Global Research

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

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

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

***

It should now be obvious, even to the casual observer, and despite a wall of propaganda to the contrary, that the Ukraine is losing the war with Russia. 

As of Sunday, the Russian armed forces captured Lysychansk, a large city in the Luhansk region of the Donbas. The Russian objective is to prevent the Ukrainian military and its ultranationalist component from ethnically cleansing the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic.

This does not mean the United States and its “partners” (primarily Britain, Germany, and France) will admit defeat and return to the negotiating table. The war will grind on in partisan or guerrilla fashion.

In February, prior to the invasion, it was reported the Chief Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, and Special Forces Units, will conduct an “insurgent” war against the Russians.

“At the beginning, we had only hundreds of partisans, but as the population saw life under Russian occupation, more and more people join the movement, thousands of people in all regions, including Crimea,” Serhiy Kuzan of Radio NV said on May 26.

As an example of the sort of “resistance” that can be expected, consider the bombing of an apartment building where Andriy Shevchik lives. Shevchik served as a local councilman for the pro-Russia OPZZH party in Enerhodar.

Inspired by Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, the growing partisan movement is active in eastern and southern Ukraine. GT Invest, a Ukrainian business group, reported in May:

Oleksii Arestovich, the adviser to the head of the presidential office, confirmed the existence of self-formed partisan detachments in Ukraine: “Our partisans work there [in the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Kharkiv regions] but they perform their own specific tasks aimed at destroying the enemy.”

In addition to insurgency activity in the Donbas, these Banderist militants have conducted sabotage operations across the border in the Russian Federation.

“‘Rail partisans’ carried out several actions to render unusable railway tracks in 4 regions of the Russian Federation,” Ukrainian News reported in April. (It should be noted that the Zelenskyy government has been caught lying on numerous occasions.)

The CIA has been on the ground in the Ukraine for some time planning and organizing this covert “war of resistance” against Russia and the ethnic Russians of the Donbas.

“But even as the Biden administration has declared it will not deploy American troops to Ukraine, some C.I.A. personnel have continued to operate in the country secretly, mostly in the capital, Kyiv, directing much of the vast amounts of intelligence the United States is sharing with Ukrainian forces, according to current and former officials,” The New York Times reported on June 25.

Freedom of Information requests have provided an incomplete yet nonetheless horrifying picture of how the CIA and US military “neutralized” opposition, beginning with Operation Phoenix in Vietnam.

“It wasn’t a coincidence that this ‘anti-partisan’ warfare concept should be adopted by U.S. forces in Vietnam and retained to the present day,” writes Todd E. Pierce, a retired Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps, referencing the work of researcher and author Douglas Valentine. “Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to ‘Einsatzgruppen-style “special forces” and Gestapo-style secret police’ is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each,” writes Pierce.

Both programs were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the “enemy.” Hitler’s Bandit Hunters: The SS and the Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German “Security Warfare” as practiced in World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is defined as anyone who is “potentially” a threat, deemed either “partizans” or terrorists.

As noted above, this paradigm remains functional, although modified. Neocon author David Kilcullen, a former Chief Strategist in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the U.S. State Department, writes in a paper titled Countering Global Insurgency that the so-called “war on terror” is in fact a war on insurgency against the neoliberal order.

The paper, submitted to a working group led by Gen. David Petraeus, called for a “disaggregation strategy” that includes “actions to target the insurgent infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix program.” It should be noted that in military parlance, “infrastructure” includes human beings.

British PM Boris Johnson has promised to go the extra mile to defeat the Russians. Considering this, we should assume that British military intelligence is also secretly involved in formulating a counterinsurgency program.

In fact, British counterinsurgency techniques used in Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia) between 1948 and 1960 serve as a touchstone for US counterinsurgency.

“In December 1960, soon after the [British declared] emergency ended, the US Army’s Handbook for the Suppression of Communist Guerrilla/Terrorist Operations looked to the Malayan example as one resource for ‘practical measures’ that could be used against guerrilla activities the world over,” writes Wen-Qing Ngoei.

At base, studying effective counterrevolution offered US leaders lessons in repurposing Britain’s history of “imperial policing” throughout the world. These lessons—their fundamental imperial logic—quickly undergirded America’s network of client states, which received US counterinsurgency training programs during the Cold War.

Of course, when it comes to terrorism, torture, and assassination, there isn’t much the CIA can teach Ukraine’s SBU (Security Service of Ukraine), which colludes with the ultranationalists.

“The Ukrainian security service known as the SBU has served as the main enforcer of the post-Maidan government’s campaign of domestic political repression,” write Max Blumenthal and Esha Krishnaswamy.

Pro-Western monitors including the United Nations Office of the High Commission (UN OHCR) and Human Rights Watch have accused the SBU of systematically torturing political opponents and Ukrainian dissidents with near-total impunity…The UN OHCR found in 2016 that “arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment of such conflict-related detainees were common practice of SBU… A former Kharkiv SBU officer explained, ‘For the SBU, the law virtually does not exist as everything that is illegal can be either classified or explained by referring to state necessity.”

In short, for the CIA, it is a match made in heaven.

There are rumors of secret American-operated torture sites in Ukraine in addition to roving “death-squads” targeting Russian “collaborators,” such as the dead civilians in Bucha, shamelessly used by the Zelensky regime as war propaganda.

“A long list of missing and murdered people will one day emerge from the post-war period in Ukraine,” writes the Donbass Insider.

If some of you have doubts, know that on 5 March 2022, the SBU assassinated Denis Kireev in the street. He was a diplomat and a member of the Ukrainian delegation that met their Russian counterparts in Gomel, Belarus. He was for peace, but according to Ukraine he was a traitor. Far from the normal actions of civilized countries in Europe, the SBU murdered him…

The SBU, with the help of Bandera indoctrinated ultranationalists, will likely serve as the regime’s Einsatzgruppen, the paramilitary death squads of the Nazi SS. In the hope of driving Russia out of the Donbas and southeastern Ukraine with endless partisan attacks (reminiscent of Afghanistan), the SBU and its neo-Nazi battalions are preparing for a final ethnic cleansing.

On a final note, consider the emphasis lately placed on the Pentagon’s “127 Echo” program. It was implemented along with the 2018 National Defense Strategy, “which prioritizes near-peer adversaries like China and Russia,” according to the Military Times. “The 127 Echo program is rarely discussed, but it involves shifting a greater share of the burden of waging war onto local partners, while allowing Americans to retain operational control over missions.” (Emphasis added.)

It doesn’t take a degree in world history to realize, when all the evidence is examined, that the US and its CIA are preparing for the next phase following the inevitable Russian victory in Donbas and other ethnic-Russian areas of Ukraine.

Biden and his partners, with a bit of waffling by France’s Macron, are determined to “drag out” the war in Ukraine indefinitely, or at least until Russia falls (this is a delusional neocon dream), as the Soviet Union did soon after departing Afghanistan.

If the neocons indeed believe they can defeat Russia, first by supplying the corrupt regime in Kyiv with high-tech munitions, and then by arming, financing, and supporting a guerrilla-like “partisan” army against the “occupation,” they are dangerously delusional in addition to psychopathic.

*

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

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Donbass Insider

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

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

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

***

John Mearsheimer is Honorary Professor of Political Science at the Higher School of International Relations. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. Mr Mearsheimer is best known for developing the theory of offensive realism, which describes the interaction between great powers as primarily driven by a rational desire to achieve regional hegemony in an anarchic international system.

The following speech was delivered by John Mearsheimer at the European University (EUI) in Florence on June 16. American political scientist John Mearsheimer in his international lecture states that the United States and NATO bear all the blame for the bloodshed in Ukraine. Here they are trying to defeat Russia and will not stop before the escalation of the conflict. “History will severely condemn the United States for its strikingly insane policy towards Ukraine,” the author concludes.

***

The war in Ukraine is a multifaceted catastrophe that is likely to get worse in the foreseeable future. When a war is successful, little attention is paid to its causes, but when its outcome becomes catastrophic, understanding how it happened becomes paramount. People want to know: how did we get into such a terrible situation?

I have witnessed this phenomenon twice in my life — first during the Vietnam War and then during the Iraq War. In both cases, Americans wanted to know how their country could have miscalculated so badly. Given that the United States and its NATO allies played a decisive role in the events that led to the military conflict in Ukraine, and are now playing a central role in this war, it is appropriate to assess the responsibility of the West for this colossal disaster.

Today I will give two main arguments.

First, the United States bears the main blame for the emergence of the Ukrainian crisis. This does not deny that Putin launched a military special operation in Ukraine, and he is also responsible for the actions that the Russian military is taking there. But this also does not deny that the allies also bear a certain share of the blame for Ukraine, although in the vast majority they simply blindly follow America in this conflict. My main contention is that the United States has pursued and is pursuing a policy towards Ukraine that Putin and other Russian leaders view as an existential threat to Russia. And they have repeatedly stated this over the years. I am especially referring to America’s obsession with dragging Ukraine into NATO and turning it into a stronghold of the West on the border with Russia. The Biden administration did not want to eliminate this threat with the help of diplomacy and in fact in 2021 confirmed the commitment of the United States to accept Ukraine into NATO. Putin responded with a military special operation in Ukraine, which began on February 24 this year.

Secondly, the Biden administration reacted to the start of the special operation by practically doubling its anti-Russian efforts. Washington and its Western allies are determined to achieve Russia’s defeat in Ukraine and apply all possible sanctions to significantly weaken Russian power. The United States is not seriously interested in finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict, which means that the war is likely to drag on for months, if not years. At the same time, Ukraine, which has already suffered terribly, will be even more damaged. In fact, the United States is helping Ukraine to follow the false path of imaginary “victories”, in fact, leading the country to complete collapse. In addition, there is also a danger of further escalation of the Ukrainian conflict, since NATO may be involved in it, and nuclear weapons may be used during hostilities. We live in times full of deadly dangers.

Let me now state my argument in more detail, starting with a description of the generally accepted ideas about the causes of the Ukrainian conflict.

Confused ideas of the West

There is a widespread strong belief in the West that Putin bears full responsibility for the crisis in Ukraine and, of course, for the ongoing hostilities on the territory of this country. They say that he has imperial ambitions, that is, he seeks to conquer Ukraine and other countries — and all this with the aim of creating a great Russia that bears some resemblance to the former Soviet Union. In other words, Ukraine is Putin’s first goal, but not his last. As one scientist put it, he “pursues a sinister and long-standing goal: to erase Ukraine from the map of the world.” Given these alleged goals of Putin, it is quite logical for Finland and Sweden to join NATO, and for the alliance to increase the number of its forces in Eastern Europe. Imperial Russia, after all, must be contained.

However, it should be noted that although this narrative is repeated over and over again in the mainstream Western media and by virtually every Western leader, there is no evidence to support it. And when supporters of this generally accepted point of view in the West try to represent them, it turns out that they have practically nothing to do with Putin’s motives for sending troops to Ukraine. For example, some emphasize Putin’s repeated words that Ukraine is an “artificial state” or not a “real state.” However, such opaque statements of his say nothing about the reason for his campaign in Ukraine. The same can be said about Putin’s statement that he views Russians and Ukrainians as “one people” with a common history. Others note that he called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” And that Putin also said: “The one who does not remember the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants him back has no brains.” Still others point to a speech in which he stated that “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, more precisely, by Bolshevik, communist Russia.” But in the same speech, speaking about Ukraine’s independence today, Putin said: “Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least acknowledge them openly and honestly.”

To prove that Putin seeks to conquer the whole of Ukraine and annex it to Russia, it is necessary to provide evidence that, firstly, he considers it a desirable goal, secondly, that he considers it an achievable goal, and, thirdly, that he intends to pursue this goal. However, there is no evidence in public sources that Putin was going to, and even more so intended to end Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he launched a special operation in Ukraine on February 24.

In fact, everything is just the opposite. There is strong evidence that Putin recognizes Ukraine as an independent country. In his article on Russian-Ukrainian relations dated July 12, 2021, which supporters of the popular opinion in the West often refer to as evidence of his imperial ambitions, he tells the Ukrainian people: “Do you want to create your own state? We only welcome it!”. And as for how Russia should treat Ukraine, he writes: “There is only one answer: with respect.” And Putin ends this long article with the following words: “And what Ukraine will be like is up to its citizens to decide.” It is difficult to reconcile these statements with statements in the West that he wants to include Ukraine in the “greater Russia”.

In the same article dated July 12, 2021, and again in an important speech delivered by him on February 21 of this year, Putin stressed that Russia accepts “the new geopolitical reality that has developed after the collapse of the USSR.” He repeated this for the third time on February 24, when he announced that Russia was launching its military special operation in Ukraine. In particular, he stated that “the occupation of Ukrainian territory is not part of our plans,” and made it clear that he respects the sovereignty of Ukraine, but only up to a certain point: “Russia cannot feel safe, develop and exist, being under constant threat from the territory of today’s Ukraine.” In fact, this suggests that Putin is not interested in Ukraine becoming part of Russia. He is interested in ensuring that it does not become a “springboard” for Western aggression against Russia, which I will tell you more about later.

One could argue that Putin, they say, is lying about his motives, that he is trying to disguise his imperial ambitions. It just so happened that I once wrote a book about lies in international politics — “Why Leaders Lie: the Truth about Lies in International Politics” — and it is clear to me that Putin is not lying. First of all, one of my main conclusions is that leaders don’t lie to each other often, they lie to their public more often. As for Putin, no matter what people think about him, there is no evidence in history that he ever lied to other leaders. Although some claim that he often lies and cannot be trusted, there is little evidence that he lied to a foreign audience. Moreover, over the past two years, he has repeatedly publicly expressed his thoughts about Ukraine and constantly stressed that his main concern is Ukraine’s relations with the West, especially with NATO. He has never hinted that he wants to make Ukraine part of Russia. If such behavior is part of a giant deception campaign, then it has no precedent in history.

Perhaps the best indicator that Putin is not seeking to conquer and absorb Ukraine is the military strategy that Moscow has used from the very beginning of its special operation. The Russian army did not try to conquer the whole of Ukraine. This would require a classic blitzkrieg strategy aimed at quickly capturing the entire territory of the country by armored forces with the support of tactical aviation. This strategy, however, was not feasible because the Russian army, which launched the special operation, had only 190,000 soldiers, which is too small to occupy Ukraine, which is not only the largest country between the Atlantic Ocean and Russia, but also has a population of more than 40 million people. Unsurprisingly, the Russians pursued a strategy of limited goals that focused on creating a threat to capture Kiev, but mainly on conquering a significant part of the territory in the east and south of Ukraine. In short, Russia did not have the opportunity to subjugate the whole of Ukraine, not to mention other Eastern European countries.

As noted by Ramzi Mardini (a well-known American political scientist, senior researcher at the influential American Institute of Peace, professor at the University of Chicago – Approx. Another indicator of Putin‘s limited goals is the lack of evidence that Russia was preparing a puppet government for Ukraine, nurtured pro-Russian leaders in Kiev, or took any political measures that would allow it to occupy the entire country and, eventually, integrate it into Russia.

If we develop this argument, it should be noted that Putin and other Russian leaders probably understood from the experience of the Cold War that the occupation of countries in the era of nationalism is invariably a recipe for endless problems. The Soviet experience in Afghanistan is a vivid example of this, but Moscow’s relations with its allies in Eastern Europe are more relevant to this issue. The Soviet Union maintained a huge military presence in the region and was involved in the politics of almost every country located there. However, these allies were often a thorn in Moscow’s side. The Soviet Union suppressed a major uprising in East Germany in 1953, and then invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to keep them in its orbit. Serious troubles arose in the USSR and in Poland: in 1956, 1970 and again in 1980-1981. Although the Polish authorities solved these problems themselves, they served as a reminder that Soviet intervention may be necessary at times. Albania, Romania, and Yugoslavia usually caused trouble for Moscow, but Soviet leaders tended to put up with their “bad” behavior because their geographical location made them less important to deter NATO.

And what about modern Ukraine? From Putin’s article of July 12, 2021, it is clear that he then understood that Ukrainian nationalism is a powerful force and that the civil war in the Donbas, which has been going on since 2014, has largely poisoned relations between Russia and Ukraine. He, of course, knew that the Russian army would not be welcomed by Ukrainians with open arms and that it would be a “Herculean” task for Russia to subdue Ukraine, even if it had the forces necessary to conquer the whole country, which Moscow did not have.

Finally, it is worth noting that hardly anyone claimed that Putin had imperial ambitions from the moment he took the reins of power in 2000 until the Ukrainian crisis first broke out on February 22, 2014. Moreover, it is worth remembering that the Russian leader was a guest at the NATO summit in April 2008 in Bucharest, where the alliance announced that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become its members. Putin’s criticism of this statement had almost no effect on Washington, because Russia was considered too weak to stop further expansion of NATO, just as it was too weak to stop the waves of expansion of the alliance in 1999 and 2004.

In this regard, it is important to note that the expansion of NATO until February 2014 was not aimed at deterring Russia. Given the deplorable state of Russian military power at that time, Moscow was unable to pursue an “imperial” policy in Eastern Europe. Tellingly, even former US Ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul notes that Putin’s seizure of Crimea was not planned before the “Maidan” crisis broke out in 2014. It was Putin’s impulsive reaction to the coup that overthrew the pro-Russian leader of Ukraine. In short, the expansion of NATO was not yet intended to contain the Russian threat, but was part of a broader policy of extending the liberal international order to Eastern Europe and turning the entire continent into a “Western” Europe.

It was only when the Maidan crisis broke out in February 2014 that the United States and its allies suddenly began calling Putin a dangerous leader with imperial ambitions, and Russia a serious military threat that must be contained. What caused this shift? This new rhetoric was intended to serve one important purpose: to allow the West to blame Putin for unleashing unrest in Ukraine. And now that that long-standing crisis has turned into a full-scale war, the West needs to make sure that Putin alone is blamed for this catastrophic turn of events. This “blame game” explains why Putin is now widely portrayed in the West as an “imperialist”, although there is practically no evidence to support this point of view.

Let me now turn to the real cause of the Ukrainian crisis.

The real cause of the troubles

The main root of the current crisis in Ukraine is the efforts of the United States aimed at turning this country into a stronghold of the West on the borders of Russia. This strategy has three directions: Ukraine’s integration into the EU, Ukraine’s transformation into a pro-Western liberal democracy and, most importantly, Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO. The strategy was put into action at the annual NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, when the alliance announced that Ukraine and Georgia would “become its members.” Russian leaders immediately reacted with outrage, making it clear that they view this decision as an existential threat and do not intend to allow any country to join NATO. According to a respected Russian journalist, Putin “flew into a rage” and warned that “if Ukraine joins NATO, it will be without Crimea and many of its eastern regions. It’s just going to fall apart.”

William Burns, who is now the head of the CIA, and during the Bucharest NATO summit was the US ambassador to Moscow, wrote a memo to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in which he succinctly describes Russia’s views on this issue. According to him: “Ukraine’s accession to NATO is the most contrasting of all red lines for the Russian elite (and not just for Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from patriots in the dark corners of the Kremlin to the harshest liberal critics of Putin, I have not found anyone who would consider Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge. interests of Russia”. According to him, NATO “will be considered… as a military structure throwing down a strategic gauntlet to Moscow. And today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will simply freeze… This will create fertile ground for Russian interference in the affairs of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

Burns, of course, was not the only politician who understood that Ukraine’s accession to NATO was fraught with danger. Indeed, at the Bucharest summit, both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy opposed the promotion of Ukraine’s membership in NATO, because they understood that this would cause alarm and anger of Russia. Merkel recently explained her disagreement at the time as follows: “I was absolutely sure… that Putin just won’t allow it. From his point of view, it would be a declaration of war.”

The Bush administration, however, cared little about Moscow’s “most contrasting red lines,” and pressured the leaders of France and Germany to agree to make a public statement that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join the alliance.

Unsurprisingly, US—led efforts to integrate Georgia into NATO led to a war between Georgia and Russia in August 2008 – four months after the Bucharest summit. Nevertheless, the United States and its allies continued to advance their plans to turn Ukraine into a bastion of the West on the borders of Russia. These efforts eventually triggered a major crisis in February 2014, after a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev forced Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych to flee the country. He was replaced by pro-American Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. In response, Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine and helped ignite a civil war between pro-Russian separatists and the Ukrainian government in the Donbas in eastern Ukraine.

One can often hear the argument that in the eight years between the beginning of the crisis in February 2014 and the beginning of the war in February 2022, the United States and its allies paid little attention to Ukraine’s entry into NATO. They say that de facto this issue was removed from discussion, and, thus, the expansion of NATO could not be a serious reason for the escalation of the crisis in 2021 and the subsequent start of the Russian special operation at the beginning of this year. This argument is false. In fact, the West’s reaction to the events of 2014 was to redouble its efforts in the current strategy and bring Ukraine even closer to NATO. The Alliance began training the Ukrainian military in 2014, annually training 10,000 AFU servicemen over the next eight years. In December 2017, the Trump administration decided to provide Kiev with “defensive weapons”. Soon other NATO countries joined in, supplying Ukraine with even more weapons.

The Ukrainian military began participating in joint military exercises with NATO forces. In July 2021, Kiev and Washington jointly conducted Operation Sea Breeze, a naval exercise in the Black Sea in which the naval forces of 31 countries participated and which were directly targeted at Russia. Two months later, in September 2021, the Ukrainian army led Rapid Trident 21 exercises, which the US Army described as “annual exercises aimed at improving interoperability between allied and partner countries to demonstrate the readiness of units to respond to any crisis.” NATO’s efforts to arm and train the Ukrainian armed forces largely explain why the Ukrainian Armed Forces put up such strong resistance to the Russian armed forces at the initial stages of the special operation. As the headline of The Wall Street Journal read at the beginning of the special operation: “The Secret of Ukraine’s Military Success: Years of training in NATO” (the article appeared in The WSJ on April 13, 2022, The Wall Street Journal “The Secret of Ukraine’s Military Success: Years of NATO Training”, followed by the crushing defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Mariupol, Kherson and Severodonetsk — Approx. InoSMI).

In addition to NATO’s ongoing efforts to transform the Ukrainian armed forces into a more formidable fighting force, the policy related to Ukraine’s membership in NATO and its integration into the West has changed in 2021. Both in Kiev and in Washington, enthusiasm for achieving these goals has been revived. President Zelensky, who has never shown much zeal for Ukraine’s accession to NATO and was elected in March 2019 on a platform calling for cooperation with Russia to resolve the ongoing crisis, changed course in early 2021 and not only decided to expand NATO, but also took a tough stance towards Moscow. He has taken a number of actions, including shutting down pro-Russian TV channels and accusing a close friend of Putin of treason, which must have angered Moscow.

President Biden, who moved to the White House in January 2021, has long been committed to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, and has also been very aggressive towards Russia. It is not surprising that on June 14, 2021, at its annual summit in Brussels, NATO issued the following communique:

“We confirm the decision taken at the Bucharest Summit in 2008 that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process. We confirm all elements of this decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be evaluated on its own merits. We firmly support Ukraine’s right to independently determine its future and the course of foreign policy without outside interference.”

On September 1, 2021, Zelensky visited the White House, where Biden made it clear that the United States was “firmly committed” to Ukraine’s “Euro-Atlantic aspirations.” Then, on November 10, 2021, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and his Ukrainian counterpart Dmitry Kuleba signed an important document — the Charter on Strategic Partnership between the United States and Ukraine. The goal of both sides, the document says, is to “emphasize… Ukraine’s commitment to carrying out deep and comprehensive reforms necessary for full integration into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions.” This document is clearly based not only on the “commitments to strengthen the relations of strategic partnership between Ukraine and the United States, proclaimed by Presidents Zelensky and Biden,” but also confirms the commitment of the United States to the “Declaration of the Bucharest Summit of 2008.”

In short, few doubt that since the beginning of 2021, Ukraine has begun to move rapidly towards joining NATO. Nevertheless, some defenders of this policy argue that Moscow should not have worried, since “NATO is a defensive alliance and does not pose a threat to Russia.” But that’s not how Putin and other Russian leaders think about NATO, and what matters is exactly what they think. There is no doubt that Ukraine’s accession to NATO remained for Moscow “the most contrasting and dangerous red line.”

To counter this growing threat, Putin deployed an increasing number of Russian troops on the border with Ukraine between February 2021 and February 2022. His goal was to force Biden and Zelensky to change course and stop their efforts to integrate Ukraine into the West. On December 17, 2021, Moscow sent separate letters to the Biden administration and NATO demanding written guarantees that: 1) Ukraine will not join NATO, 2) offensive weapons will not be deployed near Russia’s borders, 3) NATO troops and military equipment moved to Eastern Europe since 1997 will be returned to Western Europe.

During this period, Putin made numerous public statements that left no doubt that he viewed NATO’s expansion into Ukraine as an existential threat. Speaking at the board of the Ministry of Defense on December 21, 2021, he said: “What they are doing, trying or planning to do in Ukraine does not happen thousands of kilometers from our national border. This is happening on our doorstep. They need to understand that we simply have nowhere to retreat further. Do they really think we don’t see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly by, watching the growing threats to Russia?” Two months later, at a press conference on February 22, 2022, just a few days before the start of the special operation, Putin said: “We are categorically against Ukraine joining NATO, because it poses a threat to us, and we have arguments in support of this. I have repeatedly said this in this Hall.” Then he made it clear that he believes that Ukraine is already becoming a de facto member of NATO. According to Putin, the United States and its allies “continue to pump the current Kiev authorities with modern types of weapons.” He further said that if this is not stopped, Moscow “will be left alone with an Anti-Russia armed to the teeth.” This is completely unacceptable.”

Putin’s logic should be perfectly clear to Americans, who have long been committed to the Monroe doctrine, according to which no even distant great power is allowed to deploy any of its armed forces in the Western Hemisphere.

I could point out that in all of Putin’s public statements during the months preceding the special operation, there is not the slightest evidence that he was going to seize Ukraine and make it part of Russia, not to mention attacking other countries in Eastern Europe. Other Russian leaders, including the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Russian Ambassador to Washington, also stressed the key role of NATO expansion in the emergence of the Ukrainian crisis. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it succinctly at a press conference on January 14, 2022, when he said: “The key to everything is to guarantee that NATO will not expand to the east.”

Nevertheless, attempts by Lavrov and Putin to force the United States and its allies to abandon attempts to turn Ukraine into a stronghold of the West on the border with Russia have completely failed. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken responded to Russia’s demands in mid-December by simply saying, “No change. There will be no changes.” Then Putin launched a special operation in Ukraine to eliminate the threat he saw from NATO.

Where are we now and where are we going?

Military operations in Ukraine have been raging for almost four months. Now I would like to offer some observations about what has happened so far and where the war may go. I will focus on three specific issues: 1) the consequences of the war for Ukraine, 2) prospects for escalation — including nuclear escalation, 3) prospects for the end of the war in the foreseeable future.

This war is a real catastrophe for Ukraine. As I noted earlier, Putin made it clear in 2008 that Russia would destroy Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO. He fulfills that promise. Russian troops have captured 20% of Ukrainian territory and destroyed or severely damaged many Ukrainian cities and towns. More than 6.5 million Ukrainians have left the country, and more than 8 million have become internally displaced persons. Many thousands of Ukrainians, including innocent civilians, have been killed or seriously injured, and the Ukrainian economy is in deep crisis. According to World Bank estimates, Ukraine’s economy will shrink by almost 50% during 2022. According to experts, Ukraine has been damaged by about $ 100 billion, and it will take about a trillion dollars to restore the economy. country. Now Kiev needs about $5 billion in aid every month just to keep the government working.

It seems that there is little hope now that Ukraine will be able to restore the use of ports on the Azov and Black Seas in the near future. Before the war, approximately 70% of all Ukrainian exports and imports and 98% of grain exports passed through these ports. This is the current situation after less than 4 months of fighting. It’s scary to even imagine what Ukraine will be like if this war drags on for several more years.

So, what are the prospects for concluding a peace agreement and ending the war in the next few months? Unfortunately, I personally do not see the possibility that this war will end in the near future. And this view is shared by prominent politicians such as General Mark Milley, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. The main reason for my pessimism is that both Russia and the United States are deeply committed to the goal of winning the war, and it is impossible to achieve an agreement in which both sides would win now. More specifically, the key to the settlement from Russia’s point of view is the transformation of Ukraine into a neutral state, which will put an end to the prospect of Kiev’s integration with the West. But such an outcome is unacceptable for the Biden administration and a significant part of the American foreign policy establishment, because it would mean a victory for Russia.

The Ukrainian leaders, of course, have a certain freedom of action, and one can hope that they could adopt neutrality in order to save their country from further destruction. Indeed, Zelensky briefly mentioned this possibility in the first days of the special operation, but he never seriously developed this idea. However, it is unlikely that Kiev will be able to accept neutrality, because the ultranationalists in Ukraine, who have significant political power, are not interested in yielding to at least any Russian demand, especially one that dictates Ukraine’s political orientation in relations with the outside world. The Biden administration and countries on the eastern flank of NATO, such as Poland and the Baltic states, are likely to support Ukrainian ultranationalists on this issue.

Significantly complicating the situation is the question of what to do with large areas of Ukrainian territory that Russia has conquered since the beginning of the war, as well as what to do with Crimea? It is difficult to imagine that Moscow would voluntarily give up any of the Ukrainian territories that it now occupies, and even more so from the entire conquered part of Ukraine, since Putin’s current territorial goals are probably different from those he pursued before the start of the special operation. At the same time, it is equally difficult to imagine that any Ukrainian leader would agree to a deal allowing Russia to retain any Ukrainian territory, with the possible exception of Crimea. I hope I am wrong, but it is precisely for these reasons that I do not see an end to this destructive military conflict.

Now let me turn to the question of its possible escalation. It is widely recognized among international scholars that there is a strong tendency to escalate protracted wars. Over time, other countries are usually involved in the struggle, and the level of violence increases. The probability that this will happen in the war in Ukraine is real. There is a danger that the United States and its NATO allies will be drawn into hostilities, which they have so far managed to avoid, although in fact they are already waging an indirect proxy war against Russia. There is also the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used in Ukraine, which could even lead to an exchange of nuclear strikes between Russia and the United States. The main reason why this can happen is that the stakes in the Ukrainian conflict in its global refraction have turned out to be so high for both sides that neither of them can afford to lose.

As I have already stressed, Putin and his aides believe that Ukraine’s accession to the West represents an existential threat to Russia that needs to be eliminated. In practice, this means that Russia must win the war in Ukraine. Defeat is unacceptable for Moscow. The Biden administration, on the other hand, stressed that its goal is not only to inflict a decisive defeat on Russia in Ukraine, but also to inflict enormous damage to the Russian economy with the help of sanctions. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stressed that the West’s goal is to weaken Russia to such an extent that it cannot re—enter Ukraine. In fact, the Biden administration is trying to knock Russia out of the great powers. President Biden himself called Russia’s war in Ukraine “genocide” and accused Putin of being a “war criminal” who, after the war, should be tried for “war crimes.” Such rhetoric is hardly suitable for negotiations on ending the war. After all, how to negotiate with a State that is carrying out genocide?

American policy has two important consequences. First, it significantly increases the existential threat that Moscow faces in this war, and makes its victory in Ukraine more important than ever. At the same time, this US policy means that the United States is deeply committed to Russia losing. The Biden administration has now invested so much in its proxy war in Ukraine – both materially and rhetorically — that a Russian victory would mean a crushing defeat for Washington.

Obviously, both sides cannot win at the same time. Moreover, there is a serious possibility that one of the parties will soon start losing heavily. If the American policy succeeds and the Russians lose to the Ukrainians on the battlefield, Putin may resort to nuclear weapons to save the situation. In May, US Director of National Intelligence Evril Haines told the Senate Armed Services Committee that this is one of two situations that could lead to Putin using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. For those of you who think this is unlikely, remember that NATO planned to use nuclear weapons in similar circumstances during the Cold War. It is impossible to predict now how the Biden administration would react if Russia used nuclear weapons in Ukraine. But one thing is for sure: Washington will be under great pressure and tempted to reciprocate with Russia, which will increase the likelihood of a nuclear war between the two great powers. There is a perverse paradox here: the more successful the United States and its allies are in achieving their goals, the more likely it will be that the war will become nuclear.

Let’s turn the playing table and ask what happens if it turns out that the United States and its NATO allies are heading for defeat, what happens if the Russians defeat the Ukrainian army, and the government in Kiev negotiates a peace agreement designed to save as much of the remaining part of Ukraine as possible. In this case, the United States and its allies will be tempted to take an even more active part in the fighting. It is unlikely, but it is quite possible that American or maybe Polish troops will be involved in hostilities, which means that NATO will be at war with Russia in the literal sense of the word. According to Evril Haines, this is another scenario in which the Russians can turn to nuclear weapons. It is difficult to say exactly how events will develop if this scenario is implemented, but there is no doubt that there is a serious potential for escalation, including nuclear escalation. The very possibility of such an outcome should give us all goosebumps.

This war is likely to have other disastrous consequences, which I cannot discuss in detail due to lack of time. For example, there is reason to believe that the war will lead to a global food crisis in which many millions of people will die. World Bank President David Malpass claims that if the war in Ukraine continues, we will face a global food crisis that will become a “humanitarian catastrophe.”

In addition, relations between Russia and the West are so badly poisoned that it will take years to restore them. And this deep hostility will fuel instability around the world, but especially in Europe. Someone will say that there is a silver lining: relations between countries in the West have improved markedly due to the conflict in Ukraine. But this is only true for the moment. Even now, there are deep cracks under the surface of the external Western unity, and over time they will very urgently and painfully declare themselves. For example, relations between the countries of Eastern and Western Europe are likely to deteriorate as the war drags on, since their interests and views on the conflict do not coincide.

Finally, the conflict is already causing serious damage to the global economy, and over time this situation is likely to seriously worsen. Jamie Diamond, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, says we should prepare for an economic “hurricane.” If he is right, then the current economic turmoil will affect the politics of every Western country, undermine liberal democracy and strengthen its opponents both on the left and on the right. The economic consequences of the Ukrainian conflict will affect the countries of the whole planet, not just the West. According to a UN report published last week, “the consequences of the conflict will spread human suffering far beyond its borders. The war in all its aspects has exacerbated a global crisis unprecedented at least for the current generation, endangering lives, livelihoods and our aspirations for a better world in the 2030s.”

Conclusion

Simply put, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is a colossal catastrophe, which, as I noted at the beginning of my speech, will force people all over the world to look for its causes. Those who believe in facts and logic will quickly discover that the United States and its allies are primarily responsible for this derailment of our common train. The decision taken in April 2008 on the accession of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO was destined to lead to a conflict with Russia. The Bush administration was the main architect of this fateful choice, but the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations intensified and aggravated this policy at every turn, and America’s allies obediently followed Washington. Despite the fact that Russian leaders made it abundantly clear that Ukraine’s accession to NATO would mean crossing Russia’s “most contrasting of red lines,” the United States refused to come to terms with Russia’s deep security concerns and instead moved tirelessly to turn Ukraine into a western bastion on the border with Russia.

The tragic truth is that if the West had not sought to expand NATO into Ukraine, it is unlikely that a war would have raged in Ukraine today, and Crimea would most likely still be part of Ukraine. In fact, Washington has played a central role in leading Ukraine down the path of destruction. History will severely condemn the United States and its allies for their strikingly stupid policy towards Ukraine.

Thanks.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

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

***

Two summits in a row, those of the G7 and NATO, show that the West is deploying all its weapons – military, political, economic – to maintain the dominance it is losing in a world that is becoming increasingly multipolar, as evidenced by the growing development of the BRICS: the economic organization that brings together Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, which Iran, Argentina and other countries want to join.

In Ukraine, while the G7 provides Kiev with $30 billion, NATO provides it with increasing amounts of weapons against Russia. NATO’s role is not just that, however: Pentagon officials, interviewed by the New York Times, confirm for the first time, with precise facts, that the command and management of military operations in Ukraine are in the hands of the Pentagon and NATO.

The NATO Summit approved the new Strategic Concept, which calls Russia “the most significant threat to Allied security” and states that “strategic competition is increasing around the world.” In the new Strategic Concept, NATO speaks explicitly about China for the first time, declaring that “China’s coercive policies challenge our interests, our security and our values.”

We are facing a single strategy of war that the West implements from Europe to East Asia. While in Europe NATO under U.S. command expands from 30 to 32 countries, including Sweden and Finland, even closer to Russia, in Asia and the Pacific the U.S. military deployment grows, supported mainly by Australia and Japan. The world’s largest naval exercise under U.S. command is taking place in the Pacific against China.

All this costs money and we are always the ones paying for it. According to official NATO data, Italian military spending rises to about 29 billion euros in 2022, equivalent to 80 million euros per day. The sharpest increase occurred during the lockdown period: from 21 billion in 2019 it rose to over 26 billion in 2020 and over 28 billion in 2021. NATO, however, warns, “Doing more will cost more.”

*

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

This article was originally published on byoblu.

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

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English

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

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

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

***

Peter Navarro, 73 years old, was Assistant to the President for Trade and Manufacturing Policy during the Trump administration. I do not know him.  

Last February the Democrats subpoenaed him to appear before the Democrats’ “Select Committee on the January 6 Attack,” a show trial operation trying to invent an “insurrection” by people who took selfies sitting in Nancy Pelosi’s chair.

As Trump had declared executive privilege, Navarro simply observed the president’s right and refused to appear.

There is nothing unusual about this. It has been happening forever.  Personally I do not know if executive privilege is a good idea, but it is a fact.

It is what happened to Navarro that is unprecedented.  In early June five armed FBI agents grabbed him as he was boarding a flight to Tennessee, handcuffed him, put him in leg irons and placed him in solitary confinement.  

This is not normal procedure on the part of the FBI.  This is pure Gestapo procedure.  It reminds me of the early years of Nazi Germany.  Courts would dismiss false charges against political opponents, but as the vindicated person walked out of the courthouse he was seized by the Gestapo and imprisoned regardless.

The normal procedure is to resolve the issue with a request for a waiver of executive privilege or to put the matter in the hands of the courts.  But instead of normal, legal procedure, a former Assistant to the President of the United States received Gestapo treatment.

Every American should be shocked at this, but they are not.  Democrats think it is wonderful that “an evil, racist Trump administration member” got his deserving comeuppance. The presstitutes see nothing amiss.  Apparently, the ACLU is too busy creating transgender rights to worry about the Constitution.  Republicans, including Trump, have treated Julian Assange worse than the Democrats have treated Navarro.  

In other words, everything is so politicized that there is no room for the Constitution.  

In many countries being in politics is a ticket to jail.  The arrest of former presidents by their political opponents is a South American tradition.  It is a tradition that Democrats and the FBI have brought to America.

The Democrats have built divisiveness into America with their identity politics, critical race theory, and open borders policy, and they have corrupted the Department of Justice and turned in into a political weapon.  The Democrats have rung the death knell for the “land of the free.” 

