, They Will Transform Our Society Into a Dystopian Hellscape

By Michael Snyder, December 14, 2022

If the elite get their way, our world will eventually look far more bizarre than any science fiction author ever imagined.  If you haven’t figured it out by now, the elite are control freaks, and they are envisioning a future in which they are in control of all of our lives from birth to death.

The Globalists’ Secret Tool to Undermine National Sovereignty: The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)

By Ben Bartee, December 13, 2022

The latent multinational corporate state technocracy has gifted itself a secret tool, little discussed in electoral politics: the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). With its wonky, innocuous-sounding name, the ISDS framework for governing trade disputes is designed to garner as little interest (and therefore as little pushback) as possible from the public.

How to Trash a Movie in Support of a Lie

By Philip Giraldi, December 13, 2022

Israel’s new government is planning to give de facto operational control of the national police and heavily armed border police to Itamar Ben-Gvir, the leader of a party of right wing, racist extremists. It can perhaps be regarded as the prelude to the last phase in the uprooting and displacement of the Palestinian people.

Giving Young Kids Smartphones or Tablets to Calm Them Down Can Stunt Emotional Development

By Study Finds, December 13, 2022

Researchers at Michigan Medicine say digital technology may help calm down toddlers in the short term, but it could also reduce their chances to practice emotional coping skills. Scientists add that handing a moody pre-school age child a screen may seem to offer a quick fix, yet it could also lead to more severe challenging behavior further down the line.

Rapprochement Between Superpowers? Towards A US-China “New Détente”?

By Andrew Korybko, December 13, 2022

There’s a legitimate reason to wonder whether the Sino-American discussions over a New Détente involve India since the US wouldn’t otherwise hang Delhi out to dry by staying committed to its planned two-day talks with China despite those two having their worst clashes in two and a half years just two days prior.

New Study Details Coca-Cola’s Big Influence on Public Health Organizations, Conferences and Events

By Brian Bienkowski, December 13, 2022

Coca-Cola is directly influencing public health conferences and events via sponsorships — sometimes undisclosed — that could give the multinational company say in speaker selections and conference agendas, according to a new study.

Conservative Risk Benefit Analyses Decide Against COVID-19 Vaccination

By Dr. Peter McCullough, December 13, 2022

To this day some US Colleges are mandating COVID-19 vaccination with the bivalent boosters for Omicron BA4/BA5 which are now obsolete since the predominant strains are BQ1 and BQ1.1. To make matters worse, the bivalent boosters failed to stop Omicron in animal studies despite having an antibody rise—thus showing antibodies are invalid surrogates of vaccine efficacy.

Peruvian President Pedro Castillo Ousted and Jailed in Political Coup

By Abayomi Azikiwe, December 13, 2022

In a highly controversial move in the South American state of Peru, President Pedro Castillo was impeached and later placed in a detention facility after he called for the dissolution of the legislature in order to stave off a political coup.

The Mother of All Economic Crises

By Rep. Ron Paul, December 13, 2022

Nouriel Roubini, a former advisor to the International Monetary Fund and member of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, was one of the few “mainstream” economists to predict the collapse of the housing bubble. Now Roubini is warning that the staggering amounts of debt held by individuals, businesses, and the government will soon lead to the “mother of all economic crises.”

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.

***

Russian authorities have drafted a decree banning the sale of Russian crude oil to buyers part of the Price Cap Coalition or if the purchase is limited by the G7/EU price cap, as a measure to counter the $60 a barrel price ceiling set by the West, Russian daily Vedomosti reported on Tuesday, quoting a source with knowledge of the draft and government sources.

The EU banned from December 5 maritime transportation services from shipping Russia’s crude oil to third countries if the oil is bought above the price cap of $60 per barrel, and imposed an embargo on seaborne imports of Russian oil into the EU.

The draft presidential decree, whose details will be formulated by the Russian government, bans Russian firms from selling crude oil if the contract specifies a member of the Price Cap Coalition as a customer, or if the contract specifies a price cap as a condition for the sale, according to Vedomosti’s sources.

The decree is expected to ban such sales from Russia by July 1, 2023, with a possibility of an extension, the sources say.

During a briefing with reporters on Monday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the decree would be published “in the coming days.”

Moscow says the price cap artificially limits prices in a non-market mechanism it will not accept.

By the end of this year, Russia expects to have legislation prepared that will ban Russian companies from selling oil to countries part of the Price Cap Coalition, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said last week.

Also last week, Kremlin’s spokesman Peskov said that Russia was preparing a response to the EU embargo and the price cap.

Moscow claims the price cap will not seriously hit its oil production and economy. Russia’s oil production will not fall off a cliff now that the EU-G7 price cap on Russian crude has come into effect, Russia’s First Deputy Energy Minister Pavel Sorokin said last week.

“Most markets are available for our oil based on adequate market principles, while any fluctuations in oil production that may occur, are not critical and will not exceed those registered in the spring,” Sorokin told reporters in Moscow today, as carried by Russian news agency TASS.

Russian oil output dipped in the spring immediately after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but later stabilized by June. Still, Russia is estimated to have been around 1 million barrels per day (bpd) below its OPEC+ oil production quota since then.

*

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.

Tsvetana is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing for news outlets such as iNVEZZ and SeeNews. 

Featured image is from OilPrice.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.

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

***

If the elite get their way, our world will eventually look far more bizarre than any science fiction author ever imagined.  If you haven’t figured it out by now, the elite are control freaks, and they are envisioning a future in which they are in control of all of our lives from birth to death.  Instead of being born and raised the traditional way, humans will be mass produced in “birthing pods”.  Those that are genetically superior will be permitted to live, while those that are genetically inferior will be “harvested” and any spare parts that are not of value for scientific research will be discarded.  As children grow, education will be a top priority, but only material specifically approved by the elite will be permitted.  In fact, “free thought” and “free speech” will be a thing of the past if the elite get total control.  Everyone will think the same way, because no other alternative will be allowed.  And anyone that shows signs of rebellion will quickly have their digital currency privileges revoked.  I know that all of this may sound quite strange to many of you, but this is what our society will look like if the wildest hopes and dreams of the elite actually come to fruition.

This week, an incredibly creepy concept video that was created by a German molecular biologist named Hashem Al-Ghaili is making headlines all over the globe.

In this video, children are grown in a huge facility that contains hundreds of transparent “birthing pods”…

A new concept video takes viewers on tour through The EctoLife Artificial Womb Facility, where hundreds of fetuses sit in transparent pods that are temperature controlled and feature an umbilical cord to receive oxygen and nutrients.

If you have not seen the video yet, you can view it right here.

I have to admit, that is one of the creepiest things that I have seen in a long time.

We are being told that one of the big selling points of such a system would be the ability to create “designer babies” that are genetically superior to humans that are born the normal way…

“And if you want your baby to stand out and have a brighter future, our Elite Package offers you the opportunity to genetically engineer the embryo before implanting it into the artificial womb. Thanks to CRISPR-Cas 9 gene editing tool, you can edit any trait of your baby through a wide range of over 300 genes. By genetically engineering a set of genes, the Elite Package allows you to customize your baby’s eye color, hair color, skin tone, physical strength, height, and level of intelligence. It also allows you to fix any inherited genetic diseases that are part of your family history so that your baby and their offspring will live a healthy comfortable life free of genetic diseases.”

So what about the embryos that are genetically inferior or that are simply not wanted for one reason or another?

Well, they would either be used for other purposes or they would be discarded in the trash.

In addition to getting “perfect babies” every time, there would also no longer be any need for the pain of childbirth in such a system…

While the video is focused on improving birth rates, it also notes that the birthing farm is for women who fear pregnancy because of the pain and recovery needed after going into labor.

‘Say goodbye to the pain of childbirth and muscle contractions,’ the video narrator says.

Of course the elite would not want such “perfect children” to be ruined by “misinformation” as they grow older, and so everything that they would be exposed to would be strictly monitored and controlled.

Sadly, such a system of thought control has already been rapidly developing all around us.

We already knew that big tech companies were colluding with the government on a very deep level to suppress free speech, but the “Twitter Files” have demonstrated that things were actually far worse than any of us imagined.

Government officials systematically targeted specific individuals and specific viewpoints for censorship, and in many cases big tech companies were more than eager to do what they were being asked to do.

It is NOT okay for the government to suppress free speech as long as they can get private companies to do the dirty work for them.

Our most basic constitutional rights have been trampled on over and over again, and those that were involved need to be held accountable.

And if we don’t stand up now, they will just keep on doing it.

Because this is what the elite desperately want.

They want a future in which the flow of information is tightly controlled by them.

If you are a rebel that insists on putting out “misinformation”, the elite envision a system in which such miscreants are dealt with quickly and efficiently.

Today, the elite do not have direct control over our finances.

But in a future where cash is banned and we are all forced to use their digital currencies, that would all change.

Everything that we buy and sell would be tracked, and our “currency privileges” could be revoked at any time if our social credit scores drop too low.

Of course government-controlled digital currencies are not ready for widespread use yet, but they are coming.

In fact, just this week we learned that the Bank of England “has begun consultations on implementing a Central Bank Digital Currency”…

The de facto head of His Majesty’s Treasury announced this week that the Bank of England has begun consultations on implementing a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) that could usher in the globalist vision of a cashless society in which all transactions are traceable by the government.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt revealed that, as a part of his ‘Edinburgh Reforms’ of Britain’s financial services, the Bank of England will begin consultations on the design of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) which would act as a digital version of the pound sterling.

Meanwhile, the EU has also been working on a new “digital euro”.

And the Federal Reserve is now testing a new “digital dollar” for the United States.

Do you think that it is just a coincidence that all of these digital currencies are being developed simultaneously?

The truth is that the elite are actively trying to create the dystopian version of the future that they envision for all of us.

Unfortunately, most people still do not understand what they are trying to do, and so it is imperative for all of us to try to wake up as many as we can while there is still time.

*

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.

Michael Snyder has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News which are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. 

It is finally here! Michael Snyder’s new book entitled “End Times” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

Featured image is from TMIN

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.

***

Talk given at “Pushback Against Empire,” a holiday party and fundraiser for CovertAction Magazine in New York City on Dec. 1. CovertAction, founded by CIA whistleblower Phillip Agee in 1978, is one of the few publications that has published information exposing the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine, including John Parker’s eyewitness reports from Donbass for Struggle-La Lucha.

If you like horror stories, here’s one for you. It’s the 2022 National Defense Strategy document from the U.S. secretary of defense. This document was blessed by President Biden, who is quoted in the introduction.

Right out of the gate, it calls China, Russia, Iran, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea threats to U.S. national security. And this threat must be met by making NATO even more powerful and nuclear-capable, especially surrounding Russia.

But in terms of priorities, China is the number one target. This will be done, the document declares, by provoking altercations in the Indo-Pacific region using Japan, South Korea, Australia, and any Southeast Asian countries Washington can recruit to launch a war from the South China Sea to the East China Sea. This week there was a very serious altercation in the South China Sea between the U.S. and China due to U.S. war games there.

As if that’s not enough, the document says the U.S. should begin training and arming Taiwan in asymmetrical warfare (or guerrilla war) against China. So get your tax dollars ready to fund another war costing, this time, hundreds of billions of dollars. And unfortunately, we may have to counter an anti-war movement in the U.S. that will probably blame China when that country is forced to respond to the provocations and threats to its security and sovereignty. That’s what happened with Russia.

What should we learn from this document and the Rand Corporation strategy published three years ago planning the provocations against Russia? It didn’t matter what Russia did – the imperialists had a plan of action that was determined to cause war by any means, regardless of Russia’s actions.

Ukraine’s Nazi problem

While investigating the war in Ukraine in the Donbass region last May, I visited a tuberculosis hospital in Krymskoye that had been retrofitted for war by the Ukrainian military. They were forced to leave a week or so prior by the Lugansk People’s Militia and Russian soldiers.

I observed the 122mm shells used by Kiev to make Swiss cheese of the houses just a mile away in Solkinyki. These shells were also used to target the families I interviewed to the north in Rubizhne, in a shelter that had housed 350 people fleeing the Ukrainian military assault on their apartment buildings.

Although the loud noise I heard often from the continued shelling by Ukrainian forces was disturbing, the people in that shelter told me they felt much safer than before now that the Russian troops were protecting them and providing water, food, and other essentials for survival.

I should mention that at that tuberculosis hospital, there was a giant swastika painted on the wall, and next to it, the sonnenrad, a symbol appropriated by the Nazis in World War II and used today by the Ukrainian Azov Battalion.

When some people say that Ukraine’s Nazi problem is “minor,” they callously ignore the 10 Black people killed at the Tops Supermarket in Buffalo, New York, by an 18-year-old white supremacist. He was wearing the emblem of the Azov Battalion – the same sonnenrad I saw on the wall in Krymskoye.

This youth said he was inspired by New Zealander Brenton Tarrant, who killed 51 Muslims in a mosque. In his manifesto, Tarrant wrote that he was in direct contact with the Azov Battalion and was planning to go to Ukraine for military training.

In 2019, Time Magazine interviewed a former FBI agent who admitted that 17,000 white supremacists had gone to Ukraine for military training. Azov and its partners have used some of the billions of dollars Ukraine has received in funding and training from the U.S. since 2014 to build a very successful social media presence aimed at alienated youth.

Erasing people of Donbass

Playing into the narrative of Russia as invader can only be done by disappearing the over 6 million people in the Donbass region, targeted for more than eight years by a military openly led by neo-Nazis. By Feb. 22 of this year, the bombing of the region had increased 20-fold in seven days to 1,400 bombings per day. Kiev amassed 150,000 troops on the border, preparing for a genocidal massacre.

This is why, on Feb. 23, the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics formally requested Russia’s protection.

If you want to know what imperialism really looks like, consider this: According to the United Nations Development Program, the U.S. freeze on Afghanistan’s assets is causing the starvation of 1 million children. With a snap of his fingers, Biden could stop that today – but he won’t. There you have real imperialist power, real evil.

Without challenging the main justifications for this war, we are simply allowing lies to take hold, which will, at worst, garner popular support for U.S. imperialist strategies and, at best, encourage resignation and apathy.

That’s why CovertAction Magazine is an invaluable resource: It challenges those primary lies fueling the U.S. proxy war against Russia and China.

It’s that whole truth that will ultimately inspire our working class into action. And any effective peace movement must be made up overwhelmingly by our multinational working class and people’s movements fighting racism, for union rights and tenant rights, for LGBTQ2S and women’s rights, for the right of self-determination of Haitian, Palestinian, Indigenous, Black, and Brown peoples.

All these components are necessary for a peace movement to have any real power because these are the forces most targeted by U.S. imperialism domestically and internationally. It’s these forces that have the most to gain by stopping imperialist wars that steal the resources necessary for the survival of their children. And these are the forces whose exploitation this economic beast depends upon for survival.

Therefore, they contain real potential power.

As a news source dedicated to the truths relevant to the struggles of our class and for countering the barrage of misinformation by the Pentagon and its corporate tools, CovertAction Magazine continues the proud legacy of CovertAction Quarterly. It’s an indispensable resource that must be supported by our movement and our class. So give generously, as if World War III were right around the corner – because so is the solution if we build it.

*

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

Featured image: John Parker speaks at CovertAction event in New York City, Dec. 1. SLL photo: Melinda Butterfield

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.

***

Some German and other European mainstream media reported early on 7 December 2022 an attempted coup in Germany. Extreme right wing “groups”, linked to Germany’s right wing party AfD (Alternative for Germany), attempted to overthrow the current German government in a coup.

As reported by several media, about 3,000 German police and possibly military were roaming 11 of the 16 German Bundesländer (German Federal States), and arrested some 25 to 35 suspects, including they say one Russian citizen. Of course, bad-bad Russia must be involved. They had links to “terrorist groups”, who were about to take over Berlin.

Can you imagine this to happen in one of the most civilized countries in Europe? Well, that’s the story. But the story is so weak, it wasn’t picked up by many mainstream media.

But of course, clearly a False Flag served or was supposed to serve as a deviation maneuver to distract people – and business leaders – from their active attempts to de-globalize Germany.

Germany, with the strongest economy in the European Union, with the best educated people, and currently with the most repressive government in Europe, could become a “liability” for the Dark Deep Cult State’s plan to de-industrialize Europe, all under the pretext of energy shortage – Russia’s fault – and so no escape to other sources of energy could be found; the Green Climate Change Agenda must kick in.

Germany, indeed with the best educated Europeans, the most aware EU citizens, is not just ready to fall over backwards to please the criminal liars of the German government and the corrupt von der Leyen clan of Brussels.

Germany’s industrialists are equally unready to just collapse following the will of the financial-digital-military colossus behind Washington, no need for further details at this point.

In fact, a few weeks ago, German industrialists, several dozens, took SP-puppet (Socialist Party) Olaf Scholz by the hand and traveled to Beijing for a one-day meeting with President Xi Jinping, returned with signed contracts for US$ 18 billion equivalent, including Belt and Road deals. Not just for Germany – also for other EU countries. See this.

It is unlikely that Germany will just cave in to the globalist cabal. In fact, they are determined to resist. And by doing so, will pull the resistance of other countries, other non-globalists with them, to get back to an “assembly” or association of sovereign European nations that will outlast the faltering and ever more visibly corrupt European Union, led by Queen von der Leyen with her links to Pfizer.

Among the most flagrant acts of corruption, the European Union and Pfizer–BioNTech have signed a deal for up to 1.8 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, as reported by NPR.org in March of 2021, see this. That’s 4 doses per EU citizen. Paid for with the people’s money. To fight a fraud-virus, or better, to have at least 4 kill-shots for each EU citizen.

Most certainly, Madame von der Leyen has never been vaxxed, and if she did so for the rolling cameras, it was with a placebo like all Klaus Schwab (WEF) scholars. Madame von der Leyen sits on the Board of Trustees of the WEF.

But enough. Just to indicate the shameless corruption at the level of leadership (sic) of the EU.

Back to the German coup attempt of Wednesday, 7 December.

Already in July 2017, DW (Deutsche Welle) reported about a CIA hacking base in Frankfurt. WikiLeaks documents reveal CIA agents were given cover identities and diplomatic passports to enter the country. The base was used to remotely develop hacking tools as part of the CIA’s massive digital arsenal. See this.

It is, therefore, quite possible that such a false coup attempt was directed from Washington to deter Germans from their resistance to the globalist agenda, i.e. the Great Reset and the Agenda 2030, as well as all digitizing, all-destructing, all-enslaving Klaus Schwab’s wet dream, the 4^th Industrial Revolution.

Nobody on this planet in his / her clear mind wants to be robotized, or digitized, chipped so as to become a transhuman. Transhumanism is one of the master-eugenists, Schwab, Gates, Rockefeller et al, tools to reduce the world population. Another one is the deadly vaccine shot, that if it doesn’t kill, de-fertilizes women and men, and disables many of them for life.

This is already proven – in Germany infertility has increased by about 40%. In Australia the figure is even higher. Excess mortality has not started from the beginning of 2020, when the plandemic was announced, as they would like you to believe, but only in 2021, after the massive and coercive vaxx-campaign started in mid-December 2020. On average, in Europe excess mortality since the beginning 2021 amounts to between 15% and 25%. And that’s just the beginning.