July 4th flag waving cannot restore our liberty.  Americans, of course, will stick their heads in the sand and go into denial, as they always do when faced with uncomfortable facts about their country.  Consequently, nothing will be done to stop the Nazification of America.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

There is a slow-motion buildup to a hot war with Russia happening.  The NATO and western alliance motive for the war is clear {Go Deep}.  The question is rapidly moving from “if” to “when.”

In this outline we will update on the troop and military movements and then explain why the war with Russia is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.  In many ways this will be the “Climate Change War,” you will see why below.

First, the U.S. is moving troops from the 101st Airborne ‘screaming eagles’ into NATO allied countries on the western border of Ukraine. This is the first deployment of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to Europe in 80 years.  As noted by base reporting, “Elements of 2nd Brigade Combat Team, and 101st Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, 101st Airborne Division, have been assigned to carry out the mission.” [source]

“We’re going to check the Russian influence and we’re going to impact the Russians’ decision-making for probably the next 10-20 years,” said Col. John Lubas, deputy commanding officer for operations, 101st Airborne Division, in a pre-deployment briefing. “We’re going to do this with all our partners in NATO, the European Union and the West, and this is an incredibly important mission.”

Maj. Gen. JP McGee, commanding general, 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell, said the division has been in an increased readiness posture for several months and is just as prepared now as during World War II.

“Since D-Day, June 6, 1944, this division has repeatedly answered the nation’s call in every major conflict,” McGee said. “The Screaming Eagles of today are ready to support our allies to preserve the long-lasting stability in Europe that our predecessors fought and died to secure.” (link)

Second, Joe Biden has announced that six U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are being moved into the Mediterranean Sea to provide air defense missions and the ability to launch cruise missiles well inland into Russia [source].

As noted in a press conference by Biden, “here in Spain, we’re going to work with our Ally to increase U.S. Navy destroyers stationed in Spain’s Rota Naval Base from three to — from four to six — four to six destroyers.”

According to Joe Biden: 

“In Poland, we’re going to establish a permanent headquarters for the U.S. Army Fifth Corps and — strengthening our U.S.-NATO interoperability across the entire eastern flank.

We’re going to maintain additional rotational Brigade — which is 3,000 fighters and another 2,000 personnel — Combat Team here in Europe, headquartered in Romania. And we’re going to enhance our rotational deployments in — deployments in the Baltic states. (link)

Third, Joe Biden is sending “two additional F-35 squadrons to the UK, and station additional air defense and other capabilities in Germany and in Italy.” [source] This is not a defensive posture.  This is an offensive buildup of U.S. troops across the broad western border of Ukraine and a positioning of advanced first-strike elements in proximity to Russia.

This large NATO footprint posture, of which the United States is the predominant military force, has little to do with Ukraine and almost nothing to do with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

As noted by the New York Times last weekend [source], the CIA, State Dept. and Pentagon special forces are operating in Kyiv and organizing the military conflict against Russian forces in eastern Ukraine.

War with Russia is moving from “if” to “when”, and here’s how we know it is almost certain.

The NATO and western alliance that is currently engaging in the military buildup against Russia is the exact same alliance of governments’ who are chasing the climate change agenda at all costs.

I know it sounds outlandish, but the World Economic Forum multinational corporations that influence and manipulate geopolitical politics are the driving force for this needed war with Russia.  Their holy grail of Climate Change policy, and the massive shift in global economic power that comes with executing the climate change agenda, is so consequential to the geopolitical world that such a massive move is needed.

More specifically, we already know there is going to be a global food shortage as a result of the new world order energy policy that underpins the Build Back Better agenda.  We do not know the extent of the food deficit; however, we do know less food, perhaps much less food, is going to be available on a global basis.

We also know the majority voices, including the United States, within the NATO alliance have decided it is more important to follow the climate change policy than it is to feed people. [Africa Example]  The U.K and Germany proposed trying to avoid further conflict by generating more food [source].  The U.S. and Canada have blocked the effort saying that maintaining the shift toward new western energy development is more important.

Maintaining the development of a new western energy system to drive economic activity is more urgent and important than the looming crisis of global famine.  Accepting that reality, understanding the priorities as outlined, are the keys to understanding why the western alliance need the war with Russia {GO DEEP}.

I cannot emphasize this enough.  If you do not accept the scale, scope and severity of the collective west’s entrenched commitment to climate change, you will be caught off-guard and not understand what is coming.

NATO and Western Governments, led by the policy of Joe Biden, have placed oil and gas sanctions against Russia. Those U.S-led Russian energy sanctions follow similar sanctions already in place against oil and gas from Iran and Venezuela.

Simultaneously the G7, Western Alliance will not allow Africa to develop their own use of natural gas to produce fertilizer to increase crop yield/harvest. [source] The G7 control food production in Africa by controlling the energy company investment needed to manufacture fertilizer. Again, as with the biofuel issue [source], the G7 and Western Alliance are prioritizing Climate Change energy policy over food production. Which will ultimately cause food shortages and famine.

However, within this forecast dynamic, now the “WEST” has an ideological problem. Sooner or later the issues will surface with massive interest. People around the world will figure this out.

The absence of food will change things.

People in all parts of the world will eventually get angry once they realize the absence of food is being caused by Western Govt prioritizing Climate Change over people.

Things will get intense. Things will get ugly. The Western “leaders” need a scapegoat, a way to focus the world’s anger away from them… and toward something else. Their advanced narrative messaging has already surfaced in the words of National Security Coordinator for Strategic Communication, John Kirby:

“President Putin is, no kidding, weaponizing food. Let’s just call it what it is: He’s weaponizing food. He’s got an essential blockade there in the Black Sea so that nothing can leave by sea — and that’s, of course, how Ukraine has historically gotten its grain to markets.” [source]

It is not coincidental that John Kirby was moved from Pentagon spokesperson to NSC strategic communications at the White House.  Kirby’s prior move into the White House is as much related to what is coming as the 101st Airborne deployment today.

Notice how the looming shortage of food is being blamed on Russian President Vladimir Putin.  “He’s weaponizing food,” Kirby repeats, this is a significant and telling advance narrative.  What Kirby is outlining is the western government justification for the upcoming war against Russia.

The collective western leaders, positioned by the NATO talking points, are going to justify war against Russia as a needed fight to stop the global food crisis from worsening.  They will claim it is Russian President Vladimir Putin who has disrupted the world energy production.

NATO and the western alliance will claim Putin is the reason why food fertilizer is in short supply.  NATO will claim that Putin’s war in Ukraine is the source of the global energy, food and subsequent economic crisis.  Just like Putin has been blamed for higher energy and gasoline prices, so too will Putin be blamed for starving millions of people.

The war against Russia will be justified as the war to stop Putin from creating mass starvation.   If you cannot see how this is being constructed through all of the sub-links, citations and sources above, I cannot lay this out more clearly.

A NATO and western alliance war with Russia is not a matter of “if“, it is now a question of when?

*

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

Featured image is from TLR

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

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

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

***

A major loan was approved this week for an industrial food producer operating in Brazil, despite outcries from conservation groups and international shareholders worried that the money would ultimately fund activities that contribute to deforestation.

The $200 million loan was granted to industrial agricultural producer Louis Dreyfus Company (LDC) for monoculture soy and corn production in Brazil’s Cerrado, a grassland biome that has lost nearly 80% of its habitat cover.

“This is going to perpetuate environmental destruction in Brazil,” Kari Hamerschlag, Deputy Director of Food and Agriculture at Friends of the Earth, told Mongabay. “This company doesn’t need development funds. The money should be going towards enterprises that truly promote equitable development.”

The loan will bolster LDC’s operations in Mato Grosso, Goias and Minas Gerais, three states that have already felt the negative impacts of industrial agriculture. Corn, soy and cattle ranching have been connected to a long list of human rights violations — including forced labor, land grabbing and violence against Indigenous and traditional communities — while accelerating deforestation and greenhouse gas emission rates.

The most recent example of LDC controversy involves a report released last week from Reporter Brasil, which found that one of LDC’s suppliers, Agrícola Xingu, has been responsible for furthering land conflicts in western Bahia and deforesting more than 32,100 hectares (79,320 acres) in the Cerrado. Conservation groups are worried that the loan will result in similar problems.

“This project fails to take into account the concerns of locally affected community members and stakeholders, in a region troubled with land conflicts and significant environmental, human health, and labor rights concerns,” said a May 31 letter protesting the loan, which was signed by over 235 civil society and conservation organizations across the globe.

But LDC maintains that the loan will be sustainably responsible. The company recently announced its commitment to eliminate deforestation and the conversion of native vegetation for agricultural purposes by 2025. Operations funded by the loan are supposed to adhere to a “soy sustainability” policy, in which the company is obligated to collaborate with shareholders to ensure the soy supply chain isn’t contributing to deforestation, according to the loan disclosure.

Work funded by the loan will economically benefit farmers, the disclosure said, while providing them incentives to work towards zero-deforestation and conservation goals.

“LDC operates in strict compliance with all applicable laws and regulations globally, in line with our unwavering commitment to operate safely, reliably and safeguarding our planet’s finite resources,” it said in a statement to Mongabay.

The loan was granted by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a sister organization of the World Bank that’s tasked with private sector finance in developing countries. The corporation, like many multilateral development banks, has pledged to align its activity with the Paris Climate Agreement by 2023.

However, it has continued to invest in global industrial agriculture with connections to deforestation and human rights violations. Over the last decade, it has granted over $2 billion in loans to these sectors.

“We combine investments and advisory services to help the sector address higher demand and escalating food prices in an environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive way,” an IFC spokesman told Mongabay in an email. “The proposed project with LDC will support a portfolio of eligible soy and corn farmers in Brazil that are committed to zero deforestation and conversion of native vegetation.”

The loan will bolster LDC’s operations in states that have already felt the negative impacts of industrial agriculture. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia)

The loan was voted on Tuesday by the executive directors of the IFC, each of whom represent one or more countries with a stake in the World Bank. The vote count wasn’t immediately available following the announcement of the results.

The United States is a 20% shareholder of the World Bank, the largest of any country. A representative for the country declined a request for comment. Several other countries referred Mongabay to an IFC spokesperson.

Friends of the Earth and other civil society organizations wrote to and met with several executive directors ahead of the vote, trying to convince them to postpone the loan’s approval until more thorough environmental impact studies could be carried out. The groups claim that IFC is not following its “performance standard” policies in preparing the loan.

The strategy of writing to and meeting with shareholders looked promising weeks ahead of the vote. A similar approach was successful earlier this year, when the Inter-American Development Bank was pressured into permanently shelving a $200 million loan to Marfrig Global Foods, a Brazilian beef giant accused of furthering deforestation in the Amazon.

This time, while many executive directors expressed concern about the environmental and human rights implications of the IFC loan behind closed doors, it ultimately wasn’t enough to change the outcome. Three chairs — the Dutch, Nordic and Chinese — reportedly abstained on the vote. No office objected, according to Friends of the Earth.

“I am deeply disappointed that the U.S. government, the IFC’s largest shareholder, voted to approve this terrible loan and did not do more to hold IFC management accountable for upholding their own policies and mandates,” Hamerschlag said.

*

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

Featured image: Work funded by the loan will economically benefit farmers, the disclosure said. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia)

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

February of 2022 was a particularly dark month, both in Quebec and in Canada generally.

In Quebec, we had the expansion of the use of “vaccine passports” to large, well-ventilated box stores; a curfew had been imposed in January (and was lifted after nearly three weeks); the demonization of the so-called “unvaccinated” reached a fever pitch, first in regime media, then in government pronouncements—a new tax on the “unvaccinated” was promised, and it was promised to be “significant”. Apparently the solution to the problem of Omicron defeating the non-vaccines, was to blame those who spared themselves the useless and potentially harmful injections.

By the end of the month, the Canadian federal government invoked the Emergencies Act to crush a popular, peaceful protest—the Freedom Convoy. Bank accounts of hundreds of protesters and donors were frozen; protest leaders were arrested and jailed on trumped up charges, while other protesters were trampled by horses or arrested at gunpoint by policemen outfitted in a manner almost identical to soldiers; and protesters’ private property was seized and/or vandalized by the police. What the dictatorial Justin Trudeau called a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views,” was accurate only as a description of his own regime, according to multiple surveys (like this one, that one, the other one, and now this). Everyone in Quebec was subjected to a new round of restrictions: the closure of businesses and churches; schools going back online. As mandated by the federal side of the regime, the “unvaccinated” were not allowed to leave the country, and they were banned from travelling by air or rail within Canada—the only country in the world to do that. An Iron Curtain was slammed down on Canada, and parts of that curtain remain intact. And then we all got Covid thanks to Omicron—for everyone I knew at the university, students and myself included, whether injected or not, the sickness was a total non-event and certainly far less severe than the common cold or a seasonal flu, even for those with multiple comorbidities. Some students were forced to quarantine at home with sick family members, and still did not get sick. All of this upheaval was meant to shield us from catching this?

In this dark, miserable month of authoritarian aggression against Canadians’ human rights and civil liberties, universities remained absolutely silent, because they were absolutely complicit. It is to this point that the following is directed.

On February 2^nd, 2022, Reinfo Covid Quebec (a very large organization of health professionals, scientists, professors and citizens, numbering more than 10,000 members), organized and hosted a press conference titled, “The Collateral Damage of Government Measures” (“Dommages collatéraux des mesures gouvernementales”). The entirety of the professors’ panel in which I participated can now only be seen on Rumble (and Part 1 can be seen here). The event was mostly in French.

Before I continue, let me thank everyone in Reinfo Covid Quebec for their amazing organizational skills, their dedication, their professionalism, their courage, their high spirits, and their warmth. I thank them also for creating a momentary liberated zone for us: in contravention of government regulations, we met without masks, sitting shoulder to shoulder, laughing and chatting in large groups, for an extended time—no anti-social distancing, no useless breathing obstructions, no fear. In the darkness of February, they offered a warm and welcoming light.

My presentation (the video below), was in English. What follows beneath the video is the longer version of the remarks I had prepared, which appears only in print.

The Collapse of the Canadian University

When a Canadian university tells a professor in the natural sciences that, “this university does not recognize natural immunity,” then we have arrived at the lowest intellectual point in the history of our universities. Natural immunity is a basic biological fact. For it to be struck from recognition gives you just one indication of the assault on science and on academic knowledge committed in the name of a “public health emergency” that was used to justify irrational, capricious, arbitrary, harmful, and discriminatory impositions.

Self-censorship has prevailed in Canadian universities, encouraged by castigating the few who express doubts, and by university administrations that present unsubstantiated monologues that advocate for restrictions and for dubious pharmaceutical products. We are further hampered in Canada by an inadequate number of public intellectuals, while we instead have a surplus of public relations intellectuals with close ties to pharmaceutical companies and to corporate media.

This is a country which has now purged a wide range of scholars in the natural and social sciences, and the humanities, because they expressed dissenting views and stood by the ethics governing their disciplines. Academic freedom is now, de facto, cancelled. Tenure is also, de facto, nullified. Faced with the first real test to their integrity and their ethics, the vast majority of Canadian scholars failed to stand up and speak out.

Rather than serve as a source of diverse perspectives and challenging questions, universities instead fell in line with encouraging mass panic. This conformity has not only damaged public discourse, by taking leave of our duties as the critical conscience of society, it has damaged universities themselves, and I think the damage is now irreparable. University presidents have repeatedly produced unquestioning endorsements of the so-called “vaccines,” masking, and social distancing. Universities have internalized the “vaccine passport” system. Professors have been enlisted to police their students by enforcing mask mandates. Faculty unions have loudly advocated for tougher restrictions, such as mandatory inoculation. This is an extremely dangerous precedent, where one’s place in a university can be cancelled at any time based on one’s health status. Just as dangerous is the Canadian university being conscripted by the state-corporate alliance.

What will remain as a simply inexcusable and unforgivable reality of this period, is that open scientific debate was blocked during what was called a “pandemic”. Asked to rise up to meet history, Canadian academics mostly preferred to stand down. Consequently, the university itself has fallen as a victim of this emergency, with limited prospects for recovery.

The Rise of the Church of Covid

As an anthropologist, I have asked myself: what is happening here? And why is it happening? I think of religion and ritual, the making of community, and the art of secrecy.

The intense pressure to conform is, it seems, an attempt to cement a community of believers. Strict rules of belonging are imposed, and those who disagree are excluded. This community has invented new rituals to mark it as a community with borders, and to elevate certain knowledge beyond the realm of questioning. Rituals include ones such as “masking,” which as dubious as it is in preventing transmission and infection, is much more useful as a political symbol that is masked as a moral virtue. Masking also diminishes personal identity, which is one of the unstated intentions, while (anti-)social distancing means that this paradoxical community (united by separation) is one that coheres but not within itself—instead it coheres through adhesion to an abstract “common good” (which is neither common, nor good).

This community has invented its own rite of passage: a form of baptism, of purification in the name of salvation, with “the vaccine” worshipped as the saviour.

The high priests of this community—the administrators, the approved scientists—have made their knowledge special and magical by raising it above questioning. This is the role of censorship and even secrecy, in creating subjects and propositions that are taboo. Those who are not anointed and do not follow in the path of the saviour, are the damned.

The alleged common good—said to be imperilled by a dangerous, unclean “Other” who has not been ritually purified through “vaccination”—is a common good that expects tribute to be paid, and without reciprocity to members of the community whose rights have now become conditional privileges. In reality, it is not so much an objective community, as it is a method of extracting tribute, service, and submission—not so much a community as it is an exploitation scheme.

It is surprisingly self-reflective of Pfizer to call its new (not distributed) injectable, Comirnaty, in a play on the words for “community” and “mRNA,” for this is a community of devotion and service to mRNA technology. It is an imagined, even imaginary, community that flows from the point of the needle. In reality, actual living communities have been divided if not destroyed with the ritual mandates and restrictions that were ushered in to march the masses into the “vaccine” centres. Whether due to fear or mandates that left no choice, citizens were pressed into service for Pfizer and Moderna—and then they were patronizingly told that “we are all in this together” and condescendingly thanked for “stepping up and doing their duty”. Meanwhile, the massive flow of profits went in one direction only—for example, in the direction of building a massive new 417-foot-long mega-yacht for Jeff Bezos, for when he is not journeying into outer space.

Writing as a political economist, Professor Fabio Vighi provided a complementary explanation:

“Virus, Vaccine and Covid Pass are the Holy Trinity of social engineering. ‘Virus passports’ are meant to train the multitudes in the use of electronic wallets controlling access to public services and personal livelihood. The dispossessed and redundant masses, together with the non-compliant, are the first in line to be disciplined by digitalised poverty management systems directly overseen by monopoly capital. The plan is to tokenise human behaviour and place it on blockchain ledgers run by algorithms. And the spreading of global fear is the perfect ideological stick to herd us toward this outcome”.

In his new book (Where Are We Now? The Epidemic as Politics. London: ERIS., 2021) the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben outlined some more parallels between Covid pandemicism and religious thought and practice. He argues that, “the transformation we are witnessing today operates through the introduction of a sanitation terror and a religion of health. What, in the tradition of bourgeois democracy, used to be the right to health became, seemingly without anyone noticing, a juridical-religious obligation that must be fulfilled at any cost” (p. 10). Reflecting further on the meanings of this highly leveraged if not outright invented crisis, Agamben points out how “science” has acquired the properties of religion:

“It is as if the religious need that the Church is no longer able to satisfy is groping for a new habitat—finding it in what has already become, in effect, the religion of our time: science. Like any other religion, this faith can produce fear and superstition, or it can be at least used to disseminate them. Never before have we witnessed such a spectacle of divergent and contradictory opinions and prescriptions, typical of religions in times of crisis. These opinions range from the minoritarian heretical position (one that is nonetheless represented by distinguished scientists) that denies the seriousness of the phenomenon, to the orthodox dominant discourse that affirms this same seriousness and yet differs within itself, often radically, on the strategies for facing it. And, as always happens in these cases, some experts (or so-called experts) manage to gain the approval of the monarch, who, as in the times of the religious disputes that divided Christianity, sides with one current or the other according to his own interests, before subsequently imposing his measures” (p. 20).

“The analogy with religion must be read to the letter,” Agamben asserts, adding: “Theologians declared that they could not clearly define God, but in his name they dictated rules of behaviour and burned heretics without hesitation; virologists admit that they do not know exactly what a virus is, but in its name they insist on deciding how human beings should live” (p. 33).

Prof. Douglas Farrow, a colleague at McGill University where he teaches theology and ethics, had much more to say on these issues in his article, “Enrolled in the Religion of Fear”.

In this New Church of the Eternal Pandemic, where states of emergency act as the crowning religious festivals on the annual calendar, universities train students in the methods of reproducing the authorized, orthodox theology. Dissidents, in some noteworthy cases, are publicly flogged to send a lesson to others, while boosting the morale of acolytes.

Update: Punishing Resistance to, and Critique of, the Non-Vaccines

Many dozens (perhaps hundreds) of professors across Canada have been suspended without pay, or terminated outright for refusing to disclose their private and personal medical status, in addition to those who have been suspended and/or terminated because they openly rejected the new non-vaccines. Thousands of students—in Ontario alone—were de-registered from their courses and barred from their campuses.

Before continuing, a note of clarification may still be necessary for some. Why non-vaccines? First, because the CDC changed its definition of “vaccines” in August of 2021, to accommodate the new products being developed for the market, which did not meet the previous CDC definition of “vaccine”. Second, because these are called gene therapies in the pharmaceutical industry itself; by the FDA they are formally referred to as investigational new drugs; in the legal arena, they are classed as prototypes by Pfizer itself. Note also that “emergency use” investigational new drugs are defined by the FDA itself as “experimental”. We can thus call these products experimental gene therapies to be brief, all complaints notwithstanding.

Personally, I know several dozen of these suspended and fired academics, through my membership in Canadian Academics for Covid Ethics. That is where we have met, corresponded, and co-authored some Op-Eds. Separate from CA4CE, I have received correspondence from at least three dozen more professors across Canada, some of which later joined the CA4CE. I will have much more to say about professors’ non-compliance, and the results, in future follow-ups on this site.

For now, I want to direct your attention to the very latest instance of the New Church of Covid (an ex-university), punishing two professors for publicly criticizing the experimental gene therapies used against Covid, one of whom was injured by taking these products. I am speaking here of Professors Patrick Provost and Nicolas Derome at Laval University. Professor Provost, whom I know, was the more prominent of the two in the media, having authored a recent article critical of Quebec’s disproportionate response, using the Quebec Health Institute’s own data to show just how overblown have been the impacts of Covid.

Indeed, a separate study which was not the subject of controversy, provided evidence of the fact that Quebec had 4,033 excess deaths between March 2020 and October 2021, but reported 11,470 Covid-19 fatalities—almost three times as much: “It’s the biggest gap recorded in Canada during the pandemic”. In reporting on the same study, it was admitted that, “Quebec doctors included COVID-19 as a cause of death in medical reports more liberally than doctors in other provinces did”. The alleged impacts of Covid were then used by the government to cause real psychological, physiological, economic, and social harms with lockdowns and various other restrictions and mandates. For having challenged the dominant narrative, Patrick Provost’s article was not only removed from the Web by its publisher, he was suspended for eight weeks without pay by Laval University.

Fortunately—and this has been rare in Canada—the Laval University faculty union has vigorously taken up the cause of both professors. This is plainly a fight about academic freedom. The Quebec Federation of University Professors has also endorsed their fight. Amazingly, in a sharp departure from its complicit silence, if not support for quashing the academic freedom of dissenters, the Canadian Association of University Teachers finally felt compelled to speak out in support of those targeted by Laval.

What makes the matter even more interesting is that the very same Quebec government whose pandemicist narrative has reigned throughout the past two (plus) years, recently passed an Academic Freedom Law (Bill 32). Many individual faculty and their unions in Quebec protested this law when it was first introduced, and seemed to be running interference for politically “woke” university administrations. Even the FQPPU criticized how the law was drafted and promoted. Along with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, I instead supported Bill 32, and I did so in a lengthy email on the subject that I sent the Minister. The same Minister of Higher Education who shepherded the law, Danielle McCann, has been forced to come out and condemn Laval University. Minister McCann then cited the situation at Laval as evidence that Bill 32 was necessary, and on this point she is correct.

We thus have a situation where a law—originally intended to shield professors who used “the N-word” in an academic context and for academic purposes, thus designed to hobble the importation/imitation of US culture wars into Quebec—is instead put to its first test with academic free speech against a narrative pushed by the government itself. Professors Provost and Derome have a straightforward case for grievance, and one which would likely win in the courts if it came to that. Laval University has in the meantime disgraced itself, in prime time, and it has broken the law.

For more on this, see the extensive list of media coverage compiled by Reinfo Covid Quebec on its page dedicated to this case (scroll to the bottom). One can read the page in English here. See also Douglas Farrow’s critique: “A Repressive Political Act—Université Laval rejects academic freedom and does violence to science”. Those who follow Zero Anthropology in Telegram would have received an abundance of coverage of this case over the past week.

For my part, I was hoping that the message in my video above would not be validated so much further, so close to home, in such short order.

*

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

Maximilian C. Forte is a professor of anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. His areas of research and teaching interest are centered in Political Anthropology, with a focus on imperialism, neoliberalism and globalization, nationalism, democracy, and the international political economy of knowledge production. His long-standing research area involves the ethnohistory of Indigenous Peoples in the Lesser Antilles, and a focus on Indigenous resurgence in Trinidad & Tobago and neighbouring nations of the Caribbean.

Featured image is from ZERO ANTHROPOLOGY

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

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

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

***

Dr David Martin joins Greg Hunter, who refers to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla’s recent threats to sue anti-vaxxers for “misinformation” and he asks Dr Martin if he thinks the vaccine manufacturers, the FDA, the NIH and the CDC are going to get away with their mass genocide?

Dr Martin replies that they will not get away with it and he explains the reason why we don’t see Pfizer or Moderna suing people like him, who are disclosing information that is material to criminal cases against them is because in order to prove defamation or libel, “You actually have to show the evidence that what we said was not true and the problem is, 100% of the evidence that we talk about is true.

“So, the cool thing is, they can threaten all they want, the bad news is they would have to disclose things that I can guarantee you they will never, ever disclose – and in fact, the shoe is on the other foot.

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

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

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

***

Italy, while asking Washington to be admitted to Five Eyes, the most powerful US-led spy alliance in the world, boycott the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum to the detriment of its national interests.

Two events – one in the West and one in the East – are emblematic of the changes in the international picture: the Copasir mission in Washington (Parliamentary Committee for the Security of the Republic); the International Economic Forum promoted by Russia in St. Petersburg, of which journalist Daria Platonova, geopolitics expert, reports.

Copasir president at the press conference in Washington, Adolfo D’Urso, stated that none of the four service reports examined by Copasir has anything to do with the Corriere della Sera dossier on the “Putinians of Italy”. The deputy director of Corriere Fiorenza Sarzanini must therefore explain if the dossier was invented or if she drafted it on the basis of “information” received under the table by the secret services.

As a further contribution to the “security of the Republic”, the president of Copasir urged the admission of Italy to the Five Eyes, the most powerful US spy alliance in the world, Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, because Italy is

“a frontier land and a hinge with respect to the Russian projection, Chinese, but I could also say the survival of Africa to the Islamic threat and related issues “.

At the same time, Italy boycotted the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, dove, with large participation also from Africa, issues of primary importance were addressed. As the New York Times also documents, the move by the West to block imports of oil and gas from Russia is a boomerang especially for Europe, since China and India buy them at discounted prices, opening new outlets to Russia in the East. By excluding itself from a new large international market that s forming in the context of a multipolar world, Italy compromises its own national interests.

All this is hidden by our political-media mainstream, which makes us believe that the whole world has condemned and isolated Russia, while – as documented by the important Wilson Center in Washington – “the countries that sanctioned Russia for Ukraine represent only the 16% of the world population “.

*

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

This article was originally published on byoblu.

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

Featured image is from Canadian Dimension

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

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

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

***

Guest: Jochen Kirchhoff – Philosopher & researcher of consciousness (Focus: transcendental philosophy of nature).

• Worked for many years at the HumboldtUniversität Berlin.
• Author of numerous books/essays.
• Youtube channel: youtube.com/c/JochenKirchhoff

This session is on the subject, the function, the limits and the role of science in the present, against the background of its emergence.

The consequences of the prevailing concept of science on the world view, the self-conception, the self-image of man derived from it and the and the resulting open flank for control mechanisms of totalitarian systems and the Adaptation of illusionary substitute religions.

“We need a fundamental redefinition of what, what science is or should be.”

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Video: The Plan. WHO Plans to Have 10 Years of Pandemics (2020-2030). “Proof that the Pandemic was planned with a purpose”

By Stop World Control, July 03, 2022

THE PLAN shows the official agenda of the World Health Organization to have ten years of ongoing pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. This is revealed by a WHO virologist, Marion Koopmans. You will also see shocking evidence that the first pandemic was planned and abundantly announced right before it happened.

Russia Steals the Thunder in ‘Wheat War’

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, July 03, 2022

In a master stroke of military diplomacy, Russian Foreign Ministry announced today that it is “withdrawing” the garrison in Snake Island, the hotly contested Black Sea property from where Ukrainian forces were evicted in March in the early days of Moscow’s special military operation. 

Americans Do Not Understand Their Own Military History

By Larry Johnson, July 03, 2022

I believe one of the reasons many Americans carry such negative feelings about the Russians is our collective failure to understand the price Russians paid to defeat Hitler. The sad truth is that most Americans have trouble identifying the warring parties in World War II and generally believe that terrible conflict was settled because of what America did.

Doctors Are Demanding Truth About COVID-19 Vaccines for Kids

By Arsenio Toledo, July 03, 2022

Dr. Vinay Prasad is demanding that President Joe Biden’s health officials and mainstream media outlets “just tell the truth” about the effects of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines on children.

Vladimir Zelenko, The Vaccine Death Report: Evidence of Millions of Deaths and Serious Adverse Events Resulting from the Experimental COVID-19 Injections

By David John Sorensen and Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, July 03, 2022

The purpose of this report is to document how all over the world millions of people have died, and hundreds of millions of serious adverse events have occurred, after injections with the experimental mRNA gene therapy. We also reveal the real risk of an unprecedented genocide.

Ukraine: Warmongering Rhetoric. The Dangers of a Nuclear World War III. The WEF’s “Great Reset” Includes War with Russia?

By Joachim Hagopian, July 02, 2022

Speaking of balkanizing or breaking up a targeted nation into smaller, exploited pieces, that’s exactly what the US neocon unipolar design has working with the hostile encirclement of the Russian Federation for several decades.

The Restitution of Poland’s “Borderlands”?: Ukraine in the EU, “Polish-Ukrainian Federation” and the Issue of Restitution

By Konrad Rękas, July 02, 2022

Hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors, as well as Poles, Hungarians and Romanians who once lived in the lands which the Soviet Union “gave to Ukraine” (in the wake to WWII), have the right to recover their estates and get compensations for their heritage.  Kiev aspiring to membership in the European Union will face the due of fulfilling these claims.  The only question is whether Ukrainians are also aware of such multibillion-dollar costs?

BRICS+ and the Global South: Emerging Leaders of a Multipolar World? Pepe Escobar

By Pepe Escobar, July 02, 2022

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has highlighted how BRICS has “a very creative mechanism with broad aspects”. Tehran – a close partner of both Beijing and Moscow – already had “a series of consultations” about the application: the Iranians are sure that will “add value” to the expanded BRICS.

Why the Anglo-American Special Relationship Must End

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, July 02, 2022

Even though the last official war fought between Britain and the USA occured between 1812 and 1815, the British failure to destroy the United States militarily caused British foreign policy to re-focus its efforts on undermining the republic from within.

Conflict of Interest: Reuters ‘Fact Checks’ COVID-Related Social Media Posts, But Fails to Disclose Ties to Pfizer, World Economic Forum

By Megan Redshaw, July 01, 2022

Here’s a less-publicized fact some social media users — and consumers of online news — may not know: Reuters, owned by the $40 billion international multimedia company, Thomson Reuters Corporation, is also in the business of “fact checking” social media posts.

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

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

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

***

This article was first published on July 2, 2018, to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the downing of  Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988.

Having found no evidence, Western powers continue to blame Russia for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. Virtually erased from record are incidents like the blatant 1988 shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655, by a decorated American warship.

On 3 July, 1988, Iran Air Flight 655, flying from Tehran to Dubai, was shot down by the USS Vincennes, a huge United States missile cruiser. All 290 people aboard the Iranian airliner were killed, including 66 children, and 38 people of non-Iranian nationality. The Vincennes was rewarded shortly after for this act of mass killing, having received presidential honours upon return to American shores.

Almost 30 years ago, the large civilian aircraft was shot down over Iranian territorial waters, on its normal flight path. In doing so, the Vincennes had illegally incurred into Iranian territory before firing two surface-to-air missiles at the ascending airliner, both direct hits. US President Ronald Reagan described the killing of almost 300 civilians as “a proper defensive action”. The heavily armed warship, it seems, was in mortal peril at the hands of the unsuspecting passenger plane.

Then Vice-President George H. W. Bush (impending president) said of the incident a month later:

“I will never apologise for the United States – I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologise-for-America kind of guy.”

Bush also said that it was “just an unhappy incident” and “life goes on”. It seems implausible that “life goes on” for the families of the victims, or indeed, for the 290 who lost their lives.

While there is irrefutable evidence the Iranian aircraft was downed by US forces, the missile that destroyed Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was “not fired by Russian soldiers”. As a result, the taking down of the Malaysian aircraft on July 17, 2014, killing 298, cannot be directly linked to the Russian military, even by the White House.

In fact, “no suspects have been named” over three years later. The absence of evidence did not prevent the European Union from joining the US in imposing sanctions on Russia, just weeks after the Malaysian airliner was destroyed. Glance back in time and we can see that the double standards and hypocrisy of the West are striking. The EU failed to impose sanctions on the US when its naval ship destroyed the Iranian airplane in 1988, despite overwhelming proof. This is hardly surprising, considering the EU has shamefully performed its role as a virtual US client entity for decades.

In June this year, the EU imposed further sanctions against Russia in relation to the Western-initiated conflict in the Ukraine. Again, there is no record of the EU placing economic measures on the US when the superpower (with allies) illegally intervened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and so on.

According to US government sources, the Vincennes mistook the Iranian Airbus A300 (177 feet long) for an F-14 Tomcat fighter (62 feet long), an American-made warplane used by the Iranian Air Force. This pretext falls further to pieces upon examination of the vastly different flight shapes of the respective aircraft: one a passenger plane, the other a fighter plane designed for stealth.

The Vincennes’ captain, William C. Rogers III (image on the right), received the prestigious Legion of Merit award two years later for his “sterling performance without a blotch of tarnish”, and “his heroic achievement as air warfare coordinator in USS Vincennes on July 3, 1988”. The Vincennes’ entire crew were also awarded the combat-action ribbon.

Imagine the hysterical global reaction had the Russian (or Soviet) leadership behaved in such fashion under similar circumstances. When the US commits a heinous crime, then commends itself afterwards, the muted reaction across the West is something to behold.

The background to this forgotten war crime may prove insightful. The Iranian airliner was blasted out of the sky near the end of the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), in which hundreds of thousands died on each side. President Reagan had been strongly supporting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution in which the US had “lost control” of Iran.

To the present day, the US government has refused to apologise for the incident, despite being compelled to pay over $130 million in compensation (under the Clinton administration). The mainstream media in the US, as usual, played a key role in downplaying the aggression, ensuring it remained largely concealed from the American public’s view.

Two days after the Iranian airliner’s shooting down, the New York Times (“paper of record”) asked its readers to put themselves “in Captain Rogers’s shoes”. The Times’editors called it “an accident” and that it was “hard to see what the Navy could have done to avoid it”. If we believe the Times, then, it was difficult for trained navy personnel (with radar) to distinguish between a near 180-foot long passenger plane, and a fighter plane a third of that size. In fact, the Vincennes’ Aegis radar system was “the most technologically advanced in the world” at the time. It was also designed to “track scores of incoming missiles and aircraft in a major sea battle”.

On the 25th anniversary of the tragedy in 2013, Max Fisher of The Washington Post stuck dutifully to the line that the Vincennes mistook the large civilian aircraft for the F-14 fighter – as it “exchang[ed] fire with small Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf”. Fisher excused the Vincennes’ war crime as having been in “the heat of battle”, and that “the horrible incident brought Tehran closer to ending the war”. A war started by Hussein’s Iraq with vital American support.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was first published on The Duran in August 2017.

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 frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Duran

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

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

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

***

 

 

The US Supreme Court has been frantically busy of late, striking down law and legislation with an almost crazed, ideological enthusiasm.  Gun laws have been invalidated; Roe v Wade and constitutional abortion rights, confined to history.  And now, the Environmental Protection Agency has been clipped of its powers in a 6-3 decision.

The June 30 decision of West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency was something of a shadow boxing act.  The Clean Power Plan, which was the target of the bench, never came into effect.  In 2016, the Supreme Court effectively blocked the plan, which was announced by President Barack Obama in August 2015.  It has been originally promulgated under the Clean Air Act.

In 2019, the Trump administration repealed the CPP, replacing it with the Affordable Clean Energy Rule.  It argued that the EPA’s authority under Section 7411 of the Clean Air Act only extended to measures pertinent to the plant’s premises, rather than industry-wide measures suggested by the CPP.  The ACER vested states with the discretion to set standards and grant power plants much latitude in complying with them.  In their decision, the DC Circuit vacated the repeal of the CPP by the Trump administration, and the ACER, sending it back to the EPA.  In effect, the EPA’s powers of regulation were held to be intact.

The Clean Power Plan was intended as a mechanism by which targets for each state could be set for each state vis-à-vis reducing carbon dioxide emissions stemming from power plants.  At the time the EPA touted it as laying “the first-ever national standards that address carbon pollution from power plants” which would cut “significant amounts of power plant carbon pollution and the pollutants that cause the soot and smog that harm health, while advancing clean energy innovation, development and deployment”.  And the plan would also lay the basis “for the long-term strategy needed to tackle the threat of climate change.”

A vital aspect of the Plan was also using “generation shifting”, creating more power from renewable energy sources and natural gas while improving the efficiency of current coal-fired power plants.  Such a shift through the entire sector to cleaner resources constituted, in language drawn from the 1970 Clean Air Act, a “best system of emission reduction” (BSER). Amongst its predictions, the Agency projected that coal could provide 27% of national electricity generation by 2030, down from the 2014 level of 38%.

Coal companies and various Republican-governed states litigated on the matter, arguing before the Supreme Court that the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had erred in accepting the EPA’s reading of the Clean Air Act as granting the agency vast powers to regulate carbon emissions.

This entire process struck an odd note, precisely because the CPP had not been reinstated by a Biden administration which intends to pass new rules on power plant carbon emissions.  This did not stop the Chief Justice John Roberts and his fellow judges from readying for judicial battle.  Merely because a government had ceased conduct central to the case did not stay the court’s intervention.  This would only happen if it was “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behaviour could not be reasonably expected to recur.”  With the Biden administration defending the methods used by the EPA under the Obama administration, one could not be sure.

Enter, then, the looming, and brooding question of US constitutional law: the “major questions doctrine”.  According to the doctrine, one that was prominently used in 2000 to invalidate attempts by the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco, questions of “vast economic or political significance” cannot be regulated without clear approval for such measures from Congress.

The EPA argued that under the doctrine, a clear statement was required to conclude that Congress had intended to delegate authority “of its breath to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy”.  Having found none, the agency even went so far as to say that Congress had taken measures to preclude such policies as generation shifting.

For the majority, there was little doubt that this constituted a “major questions case”.  The question that exercised the majority, according to Chief Justice Roberts, was “whether the ‘best system of emission reduction’ identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority” of section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.  The EPA’s own words – that it had discovered “in long-extant statute an unheralded power” which represented a “transformative expansion in [its] regulatory authority”, clearly troubled the majority.  The Agency’s discovery of this power was then used “to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously and repeatedly declined to act itself.”

To this, the majority took clear umbrage.  Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act had never formed the basis for rules of such transformative magnitude as that implied by the Clean Power Plan.  While Justice Roberts accepted that, “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day’,” but only Congress could adopt “a decision of such magnitude and consequence.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito, also gave the major questions doctrine heft by claiming it shielded against “unintentional, oblique, or otherwise unlikely’ intrusions” upon such questions as “self-government, equality, fair notice, federalism, and the separation of powers.”

In her dissenting ruling, Justice Elena Kagan, accompanied by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, found that the EPA’s interpretation and position could be contextually and logically justified.  Resorting to the “major questions doctrine” was fanciful here, given that previous decisions had simply used the old, ordinary method of statutory interpretation.  The decision of an agency had been struck down because it had operated “far outside its traditional lane, so that it had no viable claim of expertise or experience.”  Had such decisions been also allowed, they would have “conflicted, or even wreaked havoc on, Congress’s broader design.”

In this case, the Clean Power Plan clearly fell “within the EPA’s wheelhouse, and it fits perfectly […] with all the Clean Air Act’s provisions.”  The Plan, despite being ambitious and consequential in the field of public policy, did not fail because of it.  Congress had wanted the EPA to discharge such functions.

What is available to the EPA has been dramatically pared back.  The Agency can still mandate coal-fire plants to operate more efficiently by adopting various technological measures, such as carbon capture and storage technology.  Apart from being prohibitive, this will have the effect of extending the operating lives of such climate change agents.

Justice Kagan’s words, in conclusion, are caustic and suitable for the occasion.  The Roberts majority had not only overstepped by usurping a critical domain of expertise and policy.  “The Court appoints itself – instead of Congress or the expert agency – the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”  Across the US, regulatory regimes – except those approved by Republican and conservative groups – are being readied for a judicial felling by the sword of the major questions doctrine.  Federal Agencies, if they have not already done so, will be girding their loins and readying for battle.

*

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

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

Featured image: Headquarters of the EPA at the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building (Licensed under the public domain)

Due vertici l’uno di seguito all’altro, quelli del G7 e della NATO, dimostrano che l’Occidente sta mettendo in campo tutte le sue armi – militari, politiche, economiche – per mantenere il predominio che sta perdendo in un mondo che diviene sempre più multipolare, come dimostra il crescente sviluppo dei BRICS: l’organizzazione economica che riunisce Brasile, Russia, India, Cina, Sudafrica, cui vogliono aderire Iran, Argentina e altri paesi.

In Ucraina, mentre il G7 fornisce a Kiev 30 miliardi di dollari, la NATO gli fornisce crescenti quantità di armi contro la Russia. Il ruolo della NATO non è però solo questo: funzionari del Pentagono, intervistati dal New York Times, confermano per la prima volta, con precisi fatti, che il comando e la gestione delle operazioni militari in Ucraina sono in mano al Pentagono e alla NATO.

Il Summit NATO ha approvato il nuovo Concetto Strategico, in cui si definisce la Russia “la minaccia più significativa alla sicurezza degli Alleati” e si afferma che “la competizione strategica sta aumentando in tutto il mondo.” Nel nuovo Concetto Strategico la NATO parla per la prima volta esplicitamente della Cina, dichiarando che  “le politiche coercitive della Cina sfidano i nostri interessi, la nostra sicurezza e i nostri valori”.

Siamo di fronte a un’unica strategia di guerra che l’Occidente attua dall’Europa all’Asia Orientale. Mentre in Europa la NATO sotto comando USA si allarga da 30 a 32 paesi, includendo Svezia e Finlandia, ancora più a ridosso della Russia, in Asia e nel Pacifico cresce il dispiegamento militare degli Stati Uniti, sostenuti principalmente da Australia e Giappone. Si sta svolgendo nel Pacifico contro la Cina la più grande esercitazione navale del mondo sotto comando USA.

Tutto questo costa e siamo sempre noi a pagare. Secondo i dati ufficiali della NATO, la spesa militare italiana sale nel 2022 a circa 29 miliardi di euro, equivalenti a 80 milioni di euro al giorno. L’aumento più forte si è verificato nel periodo dei lockdown: da 21 miliardi nel 2019 è salita a oltre 26 miliardi nel 2020 e a oltre 28 miliardi nel 2021. La NATO però avverte:  “Fare di più costerà di più”.

VIDEO :

https://www.byoblu.com/2022/07/01/grandangolo-pangea-la-rassegna-stampa-internazionale-di-byoblu-54-puntata/

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

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

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

First published on June 15, 2022

***

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has questionably authorised emergency use of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 injections for use among children aged 6 months and above despite the UK’s Office for National Statistics revealing that between January 2021 and March 2022 a total of 69,466 people died within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination, and a further 109,408 people died within 60 days of vaccination in England.

In order to justify implementing Draconian restrictions in the name of Covid-19, the UK Government, with the help of the mainstream media, would publicise daily the number of Covid-19 deaths to have allegedly occurred that day. The metric used then, and still being used now, is any death occurring within 28 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 is counted as a Covid-19 death.

This questionable method of counting Covid-19 deaths led to dozens of Freedom of Information requests being made to various Government institutions requesting to know the number of people who had died within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination.

If the method’s good enough for counting Covid-19 deaths to justify ruining children’s education, decimating the economy, and destroying lives, then it’s good enough for counting Covid-19 vaccination deaths, right?

However, each and every single time, the response received was as follows –

“We do not hold this information”

Source

But this was a lie, because one Government institution did hold this information, and they’ve finally published it over 17 months after the first time of asking.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics and the recognised national statistical institute of the UK. It is responsible for collecting and publishing statistics related to the economy, population and society at national, regional and local levels.

On the 16th May 2022, the ONS published its 6th dataset on deaths in England by vaccination status, which can be found here, and it finally contains the number of deaths within 28 days of vaccination.

Table 9 of the dataset contains figures on ‘Whole period counts of all registered deaths grouped by how many weeks after vaccination the deaths occurred; for deaths involving COVID-19 and deaths not involving COVID-19, deaths occurring between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2022, England’.

Here’s a snapshot of how the ONS presents the data –

Source

As you can see, the ONS still don’t make it easy for us by revealing the overall number of deaths, but with some patience and simple maths we can easily find this out ourselves.

The following chart shows the overall number of deaths within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination in England between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st March 2022 –

According to the Office for National Statistics between 1st Jan 21 and 31st March 22, a total of 7,953 people died with Covid-19 within 28 days of vaccination, and a total of 61,513 people died of any other cause within 28 days of vaccination. This means that in all, 69,466 people died within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination between January 2021 and March 2022.

The following chart shows the deaths within 28 days of vaccination broken down by both age group and the number of weeks after vaccination –

And the following chart shows the deaths within 28 days of vaccination broken down by age group only –

A lot of people will probably argue that this is to be expected with so many people being vaccinated. But these same people won’t bother actually backing their argument up with any evidence. Because if it’s to be expected, how exactly do they explain this for example? –

The above chart shows the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status for all-cause deaths, per 100,000 person-years among adults aged 18 to 39 in England. The data has been extracted from the previous ONS dataset on deaths by vaccination status between 1st Jan 21 and 31st Jan 22.

The green line is the mortality rate among the unvaccinated, which while fluctuating has remained pretty stable throughout. The other lines however represent different vaccination statuses, and they are extremely concerning because the mortality rates are miles higher.

The largest statistical difference occurred in November 2021. The mortality rate among the unvaccinated equated to 33.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years, whereas the mortality rate among the double vaccinated equated to 107. A difference of 220.4%.

The argument that 69,466 deaths within 28 days of vaccination are to be expected because so many people are vaccinated has all of a sudden collapsed, hasn’t it?

But that’s not the worst of it. The UK Health Security Agency counts Covid-19 deaths as those that have occurred within 60 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, so it’s only fair we also work out how many people have died within 60 days of Covid-19 vaccination.

Here’s the table taken from the UKHSA Week 13 Vaccine Surveillance Report showing Covid-19 deaths within 60 days of a positive test –

Source – Page 44

Here’s a chart showing the overall totals by vaccination status of the above figures –

Yes, that does equate to 92% of all Covid-19 deaths in England during March 2022 being among the vaccinated population.

Here’s a chart showing the number of deaths within 60 days of Covid-19 vaccination in England between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st March 2022, according to the Office for National Statistics dataset –

According to the Office for National Statistics between 1st Jan 21 and 31st March 22, a total of 14,049 people died with Covid-19 within 60 days of vaccination, and a total of 168,825 people died of any other cause within 60 days of vaccination. This means that in all, 178,874 people died within 60 days of Covid-19 vaccination between January 2021 and March 2022 in England.

There has never been an emergency in regard to Covid-19 infection among children. Two years of evidence show the alleged disease has only adversely affected the elderly and vulnerable. Children have been unlucky to suffer symptoms more severe than those associated with the common cold.

So why is the FDA risking the lives of babies and toddlers when official statistics show Covid-19 vaccination can prove to be fatal?

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

In a master stroke of military diplomacy, Russian Foreign Ministry announced today that it is “withdrawing” the garrison in Snake Island, the hotly contested Black Sea property from where Ukrainian forces were evicted in March in the early days of Moscow’s special military operation. 

This decision comes a day after Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres discussed food security amid the situation in Ukraine, in a phone call Wednesday. The Russian readout said Lavrov “underscored that the export of Ukrainian grain is being prevented by Kiev’s mining of the Black Sea.”

Furthermore, Lavrov “reaffirmed readiness to continue fulfilling its obligations on export of food and fertilisers, despite their fulfilment being significantly complicated by the illegal unilateral sanctions of Western states and disruption of global production and retail chains due to the COVID pandemic.” 

Importantly, Lavrov conveyed to Guterres Moscow’s “intent for further work on reduction of threats of the food crisis, including in cooperation with the UN.” 

The Russian Defence Ministry while announcing the withdrawal from Snake Island, called it a “goodwill gesture” and linked it to the crisis of food security. It added, “The Russian Federation has demonstrated to the international society the absence of any obstacles for the efforts of UN to establish a humanitarian corridor for transporting agricultural products from Ukraine.

“This solution will prevent Kiev from speculating on an impending grocery crisis citing the inability to export grain due to total control of the northwestern part of the Black Sea by Russia.

Now it is up to the Ukrainian side that is still not clearing the Black Sea coastline, including the harbour waters.” 

In effect, Russia has challenged Kiev to do its part by removing the mines in the approaches to its ports. But this act of diplomacy is not without serious military implications. Kiev will surely celebrate this as a “military victory”. 

However, on the face of it, Moscow is taking a gambit — a clever action that takes the wind out of the sails of Western propaganda blaming Russia for the food shortage as if this situation is the result of its 4-month old operation in February rather than a crisis that had been snowballing through the past four or five years for which the US and the Western countries are to be blamed. 

But, as with any gambit, this ploy involves taking a risk insofar as the Russian retreat from Snake Island could be seized by Kiev to retake that strategic piece of real estate in the Black Sea, something that its American and British military advisors have been pressing for. Moscow has taken precautions by stating that it won’t accept wheat cargo ships being accompanied by western warships or drones and that it reserves the right to inspect the ships and ensure they are not carrying military stuff. 

So far, two major operations by Kiev with the indirect participation of the Americans and British advisors to seize Snake Island by force were beaten back by the Russian forces. The Western military analysts estimate that the Russian presence on Snake Island would pose threat to NATO’s assets in next-door Romania. (See my blog Southern Ukraine is the priority in NATO’s planing, Indian Punchline, June 22, 2022.) 

However, this Russian move also has a certain political resonance insofar as it can be construed as going beyond issues concerning Ukraine’s wheat export. Of course, the facilitation of “humanitarian corridors” in the Black Sea obviates the need for any Western intervention, as implied in the G7 Statement on Global Food Security issued in Elmau, Germany on 28th June  backing “UN efforts to unlock a safe maritime corridor through the Black Sea.” This is the first thing. 

Indeed, Russia, which accounts for accounted for 16% of global wheat exports, and Ukraine, which accounted for 10%, are not the only key global exporters of wheat — for instance, the US and Canada, which export 26 and 25 million tons of wheat, respectively (or around 25% of global exports) and other major western producers France (19 million tons) and Germany (9.2 million tons) accounting for another 12% of global exports are unwilling to share their grain with those in need, prioritising their own food security in the recent years.

Of course, these rich western countries have their own difficulties related to energy prices, production costs and inflation. They would want to keep their raw materials to shield their economies from further inflation spikes. Simply put, in the event of currency instability, or indeed any form of economic or political instability, it is always more prudent to have raw materials than cash: it does not depreciate as quickly as currency. 

The problem with the supply of such a widely produced commodity as wheat will most likely be solved only if the US and EU allow Russia, the largest exporter of wheat in the world, to share supplies in exchange for the removal of sanctions. The western sanctions have forced international companies to sever long-standing business ties and leave Russia, which caused supply disruptions. In one example, the EU last month banned cooperation with the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, through which more than half of the exported grain from Russia is shipped. 

What worries the West most is that Africa’s heavy dependence  on Russian wheat supplies have a strategic dimension that boosts Moscow’s influence in that continent. The rapidly growing Russian presence in Africa challenges the western neo-colonial projects of European countries. This is already evident in the Sahel region.  

At any rate, Russia still retains its dominance over the Black Sea and can not tolerate any threat to Crimea. The goodwill gesture on Snake Island apart, there is no let-up in the Russian special military operation in southern Ukraine, either. 

In this context, President Putin’s remarks at Ashgabat yesterday are to the point when he was asked by the media about the “current goal” of the Russian operations. Putin said: 

“Nothing has changed, of course. I talked about it in the early morning on February 24. I talked about it directly and publicly for the entire country and the world to hear. I have nothing to add. Nothing has changed… I trust professionals. They are doing what they consider necessary to attain the overall goal. I have formulated the overall goal, which is to liberate Donbass, protect its people and create conditions that will guarantee the security of Russia itself. That is all. We are working calmly and steadily. As you can see, our forces are moving forward and attaining the objectives that have been set for the particular period of the engagement. We are proceeding according to plan. [Emphasis added.]

“We are not speaking about any deadlines. I never speak about them, because this is life, this is reality. It would be wrong to make things fit any framework, because, as I have already said, the issue concerns combat intensity, which is directly connected with possible losses. And we must think above all about saving our guys’ lives.” 

Here, the operative words are: “create conditions that will guarantee the security of Russia itself.” After all, Snake Island is only some 175 miles from Sevastopol, the Russian naval base in Crimea. 

*

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

Featured image: Russian Defense Ministry in Frunzenskaya Embankment, Moscow (Source: Indian Punchline)

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

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

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

***

As NATO leaders (aka ‘The 30 Blind Mice) started their summit meeting yesterday in Brussels, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threw down a seemingly gratuitous gauntlet. Medevdev warned: “Any attempt to encroach on Crimea is a declaration of war on our country.” And that if such an attempt were made by a NATO country, “This is a conflict with the entire North American Alliance. Third World War. Total catastrophe.”

I checked the original Russian; the English translation (verbatim) is accurate. For those who read Russian, here is the original:

«Любая попытка посягнуть на Крым – это объявление войны нашей стране, – напомнил политик. – И если это делает страна, входящая в НАТО, это конфликт со всем Североатлантическим альянсом. Третья мировая война. Тотальная катастрофа»

“For us, Crimea is a part of Russia. And that means forever. Any attempt to encroach on Crimea is a declaration of war against our country,” Medvedev told a regional news site, as quoted in Reuters.

“And if this is done by a NATO member-state, this means conflict with the entire North Atlantic alliance; a World War Three. A complete catastrophe,” he warned.

In the same comments, [see this] and just ahead of this week’s NATO summit in Madrid, Spain kicking off, the former president of Russia addressed Finland and Sweden’s recent applications to join the Western military alliance, saying that Russia would take immediate action to strengthen its Western border and would be “ready for retaliatory steps” if they were admitted.

He floated the possibility of positioning Iskander hypersonic missiles “on their threshold” – speaking of Scandinavian neighbors and the Baltic states. He further suggested a troop build-up, as well as fresh naval assets deployed near Finland in that scenario.

Additionally, he wrote on Telegram in a series of statements: … “If Sweden and Finland join NATO, the length of the alliance’s land border with Russia will more than double. Naturally, it will be necessary to strengthen these borders.”

That’s when he again emphasized that Finnish membership in NATO would only cascade into creating a nuclear standoff in the Baltic region for the first time:

“If this is the case, there can no longer be talk about the Baltic’s non-nuclear status – the balance must be restored,” he stated.

“Until today, Russia has not taken such measures, nor was it going to do so. If we are forced to, then ‘note, it wasn’t us who suggested this,’ as a character in a famous old movie said,” he added.

“The US is broadcasting its ‘Welcome!’ [sign] to the representatives of Northern Europe literally in every way possible. Just humbly knock – and we will let you in. And what does this mean? This means that Russia will have more official adversaries,” he pointed out further, according to TASS.

He said Moscow will act “without emotions, and with a cool head,” and described: “The number of countries in NATO – thirty or thirty-two – on the whole is not really important to us. Two more, two less, with their importance and population there is no big difference.”

Medvedev concluded the statements by appealing to the ‘common sense’ of the Western public and policy makers:

 “Nobody in their right mind wants higher prices and taxes, mounting tension along the borders, Iskanders, hypersonic weapons or ships with nukes a stone’s throw from their house. Let’s hope that the common sense of our neighbors eventually prevails. Yet if not, then, as they say, “they started it,” he said.

We may in due course learn if any specific act by NATO members brought that unusual warning from Medvedev. The NATO summit continues today and Thursday.

Meanwhile, no doubt as advance warning to the 30 Blind Mice now in Madrid, Putin said Saturday Russia planned to send nuclear-capable missiles to Belarus within months, signaling a boldness as it made gains in Ukraine’s eastern regions.

Putin made the promise in a meeting with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, who has publicly supported Russia in its invasion of Ukraine.

“We will transfer to Belarus Iskander-M tactical missile systems, which can use ballistic or cruise missiles, in their conventional and nuclear versions,” he said, according to Russia’s state-owned Tass news agency. “It’s a deal.”

*

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

I believe one of the reasons many Americans carry such negative feelings about the Russians is our collective failure to understand the price Russians paid to defeat Hitler. The sad truth is that most Americans have trouble identifying the warring parties in World War II and generally believe that terrible conflict was settled because of what America did.

The American people are good folk at heart. They genuinely want to help the less fortunate or the beleaguered. But, during the last 75 years, American politicians cynically have used this trait to convince the public to back foreign wars that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. All of this bloodshed was done under the banner of promoting freedom and democracy. Yet, if you ask the folks in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, the Balkans, Libya and Syria how they view the U.S. “help”, they have what can charitably be called a “different perspective.”

I believe one of the reasons Americans have been bamboozled into supporting most of the U.S. foreign adventures is a fundamental ignorance about U.S. military casualties. Misconceptions about U.S. losses in World War II are pervasive. If you ask the average American who knows something about the history of WW II, he or she likely believes that the United States paid dearly in blood to defeat Japan and to help bring an end to Nazi Germany. In fact, the vast majority of Americans believe that the Russians played only a minor role in crushing the Nazis.

Apart from lousy public education, Hollywood is the major culprit in perpetuating the myth of U.S. prowess in World War II. Those movies that mention the Soviet role (and that is a small number) usually portray Stalin as desperate for the Allies to open a western front against the Germans.

So let me share with you some surprising facts. What were the five bloodiest campaign battles in World War II that cost the United States the most fatalities?

• Battle of Normandy–June 6 to August 25, 1944. The United States lost 29,204 killed in action.
• Battle of the Bulge–December 16, 1944 to January 28, 1945. KIA, 19,276.
• Central Europe Campaign–March 22 to May 8, 1945. Fatalities totaled 15,009.
• Battle of Okinawa–April 1 to June 22, 1945. Deaths are estimated between 14,000 and 20,000.
• Philippines Campaign–December 8, 1941 to May 6, 1942. Approximately 13,000 KIA.

If your family lost a loved one in these battles, the total number of deaths is meaningless. The death of the person who was loved by parents, siblings and friends was incalculable. My intent in presenting these stark statistics is to help you appreciate why the Russians are so justifiably paranoid about foreign threats, especially those that embrace modern Nazis.

Here are the top five Russian campaigns. They only fought the Germans. But the price in blood is staggering:

• Battle of Leningrad–8 September 1941 – 27 January 1944. Total killed numbered 1,017,881.
• Battle of Moscow–2 October 1941 – 7 January 1942. Russia lost 653,924 killed and missing.
• Operation Barbarossa–22 June 1941 – 5 December 1941. Russia lost 566,852 killed in action
• Battle of Stalingrad–23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943. Russia lost 478,741 killed or missing.
• Battle of Kursk–5 July 1943 – 23 August 1943. Total fatalities were 432,317 killed or missing.

Let me state the difference in another way. Total U.S. killed in action in World War II in both the European, North African and Pacific Theaters totaled 472,000. The Russians lost more troops in four separate battles than the United States lost in the entire war.

The Russian people did not fight because Stalin had a gun pointed at their back. They rallied in a remarkable way to the Nazi invasion. Most military analysts at the time predicted the Soviet Union would collapse under the weight of the Nazi steamroller. The Russian people defied those expectations and rallied to defeat the best of the German armies.

The horrific death toll touched almost every family in Russia. That is why the Russians still remember and commemorate that sacrifice every May. It has nothing to do with communism. World War II scarred the Russians to the bone. That is the primary reason that Vladimir Putin enjoys widespread public support in taking on the threat from Ukraine. Ukraine has been a de facto NATO ally since 2014, when the United States and the United Kingdom helped orchestrate the coup that ousted the democratically elected president.

The United States and NATO are grossly mistaken if they believe that flexing military muscle by deploying troops on Russia’s borders will cow the Russian people. This perceived threat goes beyond Putin. It is something most Russians see and fear. My hope is that once the American people appreciate the legitimate paranoia of the Russians, they will reject calls to treat Russia as an intractable enemy.

The history of the 77 years that have passed since the end of the war is not replete with incidents of Russia launching repeated military operations in other countries. It is the United States that holds that tarnished crown. President John Quincy Adams, speaking about the Declaration of Independence, offered this wise counsel (Adams was the first U.S. Ambassador to Russia) :

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

I believe the American Republic would be well served to take Adam’s words to heart and construct a new foreign policy that is not based on sending our troops abroad to die in meaningless wars. The good heart that powers America still beats. But it is under assault at home. Russia does not threaten our Republic. Our peril is at home.

*

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

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

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

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

***

Dr. Vinay Prasad is demanding that President Joe Biden’s health officials and mainstream media outlets “just tell the truth” about the effects of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines on children.

Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor in the University of California, San Francisco‘s Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, made these comments on June 15 in a recorded response to news that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have officially signed off on the COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as six months. (Related: Doctors are BEGGING parents not to give their children deadly COVID-19 vaccines.)

“You’re not persuading anybody” to give the COVID-19 vaccines to children, said Prasad in his message to the so-called experts in the FDA and the CDC. “You’re laying it on a little thick and you’re not being honest about it, and in the process you’re discrediting yourself.”

Prasad noted that many parents are not interested in getting their children vaccinated, especially since the data shows that as many as 75 percent of them have already been infected and therefore have a natural immunity to coronavirus.

He added that so-called experts may claim that vaccination provides more powerful and consistent protection even for children with natural immunity. “The truth is … they don’t know that to be true,” said Prasad.

“If a child has already had COVID, [and] recovered from COVID, we do not know that they have a further reduction in MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children], death, hospitalization, et cetera, from a potential reinfection. It’s a lie.”

Prasad noted that there is no proper scientific evidence proving that children with natural immunity will benefit from COVID-19 vaccines, and that scientists have not conducted large-scale randomized trials or investigated observational data to support their claims.

He called on health experts to just present the public with all they know and still do not know about the vaccines. If they do this, presenting all the risks and so-called benefits that come with vaccination, then maybe people would have more trust in their guidance.

“Just tell the truth,” said Prasad, instead of “exaggerating and lying and distorting the truth.”

Prasad urges Biden administration to revise COVID-19 guidelines for children

Prasad has been active in lobbying the federal government to revise its current pandemic guidelines for children. He is currently leading the group Urgency of Normal, which is made up of doctors and other health professionals like himself who are arguing for a return to pre-pandemic behaviors and public health policies.

Urgency of Normal has sent a letter to Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Biden administration’s pandemic response team, and CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, urging them to lift pandemic-related measures that could be negatively affecting the well-being of children.

“We strongly urge you to revise the CDC’s COVID-19 guidelines with regard to testing, isolation and vaccine recommendations for children to ensure that public health policies are not doing more harm than good,” wrote the organization.

The group pointed out that the CDC’s current guidelines are causing significant disruptions to the education of children while providing no demonstrable benefit to limiting the spread of COVID-19.

The group is calling for the CDC to end mandatory mass testing of children at schools in favor of a more targeted approach that focuses on children who are the most vulnerable to COVID-19 and to make sure that, if these kids do fall ill, they are quickly treated with effective therapeutics.

More importantly, Prasad’s organization wants the CDC to scrap its recommendation that children be vaccinated, claiming that this is keeping many COVID-19 vaccine mandates up and preventing organizations and businesses from recognizing natural immunity.

“CDC recommendations to vaccinate and boost healthy young individuals have led many schools, colleges, sports organizations and summer programs to require up to three doses of mRNA vaccine, regardless of prior infection,” wrote the organization. “Such requirements exclude unvaccinated children or those not boosted from important opportunities.”

Urgency of Normal also pointed out how many countries, U.S. states and Canadian provinces have already updated their COVID-19 pandemic policies to acknowledge that mitigation measures enacted by public health agencies have unintended consequences and that natural immunity reduced the risk of a severe COVID-19 case, especially for children.

“Most have also eliminated any COVID-19 vaccine requirements for children to fully participate in public life,” wrote the organization.

Watch this clip from InfoWars featuring Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis refusing to give COVID-19 vaccines to infants.

*

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

Featured image is from Mercola

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

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

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

***

On Tuesday Russian First Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Dmitry Polyansky addressed the UN Security Council:

“We started a special military operation in order to put an end to bombardments of Donbas by Ukraine, and also to make sure that this country (that Western states helped to turn anti-Russia) and its nationalist leadership stop posing a threat to both Russia and people living in Ukraine’s southern and south-eastern areas. The special operation will continue until these goals are achieved. By supplying your weapons, you only prolong the agony of the criminal Kiev regime that is ready to sacrifice its own population. The sooner you realize this, the sooner Ukrainian leadership comes to a negotiations table with a realistic position rather than pompous slogans and phantom pains.”

A final hotspot in Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) remains the city of Lisichansk, where over 1,000 Ukraine soldiers are now reported dead. The LPR also announced that the first of the US made and sent long range multiple launch rocket systems M142 HIMARS has been used to shell targets in Lugansk province. The Pentagon just announced that four more of these HIMARS rocket systems will be shipped to Ukraine.

With NATO member Lithuania’s blockade aggressively attempting to cut off supplies to the Russian enclave Kaliningrad, on June 25^th, Putin promised his major Eastern European regional ally Belarus nuclear capable long-range missiles “within months.” In a televised meeting with Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, Putin promised:

In the coming months, we will transfer to Belarus Iskander-M tactical missile systems, which can use ballistic or cruise missiles, in their conventional and nuclear versions. 

Iskander-M missiles carry the option of either conventional or nuclear warheads with a range of 300 miles (500km). With the West intentionally ratcheting up tensions with nonstop provocation in recent weeks, (months and years), the normally constrained Putin appears to finally had enough, and is now matching the West’s escalating threats in spades, showing the world he is not afraid of going toe to toe with the US and NATO, even if it means nuclear world war. Whereas the West’s historical pattern of nuclear brinkmanship consists of a steady stream of blusterous bluffing, Putin doesn’t play games or mince words and the Western elite knows this.

But this is what happens when idiots like General Patrick Sanders as newly appointed commander of the British army goes too far with the warmongering rhetoric, publicly telling his troops and world to get ready to fight World War III in Europe against the most powerful nuclear country on earth. He is currently mobilizing the British army for war against Russia, even mentioning to work towards Klaus Schwab’s “4^th industrial revolution” against Russia. He’s not working for the people but the ruling elite.

And then there’s old US generals like Wesley Clark reminiscing his glory days as NATO commander balkanizing Yugoslavia with his relentless 1999 bombing campaign recently goes public to claim the only way to end the Ukraine conflict is deploying NATO forces against Russia. We’ve never been closer to mushroom cloud madness, all by demonic bloodline design.

Speaking of balkanizing or breaking up a targeted nation into smaller, exploited pieces, that’s exactly what the US neocon unipolar design has working with the hostile encirclement of the Russian Federation for several decades.

Only now, it’s the United States that is far more apt to be broken apart, separated into blue and red states. Partitioning of the US into dystopian FEMA camp regions is consistent with the UN Agenda 2030 plan to extract both food and natural resources from America’s wide interior expanse proposed to be uninhabited for this very purpose where remaining US population are forced to live on the East and West Coasts.

On Monday, close Putin ally and former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev specified a Russian red line:

For us, Crimea is a part of Russia. And that means forever. Any attempt to encroach on Crimea is a declaration of war against our country.  

Meanwhile on Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted the all too obvious:

The reality is also that we have been preparing for this since 2014. That is the reason that we have increased our presence in the eastern part of the alliance, why NATO allies have started to invest more in defense, and why we have increased [our] readiness. (emphasis added)

The Madrid NATO Summit

Other big news that came out of the Madrid NATO summit on Wednesday is that Turkish President Recep Erdogan caved in on his veto against NATO membership for Finland and Sweden, freeing up the 30 NATO member states to formally invite and add two more hostile NATO members on Russia’s doorstep offering full NATO membership on fast track within two weeks.

Screenshot of World Live Madrid News 

A week earlier Finnish General Timo Kivinen in charge of Finland’s military forces provocatively challenged:

“Finland has been preparing for decades for a Russian attack, and will show tough resistance if it happens.” 

And then to stir up tensions even more, the NATO summit document also had this to declare:

In light of the changed security environment in Europe, we have decided on new measures to step up tailored political and practical support to partners, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and the Republic of Moldova. We will work with them to build their integrity and resilience, develop capabilities, and uphold their political independence. (emphasis added)

With more Russian neighbors Georgia and Moldova mentioned as NATO partners, Russia has every right to resolve doing what it must to maintain its national security against US-NATO’s relentless aggressions with over-the-top recruitment attempting to turn all its border nations into hostile enemies of the Russian Federation. Biden and Johnson jointed NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on the final day of the Madrid NATO summit.

It’s clear as day that the bloodline controllers are making certain that their “Great Reset” includes world war with Russia. In preparation for WWIII, Reuters just released yesterday news that:

NATO leaders have agreed to put over 300,000 troops on high alert from mid-2023, up from 40,000 currently, to counter Russia, the country designated by the alliance as posing the greatest threat over the next decade.

A Ukraine shopping center allegedly filled with Ukrainian shoppers in Kremenchug that habitual liar President Zelensky claimed was hit by a Russian missile was actually, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, a fire spread to the “nonoperational shopping center” from a nearby Ukraine auto plant used for storing surplus Western arms and ammunition hit by a Russian high-precision strike.

Even the auto plant chairman admitted this fact. But Zelensky needed more Bucha-like false lies to enflame his melodrama just in time for the G7 meeting that he opportunistically used to beg for yet more weapons.

The actor-turned puppet’s latest video pitch was at this week’s NATO summit in Madrid where he demanded not only bigger weapons, but also another cool $5 billion Euros a month from cash cow NATO, berating that he deserves it for fighting for the entire Western civilization:

It’s either urgent aid to Ukraine sufficient for victory, or a delayed war between Russia and you… Financial aid for Ukraine has no less significance than arms deliveries. We need some $5 billon every month, you know that.

And this is a fundamental thing, needed for defense and protection… Hasn’t our contribution to defending Europe and the entire civilization been insufficient? What else is necessary? (emphasis added)

And now less than a week away, Ukraine will be unleashing the new era of robotics warfare onto the modern battlefield deploying its brand-new TERMINATOR robot devices called GNOM to fight and kill Russians on the Zaporzhzhia frontline.

In addition to having a mounted 7.62 machine gun, the weapon serves multiple functions capable of performing the following tasks: delivery of ammunition and food, surveillance, reconnaissance, evacuation of the wounded, repeater for increasing the range of radio communication and control, and satellite for larger robotic platforms. It’s a 110-pound (50 kilos) all metal 2X2 foot weapon on 4- or 6-wheels remote controlled from up to 5 km away.

A June 25^th New York Times article acknowledged an extensive CIA spy network working in tandem with Western NATO commandos operating in command centers on the ground in Ukraine behind frontlines, also performing various support services throughout the more than four months old conflict.

This is not shocking news as a number of US and NATO generals and flag officers have been captured, particularly during the Mariupol Azovstal siege. In the ashes of a makeshift crematorium underneath Azovstal steel plant, a partially burnt US passport was found among the burnt ashes of foreign mercenaries’ bodies.

Western military intelligence cells operating within the Pentagon’s European Command functioning in Ukraine and beyond are providing a stealthy logistics, training and intelligence network “to speed allied assistance to Ukrainian troops.”

A coordinated US NATO command center system has been operational throughout the Russian incursion from also operating both inside Ukraine and at a distance from the warzone in nearby countries like France and Germany.

The fallacy that Ukraine has been a proxy war belies the fact that it’s been commanded by the Pentagon, the CIA and NATO from the very get-go.

Biden and the corporate propaganda spin that there are no US boots on the ground in Ukraine as the necessary precaution to avoid a direct war with Russia has been proven to be more pure BS.  For years the West has a history of engaging in nonstop provocation purposely to escalate tensions now reaching the boiling point to ignite a world nuclear war as part of the actual “reset” plan all along.

*

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

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let the Bastards Getcha Down,” exposing a faulty US military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elite design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In Los Angeles he found himself battling the largest county child protective services in the nation within America’s thoroughly broken and corrupt child welfare system.

 As an independent journalist for over 8 years, Joachim has written hundreds of articles for many news sites, like Global Research, lewrockwell.com and currently https://jamesfetzer.org/. Joachim’s books and chapters are Amazon bestsellers in child advocacy and human rights categories.  

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

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

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

***

Russia would need to go beyond its traditional rhetoric of Soviet assistance rendered to Africa.

Are there concrete success stories and policy achievements, at least, during the past decade in Africa. The young generation and the middle class, aged between 25 to 45 that make the bulk of the 1.3 billion population, hardly see the broad positive impact of Russia’s economic cooperation with Africa. 

Russia plans to hold the second Russia-Africa summit later this year. Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, indicated in mid-June message that “in these difficult and crucial times the strategic partnership with Africa has become a priority of Russia’s foreign policy. Russia highly appreciates the readiness of Africans to further step up economic cooperation.”

Lavrov said:

“It is in the interests of our peoples to work together to preserve and expand mutually beneficial trade and investment ties under these new conditions. It is important to facilitate the mutual access of Russian and African economic operators to each other’s markets and encourage their participation in large-scale infrastructure projects. The signed agreements and the results will be consolidated at the forthcoming second Russia-Africa summit.”

The above statement arguably offers some implications especially discussing this question of relationship-building. Nevertheless, Lavrov has aptly asserted that within the “emerging and sustainable polycentric architecture of the world order” relations with Africa is still a priority, but Russians always close their eyes on the fact that Russia’s foreign policy in Africa has largely failed to pronounce itself, in practical terms, as evidenced by the countable forays into Africa by Russian officials.

The Soviet Union was quite extensively engaged with Africa, comparatively. Russians have only been criticizing other foreign players during the past two decades without showing any model of building relationship. Its foreign policy goals are directed simply at sustaining the passion for signing several MoUs and bilateral agreements with African countries.

During the past years there have been several symbolic meetings of bilateral intergovernmental commissions both in Moscow and in Africa.

The first historic summit discussed broadly the priorities and further identified opportunities for collaboration. It, however, requires understanding the tasks and the emerging challenges. The current tasks should concretely focus on actionable strategies towards enhancing the effective implementation of existing bilateral agreements, taking practical collaborated actions leading to goal-driven results. Nevertheless, Lavrov hopes “the signed agreements and the results will be consolidated at the forthcoming second Russia-Africa summit.”

Still, Russia plays very little role in Africa’s infrastructure, agriculture and industry, and similarly making tiny efforts to leverage unto the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). While, given its global status, it ought to be active in Africa as Western Europe, the European Union, America and China are, it is all but absent, playing a negligible role, according to Professor Gerrit Olivier at the Department of Political Sciences, University of Pretoria, and former South African Ambassador to the Russian Federation.

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

As to Russia’s involvement, it has undoubtedly a vast experience in development of projects in Africa accumulated during Soviet times, building of powerstations and dams or creating of technological training institutes. What is lacking nowadays is its ability to provide large investments, according to Shubin, “but Russian expertise and technology can still be used while carrying out internationally-financed projects in Africa.”

As to the failures, perhaps, we have to point to the lack of deep knowledge of African conditions, especially at the initial stage of the involvement which sometimes resulted in suggesting (or agreeing to) unrealistic projects, But there are good prospects for reactivating diversified cooperation, he explained.

Chronological analysis shows that Russia’s politics toward Africa under President Boris Yeltsin (1991-2001) was described as a lost decade, both in internal and external affairs, including relations with Africa. Historical documents further show that after the Soviet collapse there were approximately 380 projects throughout Africa. In the early 1990s, Russia swiftly exited, closed a number of diplomatic offices and abandoned all these, and hardly no sign of Soviet-era infrastructure projects there.

Policy statements have indicated strong optimism for raising relations. That however, at least during the past decade, official reports including sparkling speeches at high-level conferences, summits and meetings indicated there are projects being implemented in Africa by such leading Russian businesses as Rosneft, Lukoil, Rosgeo, Gazprom, Alrosa, Vi Holding, GPB Global Resources and Renova.