So, people are waking up and standing up. And they should. Germans should pull with them other Europeans.

And especially German industrialists do not intend to cave in to these western forces, western globalist lies, about Climate Change, and energy shortages, energy saving when they look across the Atlantic, to the US of A – where in most Federal States absolutely no energy savings program is in place.

While Europe is supposed to be freezing to death…

At the same time, as if it were a coincidence – we know, there are no coincidences – this morning, 7 December 2022, an internal coup attempt took place in Peru. President Pedro Castillo, a so-called socialist, was about to be “lifted” from his presidency – for a third time in his less than a two-year tenure – by a parliamentary no-confidence vote.

Hours before the vote was supposed to take place, Castillo closed and disbanded Congress and all his Cabinet in a similar way President Fujimori carried out an auto-coup in 1992, dissolving Congress; from then on reigning autocratically until he eventually was deposed in 2000. Except, Fujimori had the army on his side. Ultra-corrupt Castillo doesn’t.

Castillo was immediately arrested and who took over? Castillo’s Vice-President, Ms. Dina Boluarte, a close ally of Klaus Schwab’s (see photo). Ms. Boluarte immediately had herself being sworn in and declared she would assume the Presidency until 2026, when the next elections are due.

This is totally unconstitutional. Within 90 days, extendable to 180 days, new elections must be held. In the meantime, Peru’s Constitutional Court has made that point. Did Boluarte and Schwab think they would get away with it?

Will see how this develops further. Peru is not comparable to Germany, of course. Nevertheless, it is not excluded that Schwab with the remote instruments of the CIA instigated a false flag in Germany.

For all practical purposes, it is just another wakeup call for Germany.

Again, Germany’s populace is educated and her business leaders are determined not to collapse, but to connect with the East – as per historic tradition – long before the US-Anglosaxon Empire was born, Europe was and is part of greater Eurasia with Russia and China.

This connection will be revived.

Never forget, the sun rises in the East.

That’s where the future is.

*

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.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

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

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

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

***

The latent multinational corporate state technocracy has gifted itself a secret tool, little discussed in electoral politics: the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).

With its wonky, innocuous-sounding name, the ISDS framework for governing trade disputes is designed to garner as little interest (and therefore as little pushback) as possible from the public.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), as defined by Thomson Reuters:

“a procedural mechanism that allows an investor from one country to bring arbitral proceedings directly against the country in which it has invested.

ISDS provisions are contained in many international agreements including free trade agreements, bilateral investment treaties, multilateral investment agreements, national investment laws, and investment contracts. If an investor from one country (the “home state”) invests in another country (the “host state”), both of which have agreed to ISDS, and the host state violates the rights granted to the investor under public international law (such as the right not to have property expropriated without prompt, adequate, and effective compensation), then that investor may sue the host state in neutral arbitration rather than in the domestic courts of the host state.”

In non-academic, practical language, nation-states such as the US no longer exercise ultimate authority over the economic goings-on within their own borders. In theory, foreign actors, normally well-endowed corporations, can sue the US government if it doesn’t satisfy their economic interests. In reality, the US government is sufficiently captured that it would never likely challenge the multinational corporations that wrote the ISDS into legislation themselves through the politicians they purchased. The ISDS is merely extra assurance of compliance, in case a true nationalist like Trump pretended to be in 2016 ever seized power.

Globalization (the disintegration of economic borders) drove the development of ISDS. So-called “free trade” agreements like NAFTA and GATT instantiated the concept into law. As academic Magdalena Bas explains:

“The element that differentiates the State from any other subject of International Law or any other actor in international relations is sovereignty and, as a response, States recognize each other as legally equal. Although sovereignty remains “a ticket of general admission to the international arena” ( Fowler and Bunck, 1995 ), its concept has evolved throughout history and has even come into tension with hyper-globalization ( Rodrik, 2011 ). One of the areas that illustrates this tension is Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).”

If a state has no say in how business gets done in its territories, it’s not a state. It’s a proxy for a larger power.

As far as I can suss out, there are two main reasons that most voters have never heard of the ISDS, much less thought about its implications for their lives:

a.) it’s boring technical stuff; citizens are conditioned to get emotionally worked up about tribal culture war issues instead of focusing on the historic robbery underway by the parasitic elite class, and

b.) it’s great for multinational corporations that actually run US policy (the aforementioned parasitic elites).

Joe Biden is certainly in no condition to take a stand, and anyway didn’t have the moral fiber. Even if somehow he broke from his handlers’ script and kicked up a fuss about ISDS, he’d get the JFK treatment in a jiffy. Biden is a disposable puppet, as all presidents are.

Incrementally, methodically, and ruthlessly, the multinational corporate state, headed by the WEF, coalesces in the shadows. Once it’s fully completed, backed by legal constructs like ISDS and buttressed by the budding technetronic police state, resistance will be virtually impossible.

Ask yourself: why has my GOP Congressman, an ostensible patriot with the flag pin lapel, never mentioned ISDS? Could the answer be that he’s on the take just like his Democrat colleagues, that he is cucked to the business interests that fund his campaigns, whom he hopes to work for more explicitly once he leaves office?

*

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.

Ben Bartee is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via Armageddon Prose and/or Substack, Patreon, Gab, and Twitter. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Silent Crow News

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

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

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

***

In the desert beyond the San Gabriel Mountains north of LA sits a vast air base with the unassuming name of Plant 42. It houses “black box” weapons projects by three of the Pentagon’s Big Five prime contractors — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman. In a Hollywood-esque extravaganza last week, Northrop gave us a peek inside the box. Following soaring orchestral music and flyovers by previous bombers, the prototype B-21 Raider emerged from a haze of blue light and fog.

What followed, for substance amid this display of style, were assurances that while this model looked remarkably similar to the previous one — the B-2 — this model is wholly new and improved.

The same promises, though, were made on that same spot where in 1988, Northrop unveiled the B-2. But, unfortunately, they didn’t pan out. After a litany of problems, like a stealth coating that deteriorated in the rain, and costs that climbed to $2.2 billion a copy for a total of 20 planes, the Department of Defense gave up building B-2s.

The new bomber’s main promised improvement is an “open system architecture” that will allow Northrop to load up the plane with features, as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said, “that haven’t even been created yet.” Its assigned missions will include dropping both nuclear and conventional bombs, as well as surveillance and coordinating other aircraft in battle.

This all-things-to-all-people, “we’ll figure this out as we go along” approach should remind us of the most expensive weapons system ever built: the F-35 fighter jet. It’s also supposed to be able to drop nuclear bombs, but it has several problems. Records show decades of discovered defects and soaring costs.   

Hyping the China Threat

The timing of the B-21 show may just have something to do with the Pentagon’s release the previous week of its annual report on China. DOD needs to hype the China nuclear threat to justify its $1 trillion-plus expenditure on modernizing its nuclear capabilities (of which the B-21 buy is a major part). Thus the report predicted that by 2035, China’s 400 nuclear warheads would have increased to as many as 1,500.

Having raised this alarm, the Pentagon needed a counter-balancing symbol of US nuclear superiority. As Austin put it at the ceremony, “We are again making it plain to any potential foe: The risks and costs of aggression far outweigh any conceivable gains.” Here was the moment to display its mega-nuclear platform, the B-21, ready or not. (After this first glimpse, the plane goes back in the box until well into 2023.)

But as William Hartung pointed out after the China report was released, even if China’s nuclear stockpile aspirations come true, they will be no match for the US 5400 warheads, more than 1,600 mounted on submarines, bombers, and long-range missiles.

The real threat to humanity comes from the increasing speeds with which these weapons can be delivered, increasingly removed from human decision-making and immediate consequences to those delivering them. These are two of the capabilities — for unmanned flight and determined by artificial intelligence — that the Pentagon required be built into the B-21. In addition, the capability to deliver hypersonic missiles is being built into the F-35 and presumably into the B-21, though this remains classified.

The Real Way Forward

The only real solutions to an unprecedentedly dangerous arms race run through a renewed commitment to arms control: for negotiated reductions in stockpiles and framework agreements to control the risks of inadvertent nuclear war from unmanned, AI-driven hypersonic weapons.

Yet, back at Plant 42, sits an unlikely bedfellow to the B-21. It is a Japanese company called Kinkisharyo that is making and repairing electric light rail cars for US cities including Los Angeles, New Jersey, Dallas, and Boston.

Without the steady funding stream that Northrop enjoys, the company has had to cobble together funds from various transit agencies and, when those dry up, to get by on repair work. The critical funding for climate change mitigation in this year’s Inflation Reduction Act should help a lot. But at a total of $37 billion a year, this fund will get less than 4% of what the Pentagon will have to distribute.

While the Pentagon promotes its symbol of nuclear superiority, Kinkisharyo quietly symbolizes where the real future of manufacturing should lie: in building the infrastructure of an economy running on clean energy and transport. The smoke and mirrors next door must not be allowed to disguise that.

*

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.

Miriam Pemberton, an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, has just published Six Stops on the National Security Tour: Rethinking Warfare Economies.  It includes a chapter featuring Plant 42.

Featured image: America’s biggest threat: The Pentagon (US Department of ‘Defense’ photo)

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

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

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

***

Israel’s new government is planning to give de facto operational control of the national police and heavily armed border police to Itamar Ben-Gvir, the leader of a party of right wing, racist extremists. It can perhaps be regarded as the prelude to the last phase in the uprooting and displacement of the Palestinian people. Those who resist will be killed and not a single Israeli soldier or policeman will be punished for carrying out what the Benjamin Netanyahu government will frame as a war against terrorists blessed by Yahweh in support of his “Chosen” people.

The Zionist view of what should be done to the indigenous inhabitants of a place once called Palestine has been unflinching since the founding of the state of Israel. The Zionist historic boast that a Jewish homeland would be built on “A land without a people for a people without a land” ignored the fact that Palestine already had plenty of inhabitants and a well-established economy where Jews were a distinct minority, less than 20% of the population in the 1930s.

The solution to correct the numbers was to compel the natives to leave by one means or another. Israel’s founding father David Ben Gurion early on endorsed a policy of removal by force if necessary the Christians and Muslims. The fighting that followed in 1948 after the United Nations’ partition of the country into two separate states left the mostly unarmed Palestinians helpless before the well-armed Jewish militias, which quickly expanded their zone of control well into the area that was granted on paper to the Palestinians. It is estimated that 15,000 Palestinians were killed outright by the Zionist forces while 800,000 more were driven from their homes, to which nearly all were denied any right to return. Four hundred Palestinian occupied villages were “ethnically cleansed” and in some cases physically destroyed.

The de facto seizure of the remainder of historic Palestine outside the borders of the Jewish state after the June 1967 Six Day war gave Israel direct control of all key strategic areas as well as land in Syria and Lebanon. Since that time, successive Israeli governments have pursued an ethnic cleansing policy both in Israel itself and on the West Bank consisting of gradually forcing the remaining Palestinians to leave to be replaced by all-Jewish towns and settlements. The Palestinians know that the final push is indeed coming and have begun to resist, though having few weapons they are helpless against the heavily armed Israel Defense Force (IDF), which has killed 195 Palestinians, mostly teenagers, in the past eleven months.

A recent killing captured on surveillance video shows an Israeli border policeman shooting a young man dead after an encounter on the main street of a West Bank town. Far-right Otzma Yehudit Party leader and incoming National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, praised the policeman who did the shooting as a “hero,” citing his “Precise action, you really fulfilled the honor of all of us and did what was assigned to you.”

The Palestinians refer to their dispossession and killing at the hands of the Jewish soldiers in 1948 as the Nakba, meaning “catastrophe,” which has sometimes been popularized as the Arab version of the so-called holocaust. I have recently watched a controversial film called Farha, made in Jordan by a woman filmmaker of Syrian descent, which views the Nakba through the eyes of a fourteen-year-old village girl. She, the eponymous Farha that gives the film its title, was preparing to go off to advance her education, presumably in Jerusalem, when Israeli soldiers attacked her village. The Israelis used loudspeakers to announce that all residents must leave immediately. Anyone seeking to remain would be killed. In a panic, the girl’s father, the village chief, locked her into a storage shed for safety as he tried to figure out what to do, but he then disappears from the tale and it might be presumed that both he and the rest of the family were killed.

Farha has only a crack in the door to witness what is going on outside. In a particularly dreadful sequence, a Palestinian man and his family who are trying to escape but are apparently confused regarding what way to go are detained by an Israeli officer and his men. After some perfunctory questioning, the father, mother and two children are lined up against a wall and shot dead. A newborn baby was left lying on the ground, alive, crying for its mother. The officer tells one of his men to kill it, but adds “Don’t waste a bullet on it.” The soldier prepares to stomp on the baby’s head to carry out the order, but cannot bring himself to do it and walks away. The baby continues to wail until later that day it stops, presumably dead from exposure or other factors.

Eventually Farha escapes from her prison and the movie concludes with her walking away in tears to an uncertain future. The film is very powerful, with excellent acting, cinematography and direction and it is based on a true story as handed down by Director Darin J. Sallam’s mother’s best friend, but I ended up wishing that it were stronger in its depiction of the savagery exercised by the Israelis, perhaps recreating an actual major massacre of Palestinian civilians, like occurred at Deir Yassin, where 107 Arabs, including many women and children, were shot dead by Israeli militiamen from the Irgun and Lehi groups. Other massacres took place in hundreds of villages across Galilee as well as in cities like Haifa or Akka, all far worse than what is revealed by the film. For those who are interested, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine describes, in detail, the brutality of what Israeli forces unleashed on the largely unarmed Palestinian people during the Nakba.

But even though the film deliberately avoided cliched scenes of mass violence, it has proven very powerful with supporters and critics lined up along the completely predictable political lines. The Israelis have in particular come down hard on the film and they and their many friends in the United States, have reacted in their usual tribal fashion, attacking Netflix, which is streaming Farha on its network including in the United States and Europe. The Israel firsters are advocating striking back against Netflix for its temerity by canceling the service and attacking the decision to air the film at all. Ironically though not surprisingly, Netflix has hitherto been a leader in obtaining and streaming Israeli films and even television series.

In Israel, the government has declared war on the film, also a characteristic of that nation’s circle-the- wagons paranoid response to anything that might even suggest that Jews are just as capable of evil as anyone else. Last month ultra-nationalist Israeli Finance Minister Avigdor Lieberman moved to block scheduled screenings of the film in Jaffa, saying that “Israel is a place to present Israeli and international works, but is certainly not the place to slander IDF soldiers and the security forces who are acting day and night to defend and protect all the citizens and residents living here.”

Lieberman, a Russian Jew known for his ethnocentric and essentially racist views, apparently does not believe that soldiers and security forces should actually protect Palestinians and afford them at least some measure of free speech, which is only allowed to Jews. Israel’s ironically titled Culture Minister the oddly named Chili Tropper also attacked the film for its so-called “false plots against IDF soldiers” denouncing how their actions were presented as similar to “behavior of the Nazis in the Holocaust.”

Former IDF soldier and current right wing apologist, Yoseph Haddad also tweeted, “I saw the movie ‘Farha’ and I can tell you that it is much worse than you think. The IDF soldiers are presented there as inhuman with unimaginable evil, all they care about is murdering and slaughtering without mercy (which is the exact opposite of the truth). This is a blood libel that will certainly increase antisemitism and incitement against Israel. If you haven’t canceled your Netflix subscription yet – do it now.”

I saw the movie "Farha" and I can tell you that it is much worse than you think.
The IDF soldiers are presented there as inhuman with unimaginable evil, all they care about is murdering and slaughtering without mercy (which is the exact opposite of the truth). >>> pic.twitter.com/QmBPVUWR9z

— יוסף חדאד – Yoseph Haddad (@YosephHaddad) December 2, 2022

In an Instagram post, Israeli model Nataly Dadon also demanded that Israelis and their supporters internationally should drop their Netflix subscriptions in an Instagram post, claiming that Farha’s “sole purpose is apparently to increase anti-Semitism against the Jewish people.” Mondoweiss also reports how “author and photographer Laura Ben-David tweeted a photo of her cancellation message with the streaming app and wrote, ‘Buh-bye Netflix! Supporting the false and anti-Israel film Farha is unacceptable.’”

So Israel, which is passionate about its rejection of the non-violent pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) economic pressure movement, is united in its desire to punish Netflix’s bottom line. And the old reliable anti-Semitism tag is being liberally attached to how the argument is being framed. Former Al Jazeera reporter Ahmed Shihab-Eldin suggested to the Middle East Eye that “The pacing of [all the negative posts] reveals it was coordinated. With each passing hour, dozens and dozens of vapid and vile reviews would appear, making wild accusations trashing the film. It was clear people had not seen the film, and only wanted to damage its reputation.”

Finally, it would not be about Israel and Jews if there were not space in The New York Times to twist and spin the story. A review of the film by one Beatrice Loayza, a Peruvian-American film critic based in Brooklyn, describes the movie oddly as a “brutal coming-of-age-story.” At one point, Farha discovers an old handgun wrapped up within a sack of lentils. She eventually uses it to shoot the lock and escape the storage room. But this is how the Times reviewer describes the sequence: “She finds a gun buried inside a sack of grains — was the threat present all along? One day, a scene of great barbarity plays out before her tiny window.” Aha! So those crafty Arabs actually were potentially using the old handgun among the lentils trick to threaten the friendly Israel soldiers who just happened to drop by to shoot to death a Palestinian family, which is dismissed as a “scene of great barbarity” without any suggestion of what that might have been. In truth, the garbage being peddled by the Times as a review of a story of an atrocity committed by Jews is actually achieved without having to include any context or feature any Jews at all. “Remarkable” is all I have to say in conclusion.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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

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

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

***

Using smartphones and other digital devices to pacify young children can backfire and end up stifling their emotional development, a new study warns.

Researchers at Michigan Medicine say digital technology may help calm down toddlers in the short term, but it could also reduce their chances to practice emotional coping skills. Scientists add that handing a moody pre-school age child a screen may seem to offer a quick fix, yet it could also lead to more severe challenging behavior further down the line.

The findings of the study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, show that frequent use of smartphones and tablets to calm upset children between three and five years-old led to increased emotional dysregulation in kids, particularly in boys.

“Using mobile devices to settle down a young child may seem like a harmless, temporary tool to reduce stress in the household, but there may be long term consequences if it’s a regular go-to soothing strategy,” says lead author Jenny Radesky, M.D., a developmental behavioral pediatrician at University of Michigan Health C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, in a media release.

“Particularly in early childhood, devices may displace opportunities for development of independent and alternative methods to self-regulate.”

This could backfire among boys and those with ADHD

The study involved 422 parents and 422 three to five-year-old children. The research team analyzed parent and caregiver responses to how often they used devices as a calming tool and associations to symptoms of emotional reactivity or dysregulation over a six-month period. Signs of increased dysregulation could include rapid shifts between sadness and excitement, a sudden change in mood or feelings and heightened impulsivity.

The findings suggest that the association between device-calming and emotional consequences was particularly high among boys and children who may already experience hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and a strong temperament that makes them more likely to react intensely to feelings such as anger, frustration, and sadness.