Nevertheless, it is so common reiterating that Russia has always been on Africa’s side in the fight against colonialism and now neo-colonialism. The frequency of reminding again and again about Soviet assistance, that was offered more than 60 years ago, will definitely not facilitate the expected beneficial trade and investment ties under these new conditions. The United Nations declared Africa fully independent in 1960, and Organization of African Unity (OAU) was formed on 25 May 1963 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Afreximbank President and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Dr. Benedict Okey Oramah, says Russian officials “keep reminding us about Soviet era” but the emotional link has simply not been used in transforming relations. Oramah said one of Russia’s major advantages was the goodwill. He remarked that even young people in Africa knew how Russia helped African people fight for independence. “So an emotional link is there,” he told Inter-Tass News Agency.

The biggest thing that happened in Africa was the establishment of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). That is a huge game-changer, and steps have been made lately in the African countries for creating better conditions for business development and shaping attractive investment climate. “Sometimes, it is difficult to understand why the Russians are not taking advantage of it?  We have the Chinese, we have the Americans, we have the Germans who are operating projects…That is a very, very promising area,” Oramah said in his interview last year.

Ahead of Sochi summit 2019, Oramah presented a report to a special business conference that ran from 18 to 22 June, the same year, and listed spheres for possible cooperation such as finances, energy, mining, railway infrastructure, digital technologies, cybersecurity, healthcare, education, food security in Africa.

That conference saw several agreements signed including between the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank) and Sinara-Transport Machines JSC (STM), Transmash Holding JSC, Russian Export Center JSC, Avelar Solar Technology LLC, Chelyabinsk Pipe Plant PJSC, Kolon World Investment, and Opaia SA and the Roscongress Foundation. As far back in 2017, the Russian Export Center became Afreximbank’s third largest non-African shareholding financial organization shareholder, and expected to contribute to the acceleration of investment, trade, and economic relations between Russia and African countries.

Interesting to note here that Russian business community hardly pays attention to the significance of African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) which provides a unique and valuable platform for businesses to access an integrated African market of over 1.3 billion people. The growing middle class, among other factors, constitutes a huge market potential in Africa. The African continent currently has enormous potential as a market, and some experts say it is the last business frontier.

Many African countries are enacting economic reforms, demand is growing for high-quality, competitive products. Russian businesses are interested in this niche, but Russians are extremely slow. The snail-pace approach reflects their inability to determine financial instruments for supporting trade with and investment in Africa.

Accentuating the importance of multilateral cooperation between Russia and Africa, Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation, Anton Kobyakov, said: “The current situation in the world is such that we are witnesses to the formation of new centers of economic growth in Africa. Competition for African markets is growing accordingly. There is no doubt that Russia’s non-commodity exporters will benefit from cooperating with Africa on manufacturing, technologies, finances, trade, and investment.”

Kobyakov further pointed to modern Russia, which already has experience of successful cooperation with African countries under its belt, is ready to make an offer to the African continent that will secure mutually beneficial partnership and the joint realization of decades of painstaking work carried out by several generations of Soviet and Russian people.

With its impressive relations, Russia has not pledged publicly concrete funds toward implementing its policy objectives in Africa. Moreover, Russian officials have ignored the fact that Russia’s overall economic engagement is largely staggering, various business agreements signed are still not fullfilled with many African countries.

Agreements and business negotiations resulted into 92 agreements, contracts and memoranda of understanding. Summit documents say a total of RUB 1.004 trillion ((US$12.5 bn) worth of agreements were signed at that highly-praised historic summit in October 2019.

Large Russian companies have been unsuccessful with their projects, negatively reflecting the real motives for bilateral economic cooperation. There are several examples such as Rosatom in South Africa, Norrick Nickel in Botswana, Ajeokuta Steel Plant in Nigeria, Mining projects in Uganda and Zimbabwe, Lukoil in Cameroon, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. Currently, Russia is invisible in spheres providing infrastructures in Africa.

Undoubtedly, a number of Russian companies have largely underperformed in Africa, experts described was primarily due to multiple reasons. Most often, Russian investors strike important investment niches that still require long-term strategies and adequate country study. Grappling with reality, there are many investment challenges including official bureaucracy in Africa.

In order to ensure business safety and consequently taking steps to realize the primary goals, it is necessary to attain some level of understanding the priorities of the country, investment legislations, comply with terms of agreement and a careful study of policy changes, particularly when there is a sudden change in government.

What is abundantly clear is how to stimulate African governments into exploring investment opportunities in Russia and also Russian investors into Africa within some framework of mutual cooperation. In order to facilitate both Russian and African economic operators to have access to each other’s markets and encourage their participation in large-scale infrastructure projects must necessarily involve taking progressive practical steps toward resolving existing obstacles.

That said, preparations for the second Russia-Africa summit are currently underway. “The Russian side aims to continue preparing the second, as well as subsequent Russian-Africa summits and aims to make them as efficient as possible. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other ministries are taking steps to build a full and mutually beneficial cooperation between Russia and the African countries, including the formation of a reliable social and economic infrastructure, food and energy security on the continent,” said Oleg Ozerov, Ambassador-at-Large and Head of the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum.

Worth saying here that African leaders are waiting to cut white ribbons marking the successful completion of Russian-managed something. Really it is time to shift from rhetoric and move on towards implementing the package of bilateral agreements especially those involving infrastructure investments, determine financing concrete projects and deliver on decade-old pledges to the people of Africa.

While Russian and African leaders strike their common positions on the global platform, there is also the need to recognize and appreciate the welfare of 1.3 billion population, majority impoverished, in Africa. Significant to suggest that with new horizons of the polycentric world order emerging and steadily unfolding, active engagement of the African youth, civil society leaders, women entrepreneurs and active changemakers in the middle-class into policy efforts becomes definitely necessary.

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

He explains that Russian education can become appealing these days, but given that Russia can no longer boast any significant scientific and technological achievements. Western educational and scientific paradigm embraces cooperation and critical independent thinking, whereas this is not the case with the Russian paradigm, which is becoming more isolationist and authoritarian. Obviously by now, Africa should look up to more successful examples elsewhere, perhaps in the United States and Europe.

As the official Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs website indicated – it is evident that the significant potential of the economic cooperation is far from being exhausted, much remains to be done in creating conditions necessary for interaction between Russia and Africa. At a meeting of the Ministry’s Collegium, Lavrov unreservedly suggested taking a chapter on the approach and methods adopted by China in Africa, and that was back in 2019.

Now at the crossroad, it could be meadering and longer than expected to make the mark. Russia’s return journey could take another generation to reach destination Africa. With the current changing geopolitical world, Russia has been stripped of as a member of many international organizations. As a direct result of Russia’s “special military operation” aims at “demilitarization and denazification” since late February, Russia has come under a raft of sanctions imposed by the United States and Canada, European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and a host of other countries.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Fast but not furious, the Global South is revving up. The key takeaway of the BRICS+ summit in Beijing,  held in sharp contrast with the G7 in the Bavarian Alps, is that both West Asia’s Iran and South America’s Argentina officially applied for BRICS membership.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has highlighted how BRICS has “a very creative mechanism with broad aspects”. Tehran – a close partner of both Beijing and Moscow – already had “a series of consultations” about the application: the Iranians are sure that will “add value” to the expanded BRICS.

Talk about China, Russia and Iran being sooooo isolated. Well, after all we’re deep into the metaverse spectrum, where things are the opposite of what they seem.

Moscow’s obstinacy in not following Washington’s Plan A to start a pan-European war is rattling Atlanticist nerves to the core. So right after the G7 summit significantly held at a former Nazi sanatorium, enter NATO’s, in full warmongering regalia.

So welcome to an atrocity exhibition featuring total demonization of Russia, defined as the ultimate “direct threat”; the upgrading of Eastern Europe into “a fort”; a torrent of tears shed about the Russia-China strategic partnership; and as an extra bonus, the branding of China as a “systemic challenge”.

There you go: for the NATO/G7 combo, the leaders of the emerging multipolar world as well as the vast swathes of the Global South that want to join in, are a “systemic challenge”.

Turkiye under the Sultan of Swing – Global South in spirit, tightrope walker in practice – got literally everything it wanted to magnanimously allow Sweden and Finland to clear their paths on the way of being absorbed by NATO.

Bets can be made on what kind of shenanigans NATO navies will come up with in the Baltics against the Russian Baltic Fleet, to be followed by assorted business cards distributed by Mr. Khinzal, Mr. Zircon, Mr. Onyx and Mr. Kalibr, capable of course of annihilating any NATO permutation, including “decision centers”.

So it came as a sort of perverse comic relief when Roscosmos released a set of quite entertaining satellite images pinpointing the coordinates of those “decision centers”.

The “leaders” of NATO and the G7 seem to enjoy performing a brand of lousy cop/clownish cop routine. The NATO summit told coke comedian Elensky (remember, the letter “Z” is verboten) that the Russian combined arms police operation – or war – must be “resolved” militarily. So NATO will continue to help Kiev to fight till the last Ukrainian cannon fodder.

In parallel, at the G7, German Chancellor Scholz was asked to specify what “security guarantees” would be provided to what’s left of Ukraine after the war. Response from the grinning Chancellor: “Yes … I could” (specify). And then he trailed off.

Illiberal Western liberalism

Over 4 months after the start of Operation Z, zombified Western public opinion completely forgot – or willfully ignores – that Moscow spent the last stretch of 2021 demanding a serious discussion on legally binding security guarantees from Washington, with an emphasis on no more NATO eastward expansion and a return to the 1997 status quo.

Diplomacy did fail, as Washington emitted a non-response response. President Putin had stressed the follow-up would be a “military technical” response (that turned out to be Operation Z) even as the Americans warned that would trigger massive sanctions.

Contrary to Divide and Rule wishful thinking, what happened after February 24 only solidified the synergistic Russia-China strategic partnership – and their expanded circle, especially in the context of BRICS and the SCO. As Sergey Karaganov, head of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy noted earlier this year, “China is our strategic cushion (…) We know that in any difficult situation, we can lean on it for military, political and economic support.”

That was outlined in detail for all the Global South to see by the landmark February 4th joint statement for Cooperation Entering a New Era – complete with the accelerated integration of BRI and the EAEU in tandem with military intelligence harmonization under the SCO (including new full member Iran), key foundation stones of multipolarism.

Now compare it with the wet dreams of the Council on Foreign Relations or assorted ravings by armchair strategic “experts” of “the top national security think tank in the world” whose military experience is limited to negotiating a can of beer.

Makes one yearn for those serious analytic days when the late, great Andre Gunder Frank penned ” a paper on the paper tiger” , examining American power at the crossroads of paper dollar and the Pentagon.

The Brits, with better imperial education standards, at least seem to understand, halfway, how Xi Jinping “has embraced a variant of integral nationalism not unlike those that emerged in interwar Europe”, while Putin “skillfully deployed Leninist methods to resurrect an enfeebled Russia as a global power.”

Yet the notion that “ideas and projects originating in the illiberal West continue to shape global politics” is nonsense, as Xi in fact is inspired by Mao as much as Putin is inspired by several Eurasianist theoreticians. What’s relevant is that in the process of the West plunging into a geopolitical abyss, “Western liberalism has itself become illiberal.”

Much worse: it actually became totalitarian.

Holding the Global South hostage

The G7 is essentially offering to most of the Global South a toxic cocktail of massive inflation, rising prices and uncontrolled dollarized debt.

Fabio Vighi has brilliantly outlined how “the purpose of the Ukrainian emergency is to keep the money printer switched on while blaming Putin for worldwide economic downturn. The war serves the opposite aim of what we are told: not to defend Ukraine but to prolong the conflict and nourish inflation in a bid to defuse cataclysmic risk in the debt market, which would spread like wildfire across the whole financial sector.”

And if it can get worse, it will. At the Bavarian Alps, the G7 promised to find “ways to limit the price of Russian oil and gas”: if that doesn’t work according to “market methods”, then “means will be imposed by force”.

A G7 “indulgence” – neo-medievalism in action – would only be possible if a prospective buyer of Russian energy agrees to strike a deal on the price with G7 representatives.

What this means in practice is that the G7 arguably will be creating a new body to “regulate” the price of oil and gas, subordinated to Washington’s whims: for all practical purposes, a major twist of the post-1945 system.

The whole planet, especially the Global South, would be held hostage.

Meanwhile, in real life, Gazprom is on a roll, making as much money from gas exports to the EU as it did in 2021, even though it’s shipping much smaller volumes.

About the only thing this German analyst gets right is that were Gazprom forced to cut off supplies for good, that would represent “the implosion of an economic model that is over-reliant on industrial exports, and therefore on imports of cheap fossil fuels. Industry is responsible for 36% of Germany’s gas use.”

Think, for instance, BASF forced to halt production at the world’s biggest chemicals plant in Ludwigshafen. Or Shell’s CEO stressing it’s absolutely impossible to replace Russian gas supplied to the EU via pipelines with (American) LNG.

This coming implosion is exactly what Washington neocon/neoliberalcon circles want – removing a powerful (Western) economic competitor from the world trading stage. What’s truly astonishing is that Team Scholz can’t even see it coming.

Virtually no one remembers what happened a year ago when the G7 struck a pose of trying to help the Global South. That was branded as Build Back Better World (B3W). “Promising projects” were identified in Senegal and Ghana, there were “visits” to Ecuador, Panama and Colombia. The Crash Test Dummy administration was offering “the full range” of US financial tools: equity stakes, loan guarantees, political insurance, grants, technical expertise on climate, digital technology and gender equality.

The Global South was not impressed. Most of it had already joined BRI. B3W went down with a whimper.

Now the EU is promoting its new “infrastructure” project for the Global South, branded as Global Gateway, officially presented by European Commission (EC) Fuhrer Ursula von der Leyen and – surprise! – coordinated with the floundering B3W. That’s the Western “response” to BRI, demonized as – what else – “a debt trap”.

Global Gateway in theory should be spending 300 billion euros in 5 years; the EC will come up with only 18 billion from the EU budget (that is, financed by EU taxpayers), with the intention of amassing 135 billion euros in private investment. No Eurocrat has been able to explain the gap between the announced 300 billion and the wishful thinking 135 billion.

In parallel, the EC is doubling down on their floundering Green Energy agenda – blaming, what else, gas and coal. EU climate honcho Frans Timmermans has uttered an absolute pearl: “Had we had the green deal five years earlier, we would not be in this position because then we would have less dependency on fossil fuels and natural gas.”

Well, in real life the EU remains stubbornly on the road to become a fully de-industrialized wasteland by 2030. Inefficient solar or wind-based Green Energy is incapable of offering stable, reliable power. No wonder vast swathes of the EU are now Back to Coal.

The right kind of swing

It’s a tough call to establish who’s The Lousiest in the NATO/G7 cop routine. Or the most predictable. This is what I published about the NATO summit . Not now: in 2014, eight years ago. The same old demonization, over and over again.

And once again, if it can get worse, predictably it will. Think of what’s left of Ukraine – mostly eastern Galicia – being annexed to the Polish wet dream: the revamped Intermarium, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, now dubbed as a bland “Three Seas Initiative” (with the added Adriatic) and comprising 12 nation-states.

What that implies long-term is a EU breakdown from within. Opportunist Warsaw just profits financially from the Brussels system’s largesse while holding its own hegemonic designs. Most of the “Three Seas” will end up exiting the EU. Guess who will guarantee their “defense”: Washington, via NATO. What else is new? The revamped Intermarium concept goes back all the way to the late Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski.

So Poland dreams of becoming the Intermarium leader, seconded by the Three Baltic Midgets, enlarged Scandinavia, plus Bulgaria and Romania. Their aim is straight from Comedy Central: reducing Russia into “pariah state” status – and then the whole enchilada: regime change, Putin out, balkanization of the Russian Federation.

Britain, that inconsequential island, still invested in teaching Empire to the American upstarts, will love it. Germany-France-Italy much less. Lost in the wilderness Euro-analysts dream of a European Quad (Spain added), replicating the Indo-Pacific scam, but in the end it will all depend which way Berlin swings.

And then there’s that unpredictable Global South stalwart led by the Sultan of Swing: freshly rebranded Turkiye. Soft neo-Ottomanism seems to be on a roll, still expanding its tentacles from the Balkans and Libya to Syria and Central Asia. Evoking the golden age of the Sublime Porte, Istanbul is the only serious mediator between Moscow and Kiev. And it’s carefully micromanaging the evolving process of Eurasia integration.

The Americans were on the verge of regime-changing the Sultan. Now they have been forced to listen to him. Talk about a serious geopolitical lesson to the whole Global South: it don’t mean a “systemic challenge” thing if you’ve got the right kind of swing.

*

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

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

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

***

Sending Ukraine a $300 million shipment of powerful M-777 howitzers is a lobbying triumph for BAE Systems, one of the many war industry corporations fattening on the death and destruction of the Ukraine war

On June 15, the Biden administration announced that it was providing an additional $1 billion in military aid to Ukraine in a package that includes shipments of M-777 howitzers, ammunition and coastal defense systems.

While that announcement was being made, the Ukrainian army was shelling Donetsk, the capital of the Donetsk People’s Republic, with the U.S.-supplied howitzers along with French guns, according to The Donbass Insider, killing five civilians and wounding seven firefighters.

The attacks were being carried out from Ukrainian positions in Peski, a village not far from Donetsk airport.

According to a video produced by journalist Patrick Lancaster, a U.S. naval veteran who has reported on the war in eastern Ukraine over the last eight years, there were no military targets in the areas shelled by the Ukrainian army, only civilians.

Bringing Ukraine Closer to Victory?

Consistent with a society that used military technologies to subdue the native populations, most Americans subscribe to the belief that new superweapons can deliver salvation in wars.^[1]

They ignore the dictum of German theorist Karl von Clausewitz that war is “politics by other means,” meaning that victory can only be achieved by aligning with the right side—which does not appear to be the case for Ukraine.

The New York Times characterized the M-777 howitzer—which made its debut in Afghanistan in 2005—as “the most lethal weapon the West has provided [to Ukraine] so far.”

Highly portable by land, air and sea, it can fire as far as 40 kilometers away or 25 miles—further than Russia’s primary artillery system—and is capable of striking within 10 meters of a target when coupled with the M982 Excalibur precision guided munition, which Canada has sent to Ukraine.^[2]

Ukrainian soldier checks sights on the M777 howitzer. [Source: coffeeordie.com]

The flat, rolling plains of the Donbas are particularly suited for artillery fire compared with the shoulder-mounted Javelin missiles that were effective in neutralizing enemy forces in the first months of the war when Russia was targeting densely populated cities like Kyiv, senior U.S. defense officials have said.

A stack of 155mm shells sits in a wooded area near a base in the Donetsk region of Ukraine. [Source: nytimes.com]

The American Legion reported that the United States had already sent 108 M-777 howitzers to Ukraine before the most recent aid package was signed by President Biden.

Soldiers with Ukraine’s 55^th Artillery Brigade clean and carry out maintenance on a howitzer. [Source: nytimes.com]

The Pentagon claimed that the howitzers had an immediate impact upon their arrival on May 8, enabling the Ukrainians to “go on the counter-offensive in the Donbas” and “take back some towns the Russians had taken in the past.”

Colonel Roman Kachur, commander of Ukraine’s 55^th Artillery Brigade, told The New York Times that “this weapon [the howitzer] brings us closer to victory. With every modern weapon, every precise weapon, we get closer to victory.”

However, The New York Times reported on June 20 that Russian forces “appeared poised to tighten the noose around thousands of Ukrainian troops near two strategically important cities in the Donbas,” mounting an “assault on Ukrainian front lines.”^[3]

So a Ukrainian victory appears far off.

The Russian Interior Ministry reported that it had destroyed U.S.-made howitzers through use of attack drones.

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter wrote that Ukrainian dependence on Western artillery they were unfamiliar with resulted in a ten-fold disparity in firepower with Russia which was destroying Ukrainian defensive positions with minimal risk to its troops.

Satellite image of Russian attack drone taking out M777 howitzer near the settlement of Podgornoye. [Source: farsnews.ir]

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned that the Ukraine War could “last for years,” meaning we are looking at another Vietnam.

M777 howitzers bound for Ukraine. Will they make a difference in the war? [Source: eurasiantimes.com]

Merchants of Death

The M-777 howitzer is made by the U.S. division of BAE Systems, the largest arms manufacturer in Europe, which has supplied Ukraine with 400,000 rounds of munitions, anti-tank guided missiles and armored vehicles equipped with anti-aircraft missiles.

Former CIA Director Gina Haspel, who observed waterboarding at a CIA black site, sits on the company’s Board of Directors.

In March, BAE Systems ironically bankrolled an arms fair in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where sanctioned Russian weapons makers showed off some of the weapons they were using in Ukraine, including tanks, helicopters and drones.

Profit has no national loyalty: Arms bazaar hosted by BAE in Riyadh in March where sanctioned Russian firms showcase miniature tanks and other weapons used in war in Ukraine. [Source: opendemocracy.net]

During the 2020 U.S. election campaign, BAE Systems donated $569,202 to Democratic Party candidates, and $452,594 to Republicans, according to opensecrets.org.

Joe Biden received $102,591 compared to $94,966 for Donald Trump.

Additional recipients of BAE’s largesse included such anti-Russia hawks as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA—$7,373); Steny Hoyer (D-MD—$10,000), Chuck Schumer (D-NY—$5,605); Liz Cheney (R-WY—$3,259 and another $5,500 in 2022); Jamie Raskin (D-MD—$4,089); Adam Schiff (D-CA—$8,036); Mitch McConnell (R-KY—$9, 289), James Inhofe (R-OK-$13,300) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC-$11,383).^[4]

So far this year, BAE Systems has spent $940,000 on lobbying Congress; in 2021, it spent $3.63 million.^[5]

This amounts to chump change for the company: Shares in BAE Systems have reached an all-time high since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, rising by 28 percent over ten weeks to give BAE a stock market value of £24 billion and putting it among the largest 25 companies in the Financial Times Stock Exchange.

Source: corpwatch.com

In a blatant conflict of interest, a number of Tories in England’s Upper House of Parliament—notably Lord Glendonbrook, Viscount Eccles and Lord Sassoon, and unaffiliated peers Lord Lupton and Lord Gadhia—each own shares of at least £50,000 in BAE Systems.^[6]

Prince Charles addresses Britain’s Upper House of Parliament in May. Numbers of Tories in the chamber who support the war in Ukraine own shares in leading war profiteer BAE Systems. [Source: english.alarabiya.net]

Samuel Perlo-Freeman, research coordinator for the campaign against the arms trade, said that BAE Systems “like other major world arms companies, are seeing their share prices soar in response to the war on Ukraine, as European countries prepare to massively rearm, doubling down on the very militarism that has created so much death and suffering in Ukraine, Yemen and elsewhere.”^[7]

In May, BAE Systems’ CEO, Dr. Charles Woodburn, told investors: “We see opportunities to further enhance the medium-term outlook as our customers address the elevated threat environment.”

Which really means that, by antagonizing the Russians, great profits can be made in the Ukraine War and any compromise or diplomatic solution that might end the war should be rejected.

*

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

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

1. See H. Bruce Franklin, War Stars: The Superweapon and the American Imagination(Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2007). 

2. The howitzers are equipped with a digital fire control system that ensures outstanding accuracy. According to a senior defense official speaking at a Pentagon news briefing, Canadian forces trained the first Ukrainian artillerymen, followed by Florida National Guardsmen who taught additional Ukrainians how to handle the howitzers. 
3. Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Vivian Yee and Andrew E. Kramer, “Russia Tightens Its Grip Around Pivotal Cities in Ukraine’s East,” The New York Times, June 20, 2022, A6. 
4. Other recipients of BAE Systems largesse in 2020 included: Dianne Feinstein, Rafael Warnock, Jon Ossoff, James Risch, Dick Durbin, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Tammy Duckworth, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Adam Smith, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar. All voted for billions in arms shipments to Ukraine since the war started. 2020 Presidential candidates Pete Buttgieg and Andrew Yang also took money from BAE Systems. 
5. 20 out of 29 BAE Systems lobbyists in 2021 and 17 out of 26 in 2022 previously held government jobs—an excellent example of the so-called revolving door. The bill that the lobbyists pushed for the most was H.R.4350: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, which promoted $777 billion in military spending. 
6. Adam Bychawski, “Revealed: Ukraine war makes Lords members richer through arms investments,” Open Democracy, March 17, 2022, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/ukraine-war-uk-lords-richer-arms-investments-russia-bae-systems/ 

7. Bychawski, “Revealed.” 

Featured image is from cityam.com

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

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

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

***

Throughout the 19th century, Americans generally had a much better understanding of their anti-colonial origins than is the case today.

Even though the last official war fought between Britain and the USA occured between 1812 and 1815, the British failure to destroy the United States militarily caused British foreign policy to re-focus its efforts on undermining the republic from within.

This slower attack from within required more patience, but was much more successful and led to the near collapse of USA during the Civil War of 1861-1865 when Lord Palmerston quickly recognized the Southern slave power’s call for independence from the Union.

Britain not only provided munitions, intelligence, and crown territories in Canada to serve as Confederate Intelligence stations, but nearly came in openly fighting alongside the Confederacy. This danger was only subdued thanks to Russia’s intervention on the Union’s behalf in 1863.

As the war raged, none other than Lord Robert Cecil (three times Prime Minister) told the British Parliament:

“The Northern States of America never can be our sure friends because we are rivals, rivals politically, rivals commercially…With the Southern States, the case is entirely reversed. The population are an agricultural people. They furnish the raw material of our industry, and they consume the products which we manufacture from it. With them, every interest must lead us to cultivate friendly relations, and when the war began they at once recurred to England as their natural ally.”

War Plan Red

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

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

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

***

After 15 years of Israel’s ruthless land, air and sea blockade of Gaza – which ensued the US failure to anticipate Hamas win in 2006 Palestine legislative election and brought forth America’s covert Middle East mission to buck up “putschist” Mohammed Dahlan destroy Hamas militarily – the Palestinian coastal enclave is still the major casualty of Israeli repression for they voted out Fatah against the will of Israel and the US.

Nearly 80% people of the besieged territory, according to the United Nations, are in dire need of humanitarian assistance as half of the 2 million population lives in poverty with 80% unemployed youth. The Save the Children paints a bleak picture of the children, four to five of whom are growing up in a climate of “depression, grief and fear.”

Over the last one and a half decade, children in the world’s largest open-air prison have endured five major escalations and the pandemic. While 800,000 children never knew life without blockade, economic deprivation and lack of access to essential services such as healthcare as well as an incessant threat to their lives are adding to the misery of the incarcerated Palestinian children and youngsters.

A symptom of trauma and abuse, temporary reactive mutism, in children is prevalent. Poor hygiene due to inadequate access to clean water and sanitation increases the risk of infection and antibiotic resistance in Gazans. The beleaguered Palestinians are scarily waiting for the apartheid state’s next power display on them to let international community pay another lip service to the Israeli tyranny before redeploying focus on Ukraine.

It was May 2021 when the oppressive Israeli forces launched its last major offensive on Gaza to petrify the orphans of its 51-day bombing campaign in 2014 – which killed more than 2,200 Palestinians including 500 children – and exterminated some 253 Palestinians in addition to completely erasing 1,800 houses. Air raids in the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank is a quintessential pastime for the Israeli assailants as they continue hunting down Palestinians to quench their thirst with human blood.

The scale and magnitude of “sorrow and despair” the West feels for Gaza is far lesser than Ukraine because Palestine like Afghanistan and Iraq isn’t “civilized” and a majority of the Palestinians don’t have blonde hair or blue eyes. Unlike the Ukrainians whose video of Molotov cocktails was telecasted on the mainstream media to project their right of self-defense, Israel has the privilege to exercise the punitive expedition against Palestinians without stint.

Israel’s allies delegitimize Palestine’s Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and bill it as anti-Semitic. They, at the same time, support and bully nations to back the isolation campaign against Russia and exclusion of the Kremlin from international bodies and the world economy. This is a perfect illustration of blatant Western hypocrisy that is smitten with racist profile or white supremacy.

A new wave of normalization in the greater Middle East adds insult to Palestine injuries. Several Arab states have already established diplomatic relations under the Abraham Accords with Israel and others are lining up to follow the course. The European Union (EU)’s gas deal with Egypt and Israel during a regional summit in Cairo, aimed at punishing Russia’s economy, tells how the West manipulates between respect of human rights and international law and self-interests.

The EU embargo on Russian oil may cut “a huge source of financing for its war machine”; the tripartite treaty to buy natural gas, to be liquefied in Egyptian plants, from Israel provides transactional immunity to the Israeli jets, tanks and bulldozers to target the confined men, women and children in Gaza with high latitude and then make them starve to death by destroying their farmlands.

Another Palestine’s staunch ally, Turkey, is warming up toward Israel. After 15 years, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu last month arrived in Israel to normalize ties and address disagreements. Earlier in March, Israeli President Isaac Herzog reached Ankara where Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan described his visit as a “turning point” and the country’s relationship with Israel “historic.”

Turkey insists its normalization will be antithetical to Gulf rapprochement with Israel, arguing it would augment Ankara’s role in a two-state solution. Yet the Turkish appeasing and submissive posture itself and craving for energy cooperation with Israel is akin to endorse Israeli crimes of apartheid and persecution, putting a big question mark over its commitment to the Palestinian cause.

In the 1990s after signing of the Oslo Accords – through which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) handed over 78% of the Palestinian land to Israel and gave legitimacy to the Jewish state – several Gulf states including Qatar, Bahrain and Oman established diplomatic connections with Israel even as the reconciliation disintegrated in 2000 as tension flared following the second intifada.

The Saudi Arabia’s proposed Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 implied normalization with establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, the plan de facto lent legitimacy to Israeli state. After Egypt and Jordan stepped back from the Khartoum Resolution to recognize Israel – the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco have forged diplomatic relations with Israel.

Meanwhile, Iran’s intervention in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen to expand region-wide influence as well as tactic to use Palestine as leverage for negotiations with the US has deepened the prospect of any regional consensus on Palestine. Tehran has been selling its “resistance” narrative via its proxy Hezbollah while avoiding a direct conflict with Israel and playing the Palestine card to “garner popular support” in the wider Gulf.

Given there haven’t been any serious peace talks between Palestine and Israel for more than a decade and all countries compete with one another as to how best exploit the leverage over Palestine to its advantage, the Middle East’s promise to Palestine is almost dead. The PLO retraction from historical position gave a walkover to Israel and the ongoing covert and overt connections between Arab states and Israel, spurred by Iran’s pursuit of the regional dominance, alas, will be the last nail in the coffin of the Palestinian independence.

*

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

Azhar Azam is a private professional and writes on geopolitical issues and regional conflicts.

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

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

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

***

Britain’s military knew that fighters from an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist organisation were benefiting from the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011, but continued to support Nato airstrikes in Libya for another two months.

The revelation raises serious questions about British foreign policy and whether the UK’s then prime minister David Cameron misled parliament.

In early September 2011, Cameron updated the House of Commons about the situation in Libya, telling MPs:

“This revolution was not about extreme Islamism; al-Qaeda played no part in it.”

However, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) had assessed the month before that:

“The 17 February Brigade is likely to be an enduring player in [the] transition” away from Gaddafi’s regime and had “political linkages” to Libya’s rebel leadership, the National Transitional Council.

The 17 February Brigade, also known as the 17 February Martyrs Brigade, was a hardline Islamist militia named after the date the uprising began against Gaddafi. Its ranks included Salman Abedi, who went on to murder 22 innocent people in the Manchester Arena terrorist attack in 2017.

The MOD assessment said,

“Many 17th February Brigade fighters have affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups, such as the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change (formerly LIFG).”

The LIFG, or Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, was banned by Britain in 2005 as a terrorist organisation over its links to Al Qaeda. Its supporters included the Manchester bomber’s father, Ramadan Abedi. The organisation rebranded to the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change during the 2011 war.

Although the LIFG’s leadership renounced ties to Al Qaeda as part of a prisoner release deal it made with Gaddafi shortly before the 2011 uprising, many of its members continued to hold violent Islamist views. It was not until 2019 that the ban was lifted on the LIFG in the UK.

Misleading parliament?

The MOD has only released a portion of its assessment to Declassified following a freedom of information request. It is not clear whether the intelligence was shared at the time with ministers.

Dr Liam Fox, who was defence secretary during the war, told parliament’s foreign affairs committee in 2016:

“I do not recall reading any reports that set out the background of any Islamist activity to specific rebel groups.”

Fox was responding to a question from the committee about whether he was aware that members of the LIFG were participating in the rebellion.

Lord William Hague, who was foreign secretary, told the committee:

“Libyan leaders themselves did not have a deeper understanding of what was happening in their own country” and so “it is probably wrong to expect somebody sitting in the backrooms of the Foreign Office or Vauxhall Cross [MI6 headquarters] to know better than they did.”

General Sir David Richards, Britain’s top military officer during the intervention, said Whitehall’s knowledge about the extent of LIFG involvement in the rebellion “was a grey area”. He told the committee “in a perfect world, we would have known it all” and that “we were suspicious and beginning to build up our understanding during the campaign”.

Richards had argued internally for pauses during the bombing campaign to allow for negotiations, but Cameron overruled him.

The former defence chief told Declassified he was concerned that this particular assessment was not shown to him at the time.

“Given my well known hostility to regime change in Libya, I am certain that my outer office staff would have brought this to my attention if they had seen it,” Richards commented.

“I suspect it remained within Defence Intelligence as one of many sometimes contradictory reports. The report’s importance was also probably not properly understood at the time.”

Defence Intelligence is a branch of the MOD that gathers and analyses information relevant to conflicts.

Failed state

The MOD assessment was compiled sometime in August 2011, when rebels led by former LIFG commander Abdul Hakim Belhaj captured Libya’s capital Tripoli. That operation relied heavily on Nato air power and planning.

Ian Martin, the UN’s top official in Libya at the time, has said British attack helicopters were “pivotal…in supporting the final assault on Tripoli”, and that UK special forces accompanied and advised a rebel commander throughout the advance.

Although Nato’s UN mandate allowed it only to protect civilians, the alliance continued attacking Gaddafi’s forces until the end of October 2011, two months after the fall of Tripoli. Gaddafi was lynched by rebels in his hometown of Sirte on 20 October.

By destroying Libyan government forces, rather than seek a ceasefire and negotiated settlement, as the African Union proposed, Nato helped create a power vacuum in the country.

Elections were held in 2012, at which Islamists failed to win a majority and instead used their militias to maintain political influence. Libya then descended into a failed state, as rival militias vied for control.

The chaos created a safe haven for international terrorism, with Al Qaeda’s Libyan branch Ansar al Sharia and the so-called Islamic State group setting up camps in the country.

Among those fighting with Ansar al Sharia in 2011-12 was Khairi Saadallah, a child soldier who several years later went on to murder three men in a park in Reading. Attacks on Western tourists in Tunisia in 2015, that killed 60 people, were also linked to a terrorist base in Libya.

More than a decade after Nato’s intervention, Libya is split between rival governments and run by militias. A recent survey by The Economist found that Tripoli was one of the worst capital cities in the world to live in.

An MOD spokesperson told Declassified:

“Throughout 2011, the UK Government was responding to a rapidly changing and volatile situation in Libya and sought to make timely decisions to protect Libyan civilians and UK national security. All UK military action was taken in accordance with the United Nations mandate to protect civilians.

“Assessments of the different actors in Libya in 2011 were produced as standard by the MoD. These were routinely made available to ministers and senior officials.”

David Cameron, Liam Fox, William Hague and former home secretary Theresa May did not respond to requests for comment.

*

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

Phil Miller is Declassified UK’s chief reporter. He is the author of Keenie Meenie: The British Mercenaries Who Got Away With War Crimes. Follow him on Twitter at @pmillerinfo

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

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

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

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

***

From the onset of the pandemic, social media giants, including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, have flagged COVID-related posts the social media giants deem “false or misleading.”

That’s not news — most social media users are aware of the practice, especially amid recent headlines citing increased pressure from Congress and the White House to aggressively crack down on “vaccine misinformation.”

But here’s a less-publicized fact some social media users — and consumers of online news — may not know: Reuters, owned by the $40 billion international multimedia company, Thomson Reuters Corporation, is also in the business of “fact checking” social media posts.

Reuters publishes its fact-checking commentary online in a format designed to resemble new stories, which turn up in online searches.

Last week, Reuters announced a new collaboration with Twitter to “more quickly provide credible information on the social networking site as part of an effort to fight the spread of misinformation.”

In February, Reuters announced a similar partnership with Facebook to “fact check” social media posts.

However, when announcing its fact-checking partnerships with Facebook and Twitter, Reuters made no mention of this fact: The news organization has ties to Pfizer, World Economic Forum (WEF) and Trusted News Initiative (TNI), an industry collaboration of major news and global tech organizations whose stated mission is to “combat spread of harmful vaccine disinformation.”

Reuters also failed to provide any criteria for how information would be defined as “misinformation” and did not disclose the qualifications of the people responsible for determining fact versus false or misleading “misinformation.”

Physician kicked off LinkedIn for calling out Reuters’ ties to TNI, Pfizer, WEF

Dr. Robert Malone, a physician and inventor of mRNA vaccines and RNA drugs, said he thinks anyone reading Reuters “fact check” articles about COVID-related content should know about, as Malone says, the obvious conflicts of interest.

On June 28, Malone tweeted this:

regarding the “Trusted News Initiative” and censorship of information regarding COVID vaccine safety, please be aware of the link between Pfizer and Reuters. I would call that a journalistic conflict of interest. What do you think? pic.twitter.com/qQCysxnPX6

— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) June 28, 2021

In the tweet, Malone showed the LinkedIn profile of Jim Smith:

“Jim Smith, who sits on Pfizer’s board, is also former president and current chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, and CEO and director of Reuters parent company, Thomson Reuters Corporation — a $1.53 billion publicly traded “provider of financial information … to businesses, governments and individuals worldwide.”

Twitter didn’t censor or remove the post. But when Malone posted the same information on LinkedIn, he was banned from the platform the next day for violating LinkedIn’s “User Agreement and Professional Community Policies against sharing content that contains misleading or inaccurate information.”

LinkedIn was purchased in 2016 for $26.2 billion by Microsoft, when the company’s co-founder Bill Gates was still at the helm. Microsoft’s COO and corporate vice president, Kirk Koenigsbauer, also serves on the board of Thomson Reuters.

Gates, who is set to profit substantially from COVID vaccine sales, still owns stock in Microsoft — about $5.1 billion, according to recent estimates. In March, Gates stepped down from Microsoft’s board, but he continues to serve as technology adviser to the tech firm’s CEO, Satya Nadella.

Malone’s LinkedIn profile was eventually restored, but only after a series of emails, initiated by Malone, between him and LinkedIn executives.

In an interview last week with The Defender, Malone discussed his Twitter and LinkedIn posts — why he made them, the reactions they elicited and why it matters that Reuters is partnering with social media companies to call out what its fact-checkers decide is “misinformation.”

Malone’s Twitter and LinkedIn posts focused on TNI and its ties to Pfizer and Reuters. In the posts, he asked his followers if they thought the fact that TNI was censoring information on COVID vaccine safety — given TNI’s ties to Pfizer and Reuters — constituted a “journalistic conflict of interest.”