“Our findings suggest that using devices as a way to appease agitated children may especially be problematic to those who already struggle with emotional coping skills,” Radesky says.

She says that the preschool period is a stage when children may be more likely to exhibit difficult behavior, such as tantrums, defiance, and intense emotions. That may make it even more tempting to use devices as a parenting tool.

“Caregivers may experience immediate relief from using devices if they quickly and effectively reduce children’s negative and challenging behaviors,” the researcher continues. “This feels rewarding to both parents and children and can motivate them both to maintain this cycle.”

“The habit of using devices to manage difficult behavior strengthens over time as children’s media demands strengthen as well. The more often devices are used, the less practice children – and their parents – get to use other coping strategies.”

Screen time can be useful in moderation

Radesky acknowledged that there are times when parents may strategically use devicesto distract children, such as during travel or multitasking with work. While occasional use of digital devices to occupy children is expected and realistic, Dr. Radesky notes it is important for it not to become a primary or regular soothing tool.

She adds that pediatric health professionals should also initiate conversations with parents and caregivers about using devices with young children and encourage alternative methods for emotional regulation.

“In contrast, using a distractor like a mobile device doesn’t teach a skill – it just distracts the child away from how they are feeling. Kids who don’t build these skills in early childhood are more likely to struggle when stressed out in school or with peers as they get older,” Dr. Radesky concludes.

*

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.

South West News Service writer Stephen Beech contributed to this report.

Featured image is from Africa Studio – stock.adobe.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.

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

***

After months of tensions, the Western-backed “Kosovo entity” in the NATO-occupied Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia has decided to escalate to a boiling point by attacking the Serbs who still remain there.

The autochthonous Serbian population is pushing back against this crawling attempt at ethnic cleansing by the Albanian regime. For its part, the political West continues supporting its “beacon of freedom and democracy” puppets in Pristina. While some European Union officials have previously been trying to feign a semblance of objectivity and called for de-escalation from both sides, this latest round of tensions effectively unmasked their unequivocal support for the regime in Pristina.

The escalation started on December 6, after Pristina sent its forces to occupy the premises of the election commission in the city of Kosovska Mitrovica and destroyed it, director of the Serbian government’s Office for Kosovo and Metohia Petar Petkovic wrote on Twitter at the time. Pristina wanted to impose its own election commission on the premises, causing an uproar of protests among the local Serbs. According to Petkovic, “The people are furious, but they do not intend to succumb to the provocations of [Kosovo Prime Minister Albin] Kurti!”

Kosovska Mitrovica has two parallel administrations – the one in the north of the city, mostly inhabited by Serbs and the other in the south, mostly controlled by Albanians. The Serbian authorities have been in the city since its liberation from Ottoman occupation, while the narco-terrorist entity’s institutions have been installed by NATO after the Serbian province was occupied by the belligerent imperialist alliance after its illegal aggression on Serbia in 1999. Since November 5, the Serbs in the north of Kosovo and Metohia have been refusing to participate in public institutions controlled by Pristina, which scheduled early elections in the area for December 18. The Serbs announced they would boycott the snap election.

By December 6, the self-proclaimed “Kosovo entity” announced its intention to apply for EU membership, violating its commitment to the 2020 Washington agreement which banned Pristina from attempting to join international organizations. The move failed to cause a stronger response from Serbia, as Belgrade was still trying to avoid escalation due to immense pressure from the political West. However, Pristina kept pushing, this time by sending its troops to the north, arresting and mistreating the local Serbs in the process. The tensions further escalated on December 10, when the narco-terrorist regime detained a former Serbian policeman Dejan Pantic who was accused of “terrorism”. He allegedly “carried out attacks on Kosovo police officers together with members of criminal groups.”

After the arrest (obviously based on trumped-up charges), local Serbs set up roadblocks in an attempt to prevent his transfer to Pristina. The NATO-backed puppet regime then proceeded to close the administrative border crossings with central Serbia, further restricting the local Serbs’ freedom of movement. NATO forces deployed in the Serbian province were also sent to help Pristina’s troops, although they were supposed to be neutral as per the 1999 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, according to which all communities in Kosovo and Metohia are to be treated equally and protected, further reinforcing the view that the political West is not to be trusted in any way or form.

The Serbian government responded by raising the combat readiness of its armed forces after it warned that further violence against local Serbs will not be tolerated. According to local media, several explosions and gunfire were also reported.

The forces of the EU law enforcement mission (EULEX) and NATO (KFOR) have also been sent to administrative border crossings in the north, where they are effectively helping Pristina in its attempts to block the local Serbs and restrict their movement. The government in Belgrade then sent a request to deploy Serbian Armed Forces to the province. According to the UNSC Resolution 1244, Serbia has the right to deploy up to a thousand soldiers in its southern province. The likelihood of NATO accepting the deployment of Serbian forces is extremely low, but the Serbian government has been left with no other options.

The narco-terrorist entity is determined to finish the ethnic cleansing campaign started against all non-Albanian communities during the 1990s. At the time, particularly in the 1998-1999 timeframe, the Al Qaeda-linked Albanian KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) started attacking both the Serbian security forces and civilians in the province. In 1999, after NATO attacked Serbia in support of the terrorist group, Belgrade was forced to leave the province, although it was promised that the territory would remain a part of Serbia, only administered by the belligerent alliance. As per usual for the political West, the promises were never kept and the narco-terrorists proclaimed independence in 2008. Since then, Serbia has been forced to negotiate and signed several agreements with the NATO-backed puppet regime. One such treaty was the aforementioned Washington agreement, brokered by the US in 2020.

Again, Belgrade kept its end of the bargain while Pristina didn’t, violating several important points, including the clause regarding its membership in international organizations. What can be discerned from the latest escalation is that the political West continues supporting the extremists it has been using to fragment and destroy entire countries.

Even though over two decades have passed since the conflict, the case of Kosovo and Metohia is still important to the bureaucratic elites in Washington DC and Brussels, particularly in the context of securing at least some semblance of victory in Europe as the Kiev regime is highly unlikely to provide one against Russia. With the ever-growing prospect of Moscow launching an all-out winter offensive which might be the final knockout punch for the Neo-Nazi junta, NATO and the EU are desperate to stay relevant in the European geopolitical arena.

*

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.

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.

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

***

There’s a legitimate reason to wonder whether the Sino-American discussions over a New Détente involve India since the US wouldn’t otherwise hang Delhi out to dry by staying committed to its planned two-day talks with China despite those two having their worst clashes in two and a half years just two days prior. The tacit signal being sent by this decision is that the US is considering adopting a policy of neutrality towards the Sino-Indo border dispute in order to maximally incentivize China into agreeing to a New Détente.

The Fast-Moving Rapprochement Between The Superpowers

The Chinese Foreign Ministry revealed on Monday that their country had just concluded two days of talks with American officials covering a wide range of issues. Their side was represented by Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng while the US one was represented by Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian & Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink and the National Security Council’s Senior Director for China Laura Rosenberger. The high level of the participants demonstrated the seriousness of their talks.

The two-day event just outside of Beijing came after the American and Chinese Defense Ministers resumed talks last month at the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting-Plus in Cambodia despite the People’s Republic having unilaterally suspended those interactions in August following US Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s provocative trip to Taiwan. That aforementioned resumption of high-level dialogue was in turn the first tangible result of Presidents Xi Jinping and Joe Biden meeting at the G20 in mid-November.

It was also announced around that time that Secretary of State Antony Blinken will visit Beijing early next year, which is expected to advance the goal that the National Security Council’s Indo-Pacific Coordinator Kurt Campbell spoke about last week. According to him,

“[China] want(s) a degree of predictability and stability, and we seek that as well…We’re going to see some developments that I believe will be reassuring to the region as a whole.”

Towards A Sino-American New Détente

This sequence of fast-moving developments suggests that the Sino-American bi-multipolar superpower duopoly is exploring the parameters of a “New Détente”, which refers to a series of pragmatic compromises aimed at establishing a balance of influence between them as the “new normal”. The multipolar processes unleashed by Russia’s special operation threaten their premier positions in the international system, ergo the desire to cooperate in delaying this trend as explained here:

• 12 August: “Speculation About Russia Becoming A Chinese Puppet Ignores India’s Decisive Balancing Role”
• 1 October: “The Ukrainian Conflict Might Have Already Derailed China’s Superpower Trajectory”
• 5 October: “Kissinger’s Prediction About A Forthcoming Policy Recalibration By China Is Probably Correct”
• 19 November: “Analyzing The US-Chinese-Russian-Indian Interplay In The Global Systemic Transition”
• 20 November: “China’s Stated Desire For Military Talks With The US Signals Its Interest In A New Détente”
• 22 November: “The Emerging Military-Strategic Dynamics Of The New Cold War In The Asia-Pacific”
• 23 November: “China’s Reported Pause Of Russian Oil Imports Ahead Of The West’s Price Cap Is Revealing”
• 28 November: “The US’ Arms Backlog For Taiwan Caused By Ukraine Can Facilitate The New Détente”
• 29 November: “The Evolution Of Key Players’ Perceptions Across The Course Of The Ukrainian Conflict”
• 30 November: “Russia’s Energy Geopolitics With China & India”
• 5 December: “Why Is The Washington Post Rehabilitating President Xi’s Image In The Western Consciousness?”

India’s Black Swan Rise As A Globally Significant Great Power

To oversimplify the analytical series above, the latest US-provoked phase of the Ukrainian Conflict had the black swan effect of unprecedentedly accelerating the global systemic transition to complex multipolarity (“multiplexity”) by turbocharging India’s rise as a globally significant Great Power. It’s beyond the scope of the present piece to explain this in detail, but the following analyses can bring the reader up to speed, with the first of them citing nearly four dozen related ones from the past year:

• 28 November: “Korybko To Rajagopalan: India’s Principled Neutrality Does Indeed Ensure Its Security”
• 1 December: “Russia’s Reported Request For India To Scale Exports By 5x Is Strategically Significant”
• 4 December: “India’s G20 Chairmanship Will Champion The Global South’s Interests”
• 9 December: “Russia Officially Declared That India Is At The Center Of The Emerging Multipolar World Order”
• 10 December: “It’s Actually Not A Big Deal That Modi Isn’t Visiting Moscow This Year”
• 12 December: “Russia’s G20 Sherpa Is The Latest Kremlin Official To Praise India’s Newfound Global Role”

Changing Geostrategic Calculations

The most important point is that Russia’s special operation created the opportunity for India to perfect its balancing act in the New Cold War between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the jointly BRICS– & SCO-led Global South of which it’s nowadays the voice via its policy of principled neutrality. The grand systemic consequence of that move was that the Sino-American bi-multipolar superpower duopoly was broken as a result of Indian-pioneered tripolarity, which in turn catalyzed the New Détente.

Their ongoing talks are conceptually aimed at restoring the bi-multipolar system or at least temporarily delaying its seemingly inevitable evolution to tripolarity en route to its final form of multiplexity. To that end, they’re seriously exploring the parameters of a series of mutual compromises intended to establish a balance of influence between them that could serve as the “new normal”, which in practice would advance the “Chimerica”/”G2” scenario of jointly leading global affairs that both hitherto balked at.

The dramatic events of the past year changed their respective strategic calculations, hence why they both realized that it’s in their best interests to pursue this scenario. China’s superpower trajectory was derailed after the Ukrainian Conflict completely destabilized the globalization processes upon which its ambitious plans depended, while India’s reaffirmation of its hard-earned strategic autonomy in the New Cold War ruined the US’ plans to manipulate it as a proxy for containing China “to the last Indian”.

The Deal Of The Century

In response, China was compelled to consider security concessions to the US in exchange for relief from its economic pressure whereas the US was compelled to consider economic concessions to China in exchange for it accepting the reality of NATO-like AUKUS+’s entrenchment in East & Southeast Asia. This quid pro quo lies at the heart of their discussions over the New Détente, and while it’s too early to confidently predict the form that it could take, some educated inferences can still be made.

For instance, the US might delineate clear red lines in the East & South China Seas that it’ll reward China for respecting by not crossing its counterpart’s own around Taiwan. Trade tensions could gradually thaw upon both respecting the other’s aforesaid lines, thus leading to the American-Australian axis of AUKUS agreeing to scale up LNG exports to China as a mutually beneficial trust-building gesture. To maximally incentive China, the US might also hint that it’ll turn a blind eye towards the Sino-Indo border dispute.

That last-mentioned scenario might be what ultimately results in them agreeing to a series of mutual compromises aimed at restoring bi-multipolarity or at least temporarily delaying its end. Their premier positions in the international system are threatened by Indian-pioneered tripolarity/multiplexity processes, which are in both of their interests to contain. This could be advanced by the US encouraging China to redirect its military focus from the Asia-Pacific to the Himalayas as part of their New Détente.

An Indian Incentive To Sweeten The Deal

To explain, the Sino-American bi-multipolar superpower duopoly wants to punish India for breaking their hold over the international system, but neither can act unilaterally in this respect out of fear that their actions will push that globally significant Great Power into their rival’s arms in response. The only way to resolve this security dilemma is to jointly coordinate to that end, which also serves the purpose of creating a “face-saving” pretext for China’s possible security concessions to the US.

Its related interests in the East & South China Seas are extremely sensitive, especially in terms of public opinion, yet domestic attention can be redirected towards the Himalayas to preemptively avert grassroots pressure upon Beijing accepting NATO-like AUKUS+’s entrenchment in that maritime region. Escalating military tensions between China and India could also create the “face-saving” pretext for the US’ own possible security concessions regarding its respect of Beijing’s red lines around Taiwan.

These grand strategic calculations aren’t groundless speculation like critics might claim but are extended credence by the objective observation that the two-day Sino-American talks that just concluded still went ahead despite the worst clash in two and a half years along China’s disputed border with India. The second-mentioned’s Defense Ministry revealed earlier this week that these Asian neighbors had a serious skirmish in the Tawang Sector on 9 December, two days before those superpowers’ talks began.

Hanging A Fellow Democracy Out To Dry

India is the US’ first-ever and thus far only Mutual Defense Partner, a member of the Quad, key participant in the American-led Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, and a fellow democracy, the latter category of which is considered privileged by Washington after its “Summit for Democracy” last year. The optics of the US going through with its preplanned two-day talks with China despite its clashes with India two days prior therefore powerfully contradicts conventional wisdom in the New Cold War.

A year ago, nobody could have predicted that the US would continue with its plans to hold high-level talks with the People’s Republic outside Beijing after China’s worst clashes with India since their deadly ones over the Galwan River Valley in summer 2020. After all, the US officially regards China as its top systemic rival while considering India to be an important ally in upholding the so-called “rules-based international order” that Washington regularly accuses Beijing of attempting to unilaterally violate.

The only reason why these talks proceeded is that the US believes that it has more to gain in the grand strategic sense from China in the scenario of them ultimately clinching a New Détente, which those aforesaid talks were anticipated to advance, than in scuttling this possibility out of solidarity with India. Washington is furious with Delhi after that fellow democracy refused to voluntarily become its vassal, which resulted in unleashing systemic processes that are accelerating the decline of bi-multipolarity.

The US’ Emerging “Neutrality” Towards The Sino-Indo Border Dispute

It’s with these grand strategic calculations in mind that the US decided not to cancel its preplanned talks with China over the New Détente despite the worst Sino-Indo border clashes in two and a half years that immediately preceded this event. It’s unimportant which of those two Asian neighbors was responsible for what transpired since the fact of the matter is that Washington went against all prior expectations of its stance towards this sensitive issue, which speaks to how drastically its calculations are changing.

With this in mind, there’s a legitimate reason to wonder whether the Sino-American discussions over a New Détente involve India since the US wouldn’t otherwise hang Delhi out to dry by staying committed to its planned two-day talks with China despite those two clashing just two days prior. The tacit signal being sent by this decision is that the US is considering adopting a policy of neutrality towards the Sino-Indo border dispute in order to maximally incentivize China into agreeing to a New Détente.

The reasons for this were previously explained, but to remind the reader, these are to: encourage China’s military reorientation away from the Asia-Pacific and towards the Himalayas as part of its possible security concessions to the US; establish the pretext for the US respecting China’s red lines around Taiwan per its quid pro quo security concession for ultimately unlocking mutually beneficial economic-energy deals; and jointly punish India for breaking their bi-multipolar system.

Sacrificing India On The Altar Of The New Détente

Turning a blind eye towards the worst Sino-Indo border clashes in two and a half years was intended as a goodwill gesture on the US’ part ahead of its preplanned two-day talks with China meant to show its sincerity towards the speculative compromise of becoming neutral when it comes to their sensitive dispute. That outcome would be mutually beneficial if agreed to as part of their New Détente since it also creates the “face-saving” pretext for the superpowers to militarily de-escalate in the Asia-Pacific.

With China focused much more on the Himalayas than on the East & South China Seas, the US would have a publicly plausible reason for not crossing Beijing’s red lines around Taiwan, which could thus lead to a balance of influence between them that eventually becomes the “new normal” in their relations. The bi-multipolar system in which the superpowers have a self-interested stake could then be temporarily preserved to their benefit, thus helping to erode the security dilemma between them too.

To crudely simply the complex sequence of geostrategic insight that was shared in this analysis, the US might therefore sell India out to China in order to sweeten the deal for a Sino-American New Détente aimed at upholding the bi-multipolar system that Delhi’s tripolarity-multiplexity advances risk breaking. The mutual trust that this outcome could foster might even facilitate those two eventually agreeing to the “Chimerica”/”G2” scenario for indefinitely sustaining their restored joint leadership of global affairs.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, 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 regular contributor to Global Research. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Dear Readers,

Before we leave 2022 behind, we would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to you for your unbending support.

Censorship in 2022 has left its toll. It’s ongoing. Last May it culminated into a wave of cyber attacks emanating simultaneously from five countries consisting of millions of so-called “malicious requests”, which were expediently blocked by our security specialists.

Thanks to you Global Research readers and authors, we have been able to maintain our readership Worldwide by “spreading the word” through effective referrals of our articles.

Come 2023, we wish for more people to awaken to the truth and resist further democratic backsliding.

It is our utmost goal that people worldwide stand up for peace, justice and equality and challenge the path to tyranny.

We cannot emphasize enough that Global Research is reader-supported; this essentially means that we do not receive any funding from any entity. This is the only way we can maintain our independence and pursue an objective reporting.

This holiday season, would you be our Santa and “make our wish come true”?

Help us get through the next year: send us a gift, or become our regular Santa.

Click to send us a gift:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

---

Click to become our regular Santa (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

---

Thank you for supporting independent media!

The Global Research Team

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.

***

There is no doubt among military experts that NATO is currently at war with Russia – just using Kiev as a proxy. However, the possibility of something even worse – a direct full-scale war – limits American participation in the current conflict. Internally, Washington’s political scenario is divided between parliamentarian warmongers, interested in taking assistance to Kiev to the ultimate consequences, and experienced, cautious military, interested in keeping the country’s internal stocks ready for any need.

According to a recent Foreign Policy’s article, US lawmakers are pressuring Pentagon’s officials to send more weapons to Ukraine. The objective would be to allocate the largest possible number of combat equipment in Kiev, allowing the local forces to continue to face the Russians and possibly “win the war” – since, according to the narrative of the American media, Russia would be frightened and weakened, which obviously does not correspond to the reality of the battlefield.