“I was a little bit tongue and cheek with the question,” Malone said. “But if you go back to the LinkedIn post, there were a huge number of responses to it where people were unanimously saying this is absolutely a conflict of interest.”

Malone explained:

“What we have here is this horizontal integration across pharma, big tech, big media, government and traditional media. It’s not just the Trusted News Initiative. It goes beyond. The same thing is true with Merck and all the others. Pfizer is really playing quite aggressively here.”

In addition to the conflicts of interest Malone identified in his Twitter and LinkedIn posts, Malone said it’s the lack of transparency — whether on the part of Reuters, Facebook or TNI — around who defines “misinformation,” based on what criteria, that is concerning to him.

Malone told The Defender, based on his research, most fact checkers don’t have a background in science or health. Yet even without such qualifications, and without working off of a transparent definition of “misinformation,” fact checkers are able to shut down online communication between scientists and physicians by flagging or deleting posts.

Overwhelming pressure from governments and the public has compelled social media platforms to take unprecedented action on what users share online in the pandemic. But who fact checks the fact checkers? #TheDefender https://t.co/AMiP3PQMGI

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) May 28, 2021

Worse yet, Malone said, if the fact-checkers label posts by a physician, like himself, as “disinformation,” the fact-checker’s claim potentially could be used as a justification for revoking a physician’s license.

“How is this in the public’s best interest?” Malone asked.

Reuters, the Trusted News Initiative and their social media partners

Reuters and the Reuters Institute of Journalism are members of TNI, whose stated purpose is to “protect audiences and users from disinformation, particularly around moments of jeopardy, such as elections.”

In December 2020, TNI said in a press release it was expanding its focus to combat the spread of harmful vaccine disinformation and conspiracy theories as public confidence in vaccines was crucial to the vaccines’ adoption and success.

According to the BBC, TNI’s other partners include Google/YouTube, Facebook, Microsoft, The Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezos), Twitter, BBC, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union, Financial Times, First Draft and The Hindu.

The December 2020 TNI press release stated:

“With the introduction of several possible new COVID-19 vaccines, there has been a rise of ‘anti-vaccine’ disinformation spreading online to millions of people.

“Examples include widely shared memes which link falsehoods about vaccines to freedom and individual liberties. Other posts seek to downplay the risks of coronavirus and suggest there is an ulterior motive behind the development of a vaccine.

“TNI partners will alert each other to disinformation which poses an immediate threat to life so content can be reviewed promptly by platforms, whilst publishers ensure they don’t unwittingly republish dangerous falsehoods.”

Although the TNI press release did offer what it called examples of “anti-vaccine disinformation,” it did not provide a comprehensive list of criteria for how it would define misinformation.

The press release did state this: “ … it is vital that audiences know they can turn to sources they trust for accurate, impartial information” — without disclosing that a member of Pfizer’s board, Jim Smith, is also chairman of Thomson Reuters Foundation, a TNI member.

The Pfizer-Reuters connection

As Malone pointed out in his Twitter and LinkedIn posts, Smith was appointed to Pfizer’s board in 2014.

According to Pfizer’s website, Smith is a member of the board’s audit committee and chair of the compensation committee, which among other responsibilities, establishes annual and long-term performance goals and objectives for Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and determines compensation for Bourla and the executive leadership team.

But Smith also serves as chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, which describes itself as “the corporate foundation of Thomson Reuters, the global news and information services company.”

The foundation says its mission is “to advance media freedom, foster more inclusive economies and promote human rights.”

According to its website, the foundation supports “local media to produce accurate, impartial and reliable journalism that bolsters government and business accountability and ensures public access to information.”

The foundation says it also trains “reporters around the world, promoting integrity, independence and freedom from bias in news reporting.”

But as Malone pointed out, Reuter’s fact-checking initiative regularly “fact-checks” content pertaining to COVID vaccines — including Pfizer’s vaccine — even though Smith sits on Pfizer’s board while also serving as chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Connecting the dots between Pfizer, Reuters and the WEF

According to Smith’s LinkedIn profile, while serving on the boards of Pfizer and Thomson Reuters Foundation, he also sits on the board of the WEF’s Partnering Against Corruption Initiative, and is a member of the WEF’s International Business Council.

The WEF was founded in 1973 by Klaus Schwab, an 82-year-old German economist who introduced the idea of “stakeholder capitalism” — a model that positions private corporations as trustees of society.

According to its website, the Switzerland-based nonprofit is “the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.” The WEF website also states it “is independent, impartial and not tied to any special interests.”

Yet also according to the WEF website, its partners include: Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and news organizations like TIME, Bloomberg and The New York Times.

In October 2019, WEF held a high-level pandemic live simulation exercise (Event 201) in partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, using a “novel coronavirus” to “prepare public and private leaders for pandemic response.”

The WEF — and its partners — are part of a global agenda called “The Great Reset” that used the COVID pandemic to call for a “reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of the global population’s way of life.

Promoters of The Great Reset frame the plan as “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism,” but critics of the plan say it seeks to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance, is opposed to capitalism and free enterprise, and wants to replace free society with technocracy.

WEF also partners with TPG, a leading global investment firm; Neilson, an information, data and measurement firm; McKinsey and Company, a partner of the global, information and technology practice; and the Blackstone Group.

Thomson Reuters’ current president, CEO and director, Steve Hasker, served as senior adviser to TPG Capital; CEO of CAA Global, a TPG Capital portfolio company; global president and CEO of Nielsen; and spent more than a decade with McKinsey.

On June 14, the Thomson Reuters Foundation appointed Yasir Khan as editor-in-chief to lead its team of reporters and oversee the digital transformation of its news offering. In a press release, the foundation said it expanded its news and digital team with funding from the Skoll Foundation— also a member of WEF.

In 2018, Reuters announced a strategic partnership with Blackstone. As part of the transaction, Thomson Reuters sold a 55% majority stake in its financial and risk business — one of the world’s largest providers of financial markets data and infrastructure — to private equity funds managed by Blackstone, valuing the business at $20 billion.

*

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

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

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

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

***

Several protesters have clashed with Ottawa police on the eve of Canada Day right in front of the National War Memorial. At least three have been arrested.

BREAKING: We have exclusive footage of Trudeau's officers taking down protesters, picking them off one by one, and violently assaulting them. Trudeau is ruthless, and he is out for blood. pic.twitter.com/ttFHkt9QcP

— Keean Bexte (@TheRealKeean) June 30, 2022

Video captured by Andy Lee shows one man attempting to get away from officers being wrestled to the ground by three who then proceeded to slam his head into the stone sidewalk, with one officer ramming his knee into the back of the protester’s neck and shoulder. A fourth officer arrives and restrains the man’s legs as he begins to scream. and writhes in pain.

After being restrained, the man can be heard breathlessly pleading, “Tell me what to do. I want to cooperate.”

In another brawl, two officers can be seen taking another man down as a friend attempts to free him. Additional officers arrive as reinforcements and push him away. In the distance, a third man is arrested.

Several more police officers arrive and begin sectioning off the area.

In a different video, the man who’d screamed in pain while being arrested can be seen being escorted into a police cruiser.

Three people were arrested and just taken away from the War Memorial by police. I couldn’t see what happened that led to the arrested but a good twenty cops bolted forward to arrest these three people #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/lUYcuTGOpV

— Mackenzie Gray (@Gray_Mackenzie) June 30, 2022

It is still unclear what brought about the ordeal or whether protesters or police were the first to get physical.

*

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

Featured image is from TCS

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

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

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

***

As proxy conflicts around the world rage on, America is poised to continue proliferating further instability across the globe, particularly in the vicinity of near-peer adversaries, Russia and China, neither of which want escalation, as they need peace and stability to fulfill their development goals. Washington DC (and lately Brussels as well) is determined to prevent that and force the (Eur)Asian giants to bleed cash and resources on new weapons, which in turn helps drive demand from America’s massive Military-Industrial Complex.

In the last 30+ years, the imperialist thalassocracy has tried to redefine its role, going from a self-styled “sole superpower” and “global policeman” to an increasingly isolated great power in decline, losing wars to AK-wielding insurgents in sandals. A string of military failures forced America to rethink its policy of “strategic containment”. Unwilling (or unable) to directly engage even smaller regional powers, the US has relegated most of its interventionist policies to numerous client states, whose sole purpose is to harass US rivals, be it China, Russia, Iran, Syria, etc. America’s role is to provide weapons, logistics, critical information, particularly its extensive ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities, etc.

The vassals are to do all the dirty work, including getting killed or maimed for the imperial metropole. To do this more effectively, they need weapons. One such client entity is Taiwan, China’s breakaway island in the increasingly contested Asia-Pacific region.

In recent years, Taipei has been forced to play a sort of (geo)political zigzag game, where the US would promise to supply weapons, mostly outdated, despite the island’s requests for modern systems, and then either reduce the order or outright cancel it. While America is trying to portray this as an attempt to “reduce the risk of escalation”, the excuse can only be described as comically disingenuous. If the US really wanted to avoid escalation, it would’ve never promised any arms shipments in the first place. The more practical reason is America’s wish to enrich its Military-Industrial Complex while getting rid of rusty tanks, howitzers, jets, etc.

Taiwan expressed interest in the MH-60R “Seahawk”, an anti-submarine version of the “Blackhawk” helicopter. However, the US refused, claiming they are “too expensive” and “fine for peacetime operations, but would not survive an all-out assault from the mainland”. Instead, Taipei is being told to “learn from Ukraine and invest in smaller, mobile systems such as drone swarms, ‘Stinger’ and ‘Javelin’ missiles, which are less vulnerable to China’s advanced weapons”. Taipei officials regularly express frustration due to delays and cancelations of US weapons deliveries. M109A6 “Paladin” self-propelled howitzers and FIM-92 “Stinger” MANPADS orders are being held up “due to a crowded production line”, as the US is now trying to arm both the Kiev and Taipei regimes.

Reportedly, Washington DC is urging Taiwan to invest in “more cost-efficient capabilities” such as “command and control systems, ISR, air defenses, and naval sea mines”. America also suggested the M142 HIMARS MLRS for “a similar capability with a faster delivery schedule”. The US insists Taiwan needs “more asymmetrical capabilities”.

“These are not regular times. If you’re going to spend money, it should be on naval sea mines and anti-ship missiles. These are the kinds of things that we have indicated to industry and to Taiwan. President Tsai gets it,” an unnamed US official told Politico.

The US is telling Taiwan to “watch the war in Ukraine closely”, claiming “many civilians in Taiwan are expressing a greater desire to learn how they can play a role in defending their island and resisting Chinese forces, but it’s not yet clear how far the Taiwanese military will go to help prepare the civilian population.” Such statements clearly show America wants to galvanize civilians in vassal entities to wage wars against its rivals, regardless of the consequences, as Taiwan obviously cannot hope to win against China’s vastly superior forces.

Another strategic hurdle is the looming uncertainty of what the US is capable and willing to do to assist Taiwan in case of a conflict. Unlike Ukraine, which has an extensive land border with NATO, Taiwan is far away, making it incomparably more difficult to supply its forces or even provide ISR capabilities on a scale similar to Ukraine. Additionally, the US claims a Chinese naval blockade is also a possibility. Even if it had any forces in the vicinity in such a scenario, America wouldn’t be able to break through without starting a war with nuclear-armed China. It’s quite unclear how the US would explain to its population they should risk a world-ending conflict with China just so it could keep controlling a Chinese breakaway island 11,000 from America’s shores.

“We’re going to have a lot of challenges if China decides to blockade the island,” the US official said. “People have to start thinking hard… …The trickiest part may be figuring out how to help Taiwan prepare without leaving Beijing feeling as if it must react. We could provoke the attack that we’re seeking to deter,” he concluded.

Such schizophrenic statements clearly indicate that the US foreign policy is a runaway train which nobody in the imperialist thalassocracy’s establishment is trying to stop. On the contrary, it seems whoever is at the helm is speeding up. This is also a clear message to populations in America’s satellite states – “Be ready to die fighting when we decide to sacrifice you for ‘freedom and democracy’, ‘rules-based international order’ and ‘the greater good.'”

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Bolivian Foreign Minister Rogelio Mayta described Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s plan to grant Jeanine Áñez political asylum as “absolutely impudent” and “inappropriate interference in internal affairs”

The government of Bolivian President Luis Arce on Tuesday, June 28, rejected the recent statements made by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro wherein he claimed that former de-facto Bolivian President Jeanine Áñez was innocent and offered her political asylum. The Bolivian government described Bolsonaro’s statements as “absolutely impudent” and “inappropriate interference in internal affairs.”

Bolivian Foreign Minister Rogelio Mayta held a press conference in capital La Paz to respond to the Brazilian President and clarified that Bolivia would never allow interference in the decisions that sovereignly relate to its justice system.

“We regret the unfortunate statements by the President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, which are absolutely impertinent, constitute an inappropriate interference in internal affairs, do not respect the forms of relations between States, and do not coincide with the good neighbor relations and mutual respect between Brazil and Bolivia. Under no circumstances we will accept interference in decisions that sovereignly correspond to the Bolivian justice system and the constitutionality of the Plurinational State of Bolivia,” said Mayta.

Mayta, who is also a human rights lawyer, recalled that Áñez is being prosecuted by the Bolivian Justice for “various criminal charges, including having committed serious human rights violations according to the investigation carried out by the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts sent by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).”

He also reiterated that in the first days of Áñez’s rule, she passed a decree (4078) that exempted police and military officials participating in repression operations against protesters on the streets against the coup from criminal responsibility, which subsequently resulted in the massacre of 11 peaceful protesters in Sacaba city on November 15, 2019, and of 11 people in Senkata on November 19, 2019 by security officials, in addition to injuring hundreds of protesters.

Mayta stressed that the deaths and grave human rights violations that occurred in November 2019 “deserve justice” and “for that, the necessary processes must be developed.” He added that the Bolivian state has the “obligation” to carry out the necessary judicial processes to provide justice to the victims of that period, which has also been recommended by various international human rights organizations.

The Foreign Minister stated that “even thinking of a situation in which Áñez could evade justice is inadmissible. Impunity is inadmissible.” He also indicated that the government is working on a “diplomatic espousal” in response to Bolsonaro’s statements.

“La impunidad es inadmisible, ratificamos el compromiso de #Bolivia para lograr el respeto de los #DDHH que fueron transgredidos en esos lamentables días del 2019, tal cual han expresado las recomendaciones del #GIEIBolivia de la #CIDH“, manifestó el canciller @RogelioMayta_Bo. pic.twitter.com/VArV7ZRKLb

— Cancillería de Bolivia (@MRE_Bolivia) June 28, 2022

What did Bolsonaro say?

In an interview with the online program “4 x 4” on Sunday, June 26, Bolsonaro announced that he would offer political asylum to Áñez, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison earlier this month for illegally assuming the presidency in November 2019 following a right-wing civic-military coup that overthrew democratically elected socialist President Evo Morales.

Bolsonaro described Áñez’s detention and the judicial conviction against her as “unfair”, and said that “Brazil is putting into practice the issue of international relations, human rights, to see if it can bring Jeanine Áñez and offer her asylum in Brazil. It is unfair to the woman imprisoned in Bolivia.”

Confirmation of Brazil’s involvement in 2019 coup

Various legislators of the ruling left-wing Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party said that Bolsonaro’s offer confirmed his complicity in the 2019 coup d’état.

“We are gradually seeing how the whole plan of a coup is becoming much more visible. We were aware that this plan was not only an internal plan, but also an external one,” said Freddy Mamani, the president of the Chamber of Deputies.

Meanwhile, Senator Luis Adolfo Flores rejected Bolsonaro “openly interfering in decisions of independent bodies in Bolivia” and questioned his offer, stating that it went against international regulations for granting political asylum.

“According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), political asylum is only granted to an exiled person or who has fled their country for political reasons. Jeanine Áñez is not contemplated in any of those conditions,” said Flores.

Flores also pointed out that Bolsonaro’s recent confirmation that he had met Áñez in person and her denial of meeting him personally was another evidence of Brazil’s complicity in the coup.

*

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

Featured image: Bolivian Foreign Minister Rogelio Mayta at a press conference on June 28 rejected Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s statements. (Photo: Josue Cortez/Agencia Boliviana de Información)

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

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

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

***

Many may have heard of the name Calixa Lavallée as the composer of the song “Ô Canada” which officially became the Canadian National anthem one hundred years after it was first produced in 1880.

Many know of the name Marquis de Lafayette as the young French nobleman, who changed the course of the American Revolution and devoted his life to the creation of republican institutions both in America and around the globe.

However, few people know that Canada’s Calixa Lavallée (1842-1891), whose life was cut short at the age of 48 was known across America as the “Lafayette of American music”.

Recruited from his home in Saint-Hyacinthe to the elite of the cultural music scene by the Institut Canadien which spread beach heads across all of Quebec throughout the mid-19^thcentury Calixa soon found himself working in Montreal and studying under the mentorship of the great French composer Charles Wugk Sabatier who composed the famous patriotic song “Le Drapeau de Carillon”. In order to earn a living, Calixa began touring America as a director and performer of minstrel shows just as the first shots on Fort Sumter ushered in the Civil War in April of 1861.

The Civil War Veteran Fights Two Confederacies (south and north)

A devoted republican inspired by the traditions of Louis-Joseph Papineau, leader of the failed Lower Canada Rebellions against the British in 1837-1838, Calixa was quick to join the Union Army in the 4^th Rhode Island regiment fighting in one of the bloodiest Civil War battles of Antietam in Maryland in September 1862 where his wounds ended his time in the military.

Papineau had himself created the Institut Canadien in 1844 in order to provide an aesthetical and scientific education to the masses of the Quebec population who did not have the adequate cultural development to properly undertake a complex revolution as he had dreamed years earlier. Papineau’s nephew Louis-Antoine Dessaulles was the President of the Montreal branch of the Institut Canadien and former seigneur and mayor of Saint-Hyacinthe who knew Lavallée’s family well and likely played a role in the early part of the young man’s career.

Struck with the realization that Lincoln’s victory would finally create international conditions favourable to Canada’s liberation from the British Empire, Lavallée returned home to Montreal in 1863 in order to help guide the young nation towards becoming a republic free of hereditary institutions.

Lavallée quickly found himself allied with a powerful network of young nationalists then dubbed “Les Rouges” led by L.-O. David, Médéric Lanctôt (his childhood friend and founder of La Presse), and a young lawyer named Wilfrid Laurier (later to become Prime Minister of Canada from 1896-1911). These republican networks quickly set up a newspaper known as L’Union national which was devoted to overthrowing a London-steered plot to create a British confederate beachhead in the Americas after it had become apparent that London’s “other” confederate operation in the slave owning south was about to fail. That plot came to be called the “British North America Act” and was first drafted after a booze-drenched conference in Charlottetown Nova Scotia in September 1864.

Before it was ratified in London on July 1 1867, Lavallée’s entourage led a two-fold combat against this anti-republican program which they saw as a perversion of human nature (as it embedded hereditary rights and powers into the very constitution of the new nation).

The Union National and La Presse newspapers run by Lavallée’s friends held a clearly defined position that the only two acceptable pathways to the future for Lower Canada was 1) Full independence from the British Empire or 2) Annexation to Lincoln’s America.

All members of this group recognized the dangerous fallacy of composition that would be unleashed should a nation be created on British Imperial foundations and administered by Privy Council networks loyal to a hereditary power structure.

The Battle Against the Ultramontane Church

While polemicizing against Confederation, the L’Union national newspaper and the Institut Canadien de Montéal conducted a second line of battle by advocating a separation of Church and State. This put them into conflict with the Ultramontane Church whose tyrannical leadership under Montreal’s Bishop Bourget demanded that the population of Quebec show their faith to God by remaining as ignorant as Adam and Eve were before spoiling their morality by eating from the tree of knowledge. It was this commitment to keeping the population in a peasant dream state that the corrupt church then found itself so closely aligned with the highest echelons of the British Empire.

When Bishop Bourget excommunicated Joseph Guibord due to his membership in the Institute canadien, as punishment for the institut’s refusal to ban books from the library which were placed on the Church’s black list, many supporters quickly abandoned the fight out of fear and the Institut canadien began crumbling.

The L’Union national newspaper collapsed when the British North America Act passed into law in 1867 whereby the paper lost its raison d’etre.

In spite of these setbacks, the fight was not over for Calixa.

Taking Lazard Carnot’s famous statement seriously that “it is better to have republicans without a republic than a republic without republicans”, and recognizing that the conditions for republicanism was the moral, and intellectual cultivation of the personality in alignment with the ideals of Benjamin Franklin and Friedrich Schiller, Lavallée devoted the remainder of his life to creating durable cultural institutions that could organize, develop and deploy the creative powers of the population so that future generations could succeed where his generation failed.

To undertake this task, Calixa had recognized that he must first cultivate his own artistic powers to a much higher degree. After working as an exile in America for several years becoming the superintendent of the Grand Opera of New York (as an appointee of his friend and soon-to-be assassinated musical patron Jim Fisk in 1872), Lavallée briefly returned back to Montreal bursting with passion to create a conservatory of Quebec and a durable classical musical culture capable of producing native geniuses, and Canadian compositions.

Studying in France from 1873-1875 under the tutelage of the great pedagogue François Marmontel, Lavallée’s powers of performance and composition grew to new heights and several original works were produced including the Papillon, Souvenirs de Tolède, La Grande Marche and the Fatherland Overture.

The Fight for a Canadian Conservatory

Having returned to Montreal in 1875 Calixa gave everything to his mission and made alliances with every person of influence he could come into contact with in order to gain support for his Canadian Conservatory. To pay his bills, he tutored prolifically, arranged countless concerts – often with the Montreal-based Mechanics Institute and worked as organist in many churches across Quebec. In one instance, the new ultramontane Bishop of Montreal Édouard-Charles Fabre passed a decree banning mixed choruses in all diocese churches causing Lavallée to resign, taking the Saint-Jacques Church choir with him.

In response to this attack on culture, Lavallée decided to fight back by organizing his choir to perform Gounod’s Jeanne d’Arc. Jeanne was recognized as a Promethean symbol of republicanism across the world and a figure who saved her nation in a time when all hope for freedom was lost. For this, d’Arc was burned at the stake by an unholy alliance between the Catholic Church and the British Aristocracy who ran a mock trial declaring her to be an agent of the devil.

In the wake of the electric success of the performances of Jeanne d’Arc, Lavallée became president of the prestigious Académie de Musique de Québec (AMQ). The AMQ was founded in 1868 as an instrument to administer musical examinations and conduct talent searches as part of the drive to create a national musical culture. Once made President in June 1876, Lavallée devoted his every free moment to the AMQ. After a successful 1877 session of the AMQ music competition which included performances of the greatest young talents from around Québec, an article published in Le National and attributed to Lavallée read: “Yesterday’s results have clearly shown us that there could be a music school just as there is one for the fine arts and that this school should be funded in a manner that best encourages the continuation of work and the spread of this the most noble and beautiful art, the one that best raises the soul toward its creator.”

Sadly by June 19, 1878 Lavallée was saddened to receive news that his petition to create a conservatory submitted a year earlier had crept through the bureaucracy and became a Bill only to be struck down on procedural grounds. The Québec-city newspaperL’Événement reported on this short-sighted decision saying: “Analyzing the public feeling regarding serious musical institutions, one soon discovers a profound ignorance of the importance of music, of the necessity of institutions organized appropriately in its interest and of its potential as the co-efficient of a superior civilization. This ignorance is found to some extent everywhere, among the governed and the governors, but is most serious among the governors.”

A Change of Strategy

At this point, Lavallée changed his strategy to focus on the failure of the governors. Rather than focus all of his attention to “bottom up” organizing of the population while hoping the elite would respond to the call of the times, Calixa moved to Québec City in 1878 in order to be closer to the Assemblée nationale and the political class whose favor he needed for his plan to succeed. Establishing himself in Quebec City, Lavallée quickly became a founding member of an interesting republican group of artists, poets, musicians and statesmen called “Le Club des 21” (whose name was derived by the 21 member limit). The group’s president was the diplomat musician José Antonio De Lavalle Romero-Montezumaa (aka: the Count of Premio-Real) who served as the Spanish Consul to Quebec.

Calixa worked hard to procure favor and friendship wherever it could be found, devoting an enormous amount of energy to the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec and the Governor General the Marquis of Lornes (John Douglas Campbell) who had been appointed to represent the Crown as the new head of state of Canada that year. Many of his compositions featured dedications to members of the Anglo-Canadian elite during this time, which Lavallée has been heavily criticized for over the years. However it is only by understanding his strategic plan to by-pass the bureaucratic channels of government that we can appreciate what he was doing.

Lavallée produced a spectacular cantata for the new Governor General in 1878 and performed a selection of it in Ottawa’s Rideau Hall where it was warmly received by the Marquis and his wife who befriended Calixa, talking with him throughout the night.

When the Marquis finally came to Québec City in June 1879, Lavallée gave the full performance of the Cantata for the first time featuring 150 singers and 60 instrumentalists. Never one to break from his republican passions, the poetry selected for the cantata included a military chorus celebrating the French victory over the English. The translated text is worth citing here:

First Soldier
The drum beats, the bugle rings,
Here, the call of the regiment;
On the ramparts the cannon thunders
Let’s go, companions, forward!

Second Soldier
Let us leave, let us show our banners,
Oriflammes, floats on the wind!
And you, old flag of our fathers,
Unfold your triumphant pleats

Chorus
Ring, battle bugles
Cannons, thunder towards the skies!
Awaken from our walls
The glorious echoes of the past!
And, you magnanimous warriors
That sleep beneath laurels,
Rise, sublime heroes,
Show your proud foreheads!
To the walls of the cathedral
Unhook the white flag;
In the triumphant march
Come to take your rank!

Finale
O days of glorious combat
Where rang the warlike horn!
O all of you, brave soldiers
That sleep under the same rock!
Sun that formerly illuminated
So of great battles
Night discreetly reveals
So many bloody funerals!
The blood everywhere is obliterated:
Gather together our glory,
From great names of our past
Let us sing together our history!

The lyrics were so scandalous that it was decided to not publish the lyrics at the event.

While the Marquis did not indicate any open displeasure towards Calixa, neither he nor any of the elites whom Calixa attempted to win over to the cause supported the conservatory project. Although a hope briefly arose in October 1879, when Joseph-Adolphe Chapleau (a member of Calixa’s Club de 21) became premier of Quebec, it was soon squashed as Chapleau made no moves in support of his friend.

O Canada is Born

By June 1880, the Congrès Catholique Canadiens-français had commissioned Lavallée to compose a national song for Canada. Although many English speakers considered “God Save the Queen” and “the Maple Leaf Forever” as unofficial anthems, these were not pieces that the French could relate to and something more universal was required. Calixa went straight to work.

Working alongside conservative judge and poet A.B. Routhier who authored the original words to the anthem, Lavallée had requested that the poet wait until the music was first composed before choosing the lyrics. As Lavallée had recently conducted a series of performances of works by Mozart such the Twelfth Mass and operas by Verdi, and Rossini, the Magic Flute (the famous “masonic” opera) was likely fresh in his mind when he composed the music to what became known as “Ô Canada”.

Upon listening to the first two measures of Act two (the March of the Priests), the borrowed melody is striking and leaves very little doubt that Mozart was the inspiration for the anthem.

The fact that the ceremony at which the anthem was scheduled to be performed was to follow a Mass given by the ultramontane Archbishop of Quebec accompanied by 500 priests may have been tied to Lavallée’s choice of Mozart’s march of the priests under the leadership of Zarastro as his inspiration.

When one realizes that the priests in Mozart’s opera called for an obedience to a Natural Law that rises above man’s religions, it becomes no surprise that Lavallée’s composition was pulled from its scheduled debut that day. Whatever the case, it was performed to a smaller audience at a national banquet that evening and once more in the morning to very positive effect. In spite of its positive reception, no signs emerged that his dream of a conservatory had come any closer to reality.

In the following weeks, Lavallée received an opportunity to plant his dream in more fertile soil as an invitation to leave Canada for the USA arose. This was an opportunity he did not pass up and in the heat of the night, without any fanfare, Lavallée departed for America.

In Hartford Connecticut, Lavallée wrote to a friend in Quebec describing the spread of slander and gossip against the composer: “When one returns here, one realizes the insignificance of the ideas of our poor country… I have complete confidence in this trip as well as in others, and besides, an artist is not meant to rot in an obscure place and especially in an even more obscure country.”[1]

Lavallée’s friend could see that the composer was frustrated and exhausted after five years of efforts to create a conservatory had found no support. He made an appeal to the Quebec government knowing that it was likely that Lavallée would not return if nothing were done: “In the aftermath of Mr. Lavallée’s wonderful results, the government that has already generously assisted in the organization of this lovely musical event must also help such a talent to develop and produce other works that will contribute to the artistic progress and glory of Canada. We only need to found a music conservatory where our talented young people- which we certainly do not lack- may take shape, and place at the head of that institution a man of unparalleled calibre such as Mr. Lavallée.”[2]

As those wise words fell on deaf ears, Calixa decided to settle roots in America, and establishing himself in Massachusetts. It was here that he chose to devote all of his energy to create an American Conservatory where the Canadian Conservatory project failed. In his new republican home, his efforts would prove infinitely more successful.

The Lafayette of American Music

After composing his first opera, The Widow, to great success, Calixa attempted a second, more radical intervention into the American culture with a satirical comic opera called The Indian Question Settled At Last which featured the real life events surrounding Indian Chief Sitting Bull as a Zorastro-like wise figure who guided foolish soldiers, missionaries and natives into a state of wisdom by encouraging everyone to part with their prejudices and awaken love for each other with various natives and whites falling in love and living in harmony. This second play was deemed too controversial for the stage and it was never performed whereby Calixa decided to leave operas behind him and focus on a new pathway which brought him into contact with the Music Teachers National Association(MTNA) in Rhode Island in 1883.

By the end of this 1883 meeting Calixa recommended to the MTNA President E.M.B. Bowman, the unthinkable idea of organizing a concert made up of American composers the following year. Lavallée’s biographer Christopher Thompson wrote that “it seems that playing a program of music composed by one’s U.S. contemporaries was something no one had considered doing.”

The following year, the fruits of Lavallée’s efforts paid off as a 100% American repertoire was performed for the first time in history on July 3, 1884 at Case Hall in Cleveland, Ohio.In the wake of the incredible success of this concert, a letter to the Senate and House of Representatives by MTNA members led to the passage of the first copyright legislation for music into law. In gratitude for initiating this bold new movement, Calixa was named Vice President of the MTNA. Reporting on the concert, Folio magazine stated that Lavallée’s concert had inaugurated “a new departure in the musical history of the country”.

On July 4 1884, the MTNA announced the creation of the American College of Musicians (ACM) with the goal of examining music teachers under various categories of music (voice, piano, organ, theory) and offering various grades of proficiency (master, fellow and certificate of competency). Lavallée gave a stirring speech at the event and he was elected to head the program committee. The College fell under heavy attack by many of the “musical Brahmins” of New England who controlled the musical scene as the self-ordained elite. The primary enemy of the ACM was Eben Toujee, a co-founder of the MTNA who feared that the new institution broke the monopoly enjoyed by the New England Conservatory of which he was president.

Lavallée and Thurber Lead the Movement for a New School of American Music

With Lavallée now firmly driving this new movement, visionary art patron Jeanette Thurber joined the cause going on to found the American Conservatory in 1885. Lavallée’s biographer Brian C. Thompson noted the dramatic growth of the MTNA once Thurber offered her support: “With the financial support of the arts patron Jeannette Thurber, the MTNA raised its profile to a new level with its 1885 summer meeting in New York.”

During the 1886-1887 meeting, President S.N Penfield endorsed Lavallée’s election to the presidency of the institution saying “You may refer to last year, when American compositions were given in a very worthy manner at the Academy of Music in New York, with a large orchestra and chorus, under the auspices of the President and officers of that year. But what led up to that? One modest piano recital of the year before (applause) by a gentleman who staked his reputation upon it. That, in one sense, was the commencement of this policy of the Music Teachers’ National Association, which has now grown to these dimensions. I have the honor to present, as your candidate for the Presidency in the ensuing year, the gentleman who gave that recital, Mr. Calixa Lavallée, of Boston.”

Toasting to the prospects of the new movement, composer Wilson G. Smith said on March 15, 1886: “To Mr. Lavallée (a foreigner, too, be it said to the shame of some of our native artists) belongs the honor of inaugurating the present movement, on behalf of American composers and their works. The history of American art will accord to him this distinction”.

In gratitude for being elected President, Lavallée said that he would “put his heart, soul and all his energy, into the service of American music.”

True to his word, Calixa was known for working 16-18 hours per day, teaching, organizing concerts, programs, composing, fundraising and managing administrative affairs of the MTNA, often out of his own pocket. He worked closely with conductor Frank Van der Stucken, and also E.M. Bowman and Carlyle Petersilea to advance the careers of such composers as George Chadwick, John Knowles Paine, Arthur Foote, Wilson Smith, Ernst Jonas and Emil Liebling among many others.

Although he was the acting President of the MTNA at the 1889 meeting in Philadelphia and re-elected to chair the Program committee for the 1892 meeting at the Columbia Exposition, Calixa had pushed himself too far and succumbed to tuberculosis dying on January 21, 1891 at the age of 48.

At the 1892 meeting’s Presidential address, J.B. Hahn spoke of the new movement and the role played by Lavallée:

“It was in this city- yes, in this very hall, eight years ago, that Calixa Lavallée sounded the key-note of a movement whose reverberations found a re-echoing and a responsive sentiment throughout the length and breath of the land. Many here today will readily remember the occasion- a modest, unpretentious pianoforte recital, with the distinguishing characteristic that it was the first complete programme of American compositions ever presented… For his patriotism, his courage, his judicious selection which led to victory and the leadership he then assumed, all honor to our late associate and ex-President, Calixa Lavallée, the Lafayette of our American musicians.”

Just nine months before his death, Calixa gave an interview to the Boston Herald describing his inspired hope and vision of the new epoch in American composition that he had helped to unleash:

“Somebody must sacrifice themselves for the cause. When I read the dispatch from Washington two or three weeks ago about the successful concert of American composers given at that city I was delighted. I little dreamed six years ago that the incipient effort I made in that direction would find its reward so soon. No, American music has come to stay and the sooner the American public realizes the fact the better for the cause and all parties concerned. Of course, we are working through a transition, which is the fate of every new country, and it may take some years yet before we acquire a national color to our music: but who knows how soon a genius may come to us to crown our labors.”

Epilogue

1892 was an auspicious year for the movement. Although Lavallée did not live long enough to see his prophecy unfold, this was the year that Jeanette Thurber brought another foreign musical genius to America in order to guide the America through its transition in the discovery of “a national color”.

Leading Czech-born composer Antonín Dvořák arrived in New York in September 1892 and set to work to pick up the baton where Lavallée had left it in 1891, becoming the leading figure in Thurber’s National Conservatory of America and creating a new school of American music generated from his intense studies of Native American, and African-American melodies. Dvořák gave an interview to the NY Herald on May 23, 1893 saying:

“I am now satisfied that the future music of this country must be based on what are called the negro melodies. This must be the foundation of any serious and original school of composition to be developed in the United States…These beautiful and varied themes are the product of the soil. They are American.”

Dvorak’s work resulted in his 1893 New World Symphony, and a new generation of African American composers and musicians under the leadership of Harry Burleigh, the Fisk Jubillee singers and many more.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Canadian Patriot.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review, and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas trilogy. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation. 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] Brian C. Thompson, Anthems and Minstrel Shows: The Life and Times of Calixa Lavallee, McGill-Queens University Press 2015, P.228

[2] Ibid, p. 230

Featured image is from TCP

---

The Clash of the Two Americas

Vol. 1 & 2

by Matthew Ehret

In his new two volume series The Clash of the Two Americas, Matthew Ehret introduces a new analysis of American history from the vantage point that the globally-extended supranational shadow government that managed the British Empire was never fully defeated and has acted within the USA itself since 1776 as a continuous multi-generational fifth column managing every significant event and assassination of American presidents for the next 250 years.

Click here to order.

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

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

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

***

What is occurring Worldwide is a massive increase in mortality and morbidity attributable to the Covid vaccine.

The mainstream media reports in chorus point to an increase in Covid cases (PCR positive), without acknowledging that the surge in hospitalizations as well as mortality is largely attributable to the vaccine. 

In January 2021 at the the very outset of the vaccination program, a mass funeral protest for children who died after receiving a Pfizer vaccine was held in Geneva, Switzerland.(Bitchute Channel, and  Telegram channel)

 

The Home and Antigen Tests: Pushing Up the Numbers

The other factor which has been carefully ignored is the marketing worldwide of billions of home and antigen test kits which has contributed in the course of the last few months to “pushing up the numbers” of so-called confirmed COVID-19 positive cases, which in turn has contributed to sustaining the fear campaign.

“In the U.S. more than a billion test kits were made available for a population of 340 million Americans.

In Canada, 291 million test kits were distributed. Canada’s population is 38.5 million.”

For further details see:

Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The Data Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 1, 2022

***

Incisive analysis by Jordan Schachtel on Portugal, The Most Vaccinated Country in the EU

Virtually every single adult in Portugal has taken at least two doses of “miracle cure” COVID vaccine, with the vast majority “boosted” as well. Yet this month, the most vaxxed country in Europe has consistently reported its worst outcomes.

Portugal remains the European Union country with the most new cases of Covid-19 per million inhabitants in the last seven days and is second in the world.#COVID19 #health #SARSCoV2 #portugalnewshttps://t.co/UHywxebPJ5

— The Portugal News (@theportugalnews) June 20, 2022

Once thought to be the best positioned nation in Europe to deal with future bouts with the coronavirus, a nuclear bomb of reality has hit Lisbon.

Out of all the countries in Europe, “Portugal has experienced the most dramatic wave,” The Guardian reports. “With infections per million remaining at a seven-day average of 2,043 on Monday – the second highest new case rate in the world.”

It appears the “miracle cure” vaccines have not only not failed to curb the COVID issue, but has potentially made it worse.

Jordan Schachtel, The Dossier

 

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

Featured image is from The Conservative Woman

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

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

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

***

On Sunday 19 June, we gathered in Sezano, municipality of Verona (VR), at the Monastery of the Common Good to affirm the need and urgency to ban war, all wars, and build peace without yes or no buts.

To the powerful world leaders who want to continue the war in Ukraine (USA, Russia, NATO member states, the European Union which has become a war front, Ukraine) we say STOP your new world war for world domination, of which the one in Ukraine is a dramatic expression.

Why do you still need tens of thousands of dead in the war camps you call liberation camps and tens of millions of people starving to death because of your economic sanctions (countersanctions, retaliations) that only benefit the profits of your big global corporations?

Enough of Putin, Biden, Stoltenberg, Von der Leyen….the world does not need your war in Ukraine. Stop spending over 2.1 trillion dollars on armaments under the hypocritical pretence of saving the peace.

For 70 years, the United States has been at permanent war on every continent with some 800 military bases of occupation in hundreds of countries around the world– and, following the collapse of the Soviet Union– trying to establish themselves in Ukraine as well.

China has only one military base abroad and Russia has only three!

One must know how to lose the victory to know how to build peace.

Because war has never solved problems, it is pure destruction.

War itself is a crime– and if you keep proposing wars, you are a criminal.

The greatest victory is to make peace, because the right to life is a universal right, for everyone and because it shows that you want and know how to live with others. and do not want to dominate others, but live together in the present to promote a future ever more just and united, in common.

Because the world emergency is to put an end to the profits and enrichment of the strongest and collaborate in building hospitals (not tanks), schools (not fighter planes), food production (not fighter planes), to the production of food (not missiles), of drinking water (not toxic gases), to the toxic gases), to the promotion of fraternity (not arms trade).

We must Stop All Wars that are currently martyring and killing people in Syria, Yemen, Congo, Palestine, Western Sahara, Kurdistan, among others.

The cynical silence of the West on the new military invasions by Erdogan’s Turkey in northern Iraq and north-eastern Syria inhabited by Kurdish populations is intolerable.

Inhabitants of the Earth, defend peace and the rights of all! Denunciation is necessary. Building peace, starting with an immediate cessation of hostilities, is even more necessary and positive for all.

Listen to the Intergovernmental Panel on United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which predicts that global warming is three and a half years away to exceed 1.5 degrees.

Do not listen to the US, Russia, France, Britain, China, North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan who are building nuclear weapons. Listen to the 130 UN countries that support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Signed in from:
Brussels, Verona, Palermo, Rome, Montreal, Trois Rivières, Coyahique (Patagonia CL), Rosario, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, Clermont-Ferrand, Paris, Poitou Charentes, Neuchâtel, Dakar, Beirut, Lisbon, Toronto, Vancouver…

*

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

Riccardo Petrella is Professor Emeritus of the Catholic University of Louvain.

Featured image is from UN Peacekeeping

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

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

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

***

Despite the fact that the post Second World War period witnessed the growth and proliferation of a plethora horrendous weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs, human intellectual ingenuity managed to keep the slide into catastrophe at bay. The idea was proffered, and largely accepted, that these weapons were meant not to fight wars but to prevent them. During much of the Cold War period, when nuclear weapons proliferated, particularly among the superpowers, peace was maintained on the premise of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Since the key superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, had the capacity to destroy each other many times over, rational logic prevented both from initiating a nuclear war. Defence was achieved by deterrence, that is preventing the enemy from attacking with threat of overwhelmingly unacceptable level of retaliation (“nuclear deterrence”)

Then in the mid – 1970s the US Secretary of Defence enunciated the ‘Schlesinger doctrine’ named after him. It held that there could be small scale, limited nuclear conflicts, using weapons with greater precision but lower yield, specifically targeted, gradually escalating to higher levels of warfare. In other words, a nuclear exchange could imply ‘limited warfighting’ which could also be winnable. The view was that at one point of equilibrium along the escalating curve, one side would capitulate. Design and weapons-production followed theory. Weapons became smaller and more precise. They were tactical with shorter range and more appropriate for battlefield or theatre use. For these very reasons the propensity for possible use increased mathematically, and logically. Sensing this danger leaders negotiated and signed treaties, bringing down numbers of long distance and shortrange ordnances down impressively. The total size of nuclear arsenal came down from much higher numbers to about 13000 strategic and 2000 tactical weapons. Eventually these treaties expired. However, rationality still held sway, and although wars had not ceased. Nonetheless, the danger of a nuclear war seemed to have receded. At least up until now.

The aforesaid discussion largely reflected the extant western theoretical and doctrinal literature. But what about Russia, the successor of the Soviet Union? Briefly Russian thinking in this regard was encompassed in the two concepts of SDERZIVANIE (“nuclear restraint”) and USTRASHENIE (‘intimidation”). This combination is meant to persuade the adversary that it has no chance of achieving its strategic goals by force. This policy which implies use of conventional and strategic weaponry remains in operation both in peace and war. Nuclear weapons are seen as being only one item in the tool- kit of warfare. It includes the western concept of “deterrence” as well as coercive measures and compellence. It is thus designed to be a multi-domain cross-cutting effort using both soft and hard power. Hence the western perception of the Russian doctrine as “hybrid”.

In June 2020, President Vladimir Putin signed Executive Order355 that outlined Russia’s current strategic doctrine. It contained a systematized asymmetric approach, underscoring the severity and certainty of “punishment”. The document lists a whole series of activities by the adversary that may be constituted as a threat to Russia (and its allies) to be “neutralized by the implementation of nuclear deterrence” (meaning “nuclear weapons”). The order also allows for the use of nuclear weapons not only to counter the enemy’s similar capabilities, but also “other types of weapons of mass destruction of significant combat potential of general purpose forces”. Western analysts believe this as entailing a wide range of options to introduce nuclear weapons at an early stage of conflict to prevent its spread. In other words, a reconfirmation of the “escalate to de-escalate” strategy.

Additionally, the Russians are said to have in place what is known as “dead hand” system, or the “perimeter”. It is designed to automatically initiate the launch of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) by sending a pre-entered highest authority order if an enemy nuclear strike is detected by seismic, light, radioactivity, and pressure sensors. It will operate even if the commanding elements are fully destroyed, for instance by a pre-emptive strike. The system is normally switched off, but is supposed to be activated during times of crisis. The current war in Ukraine probably fits the bill, especially when Putin has put the nuclear deterrence on “full alert”. In any case, it is said to remain fully functional and can be pressed into service whenever needed. The US does not operate a “dead hand” counterpart, but the National Command Authority has backup authorities in the event of the death of the President and/or of Secretary of Defence.

Presidents Biden and Putin had got off to a what seemed to be a fairly decent start when in a phone conversation in February last year they agreed to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty by five more years. By doing so they were reversing the decision earlier of President Donald Trump. But with the Ukraine crisis boiling over right now, that happy moment seems ions ago. In the war in Ukraine whether by tactical design or military compulsion the Russians have eased pressure on other parts including the capital Kyiv and are now consolidating focus on the east, in Donbass and Crimea. One consequence has been a burgeoning sense among western allies that a Russian defeat is possible. Hence the enthusiasm to arm the Ukrainians with deadlier weapons than earlier thought appropriate, or wise. The Russian leadership have been warning that red lines are being crossed. The peace talks in Belarus and Turkey have all but collapsed. The sanctions- noose around Russia is being tightened. We have reached a stalemate. The world is on edge. This is what the great international relations thinker Coral Bell described as a “crisis -slide”. As things stand now, one hasty decision, an accidental shooting down of a plane, one bomb reaching the wrong target can bring unspeakable results. The danger is very real that one side may be persuaded that the use of a nuclear device would be “rational”. We have climbed high on Herman Kahn’s “escalation ladder” to Armageddon. Are we inexorably sleepwalking towards a horrific conflagration?

There must be a rethink by global leaders while there is time. Just as President John Kennedy and Premier Nikita Krushchev walked away from the brink of disaster during the Cuban crisis in 1962, our chance may lie in that bit of history repeating itself. My own long diplomatic career had been devoted to issues of disarmament and non-proliferation. I have never felt as close to catastrophe as I do now. Should good sense prevail, and disaster avoided, we must look to one glimmer of hope in the dark cloud. That is the UN Resolution 72/31 of 4 December 2017 banning nuclear weapons. It will take enormous leadership and courage, and a great leap of faith to commit ourselves to it. They say victors write the history. But a total nuclear war may leave us with no history at all, as there perhaps may be none alive to write it!

*

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

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President and Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

Featured image: International anti-nuclear weapons demonstration and peace march to the United Nations in New York City. Photo: Collected

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

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

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

***

Haiti was the first free nation in Latin America and the Caribbean, the first nation in the modern world emerging from a slave revolt, and the second most long-standing republic in the Western Hemisphere. The Haitian people overthrew the French colonialists in 1804, abolished slavery, and declared independence.

Their revolution was worse nightmare of colonial powers with possessions in the Caribbean – the ghost of Saint-Domingue disturbed the sleep of slave holders for years.

The imperial powers imposed a rigorous cultural, economic and political blockade on the new Haiti, to prevent the extension of its example.

Two decades after independence was proclaimed, in 1825, French warships returned, blockaded the young nation and issued an ultimatum: pay compensation or prepare for war.

An emissary from King Charles X delivered the message. France demanded payment for properties confiscated by the Haitian Revolution: 150 million gold francs, some 21 billion dollars today, payable in five installments.

According to the colonial empire, the young nation was obliged to compensate French planters for the property and slaves they had lost.

On April 17, 1825, Haitian President Jean-Pierre Boyer signed the Royal Decree presented by Charles X, who promised French diplomatic recognition in exchange for a 50% reduction of tariffs on French imports and the outrageous compensation.

For Haiti the figure was impossible to pay, given the conditions of its economy, ravaged by the French naval blockade and a devastating war, but the “generous” colonialists made a proposal “they couldn’t turn down.”

A group of French banks offered Haiti a loan to cover the compensation, resulting in a double debt that, along with the interest, bled the small country to death, over the course of the 122 years required to pay off its “independence debt.”

What’s more, The New York Times recounts in a recent five-part series of articles, when the U.S. army invaded Haiti in the summer of 1915, a group of Marines entered the national bank and stole some 500,000 dollars in gold, that days later made its way to a Wall Street bank vault.

The United States, using the financial and political chaos the island was experiencing as a pretext, occupied the country militarily, continuing its longstanding policy in the region. Haiti was to be governed by a U.S. military proconsul.

For more than ten years, a quarter of all Haitian income went to pay off debts to the National City Bank, incurred by the country to cover the expense of “assistance from the U.S. government,” according to The Times.

Another island dares to challenge the empire

In January 1959, another small Caribbean island, Cuba, defying U.S. imperial power, declared itself the first free territory of the Americas and dared to announce its decision to build the first socialist nation in the hemisphere.

The “crime of insubordination” committed required immediate action by the “superpower.” Since then, all variants of war have been waged against the rebel island, including the economic, without success.

As an essential part of the plan to break the soul and subsequent extermination of the Cuban people, a monstrosity known as the Law for Cuban Democratic Freedom and Solidarity was concocted.

What similarities can be seen between this legal atrocity and the one foisted on Haiti by the French empire? Let’s skip some frightening sections of the Helms-Burton Act, as it is also known, and consider the plan it envisions.

Let’s imagine two hypothetical scenarios, totally impossible for those of us who have confidence in the capacity for resistance and courage of our people.

First: The imperialist enemy and his allies, making use of their military power, would manage to occupy most of the country and establish a transitional government, after proclaiming the end of the Revolution.

Second: Division, deception, and discouragement sown by the enemy would lead to betrayal, another Baraguá, and we would “let the sword fall,” as in 1878.

Would we then have “free and democratic” elections? No, the transitional government, handpicked by the occupying forces, would not call elections until the United States Congress approved such a move.

The U.S. President or his proconsul, appointed for this purpose, would prepare a report to Congress every six months outlining progress being made in the transition process on the occupied island.

How long would this process supposedly last, if they are requiring a report every six months? How long would Yankee troops remain in Cuba?

The answer to both questions is “Who knows?” (Reading the Bush Plan is recommended.)

Finally, after who knows how many years, the U.S. Congress would approve elections. What about the economic, commercial and financial blockade? Would it be lifted when the end of the Revolution was proclaimed?

No, this is not part of the plan; the blockade is to remain intact during the transition, as an ironclad mechanism to apply pressure.
Once the elections were held in U.S. occupied Cuba, with the Revolution removed from power, we would have a president and government, in the style of the imperialists and to their liking.

Insistent questions remain: Would the blockade be lifted? Would the economic war end? The answer is no, that’s not what the Helms Burton proposes.

The new Cuban “president” would verify to Congress that all U.S. citizens who were “former owners” had been compensated with the full value of all properties nationalized or confiscated in accordance with revolutionary laws and in line with international law, including those Cubans who, after 1959, became “Cuban-Americans.”

The “indemnity” or “compensation,” according to U.S. experts in 1997, would have an approximate value of 100 billion dollars.
The empire has a solution that would allow the Cuban government to pay for the legal procedures, compensation and debt: loans from U.S. banks, the IMF, etc., which would generate ever-increasing interest payments and create an endless spiral of plunder.

Cubans, like Haitians years ago, would spend decades paying off a practically impossible debt. How could a country devastated, depleted, impoverished by war and occupation, a country that had lost a good part of its population of working and productive age, afford to do so? It must be clear that they could never occupy our island, without defeating a Cuban people determined to defend every inch of our homeland.

We would be left in the hands of our hangmen, ready and willing to drain every last drop of our national wealth.

Thomas Piketty, one of the economists consulted by The New York Times, in his work on Haiti, referred to this policy as “neo-colonialism by debt.”

The “crime of insubordination” is the greatest “sin” that a people can commit. Empires never forgive rebels. An insubordinate rebel plants a seed that can sprout many generations later.

The Haitian Revolution was a breeding ground of revolutions. The punishment, the viciousness of the colonial master, could not erase its example. Inspired, Our America rose up to fight for its independence, again and again, as tireless as the courageous

Haitians who defeated Napoleon’s best generals, in the first years of the19th century.

*

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

Featured image: It took Haiti 122 years to pay off its debt of independence, a neocolonial strategy that remains in place and leads to chronic underdevelopment. Photo: Juvenal Balán

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

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

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

***

The government of Venezuela welcomed a second high-level US delegation that included Bogotá-based Ambassador James Story and US envoy on hostage affairs Roger Carstens, President Nicolás Maduro confirmed Monday.

Although US officials tried to characterize the visit as being driven by the Biden administration’s efforts to see a handful of US citizens released from Venezuelan custody, the Venezuelan president was explicit that the meeting was a follow-up to previous bilateral talks in Caracas in March. The delegation was met by ranking Chavista politician and National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez on Monday evening.

“Jorge Rodríguez is welcoming an important US government delegation […] to follow-up on the bilateral agenda between the US government and the Venezuelan government,” said Maduro Monday night during a televised broadcast.

Early press reports indicated that the trip was a “welfare visit” focused on the detained US citizens. Bilateral talks in March led to the release of US citizens Gustavo Cardenas and Jorge Fernández, with the State Department similarly then denying that their release was tied to a deal concerning Venezuelan oil.

However, the US delegation’s visit comes amidst an ongoing struggle by US and European leaders to find a solution to a brewing energy crisis driven by the imposition of sanctions on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine.

Maduro made explicit reference to France’s call for Venezuela and Iran to return to “Western” oil markets as a means of alleviating the supply squeeze and bringing down energy prices globally. Venezuela and Iran signed a 20-year cooperation agreement during a recent Maduro trip.

G7 leaders recently agreed to study potential price caps on Russian oil and gas in order to ensure a consistent supply of oil while simultaneously limiting Moscow’s income from sales. The proposal is viewed by analysts as unlikely to succeed, meaning other oil-exporting nations like Venezuela will continue to be given special consideration as energy prices are expected to continue to rise.

The Venezuelan government has insisted that it is willing to resume oil shipments provided unilateral sanctions are lifted. The Venezuelan oil industry has been crippled by US coercive measures, including financial sanctions, an oil embargo and secondary sanctions Caracas is presently producing less than a million barrels per day despite counting on the world’s largest reserves.

Nonetheless, Venezuela is well positioned to ramp up production to meet global demand with countries such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia reportedly unable to ramp up production quickly.

When asked Tuesday if the meeting was tied to a potential oil deal, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan reiterated Washington’s position that any sanctions relief would be tied to progress in talks between the Venezuelan government and the US-backed opposition. Sullivan claimed that a recent license to allow Italy’s Eni and Spain’s Repsol to resume oil-for-debt swap deals with Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA was driven by the US’ desire to see talks restart.

The negotiations held in Mexico City between the Maduro administration and the hardline opposition were suspended in October 2021 following Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab’s arrest in Cape Verde and his extradition to Florida to face money laundering charges. The Venezuelan government has blasted the case as “politically motivated.”

Maduro pledged to restart the dialogue process with the opposition following that first-contact meeting with US officials and there was widespread speculation that a deal that would see the US lift its oil sanctions on Venezuela was in the cards. However, those expectations were dashed in light of a bipartisan backlash inside the US against a potential détente.

US President Joe Biden’s strategy concerning Venezuela recently came under heavy criticism from regional leaders such as Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador after Biden opted to exclude Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua from the Summit of the Americas, leading the Mexican president to boycott the event along with several others.

Venezuela broke off diplomatic relations with the US in 2019 after the latter recognized opposition figure Juan Guaidó as “interim president.” However, direct talks with the Venezuelan leader have undermined the US’ strategy in Venezuela and its support for Guaidó, whom the Biden administration insists they still recognize as “interim president.”

With no legitimacy inside Venezuela and unable to exercise any actual governance power, Guaidó relies almost exclusively on foreign backing to maintain his position. The former lawmaker and his allies suffered another setback after Colombians elected Gustavo Petro in recent presidential elections, leaving the hardline opposition leader without a key ally.

According to AP, US Ambassador Story met for two hours with Juan Guaidó upon his arrival in Caracas. Guaidó was snubbed by US officials in their last visit.

Under the leadership of right-wing President Iván Duque, Colombia played a key role in US-led destabilization efforts in Venezuela. Maduro and President-elect Petro spoke by phone following his election victory where they discussed the normalization of diplomatic relations.

“A new stage of peace, brotherhood and cooperation with Colombia seems to be on the horizon,” said Maduro on Monday.

*

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

Featured image: Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro greets the audience during the ceremony to award the National Journalism Prize. (@NicolasMaduro / Twitter)

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

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

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

***

An alliance of Indigenous organizations in Ecuador have held daily demonstrations after sharp increases in the costs for fuel and food.

The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) began their general strike actions on June 13 after huge price hikes crippled the capacity of rural and urban communities to access transportation and food for their households.

Ecuador general strike in June 2022 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

In response to the demonstrations and an assortment of other forms of resistance, President Guillermo Lasso has declared a state of emergency in several provinces of the South American state. The order reads in part that:

“To declare a state of exception due to serious internal commotion in the provinces of Azuay (south), Imbabura (north), Sucumbios (east) and Orellana (east).” (See this)

Although the Indigenous organizations sparked the mass demonstrations which in some cases have turned violent, other key sectors of the population such as students and workers have joined in the nationwide protests. Conservative President Guillermo Lasso has failed to meet the demands of CONAIE and other organizations.

CONAIE has put forward ten demands to the government of President Lasso which calls for additional fuel subsidies, the reversal of plans to privatize state assets and a moratorium on the development of any new oil and mining projects. In the recent period inflation has swept through many countries in South America and across the world.

Many have suggested that the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic related to supply chain bottlenecks and the failure of various capitalist governments to implement policies aimed at controlling prices, as being major triggering factors in the rapid increase in commodity prices and shortages. In Ecuador, demonstrators are blocking roads to prevent transport trucks from reaching their destinations. The military leadership of the country has committed to reopening the highways in order for commerce to resume.

The turmoil inside the country has impacted the political stability of the Lasso administration which recently survived an impeachment attempt by the parliament. Lasso came into office one year ago promising to create a more business-friendly atmosphere for foreign investment.

Guillermo Alberto Santiago Lasso Mendoza is a 66-year-old veteran businessman-banker and right-wing politician. He has served as the 47th president of Ecuador since taking office on May 24, 2021. The ascendancy of Lasso represented the first-time in two decades since there has been an ideologically conservative head-of-state.

The president had previously served as the Governor of Guayas during 1998-1999. Later in 2003, he was appointed as an Itinerant Ambassador of Ecuador during the administration of Lucio Gutierrez. As a businessman, he is the previous CEO of Banco Guayaquil. When the left-wing government of Rafael Correa was in power, Lasso was a fierce critic of his policies.

Lasso was also appointed as the CEO of operations for Coca-Cola corporation in order to rebuild the company in the face of its bankruptcy in Ecuador. He has held seats on the Board of Directors Guayas Transit Commission and the Andean Development Corporation.

Later in 2012 he founded the Creating Opportunities Party and then ran for president the following year against Correa, when he lost by a landslide. In 2017, Lasso again failed to win the presidential election by a very narrow margin against Lenin Moreno. In 2021 he won the presidency and immediately imposed neo-liberal economic policies.

A report published by Bloomberg on June 29 described the current crisis saying:

“Ecuador President Guillermo Lasso survived an impeachment vote late Tuesday (June 28) after a hard-left opposition party failed to rally other smaller groups in congress to oust him as his government moved to make concessions to defuse the political crisis. With only 80 of 137 lawmakers voting to remove Lasso, the impeachment attempt failed to clear the 92-vote hurdle needed to remove the president from office. Another 48 lawmakers rejected the motion, with nine abstaining after a session that lasted about 12 hours and included three voting attempts.”

Developments in Ecuador can be viewed as a harbinger of the political mood throughout the South America, Central America and Caribbean region. In 2019, similar demonstrations led by the Indigenous communities erupted over the neo-liberal policies of former President Lenin Moreno.

Ecuador rebellion in June 2022 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

A recent attempt by the administration of President Joe Biden in the United States to host a Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles was marked by controversy and boycotts. The Los Angeles gathering clearly illustrated the decline of U.S. hegemony over the Southern Hemisphere.

Colombia Elects a Left-leaning President

Results of the national elections in Colombia were announced on June 19 resulting in the ascendancy of a left-wing administration headed by Gustava Francisco Petro Urrego as president and Francia Elena Marquez Mina as vice-president. Marquez is the first Colombian of self-identified African ancestry in its two centuries of independence.

Marquez is a longtime environmental activist, feminist and human rights lawyer. She along with Petro became a part of the Historic Pact for Colombia Coalition which consists of several other political parties.

Petro was the founder of Humane Colombia political party in 2011. He is a former guerrilla fighter with the 19th of April Movement which demobilized and became the M-19 Democratic Alliance party. A split within M-19 leading to the creation of Humane Colombia.

Some analysts have viewed the overall economic crisis in the oil-producing state as prompting the recent national results. There are a host of burgeoning problems stemming from a failed peace agreement with the armed revolutionary movement of FARC, the persistent impoverishment of millions inside the country and the inflation which has plagued the entire capitalist world.

One policy shift announced by the incoming Petro government is the re-opening of the border with the neighboring Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Relations between Colombia and Venezuela became extremely strained after repeated attempts by the U.S. to foment a pro-imperialist coup in Caracas.

A report on the elections published by Telesur on June 25 welcomed the initiative by Petro. The article emphasized:

“The contact held with the Venezuelan government shows the political will of president-elect of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, for opening the binational border, Tachira´s governor, Freddy Bernal, acknowledged. In statements to Union Radio, the Venezuelan western state´s highest authority said that the formal opening of the border crossings between the two countries will bring huge benefits to the economy of the region. For the last two years -he recalled- contacts have been maintained with the authorities of the Colombian department of Norte de Santander; the border remained closed ‘only and exclusively’ by instructions of the outgoing president, Ivan Duque, Bernal said.”

Nonetheless, in a separate article also published by Telesur, seeks to draw a distinction between the South American governments which came to power during the late 20th and early 21st century, and the current wave of administrations. In Venezuela, since the time of the late President Hugo Chavez, the objective of government policy under the United Socialist Party has been non-capitalist development. President Nicolas Maduro has been unwavering in the government’s solidarity with Cuba and other socialist and anti-imperialist states.

Since February 24, when the Russian special military operation began in Ukraine, Venezuela, although having been approached by the U.S. State Department, has expressed its solidarity with Moscow and emphasized the need for a diplomatic solution to the war. Venezuela understands clearly that the expansion of NATO membership and military bases would be an existential threat to all peace and freedom-loving peoples throughout the world.

In a news analysis commentary published on June 24, Telesur notes:

“However, some characteristics of the new progressive wave differ to a certain extent from the first one. Whereas all the progressive governments have as their main concern the social problems and the well-being of the lower social classes, who have been impoverished and marginalized by the liberal policies historically applied in Latin America, the political narrative and ideological orientation are divergent when comparing both waves. The new wave of progressivism aims to change the society but not the system, as the intention to impart justice and redistribute wealth is carried out within the rules of capitalism. Thus, the aspiration to transform Latin America under the model of the ‘Socialism of the 21st Century’ has been lately forgotten. Without mincing my words, it seems socialism as a feasible society in the narrative of the progressive leaders died with Hugo Chavez and is no longer a benchmark for the current wave of governments. All in all, only time will tell which of the two waves obtain greater results regarding the implementation of people’s rights.”

However, the intervention of the masses as in Ecuador, Chile, Argentina and other states could portend much for a sharper turn to the Left in regard to socialist-orientation and anti-imperialism. What is clear is that Washington cannot provide an alternative to the leftward political trajectory in South America and the Central America-Caribbean region. The social contradictions prevalent in the U.S. have exposed the inconsistent foreign and domestic policies of Washington and Wall Street. The question is whether the rise in inflation and repressive state measures will spark discontent in the U.S. aimed at addressing the central concerns of workers and oppressed peoples.

*

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

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

Featured image: Ecuador rebellion by Indigenous communities, June 2022 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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

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

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

***

 

Leaders of the member countries of the imperialist NATO military alliance concluded their annual summit in Madrid today. This summit was a clear display of NATO’s commitment to continuously fuel the fire of international conflict as the major capitalist powers drag the world back into a Cold War-style period of global confrontation.

In preparation for the summit, NATO members prepared a new “Strategic Concept” document that described the alliance’s key goals moving forward. The Strategic Concept’s principal target is Russia, which it labels “the most significant and direct threat” to NATO. Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg promised even more support for Ukraine’s military in its war with Russia.

But the Strategic Concept also included a new and highly notable addition to NATO’s official enemies list: China.

The document labeled China a “systemic challenge.” While hostility to China has been NATO’s de facto approach for years, this announcement is a notable escalation. In essence, the NATO members are publicly announcing that China poses an existential threat to the world order that they dominate. China is pursuing a “no limits partnership” with Russia as it aims to fundamentally change the global political landscape such that the Pentagon and Wall Street no longer reign supreme. This is unacceptable to NATO.

Many NATO states like Britain have called for increasing arms shipments to Taiwan, which is rightfully claimed by China as part of its national territory. The United States has been the principal military and political backer of Taiwan since the island was seized by the defeated dictator Chiang Kai-shek at the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War in 1949.

NATO — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — pretends to be a defensive alliance where all states come to the aid of any member that is attacked. But as NATO’s own documents show, their ambitions are certainly not limited to the North Atlantic. It is in fact an instrument for the maintenance of an imperialist-dominated world order, threatening unthinkable violence against any country that dares to challenge it.

On Tuesday, Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations Zhang Jun expressed deep concerns and urged NATO to “learn its lessons and not to use the Ukraine crisis as an excuse to stoke worldwide bloc confrontation or provoke a new Cold War, and not to look for imaginary enemies in the Asia-Pacific or contrive disputes and divisions.”

Although NATO’s Strategic Concept hides behind the language of democracy, peace and independence, NATO’s actions before and during the summit are aimed at triggering a new Cold War with China and Russia. NATO countries and their strategic goals only fuel the danger of catastrophic global war as they ignore the economic, social and environmental toll of their military buildup. The working class across the world already is suffering greatly with the start of another Cold War and has every interest in the end of imperialist escalations.

*

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

Featured image is from Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War

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

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

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

***

Iran’s nuclear talks are back on track. There are not very high expectations though and some experts in fact believe that deal or no deal, an Iranian-Israeli future war is almost inevitable for a number of reasons.

For years, the Islamic Republic and the Jewish State have been waging a kind of shadow war – with no real dialogue or any advance towards reconciliation. In fact, one could very well argue that Tehran, on the one hand, and Tel Aviv and Washington, on the other, have been involved in a non-official war since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Tel Aviv has been confronting the Tehran backed Shiite organization known as Hezbollah and various other proxy wars have been fought.

For years, Israel and the United States have been playing a game in which the former threatens to attack Iranian nuclear sites, and the latter avoids opposing such an idea too much while at the same time signaling it would be an unnecessary and dangerous move it does not approve of at all.  Sometimes, Washington also signs that it has the ability to prevent any Iranian counterattack in case Israel strikes. For example, in 2012 it blocked the Strait of Hormuz.

The United States supports its ally Israel and for years has denounced Iran as a “threat” to the Jewish state and the other nations in the area, especially Saudi Arabia. And yet Washington certainly fears that the Islamic Republic response to any Israeli attack would destabilize the entire region. The uncertainty factor also plays a role: no one really knows how advanced the Iranian nuclear program is. A fatwa (Islamic decree) stating that the Iranian Republic considers the use of nuclear weapons a sin is listed on Khamenei’s official website. It further states that Tehran supports the idea of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. There is however intense debate in the country and a growing call for this fatwa to be reconsidered given the circumstances of today’s world.

In any case, it would seem there are quite irreconcilable differences not only between Tehran and Tel Aviv but also between the latter and its own ally Washington. Cultural differences might play a role here: while both of them have similar views on the Islamic Republic, they disagree on how to deal with it. The Israelis do not tolerate risks very much, and the Americans cannot accept the possible global effects of an Israeli-Iranian war in terms of destabilization and unpredictability.

So, a complicated tension-game has been unfolding for many years. Israel act as if it always were on the very verge of being attacked by Iran, and bluffs by threatening to take a preemptive strike against the country, while claiming it does not do so because it is contained by the US, which, in its turn, takes credit for stopping an Israeli attack (which perhaps was never really intended anyway). Washington basically wants to keep Tehran relatively isolated and is quite content to see that its presence in Syria has diminished, for instance. For the Americans, it is all about containing the Islamic Republic without going to war – in this way, during the Barack Obama administration, for example, the State Department tried to reorient Damascus away from Tehran, according to American diplomat Frederic Hof. The Jewish state, on the other hand, has its own concerns and agendas.

Iran, in its turn, certainly sees that defense ties between Israel and various Arab states are on the rise. This has been so since the Abraham Accords initiative and it has changed the very geopolitical map of the Middle East. A Wall Street Journal report claims that some Israeli and “Arab military chiefs” from  Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, and the UAE held, in Sharm El Sheikh (Egypt), a secret meeting pertaining to the “Iranian threat” and their air defense. Fars News has published claims according to which the Kingdom of Jordan opposes such “Arab-Israel NATO”. However, the Jordanian King Abudallah II has stated that he would support more countries in the region coming into a military alliance. These developments of course hamper Saudi-Iranian efforts towards rapprochement, even though Iranian Foreign Ministry stated on June 27 that Riyad is ready to have more direct bilateral talks.

Israel, the US, Bahrain and the UAE have also taken part in naval exercises in the Red Sea and so there is a situation of increasing militarization of the region. All of this certainly provokes Iran.

In May, various drones attacked a suspected Iranian nuclear research facility, killing one engineer. Days before, an Iranian colonel was killed by two assassins. Tel Aviv is believed by many to be behind such covert actions. Moreover, the new Israeli government has advanced its “Octopus Doctrine”, which greatly expands the campaign against Tehran. While Iranian-Israeli wars have been going on for years, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has stated he wants to fight not merely “the tentacles” but also the “head” of the “Iranian octopus”. It is a dangerous game and at some point, a red line might get crossed.

Amid Iranian-American and Iranian-Israeli tensions, Moscow, in its turn, has agreed to activate its strategic pact with Tehran – similar to the one China has also signed with the Islamic Republic.

Both Iran and Israel are dominant powers in the Middle East and their long shadow war could escalate into a major regional conflict. In today’s highly tense world, this could spiral into a global confrontation.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Just a few months into the COVID-19 pandemic — and almost two years before global health officials warned of a food shortage crisis — the Rockefeller Foundation issued a report predicting the crisis and offering up solutions, including “shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food.”

Just a few months into the COVID-19 pandemic — and almost two years before global health officials warned of a food shortage crisis — the Rockefeller Foundation issued a report predicting the crisis and offering up solutions, including “shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food.”

In a report published July 28, 2020, “Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System,” the foundation described “a hunger and nutrition crisis … unlike any this country has seen in generations.”

The authors blamed the crisis on COVID-19.

The report concluded the crisis would have to be addressed not by strengthening food securityfor the most vulnerable, but by revamping the entire food system and associated supply chain — in other words, we would need to “reset the table.”

The Rockefeller Foundation called for this food system “reset” less than two months after the World Economic Forum (WEF), on June 3, 2020, revealed its vision for the “Great Reset.”

Some of the contributors to the Rockefeller Foundation report are WEF members; a few of which, along with other proponents of “resetting the table,” also have ties to entities pushing vaccine passports and digital ID schemes.

Rockefeller Foundation: ‘changes to policies, practices, and norms’ are needed

The WEF describes the Rockefeller Foundation as a “science-driven” philanthropic organization that “seeks to inspire and foster large-scale human impact that promotes the well-being of humanity around the world” and which “advances the new frontiers of science, data, policy and innovation to solve global challenges related to health, food, power and economic mobility.”

In the foreword to its 2020 “Reset the Table” report, foundation President Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, who is a former administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), states:

“America faces a hunger and nutrition crisis unlike any this country has seen in generations.

“In many ways, Covid-19 has boiled over long-simmering problems plaguing America’s food system. What began as a public health crisis fueled an economic crisis, leaving 33 percent of families unable to afford the amount or quality of food they want.

“School closures put 30 million students at risk of losing the meals they need to learn and thrive.”

The report did not explain how the Rockefeller Foundation was able to know about this food crisis mere months after the pandemic took hold — especially as the report states it was developed out of “video-conference discussions in May and June 2020.”

The report also didn’t provide any insight into the role pandemic countermeasures such as lockdowns — which the foundation championed along with the WEF — played in contributing to the food crisis..

In its report, the Rockefeller Foundation proposes a series of solutions, derived from “dialogues with over 100 experts and practitioners.”

One recommendation calls for moving away from a “focus on maximizing shareholder returns” to “a more equitable system focused on fair returns and benefits to all stakeholders — building more equitable prosperity throughout the supply chain.”

This may sound like a good idea, until one considers “stakeholders” in this case refers to “stakeholder capitalism” — a concept heavily promoted by the very same large corporations that have been beneficiaries of the shareholder capitalist system.

The WEF also heavily promotes “stakeholder capitalism,” defining it as “a form of capitalism in which companies seek long-term value creation by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.”

For some context, economic fascism, as personified by the regimes of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, encompassed government-mandated “partnerships” between business, government and unions organized by a system of regional “economic chambers,” and a philosophy where “the common good comes before the private good.”

It is, of course, unclear how the “needs [of] society at large” are determined — or by who.

The Rockefeller Foundation report declares, “Success will require numerous changes to policies, practices, and norms.”

What does such “success” entail? The report names three main objectives:

• Data collection and digitization: The report calls for “shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food, direct farm-to-consumer purchasing, telemedicine, teleconsultations, as well as [broadband access that is essential to] education, finance, and employment.”

The report describes the lack of universal broadband access in this context as “a fundamental resiliency and equity gap.”

• “Stakeholders” working together with the goal of forming a “collaborative advocacy movement.”
• “Changes to policies, practices and norms,” which the report says would be “numerous.”

These objectives, dressed up in “inclusive” language, are further described in the report as being beneficial to human health, ensuring “healthy and protective diets” that “will allow Americans to thrive and bring down our nation’s suffocating health care costs.”

The report goes as far as to describe this as a “legacy” of COVID-19, even predicting that doctors will “prescribe” produce for patients.

According to the report:

“One of Covid-19’s legacies should be that it was the moment Americans realized the need to treat nutritious food as a part of health care, both for its role in prevention and in the treatment of diseases.

“By integrating healthy food into the health care system, doctors could prescribe produce as easily as pharmaceuticals and reduce utilization of expensive health services that are often required because of nutrition insecurity.”

But as Dr. Joseph Mercola pointed out, despite this purported emphasis on healthy, nutritious food, the words “organic,” “natural” and “grass fed” do not appear in the report.

What does appear is the phrase “alternative proteins,” in this case referring to proteins derived from the consumption of insects — another concept promoted by the WEF.

In 2021, for instance, the WEF published a report titled “Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems,” suggesting that “insect farming for food and animal feed could offer an environmentally friendly solution to the impending food crisis [emphasis added].”

Yet again, an “impending food crisis” is forecast, which may lead some to ask how entities such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the WEF even knew what was coming.

As stated by Mercola:

“COVID was declared a pandemic March 11, 2020, so by the time this Rockefeller report was published, the pandemic had only existed for four months, and while certain high-risk groups did experience food insecurity, such as children whose primary meal is a school lunch, widespread food shortages, in terms of empty shelves, were not widely prevalent or particularly severe in the U.S.

“It seems nothing escapes the prophetic minds of the self-proclaimed designers of the future. They accurately foresee ‘natural disasters’ and foretell coincidental ‘acts of God’. They know everything before it happens.

“Perhaps they truly are prophets. Or, perhaps they’re simply describing the inevitable outcomes of their own actions.”

Mercola suggests such crises are inevitable because they are part of “an intentional plan” by the very same actors.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s amazing ‘predictions’ of future crises, and its ties with Big Tech and Big Pharma 

Lending credence to Mercola’s view, and as recently reported by The Defender, the Rockefeller Foundation, WEF and other entities accurately predicted a remarkable number of crises that then came to pass.

For instance, Event 201, held in October 2019 and co-organized by the Rockefeller Foundation, accurately “predicted” the global outbreak of a coronavirus.

Similarly, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), which co-organized a “tabletop simulation” predicting the global outbreak of monkeypox in March 2021, with an imaginary start date of May 2022, has received $1.25 million in grants from the Rockefeller Foundation since January 2021.

In turn, the other co-organizer of the monkeypox “tabletop simulation,” the Munich Security Conference, in May 2022 held a roundtable with the Rockefeller Foundation on “Transatlantic cooperation on food security.”

Among the suggestions arising from this roundtable include a “focus on transforming the global food system and making it more resilient to future shocks, with steps taken now and over the long term.”

The Rockefeller Foundation is also a partner and board member and donor to GAVI: The Vaccine Alliance — alongside the WEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which hosted Event 201.

As previously reported by The Defender, the GAVI Alliance proclaims a mission to “save lives and protect people’s health,” and states it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.”

GAVI is also a core partner of the World Health Organization (WHO).

The GAVI Alliance — and the Rockefeller Foundation — also work closely with the ID2020 Alliance. Founded in 2016, ID2020 claims to advocate in favor of “ethical, privacy-protecting approaches to digital ID,” adding that “doing digital ID right means protecting civil liberties.”

As reported previously by The Defender, ID2020’s founding partners include the Rockefeller Foundation, GAVI, UNICEF, Microsoft, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank, while general partners of ID2020 include Facebook and Mastercard.

For the past two years, the Rockefeller Foundation and entities such as ID2020 and the WEF have been closely involved with the push for digital “vaccine passports.”

For instance, on July 9, 2020, the Commons Project, itself founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, launched “a global effort to build a secure and verifiable way for travelers to share their COVID-19 status” — that is, a vaccine passport.