Pentagon’s agents, however, act more rationally, avoiding making strategic mistakes that could bring problems to national security. Unlike congressmen, whose reasons for supporting Kiev are based on ideological alignment or economic interest, the American military think based on calculations and solid data, so it seems irrational to send Kiev military aid at a level that threatens the country’s ability of defense.

The dialogue between the Pentagon and the US Congress for the production, purchase or allocation of weapons and ammunition works through the Department of Defense’s periodic reports on its war plans. These reports are called operational plans (or OPLANs). In theory, the Pentagon has an OPLAN for every situation considered a risk to American security, which includes relations with enemy countries such as Russia, China, and North Korea. After considering the evaluation of its experts, the Pentagon prepares a list of equipment considered necessary to face such countries, submitting the reports to the Congress for approval. If approved, the Pentagon purchases such weapons from private companies affiliated with the “military industrial complex” and eventually allocates them to overseas bases.

In principle, military assistance to Kiev was supposed to be restricted to an exclusive OPLAN for the Ukrainian conflict, but congressmen want to change that. For politicians, who do not think strategically, this is a “mistake” and more weapons to Kiev are needed. Congressmen consider it appropriate to invest all available resources in Ukraine, as Kiev is the state that is currently actually fighting Russia. For them, betting on sending weapons on a large scale is the right attitude, even if the stock reserved for other OPLANs is running out – which is already happening.

As a response to the stock supply crisis, parliamentarians suggest thinking about measures to speed up production and replenishing. According to them, the problem is not the transfer of weapons to Ukraine, but the fact that there is a difficulty in filling stocks quickly, as they are dwindling with assistance to Kiev.

However, this narrative does not seem consistent with reality. As previously reported, the American military industry is entering a vicious cycle, where there is no modernization of its arsenal, only a race by military companies to replace weapons which are wasted by the systematic transfer to Ukraine. In this sense, expanding aid and violating the stocks of other OPLANs would only worsen this critical scenario.

In its decisions, the government oscillates between supporting realism and warmongering. For example, a new aid package was recently announced, valued at 275 million dollars – one of the smallest since February. Warmongers criticize this attitude and say that it is time to increase assistance as much as possible, taking advantage of the opportunities of the supposed “Ukrainian counteroffensive” and “imminent victory”. Apparently, many politicians in the US believe the lies created by the American media itself and actually plan strategies based on these fallacies.

Experts, however, know that this rhetoric is unsubstantiated. Ukraine is suffering significant losses day after day. The great victory of Russian forces in Bakhmut makes this absolutely clear. There is no chance of victory for Kiev and, given the defeat in this proxy conflict, the most rational thing to do would be to reduce support and encourage peace negotiations, while replenishing internal stocks for an eventual situation of direct war.

In fact, the case illustrates the US internal scenario well: the dispute between those who want to prepare for a future war with Russia and those who want to do it now, through Ukraine. To solve this problem, the most appropriate thing would be to avoid any possibility of war, taking the simple attitude of interrupting support for Kiev and talking to Russia about a policy of non-expansion of NATO in Eurasia.

*

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

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

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.

***

Coca-Cola is directly influencing public health conferences and events via sponsorships — sometimes undisclosed — that could give the multinational company say in speaker selections and conference agendas, according to a new study.

The study, published in the Public Health Nutrition Journal, uncovered previously unknown collaborations between Coco-Cola and major health institutions including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the Institute for Excellence in Pediatrics, the Obesity Society and the American Academy of Family Physicians. It builds upon a 2020 study that showed the company helped shape the International Congress on Physical Activity and Public Health, an international effort to promote physical activity.

The findings, based on documents uncovered by 22 Freedom of Information requests by the U.S. Right to Know organization, suggest that Coca-Cola’s influence could suppress research and viewpoints unfavorable to the company and its suite of unhealthy products, advance messaging that physical inactivity is the key cause of obesity and bolster its image as science-friendly.

“The effect of this industry involvement is to expose professionals to the brands and marketing of certain products, including ultra-processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages, while also allowing the brands to build their image by affiliating with scientific and research communities,” the authors wrote.

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.

***

To this day some US Colleges are mandating COVID-19 vaccination with the bivalent boosters for Omicron BA4/BA5 which are now obsolete since the predominant strains are BQ1 and BQ1.1.

To make matters worse, the bivalent boosters failed to stop Omicron in animal studies despite having an antibody rise—thus showing antibodies are invalid surrogates of vaccine efficacy.

Parents and students are becoming increasingly leery of additional COVID-19 vaccination based on the results of Bardosh et al.

Bardosh K, Krug A, Jamrozik E, et al

---

COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities
Journal of Medical Ethics Published Online First: 05 December 2022. doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108449

---

This group found the risks of COVID-19 vaccination including serious adverse events (life threatening, hospitalization, and death) and myocarditis far outweigh any theoretical benefits. If Bardosh would have considered the two prospective cohort studies by Mansanguan and Le Pessec, the myocarditis rates would have been sharply adjusted up to 25,000 cases per million.

Additionally, since no prospective randomized placebo controlled trial has demonstrated reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and death as a primary or secondary endpoint, that theoretic benefit of vaccination could have been dropped to zero. Most of the colleges and universities mandating COVID-19 vaccination have platitudes in their mission statement like that of Yale University: “Yale is committed to improving the world today and for future generations through outstanding research and scholarship, education, preservation, and practice.”

This leaves the world wondering about the ineptitude of Yale leadership on the application of scholarship to their policies. Next time you are in a discussion about college mandates, please feel free to share this Substack.

*

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

Featured image is from Mercola

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

Yesterday’s drone attack on an airfield in Kursk marks a major escalation in NATO’s war against Russia. It comes just one day after Russia accused Kiev of launching drone attacks on two military airfields deep inside its territory.

There were no casualties from the attack, 62 miles from the Ukrainian border. But a major fire erupted after oil tankers thought to have been hit burned for 10 hours and covered almost 5,500 square feet.

The location of the attacks and their implementation points once again to the direct involvement of the United States.

Russian officials had already blamed Kiev for Monday’s attacks on two airbases at Ryazan and Saratov in south-central Russia, believed to have involved modified Soviet-era Russian Strizh drones launched by Ukraine. Three service men were killed and four were wounded, with two aircraft damaged. The bombers hit at the Engels-2 airfield and Dyagilevo airbase were both nuclear-capable. Images from Dyagilevo show a nuclear-capable Tu-22M3 bomber with a damaged tail with a Kh-22 missile suspended under its wing.

Russia’s defence ministry said that Monday’s attacks were acts of terrorism and launched a bombardment of Ukraine’s key infrastructure in response.

Suspected Ukrainian drones also attacked the Belbek military airport in Sevastopol, but were downed by air defences, while drones also unsuccessfully targeted a fuel store in Bryansk region according to Russian sources.

Bryansk, Kursk and Belgorod, which immediately border Ukraine, have all been hit multiple times. But the latest attacks and the targets chosen clearly involved extensive intelligence gathering and high-level collusion.

Ukrainian military analyst Serhiy Zgurets noted on the website of Espreso TV that the air force bases hit were the only facilities in Russia that could fully service bombers used to launch attacks on Ukraine. Ukraine’s government declined to publicly acknowledge the strikes, but a senior Ukrainian official confirmed to the New York Times that at least one of the drones was launched from Ukraine and that one of the strikes was made with the help of special forces close to the Russian base.

These targets are the furthest in Russia ever hit during the entire conflict. One of the airbases, Ryazan, is just 115 miles southwest of Moscow, while Saratov is around 400 miles from the Ukrainian border. Russian military commentators stressed that if Ukraine could strike that far inside Russia, it may also be capable of hitting Moscow. Sky News Moscow correspondent Diana Magnay said there “are a lot of questions now about how exactly Ukraine managed it,” before suggesting a “counter-intelligence failure within Russia that allowed a drone from within Russia, perhaps with the help of Ukrainian collaborators.”

The channel reported off-the-record comments by senior Western officials boasting that such attacks inside Russia will have struck a powerful psychological blow that “does show” Ukrainian forces “can operate in Russia at will.” Britain’s Ministry of Defence said Russia was likely to consider the attacks to be “some of the most strategically significant failures of force protection since its invasion of Ukraine.”

The New York Times gloated that the attacks “add to signs that Kyiv is willing to bring the war closer to Moscow and to President Vladimir V. Putin,” had “altered the geography of the war, shown failures in Moscow’s air defense systems and signaled Kyiv’s determination that Russia pay a heavier price for its unrelenting assault on Ukraine’s infrastructure.”

The ability of Ukraine to carry out such attacks would only be a mystery if Kiev were not able to rely on Washington’s spy network and its extensive contact within Russia built up over decades. This places the latest attacks among a growing number of Ukrainian “successes” and more covert provocations collectively designed to both prolong and escalate the war.

These include:

• The bombing of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, ending the transit of Russian natural gas under the Baltic Sea to Germany.
• The explosions in Sevastopol’s naval harbour on October 29, also apparently involving drones that partially destroyed a strategic bridge.
• The November 15 explosions in a Polish farming village that killed two civilians.

Every one of these actions reeks of covert US and NATO involvement, each more reckless and potentially dangerous than the last.

The Nord Stream bombings denied Russia vital revenues and confirmed its isolation from European markets after months of denunciations of Germany by the White House. The implications of Ukraine’s efforts to blame Russia for its own rocket attack on Poland, involving demands by Kiev to NATO to invoke Article 5 committing member states to mutual defence, were so grave that US President Joe Biden intervened to oppose what would have meant an immediate move to direct war with Russia for which the US was not yet prepared.

The latest attacks deep inside Russian territory could have been orchestrated by sections of the US military, intelligence and political elite pushing for such an outcome—no matter how potentially disastrous the outcome of such brinksmanship might be.

Commenting on the attacks, The New York Times wrote that there is “little room for Russia to escalate” in response. It quoted Mick Ryan, a retired Australian Army officer, who said of Ukraine’s attacks, “It is not, as some are sure to claim, an escalation. But it is a necessary political and military measure for Ukraine to limit the humanitarian harm of Russia’s brutal drone and missile attacks.”

This statement is absurd. Ukraine’s attacks, coordinated with the United States, are a major escalation of the war. The United States, having instigated and provoked a war that has killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians, has crossed not only Russia’s “red lines,” but its own.

Every time the United States has claimed it would not do something in Ukraine, it has then gone ahead and done it.

In May, Biden published an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine,” in which he stated that “We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders.” But Washington has done precisely that, giving targeting information, weapons, and logistics support that have allowed Ukraine to attack deep inside Russian territory.

A pattern is emerging—one in which the US and NATO keep pushing against Russia in order to test how far they can go without provoking a response from the Putin regime.

There is clearly a calculation that putting ever greater economic, military and political pressure on Russia will exacerbate divisions among the oligarchs and open up the possibility of internal regime change through some form of palace coup. The assassination of Russian fascist ideologue Daria Dugina was a clear warning to Russia’s oligarchs that the penalty for supporting Putin potentially goes beyond sanctions and seizure of assets. The intelligence used by Ukraine in its latest offensive could ultimately have originated from highly-placed Russian supporters with already existing connections to Washington, who are pushing for a settlement of the conflict at any price.

At the same time, there are forces within Russia’s oligarchy that are pushing for a far more aggressive response by the Russian military.

The relentless and reckless escalation of the war by the United States carries with it the risk of the Russian government responding with a major escalation of its own, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

This Saturday, December 10, the International Youth and Students for Social Equality is holding an online meeting, “For a mass movement of youth and students to stop the war in Ukraine!”

The call for this meeting explains:

“The interaction of NATO’s imperialist militarism, recklessly pursuing its global geopolitical agenda whatever the consequences, and the increasing desperation of Russia’s oligarchic capitalist regime threatens to escalate into a nuclear conflagration.

“The hope that ‘reason will prevail’ and the war will soon be brought to a negotiated conclusion is a politically paralyzing and dangerous delusion. NATO does not want ‘peace.’ It wants war…

“War will be stopped not by appeals and protests directed to the ruling class and its governments, but through the political mobilization of the international working class.”

All readers of the World Socialist Web Site should make plans to attend the December 10 rally.

*

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

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

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.

***

Oncologists everywhere are reporting that cancers attacking reproductive organs are skyrocketing ever since the “vaccines” for covid were unleashed via Operation Warp Speed.

Dr. Ryan Cole, an Idaho-based frontline physician who is seeing it all firsthand, says oncologists and other colleagues in the medical field are observing unusually high rates of cancer. They are also seeing unusual cancers, including those of the vaginal tract and uterus – and especially leiomyosarcoma in particular.

In addition to the extremely high rates of miscarriage and fetal mortality he has been seeing, Cole says that human fertility is clearly on the decline as the after-effects of the jabs become increasingly more apparent. (Related: Last year, Cole warned that cancer rates among the jabbed had increased 20-fold.)

“People are sending me placentas,” Cole told Dr. Drew Pinsky on his radio program. “These placentas are the wrong size for their gestational age; these placentas are calcified; these placentas have antibodies in them; these placentas have spike protein in them; these placentas have induced excess inflammation.”

You can watch a video clip of Cole’s interview on Dr. Drew’s show at the RAIR Foundation website.

Cole is urging his medical colleagues to do the pathology and look for unusual signs such as these in their patients. He issued a plea on the program for those in the medical field to “start looking at tissues of the deceased; start looking at those fetuses that didn’t make it to full term; start looking at the placentas.”

“Start taking your surgical cases in specimens that are unusual in multiple-jabbed individuals and start looking for what could be causing it,” Cole added. “Obviously, I have my suspicions.”

A pregnant nurse forced to get jabbed to remain employed lost her baby in utero

One specific example Cole shared is the case of a nurse, eight months pregnant, who was forced to get injected in order to keep her job. That nurse’s baby ended up dying in utero.

There are many such cases like this, though they often never get reported due to fears within the medical industry about bucking the narrative. To suggest anything other than “safe and effective” for these injections often means getting let go and losing one’s professional clout.

“I think this is the problem we are having with this group think of the ‘safe and effective,’ no problems attitude,” Cole said. “But my counterargument is, ‘look, read – it’s hiding in plain sight. We need to do the science.”

Cole’s observations are shared by Dr. Ute Kruger, a Swedish physician who has similarly seen an explosion of cancer, oftentimes of rare varieties, among previously healthy young people who got injected for the Fauci Flu.

Since Tony Fauci, the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and many other globalist entities have declared themselves to be the science, Cole’s suggestion that “we need to do the science” will probably not get very far apart from a massive upheaval of the current power structure.

“But the science is settled, we no longer need science because all the science is settled,” joked one commenter, illustrating that point. “There, now the matter is safely and effectively settled.”

Another called for these so-called “vaccines” to be pulled off the market immediately – which is a nice thought if there was actually some way to accomplish that.

Another wrote the following prayer:

“St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.”

*

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

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

Over 11,000 children have been killed or maimed in the war in Yemen, according to a new report by the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), an average of four children hurt a day since fighting escalated following the 2015 Saudi-led intervention in the conflict.

However the figures are thought to be much higher, UNICEF warned, with only UN-verified incidents recorded.

“Thousands of children have lost their lives, hundreds of thousands more remain at risk of death from preventable disease or starvation,” said UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell.

Russell was in the war-torn country last week where she launched UNICEF’s $10.3 billion Humanitarian Action for Children Appeal, which aims to provide water, sanitation, nutrition, education, health and protection services to children across the world, affected by conflict and disasters.

The agency chief also called on the warring sides to renew the UN-brokered truce, which was announced in April and expired on 2 October without an agreement to extend it. While both sides have blamed the other for failure of a lasting ceasefire, the spokesperson for the Houthi movement, Mohammed Abdul-Salam said that “Peace in Yemen is not possible unless the invading countries abandon their arrogant mentality.”

“The urgent renewal of the truce would be a positive first step that would allow critical humanitarian access,” Russell said.

“Ultimately, only a sustained peace will allow families to rebuild their shattered lives and begin to plan for the future.”

UNICEF estimates that 2.2 million youngsters are acutely malnourished, including close to 540,000 under-fives who are suffering from severe acute malnutrition. Described as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis by the UN, nearly three-quarters of Yemen’s population is said to be in need of humanitarian aid and protection.

UNICEF is seeking nearly $484.5 million to respond to the crisis in Yemen over the next year and has warned that lack of predictable funding puts children’s lives and well-being at further risk.

*

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

Featured image: Children are seen at Al-Jamhuri Hospital in Sanaa as the humanitarian crisis in the country getting deeper, where civil war has been ongoing for many years in Yemen, on November 20, 2022. [Mohammed Hamoud – Anadolu Agency]

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

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

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

***

A scholarly study found that British colonialism caused approximately 165 million deaths in India from 1880 to 1920, while stealing trillions of dollars of wealth. The global capitalist system was founded on European imperial genocides, which inspired Adolf Hitler and led to fascism.

British colonialism caused at least 100 million deaths in India in roughly 40 years, according to an academic study.

And during nearly 200 years of colonialism, the British empire stole at least $45 trillion in wealth from India, a prominent economist has calculated.

The genocidal crimes committed by European empires outside of their borders inspired Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, leading to the rise of fascist regimes that carried out similar genocidal crimes within their borders.

Economic anthropologist Jason Hickel and his co-author Dylan Sullivan published an article in the respected academic journal World Development titled “Capitalism and extreme poverty: A global analysis of real wages, human height, and mortality since the long 16th century.”

In the report, the scholars estimated that India suffered 165 million excess deaths due to British colonialism between 1880 and 1920.

“This figure is larger than the combined number of deaths from both World Wars, including the Nazi holocaust,” they noted.

They added, “Indian life expectancy did not reach the level of early modern England (35.8 years) until 1950, after decolonization.”

Hickel and Sullivan summarized their research in an article in Al Jazeera, titled “How British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years.”

They explained:

According to research by the economic historian Robert C Allen, extreme poverty in India increased under British rule, from 23 percent in 1810 to more than 50 percent in the mid-20th century. Real wages declined during the British colonial period, reaching a nadir in the 19th century, while famines became more frequent and more deadly. Far from benefitting the Indian people, colonialism was a human tragedy with few parallels in recorded history.

Experts agree that the period from 1880 to 1920 – the height of Britain’s imperial power – was particularly devastating for India. Comprehensive population censuses carried out by the colonial regime beginning in the 1880s reveal that the death rate increased considerably during this period, from 37.2 deaths per 1,000 people in the 1880s to 44.2 in the 1910s. Life expectancy declined from 26.7 years to 21.9 years.

In a recent paper in the journal World Development, we used census data to estimate the number of people killed by British imperial policies during these four brutal decades. Robust data on mortality rates in India only exists from the 1880s. If we use this as the baseline for “normal” mortality, we find that some 50 million excess deaths occurred under the aegis of British colonialism during the period from 1891 to 1920.