The Commons Project also was behind the development of the CommonPass, another vaccine passport initiative, developed in tandem with the WEF.

In turn, the Good Health Pass was launched by ID2020, as part of a collaboration between Mastercard, the International Chamber of Commerce and the WEF. It was endorsed by embattledformer U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, now executive chairman of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.

Other members of the Good Health Pass Collaborative include Accenture, Deloitte and IBM — which developed New York’s “Excelsior Pass” vaccine passport system.

The Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, also funded an August 27, 2021 document issued by the WHO titled, “Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: Vaccination status.”

The document is described as follows:

“This is a guidance document for countries and implementing partners on the technical requirements for developing digital information systems for issuing standards-based interoperable digital certificates for COVID-19 vaccination status, and considerations for implementation of such systems, for the purposes of continuity of care, and proof of vaccination.”

And in another remarkably prescient “prediction,” the Rockefeller Foundation, in 2010, published a report — “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” — which presented four future scenarios.

One of these hypothetical scenarios was “Lock Step” — described as “[a] world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.”

The description of this “Lock Step” scenario goes on to state:

“Technological innovation in ‘Lock Step’ is largely driven by government and is focused on issues of national security and health and safety.

“Most technological improvements are created by and for developed countries, shaped by governments’ dual desire to control and to monitor their citizens.”

This scenario also predicted “smarter” food packaging:

“In the aftermath of pandemic scares, smarter packaging for food and beverages is applied first by big companies and producers in a business-to-business environment, and then adopted for individual products and consumers.”

Moreover, the “Lock Step” scenario remarkably predicted China would fare better than most countries in a hypothetical pandemic, due to the heavy-handed measures it would implement:

“However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular.

“The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.”

The Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement in public health is not new.

Going back more than a century, the foundation heavily promoted “scientific medicine” and formalized medical practice based on the European model on a global scale, at the expense of homeopathy and other traditional and natural remedies.

The foundation’s “philanthropic” activities have been described as “de facto colonialism in countries including China and the Philippines.”

Moreover, the foundation helped give rise to the first global public health entities, the International Health Commission (1913-16) and the International Health Board (1916-1927).

It also helped finance the earliest public health programs at universities such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins — today home to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

*

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

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

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

***

For the first time ever, the European Union has imported in June more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States than gas via pipeline from Russia, as Moscow slashed supply to Europe earlier this month, Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), said on Thursday.

“Russia’s recent steep cuts in natural gas flows to the EU mean this is the 1st month in history in which the EU has imported more gas via LNG from the US than via pipeline from Russia,” Birol tweeted today, sharing an analysis from the IEA.

“The drop in Russian supply calls for efforts to reduce EU demand to prepare for a tough winter,” the head of the Paris-based agency added.

The significantly lower supply from Russia since the middle of June and the upcoming annual maintenance at Nord Stream that will completely halt deliveries through the pipeline for two weeks in July have left Europe scrambling to fill gas storage sites to adequate levels before the winter.

The EU has been importing record volumes of American LNG in recent months, although analysts say LNG imports alone cannot replace Russian pipeline gas.

The European Union and the UK saw a record high level of LNG imports in April, as higher spot prices in Europe compared to Asia attracted suppliers with destination flexibility to ship LNG to Europe. Those suppliers were mostly from the United States, the EIA said earlier this month.

In April 2022 alone, five European countries—France, Spain, the UK, the Netherlands, and Poland—accounted for 54.1% of total U.S. LNG exports, data from the U.S. Energy Department showed earlier this month.

Despite the record intake of American, and other, LNG, Europe still faces supply troubles this winter if it doesn’t take measures to conserve energy, analysts and the IEA say.

Europe faces a “red alert” for gas supply next winter, Birol said earlier in June.

“Recent disruptions to natural gas supplies, notably Russia steeply cutting flows to EU countries, is set to remove around 35 billion cubic metres of gas from the market this year, posing big challenges to efforts to refill storage. This is a red alert for the EU for next winter, Birol tweeted in mid-June.

*

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

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” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

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

***

The one and only good I see coming out of the Covid Plandemic and catastrophic, quasi-mandatory vaccine policies, is that we’re seeing some Americans emerging as heroes during this dark time.

Many of us have long since known the names of key villains in our fight for the Republic and for liberty—people in the psychopathic billionaires’ club such as George Soros, Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Ted Turner, —and lesser, but equally destructive players, such as the Clintons, the Bushes, the Bidens, Pelosi, Newsom, Canada’s Trudeau, France’s Macron, etc.

But most of us likely had never heard of Dr. Scott Atlas, Dr. Lee Merrit, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. John Ioannidis, or the U.K.’s former Pfizer VP, Dr. Michael Yeadon. Along with dozens of others, these men and women have risked their careers by taking a stand to save lives and speak the truth—which, in a time of universal deceit, as Orwell warned us, has become a revolutionary act.

The Knights Expose a Massive Criminal Conspiracy

But, lest we forget, I want to focus on a particular group of similarly remarkable men and women who, in January of this year, participated in a 5-hour hearing conducted by another hero who has taken a brave public stance: Senator Ron Johnson.

Senator Johnson (R-WI) has emerged as perhaps the most courageous, principled and insightful man in Congress—and I do mean both houses. Here’s a short sampling of our true American heroes featured in this roundtable: Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Dr. Christina Parks, and a number of others including some brave nurses, some tragically vaccine-injured individuals, and a pair of formidable attorneys including firebrand Tom Renz, fighting for doctors and their patients.

Speaking of Thomas Renz, even among so many horrific tales, his brief presentation was mind-blowing. Attorney Renz, working with several brave DoD whistleblowers who furnished him with data we weren’t supposed to see, shocked the room with his findings: among our mandatorily-vaccinated military, miscarriages increased by 300%, cancer by 300%, and serious neurological disorders by 1000%. Says Renz, “Our soldiers are being experimented on injured, and sometimes possibly killed.”

Dog Caught Red-handed

Senator Johnson followed up by sending a letter to DOD Secretary Lloyd Austin, in which he wrote:

“Based on data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), Thomas Renz, an attorney who is representing three Department of Defense (DoD) whistleblowers, reported that these whistleblowers found a significant increase in registered diagnoses on DMED for miscarriages, cancer, and many other medical conditions in 2021 compared to a five-year average from 2016-2020. For example, at the roundtable Renz stated that registered diagnoses for neurological issues increased 10 times from a five-year average of 82,000 to 863,000 in 2021.”

I wish I could say that this became front page news throughout our nation. But instead, the DOD, with backup support from the Leftwing rag Politifact, ran to the rescue with damage control. Politifact’s Jeff Cercone had the gall to announce there had been a “glitch” in the data. More brazenly yet, DOD spokesman Peter Graves claimed the entire Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) was discovered to have been wrong from 2016 to 2020—meaning it can’t be used for comparison to assess any anomalies in 2021. Hmmmm… Graves announced DMED has been “taken offline” to “identify and correct the root-cause of the data corruption.”

Anyone think we need Sherlock Holmes to identify the root cause of this mess? Forget the fake “data corruption”—I mean the real thing: the DOD’s corruption! I guess it was too late for them to simply erase the injuries the whistleblowers had discovered among the vaxxed, so they went for the other side of the equation instead—nullifying the grounds for comparison.

The Real Experts

All told, Senator Johnson’s five-hour roundtable delivers a shocking exposé of the American medical system gone completely off the rails. The stories these brave men and women told brought some of them to tears, as they did this viewer.

These are the real experts—men and women who went into medicine for the right reasons—to actually heal patients. It is heart-wrenching to watch Dr. Marik announce that the hospital he’d worked out for decades tied his hands, refusing to allow him to treat his patients with proven safe and effective therapeutics. Here’s what this expert physician said, while blinking away his tears: “I had to stand by idly, watching these people die!” Dr. Marik is the only one present whom I heard use the word “evil”, though he applied it only to the hospital and its phony review board as they stripped him of his hospital privileges, ending a stellar decades-long medical career.

And another of our nation’s most distinguished and highly esteemed physicians, Dr. Peter McCullough, may even lose his license to practice medicine if the American Board of Internal Medicine has its vindictive way. His crime? Trying to save lives—I mean spreading “misinformation.” It doesn’t get more Orwellian than this.

All Roads Lead to the ‘Vaccines’

If you connect the dots, it quickly becomes apparent that all the atrocities we’ve seen—from denial of therapeutics, to enforced use of Remdesivir, to pumped up “positive cases” through inaccurate PCR tests, to vaccine mandates, etc.—serve to ensure and promote widespread inoculation with a novel, highly experimental, genetic-disrupting “vaccine technology.”

How so? Well, the rampant PCR testing at high threshold cycles makes it look like we have a “pandemic” crisis, as the numbers of “cases” climb. This ramps up fear and makes it more likely people will willingly take the sometimes fatal shots.

The deaths of thousands of our countrymen resulting from the horribly cruel denial of safe therapeutics such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, various steroids, etc., is likely viewed as mere collateral damage by the perpetrators of this heinous crime, as they needed to preserve the Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer, Moderna and J&J “vaccines.” You see, if doctors everywhere started saving lives by using safe, repurposed and readily available drugs, Big Pharma would lose its Get Out of Jail Free card: the EUA that protects them from liability. Not only that, but the “emergency” disappears if Covid becomes treatable with therapeutics. And they couldn’t have that, now, could they?

And what about hospitals forcing Fauci’s Favorite “Remdesivir” on helpless patients—a drug known to cause kidney failure? As I learned from Robert F. Kennedy’s blockbuster book “The Real Anthony Fauci,” nurses have dubbed this drug “Run-death-is-near.”

Why inflict this on patients? Well, there’s a hefty perverse incentive, as hospitals receive huge bonuses for every “Covid death” and even more if they prescribe Remdesivir, and another lump sum for finishing the patient off on a ventilator. Hmmm… Besides, isn’t death of the victim the purpose of bio-weapons? So if Covid didn’t do the job, they evidently have their hospital backup plan, as attorney Thomas Renz and brave whistleblowers have documented. Renz estimates hospitals that play this game get around $100,000 per “Covid” patient.

Co-opting the Medical Profession

So how do you get hundreds of hospitals and thousands of physicians to perform in lockstep? Simple—though the Rockefeller/Gates/JohnsHopkins consortiums spent a good deal of money to figure this out.

You use two trusted methods: bribery and threats. You bribe the venal and the pushovers, and you threaten those who seem to have a stronger moral compass.

Sadly, as we’ve seen, the majority succumb to these pressures. It is not an easy decision to risk losing one’s medical license and therefore livelihood and means of supporting one’s family. It takes courage—what Aristotle called the first of the virtues, upon which all the others are dependent—and, as we’ve seen writ large in the past few years—it’s rare.

The Billion Dollar Question

After listening to several hours of horror stories about unnecessary deaths from Covid-19, and maiming and deaths off the charts from vaccine injuries, I think it was Senator Johnson who asked the key question: Why?

Why are the CDC, FDA, NIH, medical boards, hospitals, etc., all seemingly on board with such obviously cruel and unusual practices?

Dr. Pierre Kory provided this answer: “Corruption!” “They’re putting profits ahead of lives!”

Well, yes, we see the money sloshing around, and hospitals, Big Pharma, and Dr. Mengele Fauci, among others, are making out like bandits, but as for the “why” question, I beg to differ.  After all, we’ve seen corporate corruption and profiteering at the cost of lives before. Take the tobacco industry moguls. They knew cigarettes caused lung cancer fairly early on. But hey, there was big money to be made. So…they hid that knowledge and kept selling cigarettes.

That’s how corruption works. It’s got to be secretive. But that’s not what we’re seeing now. The downright coldblooded murder of our fellow citizens in hospitals is not hidden. Nor is the carnage from the vaccines for anyone who knows how to search for it on the internet. Besides, given enough time, the truth will out. And Senator Johnson and the heroes he assembled are doing their best to speed that up.

Motive and Opportunity: The Great Reset

So if it’s not primarily about money and corruption, what could the motive be?

Ask Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer VP in the UK. Early in this saga, Dr. Yeadon detected a “whiff of evil.” He was the only one at that time who used that word, thus making him one of my early heroes, since I detected that same whiff.

What Senator Johnson’s group may not understand is that America, and indeed, the world, is now in the grip of evil. We’re in the End Game of the psychopathic billionaires’ One World Government club, and they long since announced they want to drastically reduce the world’s population. And they didn’t mean over the next hundred or two hundred years. They mean in the next three to five years. Make that in the next seven years, if you sense a Biblical connection.

We’re witnessing planned genocide being enacted. The parallels with Nazi Germany are legion. I was horrified listening to Dr. Richard Urso saying that in the early days of Covid, hospitals would not only refuse to let family members enter the room of their loved one who was dying, but after death, they would not release the body to the family for burial! What did they do? They incinerated it! The Nazis would have been proud.

The globalist cabal call it “depopulation” which is Orwellian doublespeak for mass murder. That’s why this is happening, Senator Johnson. These maniacs have bought up politicians, medical associations, hospitals, doctors, and the entire mainstream media which they use as their PR mouthpiece day in and day out. They own the narrative. And while they and their minions like Fauci and Big Pharma moguls no doubt love the blood money they’re raking in, the New World Order oligarchs don’t need money—that’s not what they’re after. They want absolute power and they want a much smaller population to control. They’re simply culling the serfs.

The globalist cabal behind this entire evil agenda are all in for maximum deaths of those they likely regard as “useless eaters” after the manner of past psychopathic power-mongers like Stalin.

And of course all their Covidian machinations translate into preserving the all-important narrative: the world’s first never-ending “pandemic,” necessitating never-ending vaccine booster shots, digital vaccine passports, digital currency, tracking, tracing, 24/7 surveillance, ID2020, Social Credit Scores, the Great Reset, and Internment Camps for dissidents, while everyone else will “own nothing and be happy” under a One World Government that makes Orwell’s masterpiece 1984 look like a walk in the park.

That’s why they’re doing what they’re doing.

And that’s why they must be stopped!

*

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

Cherie Zaslawsky is a writer, freelance editor, and private educator/teacher/writing coach for high school students, as well as a confirmed Constitutionalist who nevertheless lives in California. Her work appears in Renew America, Lew Rockwell, American Thinker, Canada Free Press, WND, The Published Reporter, and more.

Featured image is a screenshot from a Youtube video

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

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

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

***

If countries in Europe are already beginning to ration certain things due to “supply problems”, how long will it be before it starts happening in the United States?  Up until the past couple of years, many of us in the western world always considered shortages to be something that only “unsophisticated” poor countries on the other side of the planet had to deal with.  But the last couple of years have shown us that painful shortages can happen to wealthy countries in the western world too.  At first we were told that they were “just temporary”, but the months went by and we just kept having more shortages.  In fact, in 2022 “supply problems” have become so serious that many supermarkets in Europe have been forced to strictly ration essential items at various times.  For example, it was being reported that due to the war in Ukraine flour, sunflower oil and sugar were all being rationed by stores in Greece…

After limiting the sale of some flours and sunflower oil online, Greek supermarkets are turning to rationing the sale of sugar as well, now including in their stores, over supply problems.

The AB Vassilopoulos is setting a maximum limit on the purchase of all brands of corn and sunflower oil and of flour per customer while Mymarket put a ceiling on sunflower oil purchases and Sklavenitis has added sugar to the rationed sales of corn oil through its online store, with a maximum of four packs, the products in high demand from restaurants, some of which said they have to stop selling french fries and other fried foods.

Over the past few months we have seen similar measures implemented in other major European nations as well.  For example, the war in Ukraine prompted some pretty severe rationing in Spain…

Sporadic shortages of products like eggs, milk, and other dairy products also hit Spain since the war in Ukraine began. And major supermarkets including Mercadona and Makro began rationing sunflower oil earlier this month.

Now, stores will temporarily be allowed to limit “the number of goods that can be bought by a client,” according to information in the Official State Gazette published on Wednesday.

Looking forward, natural gas rationing is the next big thing that many people in Europe are talking about.  The flow of Russian natural gas into Europe has been cut back, and it appears that this may soon cause widespread rationing in Italy…

Italy may start rationing natural-gas consumption to certain industrial giants, after Russia’s Gazprom halved supplies on Friday.

On the weekend, the newspaper Corriere della Sera reported that the Italian government and energy industry would meet Tuesday and Wednesday to discuss the crisis, with the likely outcome being the introduction of a state of alert under the country’s gas emergency protocol.

And CNN is reporting that Germany is “one step closer to rationing supplies” now that Russia has decided to reduce the flow of natural gas going to that country…

Europe’s biggest economy is now officially running short of natural gas and is escalating a crisis plan to preserve supplies as Russia turns off the taps.

Germany on Thursday activated the second phase of its three-stage gas emergency program, taking it one step closer to rationing supplies to industry — a step that would deliver a huge blow to the manufacturing heart of its economy.

Of course there are other parts of the globe that are dealing with problems that are far, far more serious than what Europe is facing right now.

As I discussed in an article that I posted earlier this week, significant numbers of people are starting to literally drop dead from starvation in portions of eastern Africa.  Global food supplies just keep getting tighter, and the head of the UN is openly telling us that the world is heading into an “unprecedented global hunger crisis”.

So if you have plenty of food to eat tonight, you should be thankful.

Here in the United States, economic conditions are deteriorating fairly rapidly, and most Americans are completely and totally unprepared for any sort of a major economic downturn.  Earlier today, I came across yet another survey that shows that about 60 percent of all Americans are currently living paycheck to paycheck…

“We find that consumers in all income brackets — including those who make more than $100,000 annually — are living paycheck to paycheck. PYMNTS’ research finds that 61% of U.S. consumers were living paycheck to paycheck in April 2022, marking a 9 percentage point increase from 52% in April 2021, meaning that approximately three in five U.S. consumers devote nearly all of their salaries to expenses with little to nothing left over at the end of the month.”

So what is going to happen when those people start losing their jobs in large numbers?

Already, we have seen the number of tech layoffs greatly accelerate over the last couple of months.

Sadly, the layoffs will get much worse in the months ahead.

And as inflation continues to systematically eat away at our standard of living, Americans are turning to credit cards at a record pace…

As Americans grapple with the highest inflation in 40 years, the number of new credit cards have surged as more Americans rely on them to keep up with high prices. According to a recent report from the Federal Reserve, revolving credit (credit cards and lines of credit) increased by 19.6% from the previous year to $1.103 trillion.

Going into credit card debt is not a solution.

At best, it can buy you a little bit of time.

And it is especially a bad idea to go into credit card debt as we plunge into a recession.

At this point, almost everyone realizes that things are going to get bad.  According to one recent poll, a whopping 85 percent of all Americans believe that the U.S. is “headed in the wrong direction”…

The national dissatisfaction is bipartisan. Most Americans, 85%, say the country is headed in the wrong direction. A majority of Republicans have been unhappy with the direction of the country since Biden’s election. Democrats had been positive about how things were going, but now 78% say the country is headed in the wrong direction.

I was astounded to see that 78 percent of Democrats believe that the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction with a Democrat in the White House.

I have never seen a number like that ever before.

But this is just another indication that the hour is late and that things are about to start getting really crazy out there.

For the moment, life is still at least somewhat normal in the western world.

Sadly, it won’t stay that way for long, and so I would recommend using your time wisely.

*

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

Michael’s brand new book entitled “7 Year Apocalypse” is now available on Amazon.com. He 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. 

Featured image is from The Economic Collapse

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

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

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

***

“What do you do with someone with an allergy? What do you do with someone who’s immunocompromised, or someone who for religious reasons…or deep convictions, decided that no, they’re not going to get a vaccine? We’re not a country that makes vaccination mandatory.”~ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Brandon Gonez Show, May 9, 2021

In 1928, Sigmund Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays published a book titled Propaganda. Bernays emphasized in Propaganda that “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country” [1].

Bernays laid out a number of strategies when employing propaganda to achieve desired political objectives. We can look at these strategies as a way to reflect on the recent media propaganda about the truckers’ freedom convoy in Canada. The convoy became a thorn in the side of powerful establishment, elite interests, expressed especially in statements and actions of the Trudeau Liberals. The prime minister, numbers of cabinet ministers, and the legacy media got the convoy in their crosshairs. In 2022, politicians and the media gave Canadians a lesson on the real limits of democracy in Canada.

1) If you manipulate the leader of a group, the people will follow

Bernays states “If you can influence leaders…you automatically influence the group which they sway.” [2] At the time the freedom convoy protests were unfolding in Ottawa, there were news reports about powerful people influencing Justin Trudeau and other members of the Liberal caucus. A National Post headline on February 2, 2022, declared “Chrystia Freeland’s side-gig with WEF is endangering Canadian democracy.” [3] Current Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland became a Rhodes Scholar in 1993. In the mid-90s, she began her career as freelance journalist in the Ukraine [4] working for the Financial Times. For more than a decade, Freeland has been part of the elite who gather for meetings of the World Economic Forum.

Reporter Rupa Subramanya described how “The World Economic Forum (WEF), which has met at the Swiss ski resort of Davos every year since its creation in 1971 by German academic and entrepreneur Klaus Schwab, was forced to convert its annual schmoozefest into a virtual event this year due to COVID-19. Of note on the main agenda was a “stakeholder capitalism” panel, which included Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland.

The former-journalist-turned-politician has been a fixture at the WEF for years. Rubbing shoulders at Davos with the world’s rich, famous and powerful was one of the inspirations for her 2012 book, Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else.” Is the WEF part of an invisible government, among other key influencers, shaping Canadian federal policies?

The National Post article noted since 2019 Freeland has sat on the WEF Board of Trustees. Another Canadian, former governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney, also sits on the WEF Board of Trustees. As well, former United States vice-president Al Gore, co-founder of the Carlyle Group (USA) David Rubenstein, Chief Executive Officer of Nestlé, Mark Schneider and cellist Yo-Yo Ma, among the group of 31 trustees chaired by Klaus Schwab. [5]

Being on the WEF Board of Trustees is not a token gesture meant simply to embroider someone’s resume. According to the WEF, the board of trustees “act as guardians of its mission and values” and are its “highest-level governance body.”

Could being a “guardian” of the WEF’s mission and values put Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance  in a conflict of interest? Are there Canadian traditions and values, such as the right to own private property, that are in conflict with the mission of the WEF? The WEF has posted at least one ad depicting “The World in 2030: You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.” [6] 2030 is just seven and a half years away. What does owning nothing and being happy mean for individuals who own homes, vacation homes, commercial property vehicles, boats and more?

Justin Trudeau is a graduate of the WEF Young Global Leaders program. [7] As the WEF holds strong positions on global policy, its underreported influence on the Trudeau Liberal caucus should be of concern to Canadians. In 2017, Klaus Schwab boasted at the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard-John F. Kennedy School of Government about WEF influence on nation states. Said Schwab,

“We penetrate the cabinets. I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half this (Canadian) cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. It’s true in Argentina, it’s true in France—now with the President, who is a young global leader.” [8]

In addition to Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland, there are others in the Trudeau cabinet who are either graduates of the Young Global Leader WEF program, and/or have attended Davos meetings. [9] These include:

In a 39-member cabinet, at least 14 ministers around the table have WEF connections. A block of the cabinet, headed by Trudeau, embracing the mission and values of the WEF, can plausibly try to achieve the WEF mission in federal decisions. In addition, there are former cabinet ministers and deputy ministers who have WEF connections.

As Klaus Schwab pointed out, 19 members of the Trudeau cabinet in 2017 had WEF connections. Other persons of influence in Canadian politics with WEF connections include:

Schwab and the WEF have broadcast the pandemic as a window of opportunity for a “Great Reset” under which the global economy would be built back better. Justin Trudeau participated in a virtual press conference with the UN on September 29, 2020 telling how Canadian pandemic policy was part of an economic “reset.” [10]

The Great Reset is part of what the WEF envisions as catalyst for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The Trudeau Liberals have an agreement with the NDP to keep the government in power until 2025. NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, is also a WEF Young Global Leader graduate. [11]

2) Words are powerful, and the key to influencing group emotions is through the clever use of language

Edward Bernays advises that effective propaganda employs key words and phrases as emotional drivers to shift opinions of the masses to adhere to the agenda of those in charge.

On March 31, 2021, Justin Trudeau lauded Canadian truckers as heroes of the pandemic. He tweeted: “While many of us are working from home, there are others who aren’t able to do that – like truck drivers who are working day and night to make sure our shelves are stocked. So when you can, please #ThankATrucker for everything they’re doing and help them however you can.” [12]

In the past, Justin Trudeau has drawn on classic liberal values of tolerance and inclusion to frame discussion of an event that resulted in deaths in America. The CBC’s Peter Mansbridge asked Trudeau for his response to the April 15th Boston Marathon attacks that killed three people and left 265 injured. Trudeau said he would offer the Americans material support

“and…we have to look at the root causes.…there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded….At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from? ….But we also need to make sure that as we go forward, that we don’t emphasize a culture of fear and mistrust. Because that ends up marginalizing even further those who already are feeling like they are enemies of society.”

In response to Trudeau’s statement, Prime Minister Stephen Harper slammed Trudeau saying “Don’t sit around trying to rationalize it.” [13]

Earlier during the pandemic, it was the tolerant, understanding, Trudeau on display. On May 9, 2021, on the Brandon Gonez Show, the prime minister addressed the matter of mRNA vaccine hesitancy saying,

“What do you do with someone with an allergy? What do you do with someone who’s immunocompromised, or someone who for religious reasons…or deep convictions, decided that no, they’re not going to get a vaccine? We’re not a country that makes vaccination mandatory.” [14]

Canadians needed to be compassionate, to empathize with those who were hesitant in stepping forward and put an experimental vaccine in their body that hadn’t gone through standard trials. There was no plan to require mandatory vaccination.

There was a solid basis for questioning the rationale behind any plans for mass vaccination of the mRNA vaccines. On August 6, 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that the Covid-19 vaccines did not stop or reduce transmission, or prevent infection. [15] Why vaccinate a whole population with a non-sterilizing vaccine that didn’t prevent transmission or prevent infection against a disease? (As I write this the triple-vaxxed prime minister has gone into isolation after testing positive for Covid-19 a second time). [16] Especially, when the infection fatality rate was in the zone of the seasonal flu – where at least 99.75% survived infection. And those most at risk were obese or had multiple co-morbidities. [17]

But during the federal election campaign in late summer 2021, the prime minister did a 180-degree reversal. Trudeau’s Liberals had been polling behind the Conservatives. Between August 24 and September 9th, the Conservatives were ahead of the Liberals in 54 polls – with as much as a 7.9% lead on August 30 – and Trudeau’s party ahead in just 10 polls. [18] So, on August 30, 2021, at a campaign stop in Sudbury, Ontario, Justin Trudeau told a crowd “The folks out there, the anti-vaxxers, they’re wrong…. They are putting at risk their own kids, and they’re putting at risk our kids.” He spoke about the need for only “the vaccinated” to be able to travel by plane or train, “so they don’t have to worry that somebody (unvaccinated) is going to put them in danger seated next to them, or across the aisle.” [19] The underlying assumption was that when vaccinated passengers on a plane were together, they would pose less of a risk to each other compared to an unvaccinated passenger. Yet, CDC Director Rachel Walensky conceded getting vaccinated didn’t prevent transmission or infection.

Ten months later, on June 15, 2022, the head epidemiologist for the Public Health Agency of Canada would admit, under cross-examination by freedom convoy lawyer Keith Wilson Q.C., that they “never recommended vaccination of air travelers” to the Trudeau government. This was supported by a sworn affidavit.

Wilson comments that

“the written advice…provided did not identify vaccination as a mitigation strategy. They identified masking. They identified spacing at arrivals, departures and on the planes…. The top epidemiologist for the government of Canada volunteered that the reason they didn’t recommend vaccination for travelers was that the scientific evidence doesn’t support that it would be effective.” [20]

But in the final week of the election campaign, on September 16, 2021, in a TV interview with Julie Synder on La semaine des 4 Julie, Justin Trudeau referred to those who weren’t getting the mRNA vaccine as “racists, misogynists, white supremacists.” He mused “Do we tolerate these people?” [21] The prime minister used vaccine status as a wedge issue to build support for his re-election campaign before the September 21 election. Most Canadians would agree that hatred of other people based on their skin colour, or gender, crossed a line. But what evidence did Trudeau have to suggest the unvaccinated were racists and misogynists? He asserted this was true. A majority of citizens accepted the claim without any scrutiny. Those who didn’t get the mRNA vaccine were labelled as “anti-vaxxers.” The Liberals closed the gap. On election day, they were just 1% behind the Conservatives. Though Trudeau got 191,000 votes less than the Conservatives, he got another minority government.

In a press conference for the UN on September 29, 2021, Trudeau expressed the view that the world needed to achieve “zero COVID.” [22] Nothing less than eradicating COVID-19 would be acceptable for the nations of the world. And the only solution, given Trudeau’s insistence that “we’ve got the science,” was 100 percent vaccination of every Canadian. For those who didn’t buckle, the consequences were severe. Employment Minister Carla Qualtrough announced on October 21, 2021 that those who failed to get vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine would in many workplaces lose their jobs. “It’s a condition of employment that hasn’t been met,” Qualtrough said in an interview with CBC’s Power & Politics. “And the employer choosing to terminate someone for that reason would make that person ineligible for EI.” [23]

Over the fall, the unvaccinated were warned they would no longer be able to board a train or a plane within Canada, or leave the country. A November 30 headline in Toronto’s City News announced “Unvaccinated travelers barred from trains and planes as of today.”[24]  In step with these developments, New Brunswick’s Minister of Health, Dorothy Shephard, announced a “winter action plan” that tasked all businesses that provide essentials such as food to require proof of vaccination from clients. Critics objected that the “winter action plan” was a violation of human rights, since  accessing food is a basic need. [25]

In Quebec, Premier François Legault announced on January 12, 2022, that his province would start routinely taxing the unvaccinated. CTV cited the example in Austria as instructive. “In Austria, for example, people 14 and older will face fines of about $5,150 CAD (3,600 Euros) every three months, starting in February, if they’re not vaccinated, according to Reuters.” [26] There was no suggestion in the article that CTV thought the anticipated tax on the unvaccinated in Austria was problematic. CTV reported that comments from politicians and provincial health officers over the fall and winter had agitated the vaccinated toward the unvaccinated. CTV cited an EKOS poll showing 66% of Canadians were losing patience with the unvaccinated. And 60% wanted more penalties and restrictions for those who didn’t comply with vaccine mandates.

Justin Trudeau announced that unvaccinated truckers would no longer be allowed to cross the Canada-U.S. border, effective January 15, 2022. The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters had all asked the federal government to either eliminate or postpone the mandate. [27]

It was estimated that as many as 32,000, or 20%, of the 160,000 Canadian and American cross-border truck drivers would have their livelihood impacted by being taken off the highways by the government’s new measure. The new mandate crossed a line for many Canadians. Based on transmission of the virus by the vaccinated, and truckers never being super-spreaders, there was no defensible medical reason to require them to be vaccinated. By January 22 a Trucker Freedom Convoy formed in Prince George and Vancouver, British Columbia. Their destination was Ottawa.

On January 26, Prime Minister Trudeau boasted once again that he was “following the science,” ridiculing convoy supporters as a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views.” [28] In contrast with his eagerness to understand the Boston Marathon bombers, Justin Trudeau wasn’t interested in trying to understand convoy protesters. Trudeau didn’t want to learn where tensions around the vaccine mandates for cross-border trucking came from. He refused to meet with convoy leaders. Instead of being cautious not to emphasize a culture of fear and mistrust, Trudeau made it clear those supporting the freedom convoy were a danger to society.

3) Any medium of communication is also a medium for propaganda

Another tool of propaganda Edward Bernays highlighted in his classic manual, as essential for those seeking to manipulate an unsuspecting citizenry, is communication. Today, this includes radio, print, TV, social media, podcasts, audio book services, sports and foreign news channel streaming, and employing Facebook fact-checkers, Big Tech censorship and YouTube banner.

When it came to vaccine hesitant Canadians and the trucker freedom convoy, the Trudeau Liberals already had a cozy relationship with the media. In 2018, the Trudeau Liberals gave $595 million in a “bailout” to over 1,500 Canadian media outlets. [29] Next, they paid the legacy media over $61 million before the September 2021 election to keep them in their corner with coverage friendly to the government. Reporting in the Lake Superior News, Spencer Fernando warned that these payments to the media had potential to subvert democracy. A media happy to receive these hundreds of millions of dollars could be disinclined to report stories troubling to the Liberals. [30]

Media coverage of the freedom convoy framed Trudeau as a noble leader beset by a throng of hoodlums, criminals, “terrorists, mercenaries…” In an effort to variously demean, defame and demonize the truckers, Canadian legacy media employed an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink strategy to agitate their audiences to feel repugnance toward convoy protesters.

At first, the media just ignored news about formation of the convoy. Next on January 22, there were reports of tie-ups on BC-Highway 99, from the US border to Vancouver. These were allegedly due to truckers protesting the conditions of highways in British Columbia. This despite truck drivers in the province who knew damage from November rainstorms had washed out parts of highways, bridges in seven major provincial routes. The Department of Highways had opened highways before the year was through. Purportedly, a truck convoy from Surrey to Vancouver was protesting “ineffective” use of “de-icing equipment.” [31] Suddenly, the convoy protest about provincial highways morphed into one heading to Ottawa.

In the following weeks the bribed, bailed out, media described convoy protesters as angry, “Russian actors,” “fascists,” unimportant, [32] pyromaniacs, Confederates, white supremacists, Nazis, an embarrassment to the trucking industry, and more.

As the convoy headed east, on Jan 25, CTV ran this headline: “’So many angry people’: Experts say online conversation around trucker convoy veering into dangerous territory.” The network interviewed Kurt Phillips, founder of Anti-Racist Canada, who warned that he’d “seen people online calling the trucker convoy Canada’s version of the U.S. Capitol insurrection on Jan 6, 2021, for the truckers to ram their trucks into Parliament, and people encouraging the hanging of politicians.” Peter Smith with the Canadian Anti-Hate Network warned that “the largest groups…have been organized and managed by people who have connections to…the Yellow Vests, the separatist Western movements. So right from the start, this began as part of fringe politics.” [32]

Turning from alleged racist motives, the Convoy was next framed as inspired by Russian President Vladimir Putin. “Russian actors” had instigated the convoy. CBC reporter Nil Koksal mused, “Given Canada’s support of Ukraine in this current crisis with Russia…there is a concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, perhaps even instigating it from the outside.” The CBC retracted the statement on February 4th. [33]

Washington Post cartoonist Michael de Adder published a cartoon illustrating a convoy of trucks, each with the word “FASCISM” written on its side. The phrase “Supply Chain” was written on the bottom of the frame. The truckers weren’t to be understood as asking the government to back up their claims that cross-border trucking would not have any impact on spread of COVID-19. After two years of shouting “we’ve got the science” in order to close down debate, the convoy protest was to be understood as a sudden eruption of fascism.

On January 29, CTV journalist Mackenzie Gray posted a photo of an individual carrying a confederate flag. Gray tweeted above the photo, “We’ve got our first confederate flag of the day here on Parliament Hill.” Florida governor Ron Desantis’ press secretary Christina Pushaw responded on Twitter to Gray’s tweet observing “You claim to be a journalist, so why don’t you interview him? You can ask him who he is – and why he is flying a Confederate flag. If you just post a picture like this with no context, it looks like you’re implying the entire convoy are racists. How do you know he isn’t a plant?” [35]

Why would Canadian truckers, pissed off at having their ability to make a living due to imposition of cross-border vaccine mandates, want to bring a Confederate flag, a symbol of pre-American Civil War defense of slavery? It was convenient for media to use the photo of a Confederate flag to switch discussion from the merits of cross-border vaccination mandates. Instead, reporters could conjure the ghost of Robert E. Lee, inferring convoy protesters wanted to establish slavery in Canada.

On January 29, the Globe & Mail ran this headline:

“Almost one in five Canadian truckers is South Asian, but many don’t see themselves represented in the trucker convoy.”

Reporter Uday Rana claimed Sikh truck drivers hadn’t been invited to take part in the convoy. [36] Yet, it was clear from video taken by those attending the convoy protests that there were many South Asian and Sikh truck drivers present. [37] Numerous tweets and posts online underscored the ethnic diversity of the convoy protesters. Indigenous drummers were leading the crowd by Parliament Hill in singing O Canada. [38]

On January 28, CTV ran a story with the headline ‘Embarrassment for the industry’: Not all truckers support the ‘freedom convoy’” The story began, “A so-called ‘freedom convoy’ of truckers and supporters is on its way to Ottawa…” A trucker from London, Ontario was interviewed who thought the convoy was “an embarrassment for the industry.” Mike Millian, president of the Private Motor Truck Council of Canada told CTV

“Our organization’s become very concerned about…racist remarks comparing (the mandate) to Nazis and communism – things that are not compatible to what’s going on right now.”

Video playing in the background on CTV showed truck after truck with Canadian flags, and a sea of supporters with Canadian flags everywhere.  [39] The previous week Millian had decried the “state of chaos” and “mass confusion” the Trudeau Liberals had thrown the trucking industry into by enforcing a vaccine mandate on drivers to cross the US-Canada border. [40]

4) Reiterating the same idea over and over creates habits and convictions

Edward Bernays details in Propaganda how repeating ideas over and over again helps ordinary citizens to adopt new convictions and habits that aid agendas of the those in charge. Repeating the same idea again and again is a form of neuro-linguistic programming. Repetition can plant certain concepts or emotions in the subconscious mind. There are many examples of repetition being used effectively during the pandemic. One is the WEF phrase “build back better,” used as a campaign slogan by U.S. President Joe Biden. Justin Trudeau has repeatedly shut down scrutiny about the basis for his pandemic measures by telling people to “trust the science.” We are to assume this is medical science and not political science. Throughout the freedom convoy protest, the 24/7-in-your-face death statistics and case numbers, continued apace, promoting the pervasiveness of a pandemic.