Fifty million deaths is a staggering figure, and yet this is a conservative estimate. Data on real wages indicates that by 1880, living standards in colonial India had already declined dramatically from their previous levels. Allen and other scholars argue that prior to colonialism, Indian living standards may have been “on a par with the developing parts of Western Europe.” We do not know for sure what India’s pre-colonial mortality rate was, but if we assume it was similar to that of England in the 16th and 17th centuries (27.18 deaths per 1,000 people), we find that 165 million excess deaths occurred in India during the period from 1881 to 1920.

While the precise number of deaths is sensitive to the assumptions we make about baseline mortality, it is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million people died prematurely at the height of British colonialism. This is among the largest policy-induced mortality crises in human history. It is larger than the combined number of deaths that occurred during all famines in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Mengistu’s Ethiopia.

"This is among the largest policy-induced mortality crises in human history. It is larger than the combined number of deaths that occurred during all famines in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Mengistu’s Ethiopia." https://t.co/eTGQzRkTyn

— Dr. Prerna Bakshi (@bprerna) December 4, 2022

This staggering figure does not include the tens of millions more Indians who died in human-made famines that were caused by the British empire.

In the notorious Bengal famine in 1943, an estimated 3 million Indians starved to death, while the British government exported food and banned grain imports.

Academic studies by scientists found that the 1943 Bengal famine was not a result of natural causes; it was the product of the policies of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

The Bengal famine of 1943 killed 2-3 million people, when Bengal was part of British-ruled India.

There was food — but Winston Churchill ordered it be exported and stockpiled in case Europe needed it as the war dragged on.https://t.co/rIs4vz1yWG pic.twitter.com/ue1H4gBkfZ

— Sasha Alyson 🌍🌏🌎 Karma Colonialism (@TrojanAid) September 2, 2021

Churchill himself was a notorious racist who stated, “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

In the early 1930s, Churchill also admired Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and the Italian dictator who founded fascism, Benito Mussolini.

Churchill’s own scholarly supporters admitted that he “expressed admiration for Mussolini” and, “if forced to choose between Italian fascism and Italian communism, Churchill unhesitatingly would choose the former.”

Genocidal colonialist Churchill "expressed admiration for Mussolini"

Churchill's own hagiographers admitted, "if forced to choose between Italian fascism and Italian communism, Churchill unhesitatingly would choose the former"

In 1935, Churchill praised Hitler for his "courage" https://t.co/kTkoaaOW5g

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 29, 2022

Indian politician Shashi Tharoor, who served as an under-secretary general of the United Nations, has exhaustively documented the crimes of the British empire, particularly under Churchill.

“Churchill has as much blood on his hands as Hitler does,” Tharoor stressed. He pointed to “the decisions that he [Churchill] personally signed off during the Bengal famine, when 4.3 million people died because of the decisions he took or endorsed.”

Award-winning Indian economist Utsa Patnaik has estimated that the British empire drained $45 trillion of wealth from the Indian subcontinent.

"Over roughly 200 years, the East India Company and the British Raj siphoned out at least £9.2 trillion (or $44.6 trillion)… To put that sum in context, Britain’s 2018 GDP estimate is about $3 trillion" https://t.co/1iyV3oXrjJ

— AnnieZaidi (@anniezaidi) November 19, 2018

In a 2018 interview with the Indian news website Mint, she explained:

Between 1765 and 1938, the drain amounted to £9.2 trillion (equal to $45 trillion), taking India’s export surplus earnings as the measure, and compounding it at a 5% rate of interest. Indians were never credited with their own gold and forex earnings. Instead, the local producers here were ‘paid’ the rupee equivalent out of the budget—something you’d never find in any independent country. The ‘drain’ varied between 26-36% of the central government budget. It would obviously have made an enormous difference if India’s huge international earnings had been retained within the country. India would have been far more developed, with much better health and social welfare indicators. There was virtually no increase in per capita income between 1900 and 1946, even though India registered the second largest export surplus earnings in the world for three decades before 1929.

Since all the earnings were taken by Britain, such stagnation is not surprising. Ordinary people died like flies owing to under-nutrition and disease. It is shocking that Indian expectation of life at birth was just 22 years in 1911. The most telling index, however, is food grain availability. Because the purchasing power of ordinary Indians was being squeezed by high taxes, the per capita annual consumption of food grains went down from 200kg in 1900 to 157kg on the eve of World War II, and further plummeted to 137kg by 1946. No country in the world today, not even the least developed, is anywhere near the position India was in 1946.

Patnaik emphasized:

The modern capitalist world would not exist without colonialism and the drain. During Britain’s industrial transition, 1780 to 1820, the drain from Asia and the West Indies combined was about 6 percent of Britain’s GDP, nearly the same as its own savings rate. After the mid-19th century, Britain was running current account deficits with Continental Europe and North America, and at the same time, it was investing massively in these regions, which meant running capital account deficits too. The two deficits summed to large and rising balance of payments (BoP) deficits with these regions.

How was it possible for Britain to export so much capital—which went into building railways, roads and factories in the U.S. and continental Europe? Its BoP deficits with these regions were being settled by appropriating the financial gold and forex earned by the colonies, especially India. Every unusual expense like war was also put on the Indian budget, and whatever India was not able to meet through its annual exchange earnings was shown as its indebtedness, on which interest accumulated.

*

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

Featured image is from Multipolarista

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.

***

Nouriel Roubini, a former advisor to the International Monetary Fund and member of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, was one of the few “mainstream” economists to predict the collapse of the housing bubble. Now Roubini is warning that the staggering amounts of debt held by individuals, businesses, and the government will soon lead to the “mother of all economic crises.”

Roubini properly blames the creation of a debt-based economy on the near-or-at-zero interest rate and quantitative easing policies pursued by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. The inevitable result of the zero-interest and quantitative easing policies is price inflation wreaking havoc on the American people.

The Fed has been trying to eliminate price inflation with a series of interest rate increases. So far, these rate increases have not significantly reduced price inflation. This is because rates remain at historic lows. Yet the rate increases have had negative economic effects, including a decline in the demand for new homes. Increasing interest rates make it impossible for many middle- and working-class Americans to afford a monthly mortgage payment for even a relatively inexpensive home.

The main reason the Fed cannot raise rates to anywhere near what they would be in a free market is the effect it would have on the federal government’s ability to manage its debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), interest on the national debt is already on track to consume 40 percent of the federal budget by 2052 and will surpass defense spending by 2029! A small interest rate increase can raise yearly federal debt interest rate payments by many billions of dollars, increasing the amount of the federal budget devoted solely to servicing the debt.

The federal government’s fiscal picture is made worse by the fact that the Social Security “Trust Fund” will begin to run deficits by 2035 while the Medicare Trust Fund will run deficits by 2028. The looming bankruptcy of the two major entitlement programs, combined with the unwillingness of most in Congress to reduce either welfare or warfare spending, puts the Fed in a bind. If it raises rates to the levels needed to really combat price inflation, the increase in interest payments will impose hardships on individuals and businesses, as well as raise federal interest payments to unsustainable levels. This will cause a major economic crisis including a government default on its debt causing a rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. Also, if the Fed continues to facilitate federal deficits by monetizing the debt, the result will be an economic crisis caused by a collapse in the dollar’s value and rejection of the dollar’s world reserve status.

The crisis will lead to social unrest and violence, as well as increased popularity of authoritarian movements on both the left and the right. This will lead to government crackdowns on civil liberties and increased government control of our economy. The only bright spot is this crisis will also fuel interest in the ideas of liberty and could even help bring about a return to limited, constitutional government, free markets, individual liberty, and a foreign policy of peaceful trade with all. Those of us who know the truth have two responsibilities. The first is to make the necessary plans to ensure our families can survive the forthcoming turmoil. The second is to do all we can to introduce as many people as possible to the ideas of liberty.

*

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

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

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

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

***

Last week’s drone attacks on Russian military bases represent a serious escalation in Washington’s proxy war on Russia. One of the attacks involved an airfield that is located less than 200 miles from Moscow.

Naturally, the incident rankled Russian President Vladimir Putin who convened an emergency meeting of his Security Council to explore the options for retaliatory strikes. We have no doubt that Russia’s Top Brass recommended tit-for-tat missile strikes beyond Ukraine’s borders as a form of equal payback. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and the military stuck with its current strategy of obliterating critical infrastructure in cities across the country. The attacks on Ukraine’s fragile electrical grid are the essential preparation for the launching of a widely-anticipated winter offensive. Here’s more from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:

Yesterday’s drone attack on an airfield in Kursk marks a major escalation in NATO’s war against Russia….The location of the attacks and their implementation points once again to the direct involvement of the United States….The bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines…The explosions in Sevastopol’s naval harbour on October 29 (and) The November 15 explosions in a Polish farming village that killed two civilians….Every one of these actions reeks of covert US and NATO involvement, each more reckless and potentially dangerous than the last….A pattern is emerging—one in which the US and NATO keep pushing against Russia in order to test how far they can go without provoking a response from the Putin regime….The relentless and reckless escalation of the war by the United States carries with it the risk of the Russian government responding with a major escalation of its own, with potentially catastrophic consequences.” (“Drone attacks on Russian airbases: A major escalation in the war authored in Washington“, Chris Marsden, World Socialist Web Site)

Just hours after the third attack, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken delivered a statement denying any responsibility for the incident. He said:

“We have neither encouraged nor enabled the Ukrainians to strike inside of Russia.” Not surprisingly, Blinken’s denial fell well-short of a formal repudiation of the attack itself which one might have expected. More to the point, it appears that the US was directly involved given that “Both NATO and Russian observers (claim) US satellite involvement in attacks on Russian bases.” Here’s what they found:

Multiple military sources in NATO countries as well as Russia …..report that the reconditioned Russian Tu-141 drones that Ukraine launched at Russian air bases downlinked US satellite GPS data to hit their targets.

The 1970s-vintage Russian recon drones were converted into cruise missiles, fitted with new guidance systems and directed by American satellites, the sources said. Ukraine does not have the capability to guide missiles on its own, they added.

Russia’s Defense Ministry identified one of the weapons as the Tu-141 in a December 6 statement. According to Russian military sources, the Russians identified the Tu-141 from fragments recovered after the missiles struck Russia’s Dyagilevo and Engels air force bases.

If, contrary to Blinken’s denial, the United States provided guidance for the missile attack, then Washington must be well aware that this brings NATO forces to the brink of direct involvement in the Ukraine war and the Biden administration must be prepared to run that risk.” (“Military sources: Ukraine missiles used US guidance“, Asia Times)

So, what does this new incitement mean and how will it affect the conduct of the war?

We think Washington has adopted a new tactical approach that could be called “calculated recklessness”, that is, the US is launching meticulously planned attacks that are made to look like impulsive acts of aggression by their proxy, Ukraine. The objective of these attacks is to provoke Moscow into an overreaction, that is, retaliatory strikes on targets outside of Ukraine.That, in turn, could be used as a justification for NATO’s entrance into the conflict which, ostensibly, is Washington’s goal.

It appears, however, that Putin and his advisors have resisted the temptation to expand the war beyond the current battlespace. This is from an article at Southfront:

In response to Kiev’s attempts to disrupt the work of Russian aviation, Russian forces launched another massive strike at military and energy facilities throughout Ukraine. The Russian Ministry of Defense claimed that all 17 targets in Ukraine were hit. Explosions were reported in more than 10 regions of the country.

Strikes on infrastructure facilities led to another collapse of the entire energy system of Ukraine. Due to the imbalance in the system, a wave of emergency power outages is still rolling across the country, accompanied by massive accidents in the power grid...

The lack of electricity, water and communications throughout the country is accompanied by loud statements from Kiev that the Ukrainian Air Defense allegedly successfully intercepted almost all Russian missiles.” (“Kiev plays dangerous games with Russian long-range aviation”, Southfront)

In other words, Putin has not been baited into the escalation that Washington seeks, but that doesn’t mean he won’t call up additional reservists to form territorial defense units in multiple areas along Russia’s western flank. We think he will. Moscow can no longer ignore the threat of future attacks or incursions on its own soil. It must bulk up its manpower and prepare for the worst. Gradually, Russia is moving towards a full wartime mobilization.

What is particularly interesting about this new escalation is that contradicts the administration’s original commitment to prevent the conflict from spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders. This is from the WSWS:

The United States, having instigated and provoked a war that has killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians, has crossed not only Russia’s “red lines,” but its own…. In May, Biden published an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine,” in which he stated that “We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders.” But Washington has done precisely that, giving targeting information, weapons, and logistics support that have allowed Ukraine to attack deep inside Russian territory.”(WSWS)

Washington’s promises means nothing. US actions are guided by self interest alone and by an insatiable thirst for power. That means we should expect to see similar provocations in the future as Washington pushes the envelope in its effort draw Russia into a wider war that will likely engulf the region. Here’s more from the WSWS:

The bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines… The explosions in Sevastopol’s naval harbour on October 29 (and) The November 15 explosions in a Polish farming village that killed two civilians…. Every one of these actions reeks of covert US and NATO involvement, each more reckless and potentially dangerous than the last…. The latest attacks deep inside Russian territory could have been orchestrated by sections of the US military, intelligence and political elite.. no matter how potentially disastrous the outcome of such brinksmanship might be.” (World Socialist Web Site)

The analysts at the WSWS have never accepted the fiction that the US is merely assisting Ukraine in its struggle against the Russian boogieman. From the very beginning, they have grasped that the conflict was largely a US concoction aimed at using proxies to weaken Russia in order to achieve its broader geopolitical goals. These latest attacks confirm that the United States is committed to resolving this crisis through the use of military force. That means a negotiated settlement is not only out-of-the-question, but is seen as anathema to Washington’s strategic objectives. As foreign policy analyst John Mearsheimer points out in a recent interview, there are no longer any “realistic options” for how the war can be brought to an end. The differences are irreconcilable, there is no willingness to compromise, and the US sees military confrontation as the solution. Bottom line: Escalation is inevitable.

Here’s part of a recent interview with Mearsheimer that I transcribed to underscore the hopelessness of the current situation in Ukraine which is bound to get worse before it gets better. I apologize for any mistakes in transcribing their comments.

Freddie Sayers– What are the realistic options now? (In other words, how can the war in Ukraine be brought to an end?)

John Mearsheimer– (19:40 minutes) There are no realistic options. We’re screwed… The conflict will grind-on and both sides will escalate. They have been escalating and where it leads is very hard to say. There’s no deal on the table that can be worked out here. There’s all this talk about the need for diplomacy…. but the question you have to ask yourself in this particular case is: If you do diplomacy can you work out a deal? And, in my opinion, there’s no deal to be worked out, and both sides are going to fight this one out…..

There are two big issues here: “One” is a “neutral Ukraine” and the other is the ‘territorial one‘ The Russians now have annexed 4 oblasts. That’s a big chunk of Ukrainian territory and the Russians now believe that territory belongs to them. Do you think the Russians will be willing to abandon that territory along with Crimea? I don’t see that happening. I don’t think the Russians have any intention of abandoning that territory…

The Ukrainians for their part, insist on getting that territory back, and the Americans, will not be willing to concede that territory to the Russians because it would appear that would a defeat for the West. The United States and its allies are ‘in this one’ to win. We are deeply committed. For us to back-off and give the Russians any major concessions is just unacceptable at this point….

That’s the territorial issue. Then there’s the question of whether or not Ukraine will be neutral. The Russians insist that Ukraine be neutral.The Ukrainians are saying, we are willing to be neutral but we need a guarantee for our security from someone. Well, the only one who can guarantee Ukrainian security is NATO and specifically, the United States…. but that would make Ukraine a de facto member of NATO and that’s unacceptable to the Russians. So, there’s no way you’re going to get a truly neutral Ukraine that is not affiliated with the west. That’s not going to happen and the Russians are not going to accept that.

So, what the Russians are going to do instead is create a dysfunctional rump state. and that’s what they’re doing now. That’s why they’ve taken all that territory, and that’s why they’re wrecking Ukraine…..

The two outcomes that we have to worry greatly about are, 1–where the Russians use nuclear weapons and, 2– where the United States comes into the fight … Because then, you have a great power war where the United States and Russia are actually fighting each other. And as Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence told the senate this past spring, the most likely scenario for the Russians to use nuclear weapons is if the NATO comes into the war. So, this is very dangerous….

There is a non-trivial chance that nuclear weapons will be used in Ukraine. If the Russians were to use nuclear weapons it would be most likely that they would use them in Ukraine. And Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons of its own so Ukraine would not be able to retaliate. against the Russians…

Furthermore, if Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the US is not going to use nuclear weapons against Russia because that would lead to a general thermonuclear war… The great danger is that if the Russians use nuclear weapons in Ukraine that the west would retaliate with a massive conventional attack against Russian forces, General David Petraeus has said that if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine, the US should slam Russian conventional forces inside Ukraine and Russian naval forces in the Back Sea. If we were to do that, we would then have a great power war. NATO would be at war against Russia and as Avril Haines said, that is likely to lead to a nuclear war because the Russians would not be able to stand up to the Americans and their allies.

(If Russia does use nuclear weapons in Ukraine) then the wise response, and I think, the likely response would be that we would go to great lengths to shut-down the conflict. I think the use of nuclear weapons would shut down the conflict (because) it would become so clear at that point in time that we were in danger of creating a nuclear war between the superpowers that we would go to great lengths to shut-down. That would focus the mind in ways that are hard to imagine in the current context.

(Unfortunately) we are making it (the use of nukes) more and more likely. It’s important to realize that the more successful NATO and the Ukrainians are at defeating the Russians inside Ukraine and wrecking the Russian economy, the more likely it is that they will use nuclear weapons. And, again, you do not want to underestimate what great powers will do when they are desperate. …..(“John Mearsheimer: We’re playing Russian Roulette”, Unherd; 39:25 minutes)

Mearsheimer not only explains the irreconcilable differences between the two adversaries (Russia and the US), but also presents a very credible scenario in which the conflict could lead to a nuclear war. The fact that the Biden adminsitration has rejected diplomacy outright, makes that scenario all the more likely and, perhaps, unavoidable. Here’s more from Mearsheimer:

You know the Americans have the Monroe Doctrine…which says the western hemisphere is our ‘back yard’ and no distant great power is allowed to put military forces in the western hemisphere. No great power is allowed to form a military alliance with another country in the western hemisphere because –from the American perspective– it is intolerable to have a distant great power (from Europe or Asia) on our doorstep. Well, the same logic applies to the Russians. From the Russian perspective, the idea that you are going to have NATO right on your doorstep ….is unacceptable to them. The Russians couldn’t stop NATO from expanding in 1999 and they couldn’t stop it in 2004 because they were too weak… This is what America did to Russia when the Soviet Union broke apart. We shoved NATO expansion down their throat, but the fact is, the Russians viewed this as an existential threat. Ukraine in NATO was the brightest of all red lines for Russia. And if you look at the Monroe Doctrine you should not be surprised at how the Russians are reacting to what is going on in Ukraine.” (“John Mearsheimer: We’re playing Russian Roulette”, Unherd)

He’s right, isn’t he?

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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

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

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

***

In a highly controversial move in the South American state of Peru, President Pedro Castillo was impeached and later placed in a detention facility after he called for the dissolution of the legislature in order to stave off a political coup.

Castillo was elected in a runoff election during 2021 to the astonishment of millions within Peru and around the world.

The actions of the parliament represented the third attempt to overthrow the government of Castillo who has been accused of corruption and violations of the constitutions. The ouster of Castillo has created even more divisions within the country and throughout Latin America.

With the coup against Castillo, Peru has witnessed the rise and fall of six presidents in five years. This phenomenon of political instability is clearly a by-product of underdevelopment and the role of imperialism.

Many remain supporters of the former president who was an educator and union leader for decades. After gaining the candidacy for president on the Peru Libre party ticket, he ascended to office promising reforms which would benefit the farmers and workers of the mineral-rich state where the majority of the people remain mired in poverty.

The election of President Castillo represented a leftward trend within politics throughout the region. United States involvement in South America, Central America and the Caribbean has served as a major impediment to the transformation of these societies from neo-colonialism to non-capitalist and socialist development.

United States imperialism has vehemently opposed any move towards the rejection of Washington and Wall Street’s hegemony throughout the region. Since the early 1960s, the U.S. has maintained a blockade against the Republic of Cuba due to its socialist and anti-imperialist domestic and foreign policy.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has been subjected to extreme measures involving attempted coups, efforts to isolate the socialist government internationally and the outright theft of national assets such as resources from the oil industry which rightfully belong to the government and people of Venezuela.

In Bolivia, democratically elected President Evo Morales was overthrown in a similar fashion as Peru when in November 2019, he was forced to resign amid pressures from the right-wing elements within the security forces and military. Morales was a staunch ally of former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a revolutionary leader who defied U.S. imperialism while seeking to build Latin American and international solidarity.

Imperialists and Oligarchs to Benefit from the Coup

Image: Peru workers in support of Pedro Castillo after coup

In Peru rival political interests have held demonstrations against the former president amid the post-coup process. Vice-President Dina Ercilia Boluarte Zegarra, who had served under the administration of Castillo, was immediately sworn in as his successor after the majority within the national assembly voted to remove the president from office. Castillo after leaving the presidential office was pulled over and arrested by the Peruvian security forces. Later an attempt to have him released under the laws of the constitution was rejected after legal machinations by the national assembly resulted in his continued incarceration.

An article published by Telesur on the situation in Peru reported on the parliamentary action aimed at denying Castillo a political trial, noting:

“In this way, right-wing lawmakers ensured that former President Castillo remains in jail since his seven-day detention will expire on Dec. 14. In an unusual plenary meeting held early Monday (Dec. 12) morning, the Peruvian Congress removed the ‘special immunity’ from former President Pedro Castillo, who has remained under arrest since he was ousted on Dec. 7. Approved with 67 votes in favor and 45 votes against, the parliamentary resolution prevents Castillo from being subjected to a political trial and directly opens the way for the Prosecutor’s Office to extend his detention on charges of rebellion.

In this way, the lawmakers ensured that the former Peruvian president remain in jail since his seven-day preventive detention will expire on Wednesday, Dec. 14.”

In light of the current political situation in Peru, ousted President Castillo has requested political asylum from the Mexican government of President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. The Mexican administration has called for respect for the human rights of former leader Castillo.

In Honduras, the left-wing government of President Iris Xiomara Castro Sarmiento has strongly  supported the former President Castillo. In a statement from the government, it emphasizes that:

“The Honduran foreign ministry energetically condemns the coup d’etat in Peru, which is the result of a series of events meant to erode democracy and the sovereign will of the people represented by President Pedro Castillo.” (See this)

In 2009, the Honduran government of President Emanuel Zalaya was overthrown at the aegis of the administration of former U.S. President Barack Obama. Today, President Joe Biden, who served as Vice-President for Obama, maintains similar foreign policy imperatives as Obama and even his predecessor, President Donald Trump. Throughout successive U.S. administrations, whether Democratic or Republican, the economic and military interests of imperialism have not wavered. Since the ascendancy of Biden to the presidency, the U.S. has provoked a proxy war with the Russian Federation in Ukraine which has prompted widespread economic distress and threats of a nuclear war in Europe.

The newly installed President Boluarte during her first public appearance stood side-to-side with the Peruvian military. Just two days after the political coup against President Castillo, Boluarte wanted to send a signal to the right-wing of Peru and U.S. imperialism that the military was supporting her tenure in office. Although opposition politicians have called for early elections, Boluarte has insisted that she should remain in office to serve out the 3-and-one-half- years term of ousted President Castillo.

According to a report by the Associated Press:

“Peru’s first female president appeared in a military ceremony on national television on Friday (Dec. 9) in her first official event as head of state, an attempt to cement her hold on power and buck the national trend of early presidential departures. Boularte addressed members of the armed forces during a ceremony marking a historic battle. Boularte, flanked by the leaders of the judiciary and Congress, sat among lawmakers who had tried to remove Castillo from office. ‘Our nation is strong and secure thanks to the armed forces, the navy, the air force, and the army of Peru,’ Boularte said before hundreds of members of the armed forces in Peru’s capital. ‘They give us the guarantee that we live in order, respecting the constitution, the rule of law, the balance of powers.’”

Yet, the overall economic crisis impacting South America has not escaped the people of Peru. One of the important factors leading to instability in Peru is the rate of inflation which has worsened the social conditions of workers and farmers inside the country.

In the same article from the Associated Press, it also points out:

“In the streets, small demonstrations by Castillo supporters continued in the capital and other parts of Peru, including Tacabamba, the district capital closest to Castillo’s rural home. Protesters demanded that the ousted leader walk free, rejected Boluarte as president and called for Congress to be closed. In Lima, protesters trying to reach the Congress building have clashed with police, who used sticks and tear gas to push them back, and more protests were planned for Friday. ‘The only thing left is the people. We have no authorities, we have nothing,’ said Juana Ponce, one of the protesters this week. ‘It is a national shame. All these corrupt congressmen have sold out. They have betrayed our president, Pedro Castillo.’”

Peruvian Instability Requires Unity of Left Forces

The failure of the Peru Libre Party, which both Castillo and Boluarte ran on their national slate during 2021, to remain united has played an important role in the continuing instability of the country. Both Castillo and Boluarte were forced out of the left-wing party while the right-wing backed by the military and the oligarchy were able to seize the political initiative.

Since March of 2022, the local monied interests in conjunction with imperialism has not refrained from its destabilization efforts in Peru. At present the prospects for renewal of a progressive trajectory presupposes the formation of a united front among the Left along with elements in the working class and farmers.

Internationalsocialist.net website advanced its own analysis of the situation in Peru saying:

“It was clear then (March 2022) that the Peruvian oligarchy was regaining its initiative, after its electoral defeat, with the intention of using this crisis to overthrow the Castillo government, with a view to limiting possible reforms for the benefit of the Peruvian working masses, and above all, fearing that the masses would push for changes more profound than those proposed by Castillo’s timid institutional agenda. Since the beginning of Castillo’s government, the oligarchy has not concealed its coup efforts. On the contrary, even before Castillo was sworn in, the oligarchy and the Peruvian capitalists threatened to prevent him from taking power. Only the fear that the mobilizations of support would get out of hand persuaded the right wing to follow this path. But what, then, has changed?”

Despite the internal divisions among the people of Peru, the antiwar and anti-imperialists forces in the western capitalist states must oppose any external interference in the domestic affairs of the country. The people of Peru have their own inherent right to self-determination and those social forces fighting for national sovereignty and non-capitalist development must be defended by all internationalists throughout the world.

*

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

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

Digital Currency: The Fed Moves Toward Monetary Totalitarianism

By André Marques, December 12, 2022

The Federal Reserve is sowing the seeds for its central bank digital currency (CBDC). It may seem that the purpose of a CBDC is to facilitate transactions and enhance economic activity, but CBDCs are mainly about more government control over individuals. If a CBDC were implemented, the central bank would have access to all transactions in addition to being capable of freezing accounts.

“Violence will escalate as long as extremists are allied to Netanyahu”: Interview with Tawfieq Toameh

By Tawfieq Toameh and Steven Sahiounie, December 13, 2022

Jana Majdi Zakarneh, a 16-year-old girl, was killed by Israeli forces as she was standing on the roof of her home in Jenin, in the Occupied West Bank of Palestine.  She was shot in the head, and others were wounded in the 10 pm raid on Sunday.

US-Africa Leaders Summit: Biden to Announce Support for African Union’s Admission to G20?

By Kester Kenn Klomegah, December 13, 2022

Certainly it can be described as an irreversible historical landmark as United States President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his administration are set to renew their commitments and hold discussions relating to the global economy, democracy and governance, climate change, health and security, women, youth and education during the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit scheduled for December 13-15 in Washington.

Execution of a Protester Intensifies Opposition to Clerical Rule in Iran

By Prof. Akbar E. Torbat, December 12, 2022

On December 8, the Iranian judiciary ordered to hang Shekari, who had been convicted of injuring a basij security guard with a knife and blocking a street in Tehran. That was the first such execution after thousands of arrests over the unrest and the killing of more than 400 protestors. In reaction, on September 10, the offices of basij at Sharif University and some other locations were torched.

A Hair Trigger on Endgame

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, December 12, 2022

The insouciance of Washington and its European puppets toward the dangerous situation they are provoking with Russia is frightening.  The Western world is now led by people who have made it clear that they will risk nuclear war in their pursuit of American hegemony.  Evil has clearly triumphed in the Western world.

Ukrainian Forces Continue Shelling Donetsk

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, December 12, 2022

Kiev continues ceaselessly attacking the capital of the Donetsk People’s Republic. Despite the republic’s accession to the Russian Federation, operated after a popular referendum attesting to the will of local residents, the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime maintains its policy of military actions against the region, violating Russian sovereign territory.

Global Central Banks Racing to Implement Digital Currencies as Cities Convert to ‘Smart’ Infrastructure

By Leo Hohmann, December 12, 2022

The Central Bank of Nigeria announced it will begin, effective in January, restricting cash withdrawals from banks and ATMs to just $45 per day as part of a push to move the country toward a cashless economy.

New Autopsy Report Reveals Those Who Died Suddenly Were Likely Killed by the COVID Vaccine

By Will Jones, December 12, 2022

A major new autopsy report has found that three people who died unexpectedly at home with no pre-existing disease shortly after COVID vaccination were likely killed by the vaccine. A further two deaths were found to be possibly due to the vaccine.

How WikiLeaks Revolutionised the World of Journalism

By Eresh Omar Jamal, December 12, 2022

Stefania Maurizi is an investigative journalist working for the Italian daily Il Fatto Quotidiano. She has worked on all WikiLeaks releases of secret documents and partnered with Glenn Greenwald to reveal the Snowden Files about Italy. In an interview with Eresh Omar Jamal of  The Daily Star, she talks about her latest book, Secret Power: WikiLeaks and Its Enemies, and how WikiLeaks revolutionised the world of journalism.

Video: On Destroying Our Health System and Big Pharma Capture

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia and Maajid Nawaz, December 12, 2022

We speak to New Zealand based American, Dr Emmanuel Garcia, about how and why his medical licence was revoked for opposing the Covid mandates. We then speak to filmmaker, health campaigner and British General Practitioner Dr Bob Gill who opposes the Big Pharma corporatisation of the British National Health System (NHS).

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.

***

 

 

Jana Majdi Zakarneh, a 16-year-old girl, was killed by Israeli forces as she was standing on the roof of her home in Jenin, in the Occupied West Bank of Palestine.  She was shot in the head, and others were wounded in the 10 pm raid on Sunday. 

More than 50 Palestinian children have been killed by Israel to date in the occupied territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. More than 215 Palestinians have been killed in 2022, including 17 women. The UN reported that 2022 is the deadliest year in the West Bank since 2006.

Almost daily, the Israeli forces have been raiding and killing Palestinians living under occupation, and illegal Israeli settlers have been increasing attacks on Palestinians living in their own homes.

It appears that the West Bank of Palestine is at the boiling point. Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Tawfieq Toameh, a Palestinian living in Los Angeles, California who is an expert on political affairs in the Middle East and the US. The interview brings up questions on various timely issues affecting the Middle East.

Steven Sahiounie:  Benjamin Netanyahu has come back to power in “Israel” and has an extremist ally. In your opinion, will this lead to war in Occupied Palestine?

Tawfieq Toameh:  Benjamin Netanyahu is an extremist, and we now have more extremists in his government. Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich are very extreme to the right, and they hold very sensitive positions. Especially Ben-Gvir, who is in charge of internal security affairs, which will mean everything is in his hands as far as how to direct the army and the forces in the West Bank. We already see the result of forming this government: you can see how many Palestinians are killed daily, five Palestinians almost every day since Ben-Gvir won the election and started forming the government with Netanyahu. The violence against Palestinians has been escalating tremendously, and right now they have still not formed the government.  Once they have formed it and taken office more escalation in Palestine will happen.  More violence, attacks on Palestinians, annexation of land, settlements, ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem, taking houses of Palestinians, and throwing Palestinians out of their homes.  So we expect the violence to escalate in the next few years as long as those extremists are in the Netanyahu government. I am expecting more violence, confiscation of land, and settlements in the next few years.

SS:  According to media reports, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is going to do a peace deal with the Israeli occupation very soon. In your opinion, how will this affect the Palestinian cause?

TT:  Normalization with Israel would not serve the interests of the Palestinians, Arabs, or the Arab world. Israel is an occupying power, occupying Palestine for many decades, and Israel has never fulfilled any of the UN resolutions regarding the Palestinian right for sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.  Also, the right of return of Palestinians who were expelled from Palestine in 1948. So, Israel is still an occupying power, and normalization with the Arab world would mean that the Arab world have to recognize Israel as an occupying power, and that will not serve the Palestinians interest. It will give Israel more power to make Palestinians suffer more under the occupation, and will they will continue to annex: take more land from Palestinians to build more settlements, continue the confiscation of homes, continue its ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem, and continue its aggression against Palestinians.

So, that will encourage Israel to keep doing that because of normalization. I think it is better first for Israel to recognize the Palestinian rights to sovereignty, Palestinian right to return, for full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza, and then normalization will be acceptable at that time.

SS:  If Riyadh and Tel Aviv make a peace treaty, in your opinion, will the resistance movements in the region launch operations on both Saudi and “Israel”?

TT:  If Riyadh and Tel Aviv make a peace treaty, I think there would be a lot of condemnation from Palestinians, from different factions of Palestinians, but not from the PA, because the Palestinian Authority is a different story. Most of the Palestinians would condemn normalization, but I don’t think that they would go into military resistance to attack Saudi Arabia or Israel; I don’t think they would do it, because if you look at the past, Israel has normalized its relationship with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan and nothing happened, just peaceful condemnations and protests against that move.  I think the same would happen if the peace treaty between Israel and Saudi Arabia took place: it would be the same as with the previous countries mentioned.

SS:  Turkey has threatened a further invasion of northern Syria in order to push back the Kurdish militias in Syria who are supported by the US. In your opinion, if Turkey invades northern Syria, what would be the US response?

TT:    About Turkey invading northern Syria: I believe right now there is talk between the US and the Kurdish militia, and they are trying to do some rearrangements with the organization of the Kurdish militias which would be acceptable; with new leaders and different faces.  Maybe that would be acceptable to the Turkish government, and they are also trying very hard to stop the Turkish invasion into northern Syria.  Turkey gave a time limit for this dialog to take place and to convince the militia to withdraw their forces from northern Syria in four different regions: Tal Rifat, Menbij, and two other cities. That is the demand of the Turks, to have all of these militias to be moved away further to the south and away from the borders of Turkey.  If that does not happen, I believe an invasion will take place from Turkey into Syria, and I think that the US will continue to condemn even if the invasion happens.  The US will not militarily face Turkey in Syria. I think the US will condemn, and maybe the US will ask the Turkish to pinpoint their missile attacks in some areas so they can avoid any casualties of the US military. There are 60 to 70, maybe 100, US military personnel in that region.  So I think, if the invasion takes place, I don’t think the US will do much other than condemnations.

SS:  The conflict in Syria has turned into a stalemate over the terrorist controlled Idlib. In your opinion, will a decision be made to eliminate the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham terrorist group from Idlib?

TT: Concerning Hayat Tahrir al-Sham: I don’t think they will eliminate them. I think they have support, and I believe Turkey supports them, and they are considered part of the so-called “Freedom Army” of Syria. They are protecting parts of Idlib, if not all of Idlib, from the Syrian Arab Army attacks, or from the taking back of Idlib by the Syrian government. There is a lot of interest for the group to be in Idlib, or maybe somewhere else. To eliminate them is a very big question, and I don’t see that happening in the near future.

Note: the answers of the guest do not represent the views of MidEastDiscourse and its chief editor, Steven Sahiounie.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

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

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

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

***

The saga of Baby Will of New Zealand is now known worldwide, and I will direct the reader to Tessa Lena’s excellent summary of it here.

You have probably heard the story of the baby snapped out of the parents’ hands in New Zealand, so I’ll be brief and to the point. Here is what happened, based on available information:

• The baby needed a heart surgery.
• The baby’s parents had concerns about giving the baby a blood transfusion from a possibly COVID-vaccinated donor (and for good reasons—which most of us would likely agree on if the actual safety data weren’t so heavily massaged and censored).
• Parents did their part to make it easy and found willing unvaccinated donors.
• The not-fascist-at-all administration of the health facility felt like allowing the parents so much control over the medical decisions concerning their baby would be an unacceptable blow to the public trust in the medical establishment.
• To solve the public trust problem, the health authorities filed a court case seeking to strip the parents of their parental rights for the duration of the surgery.

 

I believe that Baby Will received blood from the unjabbed, and I base my conclusion on the following.

First, the government of New Zealand is fully cognizant of the issues regarding the Pfizer Covid inoculation, including the damage wrought by the spike protein, the persistence of mRNA activity within the jabbed, and the excess mortality that has ensued in countries around the world, including New Zealand.

Despite their push for one hundred percent inoculation in its population and the propaganda they have used to support this, they understand full well the plethora of adverse events, which include death.

Second, given the global spotlight placed on this case, which even the mainstream media cannot have avoided, the New Zealand government and the New Zealand Blood Service would wish to avoid a public relations nightmare should Baby Will be damaged by having received blood products from those who have been jabbed.

Third, the bureaucratic rationale to deny anyone the blood donors of choice will have hit home even among people who have otherwise unquestioningly accepted every government Covid directive and recommendation. Why should anyone be denied blood from compatible donors of their own choice?

Fourth, the government of New Zealand has a national register of those who have been jabbed and those who have not.

In light of the above, a government culpable already of heinous disregard of its population’s actual health (as I have shown here) would adopt a course to buttress its existing agenda, and that course would be:

1. secretly making sure that the infant remains healthy by taking no chances with the blood of the jabbed, covertly.
2. Publicly using the baby’s recovery and well-being as a propaganda opportunity to assure us, falsely, that blood from those who have been inoculated is safe

This is how a devious totalitarian government would, to my mind, proceed. This is how those pushing the Globalist Agenda operate. The more we understand such machinations, the better prepared will we be.

*

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

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

---

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

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

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

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

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

***

Certainly it can be described as an irreversible historical landmark as United States President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his administration are set to renew their commitments and hold discussions relating to the global economy, democracy and governance, climate change, health and security, women, youth and education during the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit scheduled for December 13-15 in Washington.

According to various authentic reports monitored by the Modern Diplomacy, Biden is expected to announce American support for the African Union’s admission to G-20 as a permanent member. By joining the G-20, it would enable Africa the chance to discuss more forcefully pertinent issues, existing challenges and possible ways to achieve its sustainable development across Africa.

The G-20 members include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United States, and the European Union. Our careful and systematic monitoring has also revealed that out of 55 African countries, South Africa is the only member of the group from the continent.

Therefore, Biden and his administration’s latest push further for ultimate ascension is highly appreciable. This final significant move comes after African Union Chair and Presidents of Senegal and South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa and Macky Sall, humbly requested Biden to expand their participation in the G-20.

White House reports say Biden has not scheduled one-on-one meeting with any of the 50 African leaders attending the U.S.-Africa Leaders’ Summit and has not invited Western Sahara, Eritrea, Somaliland, Sudan, Guinea, Mali and Burkina Faso.

Biden did not invite Sudan, Guinea, Mali and Burkina Faso because they are currently suspended by the African Union following coups and counter coups in the West Africa. These countries are not in good standing with the Africa Union so were not invited.

In the case of Eritrea, although the United States established diplomatic relations with Eritrea in 1993, following its independence from Ethiopia, and was one of the first countries to recognize Eritrea’s independence, relations have been frosty over government detention of political dissidents and prisoners of conscience, including religious minorities, the closure of the independent press, limits on civil liberties, violations of religious freedom, and reports of human rights abuses. They worsened in the past two years over the war in Tigray.

It said that Western Sahara, a disputed territory on the northwest coast and in the Maghreb region of North and West Africa, has not been invited to the summit. About 20% of the territory is controlled by the self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, while the remaining 80% of the territory is occupied and administered by neighboring Morocco.

U.S. has no diplomatic relations with the Western Sahara – the territory of Western Sahara – so they have not been invited. Currently, Somaliland and the United States also do not have official diplomatic relations. In all, Biden did not invite Western Sahara, Eritrea, Somaliland, Sudan, Guinea, Mali and Burkina Faso.

But for the 49 African heads of state and the chairperson of the African Union Commission – those 49 countries are all in good standing with the African Union, have diplomatic relations with the United States and share ambassadors with Washington.

Biden administration will consider seriously the future of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) which expires in 2025.  It has been the bedrock of trade relations between the two regions since the legislation was passed in 2000. This question is important and connects the current African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). It will also be a platform to discuss AGOA implementation and how to work together to improve, for example, AGOA utilization rates, strengthening economic cooperation, expanding to a trade and investment, and of course, support regional economic integration.

Under President Obama, there was the Young African Leadership Initiative to really speak to the moment in terms of the large demographic youth population and partnering to provide them the skills that they need to be leaders, to be the next generation to lead the continent. It works closely, and in particular, with the African diaspora and young civil society and businesses leaders inside Africa. And the Young African Leader Diaspora Forum is just one manifestation of that during the summit.

United States looks to find innovative solutions to new and longstanding challenges, harnessing new research and technologies, and investing in long-term sources of strength while meeting immediate needs and aspirations of Africans. In practical terms, it recognizes the fact that Africa has enormous resources, one of fastest-growing populations, largest free-trade areas, most diverse ecosystems, and one of the largest voting – regional voting groups in the United Nations.

According to reports, the summit is to “really to highlight how the United States and our African partners are strengthening our partnerships and advancing shared priorities and indicates a reflection of the U.S. strategy towards sub-Saharan Africa and the African Union’s Agenda 2063, both of which emphasize the critical importance of the region in meeting this era’s defining challenges.”

In conclusion, it explicitly follows that it is an opportunity to deepen longstanding partnership and to focus on new areas. Discussions will focus on challenges and barriers hindering smooth friendship, ways of strengthening and advancing shared economic priorities, and defining opportunities for building relations into the future. United States show readiness to cooperate with African partners within the framework of the African Union’s Agenda 2063.

*

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

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

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

***

The uprising that began on September 16 in reaction to the death of 22-year-old Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini in police custody has been ongoing.

The young generation of Iranians in schools and universities has joined the uprising to demand the end of clerical rule in Iran. The uprising has created the biggest challenge to the theocratic rule in Iran since the 1979 Revolution.

The unrest was further aggravated by the execution of a 23-year-old protestor Mohsen Shekari.

On December 8, the Iranian judiciary ordered to hang Shekari, who had been convicted of injuring a basij security guard with a knife and blocking a street in Tehran. That was the first such execution after thousands of arrests over the unrest and the killing of more than 400 protestors. In reaction, on September 10, the offices of basij at Sharif University and some other locations were torched.

The International community and many Iranians inside and outside of the country condemned the execution. Many legal experts criticized Shekari’s execution as he did not have an optional attorney, due process was not observed in his show trial, and he was hastily executed. The ruling was not even in compliance with the regime’s own Islamic laws.

From a legal point of view, the death penalty did not fit the illegal act he had committed.

Shekari had not committed acts that deserved death due to the crime of “moharebeh” which is an Islamic term interpreted as “waging war against God.” His execution has caused further antagonism towards clerical rule in Iran. Nonetheless, the mullahs defended the execution and said more executions were forthcoming. In the Friday prayers sermon on December 9, senior cleric Ahmad Khatami expressed his gratitude to the judiciary for sending the first rioter to the gallows.

The reason for the momentum behind the uprising involves challenges against the regime that have been going on since the revolution. For over four decades, the people in Iran have been the victim of the mullahs’ repression.

In the first decade after the revolution, the ruling clerics eliminated their political opponents through imprisonments and subsequent mass executions. They further pushed their Islamic ideology in all aspects of Iranian social, legal, cultural, economic, and political affairs.

For years, the mullahs tried to minimize any Iranian cultural identification that was pre-Islamic. The mullahs attempted to destroy the remains of Persepolis, the capital of the Achaemenid Empire. The attempt was eventually halted due to intense public outrage against it. The mullahs have ridiculed the Iranian traditions and festivities. In the early years, they assaulted celebrations of Nowruz, the Iranian new year, on the first day of Spring. Numerous changes were made to eradicate Iranian national identity. These actions included replacing the icon of the lion and sun at the center of the Iranian flag with the Arabic word “Allah”, eliminating the Zoroastrian’s ethical words from Iran’s national anthem and adopting a new anthem that humiliates Iranians to sing it, strict censorship of the national media, elimination of joyful music from the Iranian radio and television, and enforcing Islamic hejab on women. Many Iranians consider these actions as a second Arab invasion of Iran after the downfall of the Sassanid Empire in the seventh century.

Among other matters, the educational system was subjected to Islamic ideological infusion to legitimize clerical rule.

The clerics push superstitious ideas to indoctrinate the students.

References to the Persian Empire were eliminated from schoolbooks.

So far, the regime has pushed its shi’ism ideology along with crackdowns to survive. However, pushing Islamic ideology to legitimize clerical rule has backfired. Many Iranians can no longer tolerate the fundamentalist rule of the mullahs. As a result, the regime has resorted to heavy crackdowns against protests to extend its authority. But crackdowns have not worked as the mullahs do not have the legitimacy to remain in power. Though, the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei claims that the United States and its allies have launched hybrid warfare against the Islamic Republic, and that has instigated these demonstrations and riots.

In the past, the Western powers had publicly criticized the mullahs but tacitly supported them to rule, wanting to contain the power of Iranian nationalism throughout the region. Taking advantage of the uprising now, the West is attempting to spread propaganda to radicalize the Iranian ethnic minorities such as the Kurds, Azari, and Baluchi in the hope of partitioning the Iranian motherland.

*

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.

Akbar E. Torbat ([email protected])  is the author of “Politics of Oil and Nuclear Technology in Iran,” Palgrave Macmillan, (2020), https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030337650. He received his Ph.D. in political economy from the University of Texas at Dallas.   

Featured image is from Silent Crow News

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.

***

Originally, the Bush Doctrine was a political phrase with the aim to describe the US foreign policy goals during the 43^rd US President George W. Bush (Bush Junior), 2001−2009. The doctrine had four basic standpoints. All of them were centered around American military superiority after the Cold War 1.0 as the US being the only global hyperpower in international relations.

The Bush Doctrine’s fundamental standpoints

The fundamental standpoints of the Bush Doctrine are:

1) Unilateralism;

2) A logic of “either with us or with the terrorists”;

3) Pre-emption; and

4) Regime change.

It must be noted that the Bush Junior administration turned to the direction of a realist stance of “America First” to international engagement soon after taking office in January 2001 (before 9/11). Such policy became first expressed by the US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol (signed on December 11^th, 1997).

Following the 9/11 case in New York and Washington, the Bush Junior administration combined unilateralist propensities with military interventionism that became directed at countries presumed to harbor terrorists – in other words, the pre-emptive wars. Therefore, in October 2001, Bush Junior started a war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan followed by the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (accompanied by the UK) as declaratively part of the policy of the War on Terror.

There are three prominent texts in which the Bush Doctrine was codified and promulgated:

1) Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address, which included the famous terminology of the “axis of evil” for the political purpose to mark North Korea, Iraq, and Iran as the focal enemies of the US;

2) The 2002 National Security Strategy which became technically updated in 2006; and

3) The 2003 President State of the Union Address.

George W. Bush Junior and the “Axis of Evil”  

Concerning the first text, President Bush Junior got his idea for the phrase “axis of evil”, in fact, by combining the US President Ronald Reagan’s (who invaded the independent state of Grenada in 1983) description of the USSR as the “evil empire” (which kind of empire the US was is not clear by Reagan’s descriptions) with the term axis as used in WWII (Italy, Japan, and Germany).

The term “axis” for the first time appeared in a speech in the cathedral of the Italian city of Milan by Benito Mussolini on November 1^st, 1936. On that occasion, he described by the term the relations between Italy and Germany. At least from the very mathematical viewpoint, the term “axis” was suggesting that Italy and Germany saw Europe revolved around the line connecting Rome and Berlin (in practice more around Berlin than Rome) as a mathematical axis describes a straight line around which a geometric figure can rotate.

George W. Bush Junior & the Democrats

A Conservative-Republican George W Bush Junior’s doctrine had a key place in the “peace” theory of the US democrat party. The Bush Doctrine assumed that America must spread democracy all over the world (however, if democracy exists in the US is not clear!). The Bush Doctrine potentially predicts that, once democratic institutions exist in some country (for example in Iraq), democracy as a political system is going to be spread over to all neighboring states in the region, and subsequently all these countries would adopt democratic peaceful policies in international relations (nevertheless, why the US as “democratic” state is not adopting a peaceful policy in international relations is still not clear!). Nevertheless, since countries in transition to democracy may be more warlike than other regimes, efforts to spread democracy may, actually, lead to more wars – a typical example, in this case, can be the USA.

The “War on Terror” as a preemptive war     

The “War on Terror” (or “terrorism”) became a focal point of the 2002 Bush Doctrine and the cornerstone of his imagination on the preemptive war within the framework of international relations, however, at the time when the US was still a hyperpower in global politics. Soon, within the circle of American policymakers, the idea became known as the Global War on Terror (GWOT), referring to the efforts by the Pentagon and the key US allies (the Brits in the first place) to root out and finally destroy different groups of forces allegedly accused to be responsible for global terrorism. The first of such kind of preemptive wars launched by the US administration happened soon after 9/11 and it mapped a military strategy for a “Long War” that marked the focal security threats to global politics in the new (21^st) century.

The concept of Bush’s preemptive war had the final aim to beat the historically new combination of threats posed by non-state actors and especially terrorist groups (which in the majority of cases fought against organized state [governmental] terrorism like Israel or Turkey). Nevertheless, all critics of the 2002 Bush concept of a preemptive “War on Terror” stressed that it, in fact, legitimized almost unlimited power in both foreign and domestic policies interventions and, subsequently, the concept and the whole doctrine have been building the proper political and propaganda atmosphere of fear and apprehension. In other words, the doctrine simply allowed the American and other Western governments to manipulate public opinion and create conditions for imperialistic military actions (what happened soon in Iraq, Libya, and Syria).

In essence, the doctrine of “War on Terror” was an umbrella by the US administration of George W. Bush Junior referring to the various military, political, and legal actions taken by the Pentagon and the US allies after the attack on 9/11 2001 in order to curb the spread of the terrorist way of struggle for political aims in general but, in fact, Islamic inspired terrorism in particular.

A Pandora Box of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war

By the academic definition, preemptive (or preventive) war is a such war that is initiated to gain an advantage over an enemy that is itself about to attack (Richard W. Mansbach, Kirsten L. Taylor, Introduction to Global Politics, Second edition, London−New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012, p. 582).

Subsequently, the Russian (humanitarian and anti-Nazi) military intervention in East Ukraine which started in February 2022 is a typical preventive self-defense war (against Ukrainian state terror on the Russian-speaking minority and designed NATO military intervention against Russia.

The question is: Who is the initiator of the modern view of the doctrine of preventive war?

The answer is quite clear: the Bush administration in 2002. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war wrapped into the package of the “War on Terror” simply produced two decades later a boomerang effect and opened Pandora’s box in global politics with unpredictable consequences for the system of international relations and world peace.

*

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

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

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

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

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

***

The insouciance of Washington and its European puppets toward the dangerous situation they are provoking with Russia is frightening.  The Western world is now led by people who have made it clear that they will risk nuclear war in their pursuit of American hegemony.  Evil has clearly triumphed in the Western world.

We are now on the brink of a nuclear holocaust.  One false warning of nuclear attack, believed to be true, could cause Russia to launch a full-scale nuclear attack against the US and Europe.

False warning signals indicating incoming nuclear weapons have happened before, but were discounted because a sufficient level of mutual trust had been achieved.

Now, with two decades of reckless provocations against Russia, with missile bases being constructed on Russia’s borders in Poland and Romania, with US/NATO fully committed to defeating Russia in Ukraine, and with massive anti-Russian propaganda in place of diplomatic negotiation, trust has been destroyed.

Notice the provocative idiocy of US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin who mischaracterizes Putin’s warning about the extremely dangerous situation as “Russian saber-rattling.”  With utter fools like Austin making decisions, there is a zero chance of avoiding Armageddon.  Lloyd’s position is that it is Putin who must avoid provocative behavior, not Washington.

The expressed willingness of Finland, Sweden, Poland, and Romania to accept US nuclear weapons in their countries, together with the ability of the US to launch against Russia from the Black and Baltic seas, greatly heightens anxiety in Russia.  Unlike the Cold War period, in the 21st century Washington has worked overtime to destroy all trust.  Consequently, one more false warning is all it takes to exterminate mankind.

We are on the brink of nuclear war, and we do not have a John F Kennedy in the White House to stop it. Instead, we have insane neoconservatives committed to US hegemony at all cost.

Putin said:

Russia’s nuclear doctrine is based on the “launch on warning” concept, which envisions nuclear weapons’ use in the face of an imminent nuclear attack spotted by its early warning systems.“When the early warning system receives a signal about a missile attack, we launch hundreds of missiles that are impossible to stop,” he said, smiling. “Enemy missile warheads would inevitably reach the territory of the Russian Federation. But nothing would be left of the enemy too, because it’s impossible to intercept hundreds of missiles. And this, of course, is a factor of deterrence.”

See this.

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.

***

With rising inflation, ever-present shortages, and the legacy media recommending Americans tighten their belts, let’s take a look how much the federal government has been spending on foreign aid, and on what.

With Thanksgiving and Black Friday in the rearview mirror, American families are now preparing for the Christmas season, buying gifts and planning trips with family and friends. Despite our efforts to keep the holiday cheer, there will be a looming elephant in the room: inflation. Currently at 7.75 percent, there seems to be no stopping the price hikes, let alone the shipping delays.

On top of that, average gas prices are still around $3.50-3.60 (and likely to rise again). Many individuals are dipping into their savings accounts to deal with these price hikes, and the government has still not solved the baby formula shortage—a problem it created—yet news outlets have deemed it too unimportant to continue to report on.

In order to combat these woes, legacy media has come up with countless articles and how-to videos, educating Americans on how they can stretch their dollars. Earlier this year, Bloomberg published an article recommending that families making under $300k a year should switch out meats for vegetables like lentils stating: “Though your palate may not be used to it, tasty meat substitutes include vegetables (where prices are up a little over 4%, or lentils and beans which are up about 9%)…” The author also recommends taking the bus instead of driving, not buying food in bulk, and forgoing pets’ medical bills. This seems perfectly logical; why halt an ever expanding bureaucracy from printing billions of dollars or raising the federal interest rate when the average American can contribute by tightening their belts, and buying less for themselves and their families?

As the Director of Research of the Economic Policy Institute Josh Biven has stated, “…Inflation is largely a global, geopolitical phenomenon that is just not under the Biden administration’s control…”

Then let’s see what steps the federal government and the Biden Administration have been taking in order to contribute to the alleviation of this global phenomenon of inflation, and in turn help Americans with pricing at home.

‘It’s OK, We Have a Budget’

With the war in the Ukraine, labor strikes, social unrest, and, yes, still Covid on the tongues of many world leaders, the Biden Administration has taken on the herculean responsibility of providing/continuing foreign aid to various countries with the hopes of mending trade relations and to help get the globe back to some sense of economic normalcy.

In fiscal year 2022, the total amount of foreign obligations the federal government committed to disburse throughout the world was $44 billion dollars—a $9 billion increase from the previous year. The Biden government is distributing taxpayer dollars to many regions and for many purposes: from humanitarian aid, to military funding, to green initiatives.

Let’s focus on some of the salient contributions.

Ukraine

With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine now reaching its tenth month, the US government hasn’t wavered in providing military and humanitarian aid to the latter. According to the US State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, the United States has invested about $19.3 billion for “security assistance” since January of 2021. However, this doesn’t paint a full picture of exactly how much Biden sent to Ukraine this past fiscal year.

According to research conducted by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, from January 24 to October 3, the United States committed and dispersed $52.3 billion to Ukraine—$10.8 billion more than every other participating country and global institution combined ($41.5B).

Any portion of this could have made considerable strides towards fixing the ‘crumbling infrastructure’ dilemma this president and his predecessors have been campaigning on for decades, or to providing tax relief to Americans. The amount of aid we are funding to Ukraine may very well rise again soon, with Biden recently asking Congress for an additional $37 billion in “emergency aid” while Russia continues to fight in the Donbass.

Afghanistan

One would assume that after the August 15, 2021 takeover of Kabul, the US would halt aid to a country now dominated by the Taliban. However, on top of the billions in military and transportation equipment left behind, the deaths of 13 US service members, and the countless women and young girls now being forcibly married and raped by militants, Biden has made sure to continue funding ‘humanitarian aid’ to Afghanistan in the form of $3.79 billion for fiscal year 2022.

Unfortunately, all federal information regarding the exact types of projects or initiatives these funds are reportedly supporting has been redacted in accordance with the exceptions outlined in the Foreign Aid Transparency Act of 2016—ironic to say the least. What we do know is that said monies are allotted for emergency disaster relief and “basic education.”

Considering how the Taliban commands with Sharia Law, dictates what is being taught and shared with the public, and outright bans girls from attending school, it begs the question of where exactly all this foreign aid is going. Why would the US continue to support a country which violates UN human rights agreements and is one of America’s largest enemies?

Let’s keep in mind that these payments were taking place while American citizens experienced exploding inflation, unemployment, price hikes, and a deadly opioid epidemic with no end in sight.

Our Generous Government

This is by no means an exhaustive list; one could write a white paper on the subject of US foreign aid allotments just in 2022. However, I wanted to highlight a handful of other expenses since 2020.

1. As part of the 5,593 page, $1.4 trillion Omnibus bill passed in December 2020, “up to $15,000,000 may be made available for assistance for Sri Lanka for the refurbishing of a high endurance cutter” (aka speedboat) for the purpose of “instruction in human rights.” Considering how the Sri Lanka government has been under investigation for human rights abuses and land confiscations, such a hefty donation to progress “human rights” seems questionable.
2. In the same bill, $15 million was allotted to “democracy programs,” $10 million to “gender programs” in Pakistan, and millions more to other countries’ defense budgets.
3. In Ecuador, from September 30, 2022 until August 31, 2023, the US State Department is spending $20,600 on 12 drag queen theater performances, 3 workshops, and a 2-minute documentary in order to “promote diversity and inclusion”. The State Department told the Washington Examiner via email that this funding is “…to promote tolerance and … provide new opportunities for LGBTQI+ Ecuadorians to express themselves freely and safely”—during a time when Ecuador is currently taking in hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan refugees fleeing the communist Maduro regime. Priorities, I assume.

To put it into perspective—only in regards to the expenditures I’ve mentioned in this article—the US government has committed just over $93 billion in foreign aid while the US economy is still reeling from pandemic lockdowns, a rise in unemployment, and skyrocketing prices.

While we are all doing what we can to provide for our families as pricesacross pretty much every industry continue to rise, the Biden Administration has been doing what it can to provide billions of taxpayer dollars, gender programs, and military aid to other nations.

Some may see these “contributions” as a kind of benevolence, but it would be a mistake to confuse government largesse with genuine solicitude.

“It is easy to be conspicuously ‘compassionate’ if others are being forced to pay the cost,” the economist Murray Rothbard once noted.

When he said Build Back Better, who would have thought he intended it for other countries?

*

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.

Connor Vasile is a first-generation American and writer who wishes to raise awareness about classical liberal ideas which empower every individual, no matter their background or experience, to live their best lives and fulfill their goals. 

Featured image is from iStock

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.

***

Kiev continues ceaselessly attacking the capital of the Donetsk People’s Republic. Despite the republic’s accession to the Russian Federation, operated after a popular referendum attesting to the will of local residents, the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime maintains its policy of military actions against the region, violating Russian sovereign territory. Worsening the situation, the main targets of Ukrainian attacks are civilian buildings, killing innocent people without having any impact on the Russian armed forces or popular militias – which undoubtedly is a war crime and an abuse of international humanitarian law.

The second week of December was marked by brutal attacks in Donbass. Between 6 and 11 December, every day unarmed civilians were killed by Ukrainian shelling in the streets of Donetsk’s capital. During their long-range operations, Ukrainian military, neo-Nazi militiamen, and foreign mercenaries destroyed mainly civilian facilities in central Donetsk, with no damage reported to any Russian military base. As on other occasions, the streets near Donetsk’s central market, where there is a large concentration of civilians, were one of the most affected places. More precise data regarding the exact number of dead and injured people are still being analyzed. As the attacks have been constant and reached different parts of the republic, it is difficult to calculate the damage and the victims.

On December 6, for example, six civilians died in the region as a result of Ukrainian bombings. The following day, at least ten fatal victims were caused by the strikes. At the time, the Ukrainian authorities even made public pronouncements blaming Russia for the bombings, trying to produce another false flag situation. On 11 December, a huge number of bombings occurred, with over 170 shells of various calibers having been launched in the region. Just between 15:05 to 15:52 Moscow Time 36 shells were reported by Russian authorities in Donetsk.

In parallel with the official data reported by the local administration, there is also information circulating on social networks due to the work of several journalists on the ground. Various war correspondents documented the attacks and published photos and videos on the internet showing in real time the effects of the Ukrainian terror campaign. The photos include images of dead and wounded civilians, clearly exposing the brutality to which the population of Donetsk is constantly subjected.

It is important to emphasize that although Donetsk is the main target of these Ukrainian clandestine operations, Kiev has also been bombing other regions of Donbass. On the 11th, for example, two houses were destroyed and more than twenty people injured in Ukrainian bombings in the Lugansk People’s Republic. As well as some of the attacks in Donetsk, the assaults in Lugansk were operated with HIMARS missiles supplied by NATO, which once again makes it clear that Kiev only continues to commit crimes in Donbass because it is receiving Western weapons.

As well known, Ukrainian violence against the people of Donbass is nothing new. Scenes of terror have been constant in the region since the Maidan coup in 2014, with the extermination of the Russian-speaking population being considered by experts around the world as a true genocide. Indeed, this relentless violence was one of the main reasons why Moscow had no choice but to launch its special military operation in February. The main problem is that since September Donetsk and Lugansk are no longer seen by Moscow as part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine or as independent countries, but as Russian oblasts, which is why these attacks take on much greater seriousness.

Kiev is shelling unarmed, semi-pacified and almost fully demilitarized Russian regions far from the line of contact between the troops. Moscow has been tolerating Ukrainian attacks on still militarized regions within Russian territories, but it is unacceptable that aggression continues to escalate in the central zones, where the normalization of civilian life is progressing significantly. In addition to a violation of Russian sovereign space, these attacks are true war crimes, as they do not target military forces, with the sole objective of murdering innocents and destroying cities.

On the part of Moscow, this escalation is expected to be responded with more intense attacks on Kiev’s infrastructure, worsening the supply situation of Ukrainian military bases, which will reduce the ability of the neo-Nazi regime to conduct long-range operations. However, it is essential that international organizations also pronounce on these cases and denounce that NATO co-participates in the crimes by sending the weapons with which the neo-Nazis kill innocent people in Donbass.

*

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

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

Featured image: Photo courtesy of Sonja Van den Ende

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

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

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

***

The final version of the National Defense Authorization Act released Tuesday night by the House Rules Committee contains provisions that would enable an enormous military land grab in Nevada.

Despite celebrations by the environmental justice community about the omission of Sen. Joe Manchin’s permitting reform deal from the bill, the must-pass legislation does include a long-sought-after expansion of Naval Air Station Fallon in central Nevada. This provision would allow the Navy to gain complete or partial control of more than 500,000 acres of public land for bombing ranges and military exercise areas.

The public lands of central Nevada that would be turned into a military training area feature towering snow-capped mountain ranges and broad, sagebrush-filled basins. They’re rich in wildlife, including desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, golden eagles and greater sage-grouse.

“This is a dark day for the public lands and wildlife of central Nevada,” said Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “I’m outraged that Nevada’s senators are helping the military seize control of hundreds of thousands of acres of irreplaceable public land.”

The expansion would entail a significant increase in military airplane activity above Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, an essential stopover on the Pacific flyway and a Western Hemispheric shorebird reserve. The refuge is dense with bald eagles, tundra swans and shorebirds such as American avocets and long-billed dowitchers. The increased overflights will disturb the birds as they stop to rest on their long migrations.

The bill also includes a backdoor authorization for the Dixie Valley water grab, a proposed project that would suck water out of remote Dixie Valley and pipe it 50 miles to Fallon to fuel unsustainable growth. This project was recently cited by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a factor contributing to the endangered species listing of the Dixie Valley toad.

“Sen. Cortez Masto and Sen. Rosen have sold out Nevada’s public lands and wildlife,” said Donnelly. “They talk the talk about conservation, but when push comes to shove, they’re apparently willing to sacrifice our shared national heritage on the altar of the ever-expanding military-industrial complex.”

*

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

Featured image: Wetlands at Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge at sunset. Photo by Patrick Donnelly/Center for Biological Diversity.

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

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

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

***

The Federal Reserve is sowing the seeds for its central bank digital currency (CBDC). It may seem that the purpose of a CBDC is to facilitate transactions and enhance economic activity, but CBDCs are mainly about more government control over individuals. If a CBDC were implemented, the central bank would have access to all transactions in addition to being capable of freezing accounts.

It may seem dystopian—something that only totalitarian governments would do—but there have been recent cases of asset freezing in Canada and Brazil. Moreover, a CBDC would give the government the power to determine how much a person can spend, establish expiration dates for deposits, and even penalize people who saved money.

The war on cash is also a reason why governments want to implement CBDCs. The end of cash would mean less privacy for individuals and would allow central banks to maintain a monetary policy of negative interest rates with greater ease (since individuals would be unable to withdraw money commercial banks to avoid losses).

Once the CBDC arrives, instead of a deposit being a commercial bank’s liability, a deposit would be the central bank’s liability.

In 2020, China launched a digital yuan pilot program. As mentioned by Seeking Alpha, China wants to implement a CBDC because “this would give [the government] a remarkable amount of information about what consumers are spending their money on.”

The government could easily track digital payments with a CBDC. Bloomberg noted in an article published when the digital yuan pilot program was launched that the digital currency “offers China’s authorities a degree of control never possible with cash.” A CBDC could allow the Chinese government to monitor mobile app purchases (which accounted for about 16 percent of the country’s gross domestic product in 2020) more closely. Bloomberg describes how much control a CBDC could give Chinese authorities:

The PBOC [People’s Bank of China] has also indicated that it could put limits on the sizes of some transactions, or even require an appointment to make large ones. Some observers wonder whether payments could be linked to the emerging social-credit system, wherein citizens with exemplary behavior are “whitelisted” for privileges, while those with criminal and other infractions find themselves left out.

(Details on China’s social credit system can be found here.)

The Chinese government is waging war on cash. And they are not alone. In 2017, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a document offering suggestions to governments—even in the face of strong public opposition—on how to move toward a cashless society. Governments and central bankers claim that the shift to a cashless society will help prevent crime and increase convenience for ordinary people. But the real motivation behind the war on cash is more government control over the individual.

And the US is getting ready to establish its own CBDC (or something similar). The first step was taken in August, when the Fed announced FedNow. FedNow will be an instant payment system and is scheduled to be launched between May and July 2023.

FedNow is practically identical to Brazil’s PIX. PIX was implemented by the Central Bank of Brazil (BCB) in November 2020. It is a convenient instant payment system (using mobile devices) without user fees, and a reputation as being safe to use.

A year after its launch, PIX already had 112 million people registered, or just over half of the Brazilian population. Of course, frauds and scams do occur over PIX, but most are social engineering scams (see here, here, and here) and are not system flaws; that is, they are scams that exploit the public’s lack of knowledge of PIX technology.

Bear in mind that PIX is not the Brazilian CBDC. It is just a payment system. However, the BCB has access to transactions made through PIX; therefore, PIX can be considered the seed of the Brazilian CBDC. It is already an invasion of the privacy of Brazilians. And FedNow is set to follow suit.

Additionally, the New York Fed has recently launched a twelve-week pilot program with several commercial banks to test the feasibility of a CBDC in the US. The program will use digital tokens to represent bank deposits. Institutions involved in the program will make simulated transactions to test the system. According to Reuters, “the pilot [program] will test how banks using digital dollar tokens in a common database can help speed up payments.”

Banks involved in the pilot program include BNY Mellon, Citi, HSBC, Mastercard, PNC Bank, TD Bank, Truist, US Bank, and Wells Fargo. The global financial messaging service provider SWIFT is also participating to “support interoperability across the international financial ecosystem.” (This video details the pilot program and how the US CBDC would work.)

The IMF is also thinking of a way to connect different CBDCs under a single system. In other words, the IMF plans to create a PIX/FedNow for CBDCs around the globe:

Things could change as money becomes tokenized; that is, accessible to anyone with the right private key and transferable to anyone with access to the same network. Examples of tokenized money include so-called stablecoins, such as USD Coin, and central bank digital currency.

The reception of Brazil’s PIX shows that FedNow will likely be widely adopted due to its convenience; however, this positive economic and technological element should not overshadow the increased control instant payment systems will give to central banks. The BCB has access to all transactions made by Brazilians through PIX, and this would only get worse should a CBDC be implemented. With a CBDC, it would be easier for the government to carry out expansionary monetary policies (which cause misallocations of resources and business cycles) and exert greater control over citizens’ finances.

*

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.

André Marques is 27, Brazilian (Recife-PE) and he holds a graduate degree in Political Science and International Relations at Universidade Nova de Lisboa and a master’s degree in International Economics at Universidade de Lisboa. He also writes articles and analysis about economics and the precious metals market for Elementum Portugal.

Featured image is from Adobe Stock

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.

***

An update released today by the International Union for Conservation of Nature found that 28% of plants and animals around the globe are threatened with extinction. The new IUCN Red List identifies 42,108 species as threatened out of 150,388 species for which there is enough information to determine a conservation status.

The Red List update comes as governments from around the globe gather in Canada at COP15, the Convention on Biological Diversity, to negotiate a framework on biodiversity conservation objectives for the next decade.

“These horrific Red List numbers are yet another wake-up call to negotiators in Montreal that we have to do everything in our power to save biodiversity,” said Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We can halt the suicidal march toward mass extinction if we take bold actions to save life on Earth.”

Scientists are working to assess the status of all species. Today’s update focuses on the dire situation of marine species threatened by illegal and unsustainable fishing, pollution, climate change and disease. Of the 54 global species of abalone, 20 were found to be threatened.

The pillar coral found throughout the Caribbean, including Florida, was downgraded from vulnerable to critically endangered after its population shrunk by more than 80% since 1990 because of bleaching from climate change and pollution.

“These updates feel soul-crushing, but they should be a catalyst for action,” said Curry. “Nations have an opportunity to agree to halt extinctions now and build a framework to reduce threats to life. Real change must come out of the negotiations in Montreal that benefit wildlife and vulnerable human communities.”

Every decade, global governments negotiate a framework to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity over the next 10 years. This framework, more formally known as “the post-2020 global biodiversity framework,” is centered around the vision of living in harmony with nature by 2050.

Negotiators planned to adopt the agreement in 2020 but because of the pandemic, final negotiations are taking place now. Funding problems, controversies over sharing genetic resources and a lack of ambition have hamstrung the negotiations. The United States and the Vatican are the only countries not party to the Convention.

*

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

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

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.

***

Track and control grid being erected right under our noses

The Central Bank of Nigeria announced it will begin, effective in January, restricting cash withdrawals from banks and ATMs to just $45 per day as part of a push to move the country toward a cashless economy.

If this were a one-off, I wouldn’t bother writing about it. But it comes on the heels of mega-banks announcing similarly creepy new policies in recent months in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Sweden, the U.S. and many other nations, all pointing to an imminent switch over to a global digital money system.

In the U.S., the Federal Reserve put out an announcement in November that it is launching a 12-week “pilot program” to test out a new central bank digital currency, or CBDC, with six major banks.

Thursday’s announcement in Nigeria is also a big deal because Nigeria is one of only nine countries that have already launched an official CBDC. That happened earlier this year, and now they are already moving to restrict the use of cash. This proves that digital currencies were never designed to function alongside paper currencies but rather to replace them.

Fox News reports that the Central Bank of Nigeria will limit weekly cash withdrawals to 100,000 naira ($225) for individuals and 500,000 naira ($1,124) for corporations, with a processing fee required to access more.

Haruna Mustafa, the central bank’s director of banking supervision, said cash withdrawals may be permitted in “compelling circumstances, not exceeding once a month.”

Isn’t that nice of him?

It’s almost that bad here in the U.S. Try going to your bank and telling them you want to withdraw as little as $5,000 and you will discover that you are required to basically state your case and prove you also have a legitimate “compelling” reason for wanting that much cash.

Of course it’s all for our own good, right? “Safety and security,” they tell us.

Policymakers in Nigeria say the limits on cash withdrawals along with the country’s new digital currency will “bring more people into the banking system and curb currency hoarding, illicit flows, and inflation,” according to Fox News.

Of course, it will do just the opposite, shutting more people out of the ability to buy and sell freely.

The same argument — fighting crime, money hoarding and inflation — could be made in any country in the world and it will be. But we all know the real reason has nothing to do with stopping crime or curbing inflation.

This is about going digital, and replacing cash with a more controllable, more trackable mode of exchange.

Remember what globalist economist Pippa Malmgren said at the World Government Summit in March of this year when she said the quiet part out loud, stating:

“We are on the brink of a dramatic change where we are about to, and I’ll say this boldly, we are about to abandon the traditional system of money and accounting and introduce a new one. And the new one; the new accounting is what we call blockchain… It means digital, it means having an almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy, which will give us far greater clarity over what’s going on.”

Nigeria’s economy is no different than any other in the sense that it relies heavily on informal activities outside the legal framework and government regulation, such as farming, street and market trade, flea markets, thrift stores, cab drivers, etc. In these businesses, cash is usually preferred for transactions because many lack bank accounts or just don’t want to fool with processing credit or debit cards.

The globalists know this and so they want to get everyone digitally marked and dependent on digital-only transactions for all their needs. That way they will know how much gasoline or heating oil you are consuming, how much meat you are consuming, and it will all be added to your carbon footprint by which you will be taxed for any usage over your allotted amount. If you persist in going over your allotted amount of food and fuel, you can now be controlled by simply cutting off the supply of digital money, which really isn’t money at all in the traditional sense. It’s more like a voucher system.

This will be easily accomplished once they lock everyone’s money into a bank account and replace actual money with digital tokens. At the point in which the American middle class accepts such a system, it’s game over and we will see tyranny sweep across the globe even faster than it is now. The banksters and corporate titans will have captured everyone into their digital beast system, which operates much like a high-tech feudal system, where you no longer truly own anything outright. You will become the equivalent of a sharecropper in the old feudal system of the Middle Ages — your obedience to whatever new rules they throw out for “sustainable living” will no longer be optional but mandatory.

The sustainability rules will start out as “suggestions” or “recommendations,” only to be later demanded and mandated, with heavy fines for disobedience. If you think you can ignore the fines, think again, as they now have direct access to your digital wallet and can simply deactivate whatever digital tokens are in that account.

Some analysts, such as Rebecca Walser at WalserWealth.com, have predicted that the U.S. Federal Reserve will launch its digital dollar as soon as May of 2023. You can listen to a Dec. 7 interview Walser did with Brannon Howse Live here.

Once they get the digital currency in place, the next big thing will be to restrict travel by plane and motor vehicles.

In case you missed it, the globalists are already experimenting with that, too.

Watch the excellent 13-minute video below for an update on what’s going on in Oxford, England, one of the World Economic Forum’s “smart cities,” which are also now being referred to as “15-minute cities.” Of course the only way to fight this will be to directly disobey all of their dictates. Use cash. Drive gasoline-powered cars. Eat real meat. Stop giving your money to “woke” corporations. Become as self-sufficient as possible and pray for God’s mercy!

*

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.

Leo Hohmann is a veteran investigative reporter and author whose recent book, “Stealth Invasion” spent the majority of 2017 among Amazon.com’s top 10 books on immigration. He has spent decades researching and writing about education, immigration, crime, politics and religion.

Featured image is from Truth Talk UK