Nobody ever asked what happened to seasonal flu and pneumonia. Or mentioned that the hospitals are always full with these afflictions in the winter months, in any case. Building on the legacy media’s everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to discrediting, demeaning and demonizing the truckers, politicians continued to step forward with new allegations which they repeated over and over and over.

a) Vandals

Trucker Freedom Convoy lawyer, Keith Wilson Q.C., reports that during the first week after the trucks arrived they were vandalized. “Groups of Antifa were coming through at night in their black hoodies and backpacks and black jeans. And they would come when the truckers were sleeping and knife their tires and cut their air lines and spray paint the trucks. They would vandalize the trucks. So, each block had a block captain for that area of trucks. And they had a watch system so that when an Antifa person would show up, the trucker would grab them, call 9-1-1 and the police would come, arrest that guy and take him away. That would happen three instances in the night. Guess what the police chief would do the next day? He’d say ‘we had three arrests for property damage in the downtown core last night’ The arrests were Antifa, the 9-1-1 calls were from truckers.” But Ottawa police left it to the media to infer the vandals, those responsible for “property damage,” were convoy protesters. [41]

b) Arsonists

On the morning of February 6, Matias Munoz alleged two arsonists came to an apartment building at Metcalfe and Lisgar at 5 AM. They had on them fire starter bricks in the lobby. Munoz tweeted: “One of them taped the door handles so no one could get in or out” (including the arsonists). According to the story, a tenant saw the arsonists lighting a fire in the lobby, asked if they were truckers. And then decided to go to bed without calling 911. Which is what you’d do if you knew you were in a building that was on fire. Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson held an emergency meeting of city council condemning the “malicious intent” of the convoy protesters. *“*Yesterday we learned of a horrific story that clearly demonstrates the malicious intent of the protesters occupying our city.” [42]

But the Ottawa Deputy Chief told the press on February 8, “We don’t have any direct linkage between the occupation — the demonstrators — and that act.” [43] On March 21, Ottawa police confirmed the person charged with the February 6th arson had nothing to do with the convoy protest. [44]

On April 8th, Rex Murphy reported in the National Post:

“This week, we found out that the attempt to burn down an apartment building in Ottawa, which was so widely and wildly heralded during the Freedom Convoy protest, had nothing to do with the truckers. Please let this sink in. At the time, such was the volume of assumption, innuendo and outright allegation that everyone from Nanaimo, B.C., to Nain, N.L., formed the impression that this despicable action, an outrage by any standard, was the work of the truckers. Not true. False. Nothing to do at all with the protesters. It was allegedly the work of two Ottawa miscreants who were working alone.” [45]

c) Criminals with weapons

In addition to the specter of lawlessness and arson, politicians began to paint the truckers as violent in other ways. During a press conference on February 17, a Francophone reporter pointed out that Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino had been “insinuating for days” that weapons were being brought to Ottawa, or were in Ottawa with the convoy. Mendicino replied, *“*I am not saying that there is an intelligence saying there are weapons in Ottawa.” [46]

At a March 24 House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety, Conservative MP Dane Lloyd pressed Ottawa Police Service (OPS) Interim Chief Steve Bell to confirm *“*Were loaded firearms (at the Freedom Convoy) found? Yes or no?” Bell replied, “In relation to—no, not relating to any charges to this point…at no point did we lay any firearms-related charges. ” [47]

Yet, as Rex Murphy observed “The protest has been actually not mainly but overwhelmingly peaceful, and the political and major press response, wildly alarmist and ominous. Ottawa shops remain with their windows intact, no assaults on police stations or police being bombarded with sticks and stones, no armed patrols by the truckers telling people where they could go or not go, and a splendid number of rather endearing incidents that have failed to make it to national or local press.” [48]

Even Public Safety Minister Marco Mendocino’s own staff were telling him the protests were peaceful. Director General of the Government Operations Centre, Deryck Trehearne, confirmed that “the majority of the event was peaceful…disruption of government activities is minor.” Ottawa senior Public Safety officials advised Mendocino that convoy organizers were encouraging participants to keep lanes of obstruction-free, clear vehicles out of residential areas, and be respectful of the police. [49]

Speaking on the Emergencies Act vote before the Canadian Senate on February 22nd, Senator Denise Batters cited her firsthand experience of the protest. “My office faces right onto Wellington Street, and I had a front row seat to this convoy for the past weeks. What I witnessed of protesters was peaceful, organized and non-threatening. I do not tolerate harassment, intimidation or destruction, ever. But I did not see any of that behaviour exhibited by the protesters. I have been here in Ottawa during all three weeks of the protest. I can say, that in the last two years, I never felt safer walking home from my office at night. The protesters I met…reminded me of the people I know in Saskatchewan: friendly, hard-working, patriotic Canadians…. These truckers are our constituents and it is our job as parliamentarians to hear them out…. They drove all the way to Ottawa from those Saskatchewan towns. Birch Hills is almost 3,000 kilometers, a 32-hour drive away. To simply have a conversation….What is the national emergency this time? Dance parties and loud horns? Horns that, by the way, had long stopped honking by the time this act was invoked, due to a court injunction that the truckers complied with.” [50]

An Ottawa resident named David, who saw the convoy below his bedroom window, echoed Batters assessment after speaking with the protesters.

“As I finally made my way back home, after talking to dozens of truckers into the night, I realized I met someone from every province except PEI. They all have a deep love for this country. They believe in it. They believe in Canadians. These are the people that Canada relies on to build its infrastructure, deliver its goods, and fill the ranks of its military in times of war. The overwhelming concern they have is that the vaccine mandates are creating an untouchable class of Canadians. They…see their government willing to push a class of people outside the boundaries of society, deny them a livelihood, and deny them full membership in the most welcoming country in the world; And they said enough.”  [51]

Batters observed that “Prime Minister Trudeau brought in the Emergencies Act as a first, and not a last, resort.” As well she noted, “Both houses of Parliament were able to meet for weeks, mere steps away from the protesters. Prime Minister Trudeau and his senior cabinet ministers attended several question periods in House of Commons sittings in person. If there were a true public order emergency, surely  none of that would have been allowed to have occurred.” She reminded the Senate that the Emergency Act wasn’t invoked even “during the October 2014 Parliament Hill shooting. And I remember that well, because I was locked in a caucus room for ten hours with my colleagues throughout.” [52]

d) Unfit parents

In addition to allegations of threatening use of weapons, the truckers were viewed as reckless parents who rightfully should have their children apprehended. “I can only say that there have been ongoing reports regarding child welfare concerns, and that we consider all information received to determine the best response,” said a spokesperson for the Ottawa Children’s Aid Society. Under the Emergencies Act invoked by Prime Minister Trudeau on Valentine’s Day, February 14, bringing children to the demonstrations was now prohibited. If a child was in the cab of a truck, it would result in a potential fine of $5,000 or up to five years in prison. Ottawa police said roughly 25 per cent of the vehicles in the blockades had children in them. Convoy protesters’ children had been playing in bouncy castles, dancing to music and playing outdoor hockey over the previous weeks. [53]

e) Insurrectionists, terrorists

Convoy protestors were also accused of being terrorists. Ottawa City Councillor Diane Deans referred to the protest as part of a “nationwide insurrection,” and the protesters themselves were “terrorists” and “mercenaries.”  [54] When crowdfunding efforts raised over $14 million combined in regular and cryptocurrency donations, media commentators alleged it was the work of domestic and foreign terrorism, and supporters of Donald Trump. However, Barry MacKillop, deputy-director of FINTRAC, the federal organization that goes after terrorism funds and criminal money-laundering, told the Commons finance committee that there was not a shred of illegal activity associated with the trucker convoy. [55] The protests had nothing to do with domestic terrorism or money-laundering. [56]

f) Illegal protest

Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland and other Liberal cabinet ministers, repeatedly referred to the convoy protest as “illegal.” But on February 7, Ontario Chief Justice McLean ruled the protest was legal. He wrote, “the defendants and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest.” However, the repeated mantra of the protest being labelled illegal, gave many Canadians the impression the protests were against the law. [57] Freeland made the claim again on June 15, 2022, before the Parliamentary Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of the Emergency. [58]

5) One can manipulate individual actions by creating circumstances that modify group customs

In his book Propaganda, Edward Bernays discusses how clever propaganda will seek to shift citizen behaviour to change customs.

a) right to peaceful assembly

A long established custom enshrined in the democratic traditions in Canada has been the right of peaceful assembly, of the right to protest. This is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [59] Many protesters were familiar with key sections of the Charter, including

Former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford was among the First Ministers who drafted and signed the Charter in 1982. On February 12, Peckford told Freedom Convoy protesters in Ottawa that the vaccine mandates for truckers and travel mandates were in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Without informed consent, and not allow the mRNA vaccine to be optional, the government was in violation rights protecting “security of the person.” [60]

Justin Trudeau’s many verbal attacks on convoy protesters sent a message that where citizens formerly had the right to peaceful assembly, this was now the case only as long as it didn’t upset the government.

Convoy leaders, including Brian Peckford, were asking to meet with Trudeau and key public health officials to hold them accountable.

They wanted to discuss Trudeau’s claims that the vaccine mandates were in fact based on science.

They wanted to discuss the vaccine mandates in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Trudeau, Dr. Theresa Tam and Dr. Howard Njoo (Public Health Agency of Canada), and Dr. Shelley Deeks (chair of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization) refused to meet with convoy leaders. [61] Instead, Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time since its creation in 1988. [62] (His father had invoked its predecessor, the War Measures Act, in 1970 to deal with the FLQ Crisis).

A Wall Street Journal headline asked “Will Canadian Democracy Survive Justin Trudeau?: His father invoked emergency powers in 1970—but that was against terrorists, not peaceful protesters.” WSJ wondered “will Canada return to its peaceful, democratic roots? Or will this episode transform into something more sinister and undemocratic. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has certainly acted like a tinpot dictator. Mr. Trudeau refused to meet with Freedom Convoy organizers or protesters in Ottawa….the PM was nowhere to be seen. Instead of finding ways to diffuse this tense situation, Mr. Trudeau’s approach was to throw more gasoline on the fire. The absentee Prime Minister would infrequently grace the nation with his presence to mock and smear his opponents.” In another editorial, the paper concluded “Government’s job is to maintain public order while respecting civil liberties. Canada has failed on both scores.” [63]

On February 17 Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, decreed bank accounts and assets of all convoy protesters, and those who donated to their cause, would be frozen. [64] The message was clear: if Canadians wanted to protest government policies, they might not be able to have access to their bank accounts, to pay mortgages, the rent. This caused a run on the banks, according to Martha Durdin, CEO of the Canadian Credit Unions Association, who testified before a Parliamentary committee in early March. [65] There was also a run on precious metals, which largely were unavailable as an alternative place to store wealth.

Convoy lawyer, Keith Wilson, told Viva Frei, “I have it from a very high source, that a) the banks realized what had happened when they saw how their customers reacted. Having people who don’t trust your institution…is bad for your business model. There were some people withdrawing millions of dollars from their accounts. As well, big financial players in the investment community in the USA weighed in. They were asking if investing in Canada was now like investing in Venezuela or Cuba. “What just happened to Canada? I thought it had the rule of law. I thought  it had checks and balances.” There was a phone call to the PMO from Wall Street which cautioned, ‘We are going to publicly distance ourselves from your actions. We are going to criticize your actions. You have 24 hours to reverse them.’ So, Justin Trudeau held a press conference and said ‘circumstances have changed and now it’s time for Canada…’” [66]

The freezing of bank accounts sent a chill across the nation. Citizens were second guessing whether making a donation to this or that organization would be frowned upon by the government. Freezing bank accounts and sending police to violently break up a peaceful protest on Parliament Hill eroded trust in democracy. This created charitable donation hesitancy. Going forward, would more people worry more about ‘not saying the wrong thing’ and ‘not getting into trouble,’ rather than challenging the status quo?

Christine Van Geyn of the Canadian Constitution Foundation observed that even when the Emergencies Act was withdrawn on February 23, the chill remained. On the plain text of the regulations to freeze bank accounts, “even a $20 donation could result in accounts being frozen. At the House finance committee, Isabelle Jacques, an assistant deputy minister in the Department of Finance, was asked why the federal government felt the need to declare an emergency when existing laws could also be used to freeze illegal donations, as they were in Ontario under Sec. 490.8 of the Criminal Code. Her answer: to ‘make an impression upon those considering offering financial support.’” [67] All because Trudeau lacked the courage to talk to the truckers.

b) Freedom’s just another word

Before the trucker freedom convoy, freedom was a common Canadian value. It is foundational to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Truckers protested vaccine mandates as part of the Trudeau government’s attack on Charter rights and freedoms. This included restrictions on citizen rights of mobility: “to enter, remain in and leave Canada.” As well, truckers were protesting infringements on their right “to pursue the gaining of a livelihood.” Many trucks in the convoy had Canadian flags and the word “freedom.” Many placards on Wellington Street in Ottawa read “freedom.”

Tens of thousands of truck drivers were sidelined by the government’s measure. They drove from the west and east coast to Ottawa in minus thirty degree temperatures. They wanted to talk to their politicians. They wanted the validity of these pandemic measures put under scrutiny.

But, many in establishment circles didn’t want pandemic measures debated. There could be no scrutinizing the basis was for the oft repeated “trust the science” mantra. Instead, the protesters claims their Charter rights had been violated was characterized as exaggerated.

In an opinion piece to the Globe and Mail, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Beverley McLachlin wrote “The Ottawa truck convoy has revealed the ugly side of freedom.” McLachlin wondered “what does this vaunted ‘freedom’ mean? The answer is, everything and nothing. Everything: the right not to wear masks in public places; the right not to be vaccinated; the right to hold Ottawa’s downtown residents and businesses hostage; the right to malign public officials and call for the Prime Minister’s death; the right to shout epithets at people of colour. And nothing. Because freedom is an empty word unless you ask further questions: Freedom from what? Freedom to do what? And beyond that, ‘Where do my freedoms end and the freedoms of others begin?’….The bottom line is that you can’t use your freedoms in a way that unreasonably conflicts with or affects the freedoms of other people. The freedoms guaranteed by the Charter stop where they harm others. With freedom comes responsibility.” [68]

McLachlin continued, “The heady notion of freedom, defined as the unconstrained right to do what you want free of government limits, serves as a cloak for actions that harm women, men and children…. people who don’t look like you or talk like you. Sadly, the Ottawa truckers’ convoy has revealed this ugly side of freedom.” [69]

McLachlin is no doubt a victim of slanted government propaganda. She’d been treated to a mono-message repeated by media that has piled claim after claim, and allegation upon allegation, with reckless abandon. McLachlin, and most members of the Canadian establishment trust the news they follow to provide fairness and accuracy in reporting.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms signatory Brian Peckford commented on his own inclination to initially trust what those in charge were saying. On June 8, 2022, in an interview Peckford said “The first inclination as a former first minister, first inclination – especially as a Canadian – is to trust what people are saying to you. The Public Health Agency of Canada, the various departments of health in all the provinces, and the Provincial Health Officers – and so your first inclination as Canadians – how nice we all are – you say to the government ‘they’re doing the right thing.’” [70] But, in time, Peckford began to question the vaccine mandates. Especially once it was clear the vaccines didn’t prevent infection or transmission.

Like Brian Peckford, one can safely assume that Beverly McLachlin is inclined to trust what people in charge are saying, and trust mainstream media reports. She likely hadn’t read reports by Indo-Canadian reporter Rupa Subramanya. Nearly two weeks into the protest, Subramanya had interviewed over 100 protesters. From Day 1 she went into the convoy crowd multiple times daily to ask people why they’d come to Ottawa. She noted “not one of them sounded like an insurrectionist, white supremacist, racist or misogynist.” Subramanya spoke to “Kamal Pannu, 33, is a Sikh immigrant and trucker from Montreal” who believed natural immunity is better than the vaccines as a strategy to move the nation forward. She spoke to “Matt Sim, 43, who immigrated to Canada from South Korea…and came to Ottawa with his wife to join the protests. He’d had Covid, and then he’d recovered, and he was skeptical of all the hysteria surrounding the vaccines.” [71]

The multi-ethnic convoy protesters were respectful of the evident diversity on Wellington Street – of people who didn’t look like or talk like them. The crowd was receptive when Asian-Canadian Doctor Daniel Nagase spoke from the stage and received nothing but applause. The same was the case for longtime Global TV news writer Indo-Canadian journalist Anita Krishna. [72] Dr. Julie Ponesse was another woman providing leadership, and speaking to a receptive crowd. [73]

On the weekend of February 18-20, when police aggressively moved in on peaceful convoy protesters, numbers of incidents were reported online. A muslim protester complained that police took his prayer mat, stomped on it and laughed at him. [74] On February 18, an elderly Mohawk woman, Candy Sero, was trampled by mounted police as she stood with her wheeled walker. She fell to the ground. A horse stepped on her shoulder. A man in the crowd started yelling with growing desperation, “Oh my gosh. Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Look what you did. Look what you did to her. Look what you did to her. Look what you did to her. You trampled on the lady… Shame on you. Shame on everyone of you. Shame on you…” [75] Sero lived, but suffered a broken clavicle.

Other scenes from February 18 included police beating a protester with the butt of a rifle. [76] Trucker Csaba Vizi was violently beaten and repeatedly kneed in the belly by at least three police on top of him. [77] These were not scenes of an ugly side of freedom. These were scenes of an ugly side of government overreach and police violence.

In an interview, the former host for 21 years of CBC’s Cross Country Check-up, Rex Murphy, spoke after police mobilized against convoy protesters. He wondered where were others in the Liberal cabinet who would say to the Prime Minister “You have overreached vastly. You have insulted the nature of this country, which is always the middle course, always the willingness to at least try to compromise and talk. And you’ve introduced false drama…the melodramatic idea of a great national emergency…” [78]

Former chief justice McLachlin contended persons involved with the convoy were calling “for the Prime Minister’s death.” Yet, late June 2022, searches on both Google and Qwant.comfound no news stories of anyone charged or arrested for issuing death threats against Justin Trudeau related to the convoy. Instead, searches produced news stories of people charged with issuing death threats against Trudeau in August 2021 [79], 2018, [80] 2017, [81] and by actor Alum Ryan Grantham. [82] Both Brian Peckford, and a convoy leader named Daniel Bulford, have confirmed in separate emails to me that they haven’t heard of any convoy protester who’s been charged or arrested for uttering death threats against Trudeau. [83]

An inquiry is now investigating the convoy protests in Ottawa and at several crossings along the Canada-U.S. border. The mandate is to focus not on government actions or whether there was just cause to invoke the Emergencies Act. [84] The inquiry is to look into disinformation, misinformation, crowdsourcing, foreign funding, and goals of the convoy. A fully accountable and transparent inquiry into the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act is required and nothing less. [85] Yet, it has so far devolved into a circus. [86] The Prime Minister’s Office will wait until February 13, 2023, to decide whether to release records related to the convoy. This is a week prior to the date the inquiry is set to release its report to Parliament. [87]

Canadians lined the Trans-Canada Highway and its overpasses all across Canada, in the frigid January weather, to cheer the truckers on. [88] This was not reported by the media Trudeau bought. At this moment, they are still infuriated [89] every day on Twitter. [90] Canadian Liberalism has collapsed. [91] Meanwhile, the legacy media will continue to spin and spin, so that those who trust their reports view 2022 as the Year of the Insurrection.

The travel mandates have been suspended for the moment, with one exception. Convoy lawyer Keith Wilson revealed the one exception to lifting vaccine mandates. Truckers are still not allowed to cross the Canada-U.S. border without being vaccinated. [92]

Two years of pandemic restrictions, social isolation from lockdowns, and suppression of dissenting viewpoints have deformed freedom of speech and its potential to flourish. In this context, propaganda is ever more dangerous. Politicians and the media had a bullhorn to use that went unchallenged until the freedom convoy went to Ottawa. For the first time in Canadian history, a protest in front of the Parliament Buildings was met with a Prime Minister refusing to meet with protesters. Even in the 1935 On-to-Ottawa Trek by farmers, Prime Minister R.B. Bennett listened to their grievances. Instead, convoy protesters were called Nazis, a smear Jewish protesters – like Benjamin Dichter who has family members buried in mass graves in Europe during WWII – rejected. [93]

Time-tested propaganda strategies for framing a discussion, and weaponizing it against a group, are alive and well in Canada in 2022. Democratic responsibility to uphold freedom of speech comes with inconveniences at times. There needs to be a sober reassessment of the Trudeau government’s conduct, and recognition of the battery of false allegations against convoy protesters for what they were: propaganda. The government needs to be held accountable. Its failure to safeguard democratic cornerstones in the face of the overwhelmingly peaceful convoy protest must be referred to the National Apology Advisory Committee. [94]

*

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

Ray McGinnis is author of Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored (2021). Previously, he authored Writing the Sacred: A Psalm-inspired Path to Appreciating and Writing Sacred Poetry (2005). Since 1999, Ray has taught journal writing workshops for people dealing with grief and loss, to first responders and in health care facilities. He has also taught poetry writing and memoir workshops across North America. Ray is interested in the stories we tell, the narratives we trust, and how this shapes our world. This includes not just personal stories, but news headline like the Narrative about September 11, and other headlines that saturate citizens with slanted media messages. Earlier in his career, Ray was a program staff in education for the United Church of Canada, serving in several congregations, as well as at the denominations national office (1986-95). He lives in Vancouver, Canada.

Notes

1. Bernays, Edward, Propaganda, Horace Liverlight, 1928, p. 9.https://archive.org/details/BernaysPropaganda/mode/2up?view=theater
2. Ibid., p. 49.
3. Subramanya, Rupa “Chrystia Freeland’s side gig with WEF is endangering Canadian democracy,” National Post, February 2, 2022.https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rupa-subramanya-chrystia-freelands-side-gig-with-the-wef-is-endangering-canadian-democracy
4. “Chrystia Freeland,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, August 24, 2020. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chrystia-freeland
5. “Leadership and Governance,” World Economic Forum, 2022.https://www.weforum.org/press/2020/09/world-economic-forum-appoints-new-members-to-board-of-trustees-3b4f679708
6. Take Back Our World, “‘You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy?’ – the Great Reset,” September 6 2021.https://globaleconomicforum.org/2021/09/06/you-will-own-nothing-and-you-will-be-happy-the-great-reset/
7. “People, Justin Trudeau, World Economic Forum,” World Economic Forum, 2020.https://www.weforum.org/people/justin-trudeau
8. Hopper, Tristin, “First Reading: Does WEF secretly control the Canadian government? (No, but it’s not an entirely crazy idea),” National Post, June 3, 2022.https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/first-reading-does-the-wef-secretly-control-the-canadian-government
9. “Who betrayed Canadians, concealing plans concocted at WEF?,” People for Justice Canada.https://peopleforjusticecanada.com/2020/12/20/who-betrayed-canadians-concealing-plans-concocted-at-wef/
10. “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau remarks,” UN press conference, September 29, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2fp0Jeyjvw&t=243s
11. “People: Jagmeet Singh,” World Economic Forum, 2020. https://www.weforum.org/people/jagmeet-singh
12. Wakerell-Cruz, Roberto, “Old Trudeau tweet tells Canadians to #ThankATrucker,” Postmellennial.com, January 25, 2022.https://thepostmillennial.com/old-trudeau-tweet-tells-canadians-to-thankatrucker
13. Fisher, Matthew and Cohen, Tobi, “‘Don’t sit around trying to rationalize it’: Harper slams Trudeau for response to Boston bombing,” National Post, April 17, 2013. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/trudeaus-response-to-boston-marathon-bombing-was-unacceptable-made-excuses-for-terrorists-harper-says
14. “What’s next for Canada. 1-on-1 with Justin Trudeau,” Brandon Gonez Show, May 9, 2021. https://brandongonezshow.com/episode/whats-next-for-canada-1-on-1-with-justin-trudeau-2/
15. Becker, Kylen, “CDC Director Admits to CNN that Covid Vaccines Don’t Prevent Transmission of the Virus,” August 6, 2021. https://rumble.com/vkte8s-cdc-director-admits-to-cnn-that-covid-vaccines-dont-prevent-transmission-of.html
16. Aiello, Rachel, “Prime Minister Trudeau tests positive for Covid-19 for a second time,” CTV, June 13, 2022. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/prime-minister-trudeau-tests-positive-for-covid-19-for-second-time-1.5944492
17. Dr. Sabine L. van Elsland, “Covid-19 deaths: Infection Fatality Ratio is about 1% says new report,” Imperial London College, October 29, 2020. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/
18. “Opinion polling for the 2021 Canadian federal election,” Wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Canadian_federal_election#Campaign_period
19. Akin, David, “Trudeau condemns anti-vax protesters, accuses them of endangering others,” Global News, August 31, 2021. https://globalnews.ca/news/8156568/trudeau-condemns-anti-vax-protesters-accuses-them-of-endangering-others/
20. Levant, Ezra, “Top epidemiologist for Public Health Agency of Canada NEVER recommended vaccination for air travel,” Rebel News, June 15, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFW0F8GFheE
21. Snyder, Julie, “Justin Trudeau débarque à La semaine des 4 Julie,” La semaine des 4 Julie, September 16, 2021.https://m.facebook.com/JulieSnyderOfficiel/videos/965926357318548/?refsrc=deprecated&_rdr
22. “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau remarks,” UN press conference, September 29, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2fp0Jeyjvw&t=243s
23. Raycraft, Richard, “Don’t expect EI if you lose your job for not being vaccinated, minister says,” CBC, October 21, 2021. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ei-vax-status-1.6220287
24. Osman, Laura, “Unvaccinated travelers barred from trains and planes as of today,” City News, Toronto, November 30, 2021. https://toronto.citynews.ca/2021/11/30/canada-unvaccinated-travellers-covid/
25. Macon, Ken, “New Brunswick begins allowing essentials like grocery stores to ban those without a vaccine passport,” Reclaim the Net, December 5, 2021. https://reclaimthenet.org/new-brunswick-grocery-stores-vaccine-passports/
26. Lofaro, Joe, “Quebec wants to tax the unvaccinated, but is that legal?,” CTV, January 11, 2022. https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/quebec-wants-to-tax-the-unvaccinated-but-is-that-legal-1.5736383
27. Boisvert, Nick, “Critics, industry call on Ottawa to reconsider trucker vaccine mandate to protect supply chains,” CBC, January 6, 2022.https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trucking-vaccine-mandate-jan-15-1.6305476
28. Gilmore, Rachel, “‘Fringe minority’ in truck convoy with ‘unacceptable views’ don’t represent Canadians,” Global News, January 26, 2022.https://globalnews.ca/news/8539610/trucker-convoy-covid-vaccine-mandates-ottawa
29. Ahmed, Alex Anas, “Zero jobs created for Canadian media from Trudeau’s $595 Million bailout: Report,” Postmillennial.com, July 23, 2021. https://thepostmillennial.com/no-job-creation-for-media-in-595-million-bailout-report
30. Fernando, Spencer, “Secret government payouts to media subvert democracy,” Lake Superior News, Thunder Bay, Ontario, August 11, 2021. https://lakesuperiornews.com/News/secret-liberal-government-payments-to-media-subvert-democracy
31. Langager, Brody, “BC Truckers protest unsafe highways,” My Cariboo Now, January 23, 2022.https://www.mycariboonow.com/78182/news/bc-truckers-protest-unsafe-highways/
32. Reevely, David, Twitter, 12:18 PM, January 29, 2022.https://twitter.com/davidreevely/status/1487520444290846734?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1487520444290846734|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftnc.news%2F2022%2F01%2F30%2Fthe-canadian-legacy-medias-ten-worst-spins-on-the-truckersforfreedom-convoy%2F
33. Cousins, Ben, “‘So many angry people’: Experts say online conversation around trucker convoy veering into dangerous territory,” CTV, January 25, 2022. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/so-many-angry-people-experts-say-online-conversation-around-trucker-convoy-veering-into-dangerous-territory-1.5754580
34. “CBC issues clarification over claim Kremlin behind truckers’ protest,” Toronto Sun, February 4, 2022.https://torontosun.com/news/national/cbc-issues-clarification-over-claim-kremlin-behind-truckers-protest
35. Pushaw, Christina, Twitter, January 29, 11:20 AMhttps://twitter.com/ChristinaPushaw/status/1487506015709011972?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1487506015709011972|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftnc.news%2F2022%2F01%2F30%2Fthe-canadian-legacy-medias-ten-worst-spins-on-the-truckersforfreedom-convoy%2F
36. Rana, Uday, “Almost one in five Canadian truckers is South Asian, but many don’t see themselves represented in trucker convoy,” Globe & Mail, January 29, 2022.https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-almost-one-in-five-canadian-truckers-is-south-asian-but-many-dont-see/
37. Unacceptable Nat, Twitter, January 28, 2022, 9:21 AMhttps://twitter.com/GenuineNat/status/1487113733621043200?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1487113733621043200|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftnc.news%2F2022%2F01%2F30%2Fthe-canadian-legacy-medias-ten-worst-spins-on-the-truckersforfreedom-convoy%2F
38. Baisch Beth and Isidorou, Angelo, “Indigenous drummers lead crowd in O Canada in support of truckers’ convoy,” Postmillennial.com, January 29, 2022. https://thepostmillennial.com/must-watch-indigenous-drummers-lead-crowd-in-o-canada-in-support-of-truckers-convoy/
39. Yun, Tom, “‘Embarrassment for the industry’: Not all truckers support the ‘freedom convoy,’” CTV, January 27, 2022. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/embarrassment-for-the-industry-not-all-truckers-support-the-freedom-convoy-1.5757952
40. Neustaeter, Brooklyn, “‘Mass confusion’ amid changing messaging on trucker vaccine mandate: industry leader,” CTV, January 14, 2022.https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mass-confusion-amid-changing-messaging-on-trucker-vaccine-mandate-industry-leader-1.5739996
41. Frei, Viva, “Live Stream with Ottawa Convoy Attorney Keith Wilson!” Viva Frei Live! podcast, March 25, 2022.
42. Ottawa police arson unit investigates fire lit in downtown apartment lobby,” CBC, February 7, 2022. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-police-arson-investigation-fire-apartment-lobby-1.6342347
43. “Ottawa Deputy Police Chief on Response to Trucker Protest,” Ottawa Police Press Conference, Ottawa, February 8, 2022. https://www.cpac.ca/episode?id=fa5721d6-af8b-48d9-9848-73dcf1459838
44. Lord, Craig, “Ottawa man charged in February apartment arson, police dismiss convoy connection,” Global News, March 21, 2021. https://globalnews.ca/news/8698744/ottawa-arson-freedom-convoy-arrest/
45. Murphy, Rex, “Will anyone apologize for falsely accusing truckers of attempted arson in Ottawa?,” National Post, April 8, 2022. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-will-anyone-apologize-for-falsely-accusing-truckers-of-attempted-arson-in-ottawa
46. “Remarks by Chrystia Freeland, Marco Mendocino: Freeland says Emergencies Act begins cracking down on convoy funds,” Press Conference, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, February 17, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvMZvazmT0Q
47. Chartier, Noe, “Media Report, Liberal Minister Spread ‘Misinformation’ on Convoy Firearms Claims: Tory MP,”Epoch Times, March 25, 2022. https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-report-liberal-minister-spread-misinformation-on-convoy-firearms-claims-tory-mp_4362003.html
48. Murphy, Rex, “Media’s Alarmist Reporting of Trucker Protest and Trudeau’s Intolerant Rhetoric Are Shameful,” Epoch Times, February 4, 2022. https://forums.canadiancontent.net/threads/rex-murphy-medias-alarmist-reporting-of-trucker-protest-and-trudeaus-intolerant-rhetoric-are-shameful.172188/
49. Reid, Sheila Gunn, “Police told Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino in an email that the convoy was peaceful,” Rebel News, June 14, 2022. https://www.rebelnews.com/police_told_public_safety_minister_marco_mendicino_in_an_email_that_the_convoy_was_peaceful
50. Batters, Senator Denise, “Senator Denise Batters Gives Riveting Speech on Public Emergency Vote,” Senate of Canada Building, February 22, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mEwghtSEVo
51. David, “A night with the untouchables,” The Reformed Physicist, February 3, 2022. https://maybury.ca/the-reformed-physicist/2022/02/03/a-night-with-the-untouchables/
52. Batters, Senator Denise, “Senator Denise Batters Gives Riveting Speech on Public Emergency Vote,” Senate of Canada Building, February 22, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mEwghtSEVo
53. Connolly, Amanda and Khan, Ahmar, “Ottawa police issue new warning amid convoy blockade: ‘leave the area now’,” Global News, February 16, 2022. https://globalnews.ca/news/8624024/ottawa-convoy-blockade-police-action/
54. Wheeler, Tristan, “Ottawa Councillor says Freedom Convoy Protesters are ‘Terrorists’ who are ‘Torturing’ locals,” Narcity Media, Toronto, February 6, 2022. https://www.narcity.com/ottawa-councillor-says-freedom-convoy-protestors-are-terrorists-who-are-torturing-locals
55. Bordman, Daniel, “FINTRAC Destroys Liberals’ Narrative – Convoy Funding Not “Terrorism” Or “Money Laundering,” National Telegraph, March 15, 2022. https://thenationaltelegraph.com/national/fintrac-destroys-liberals-narrative-convoy-funding-not-terrorism-or-money-laundering
56. Dzsurdzsa, Cosmin, “Convoy donations came from fed-up people, not terrorists: FINTRAC,” True North, February 25, 2022. https://tnc.news/2022/02/25/convoy-donations-came-from-fed-up-people-not-terrorists-fintrac/
57. “Read Court Document: Lawyer says judge sees the Freedom Convoy protest as peaceful and lawful,” Farmer’s Forum, April 13, 2022. https://farmersforum.com/read-court-document-lawyer-says-judge-sees-the-freedom-convoy-protest-as-peaceful-and-lawful/
58. “Freeland gets grilled for relying on false CBC story for invoking the Emergencies Act,” Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, June 15, 2022.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbohnuZUl4&t=1s
59. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Government of Canada. https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html
60. Peckford, Brian, “Last Living Premier Who Signed Canada’s Charter in Speech to Freedom Convoy: Section 1 of Charter Being ‘Illegally’ Used by Governments,” Epoch Times, February 13, 2022. https://www.theepochtimes.com/last-living-premier-to-sign-canadas-charter-in-speech-to-freedom-convoy-section-1-of-charter-being-illegally-used-by-governments_4274213.html
61. Krishna, Anita, “Will Our Health Officials Please Stand Up,” Rumble, February 12, 2022. https://rumble.com/vuqqfw-will-our-health-officials-please-stand-up.html
62. Cecco, Leyland, “Trudeau Invokes Rare Emergency Powers in attempt to quell protests,” Guardian, February 14, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/14/canada-protests-justin-trudeau-use-rare-emergency-powers
63. Taube, Michael, “Will Canadian Democracy Survive Justin Trudeau?,” February 21, 2022. https://www.wsj.com/articles/canadian-democracy-survive-justin-trudeau-freedom-convoy-peaceful-protest-ottawa-unacceptable-views-emergency-act-civil-liberties-11645472383
64. Tasker, John Paul, “Banks have started to freeze accounts linked to the protests,” CBC, February 17, 2022. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-protests-frozen-bank-accounts-1.6355396
65. Murdoch, Anthony, “Canadians withdrew millions of dollars from banks after Trudeau ordered accounts frozen,” Lifesite, March 21, 2022. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadians-withdrew-millions-of-dollars-from-banks-after-trudeau-ordered-some-accounts-frozen/
66. Frei, Viva, “Live Stream with Ottawa Convoy Attorney Keith Wilson!” Viva Frei Live! podcast, March 25, 2022.
67. Van Geyn, Christine and Baron, Joanna, ” Opinion: Even after being revoked, the Emergencies Act is creating a chill on charities,” National Post, March 8, 2022. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-even-after-being-revoked-the-emergencies-act-is-creating-a-chill-on-charities?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1646753322
68. McLachlin, Beverley, “The Ottawa convoy has revealed the ugly side of freedom,” Globe & Mail, February 22, 2022.https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-ottawa-truck-convoy-has-revealed-the-ugly-side-of-freedom/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
69. Ibid.
70. Humphrey, Drea, “Brian Peckford on cancel culture, legal challenge against travel mandates in Canada,” Rebel News, June 8, 2022https://www.rebelnews.com/interview_brian_peckford_on_cancel_culture_legal_challenge_against_travel_mandates_in_canada?utm_campaign=dh_peckford_6_10_22&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
71. Subramanya, Rupa, “What the truckers want,” Common Sense, February 10, 2022. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/what-the-truckers-want?s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=direct
72. Krishna, Anita, “MSM Whistleblower Anita Krishna,” February 8, 2022.https://www.bitchute.com/video/5cDKVuXhXQ46/
73. Ponesse, Dr. Julie, “Trucker Freedom Convoy – Dr. Julie Ponesse – Incredible Speech,” Bitchute.com, February 4, 2022. https://www.bitchute.com/video/cRWIv1y3Mew4/
74. “Police destroy Muslim man’s prayer mat,” YouTube.com, February 20, 2022.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOrKyaheLcg
75. Nightingale, Hannah, “Elderly woman trampled by mounted police at freedom protest in Ottawa,” Postmillennial.com, February 18, 2022. https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-woman-by-mounted-police-officers-in-ottawa
76. “Canadian Police Beat Peaceful Protester with Butt of a Rifle,” Rumble.com, February 18, 2022. https://rumble.com/vva7s0-canadian-police-beat-peaceful-protester-with-butt-of-a-rifle.html
77. Carlson, Tucker, “Canadian trucker speaks to Tucker Carlson about Ottawa police violently assaulting him,” Fox News, February 22, 2022.https://rumble.com/vvr51k-canadian-trucker-speaks-to-tucker-carlson-about-ottawa-police-violently-ass.html
78. Murphy, Rex and Peterson, Jordan, “The Catastrophe of Canada,” February 20, 2022.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5efyUt5YDU0
79. Zimonjic, Peter and Maloney, Ryan, “Trudeau says he won’t back down after protesters hurl death threats, racist and sexist slurs,” CBC, August 29, 2021. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-protest-racist-death-threat-sexist-1.6157617
80. Schmidt, Doug, “Judge Acquits Man Accused of Threatening to Kill Trudeau,” Windsor Star, November 21, 2019. https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/judge-acquits-man-accused-of-threatening-to-kill-trudeau/
81. McAdam, Bre, “Sask. man gets suspended sentence for online death threat against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,” National Post, December 11, 2017. https://nationalpost.com/news/local-news/sask-man-gets-suspended-sentence-for-online-death-threat-against-prime-minister-justin-trudeau/wcm/154306fa-20de-41a3-92dc-0938a47caafa
82. Donnellan, Sara, “Who is Ryan Grantham? 5 things to know about the ‘Riverdale’ Actor who Allegedly Plotted to Kill Justin Trudeau,” USA Magazine, June 16, 2022. https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/who-is-ryan-grantham-actor-allegedly-plotted-to-kill-justin-trudeau/
83. Email from Brian Peckford on June 22, 2022, and email on June 25th from RCMP officer Daniel Bulford who was part of Justin Trudeau’s security detail before he declined to be vaccinated.
84. “Public Inquiry into the 2022 Public Order Emergency,” PC Number: 2022-0392, Government of Canada, April 25, 2022. https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=41898&lang=en
85. Tumilty, Ryan, “Former Ottawa police chief Peter Sloly says he didn’t ask Liberals for Emergencies Act,” National Post, June 2, 2022.https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/former-ottawa-police-chief-peter-sloly-says-he-didnt-ask-liberals-for-emergencies-act
86. Murphy, Rex, “Meek Emergencies Act hearings turn into a circus,” National Post, June 13, 2022. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-meek-emergencies-act-hearings-turn-into-a-circus
87. Connolly, Amanda, “Emergencies Act, ‘Freedom Convoy’ records withheld until days before inquiry end: PCO,” Global News, June 17, 2022.https://globalnews.ca/news/8928978/privy-council-office-freedom-convoy-records-withheld/
88. Peckford, Brian, “In -30 Degree Weather The Canadian Truckers Convoy Is Overwhelmed With People Wanting Freedom,” Peckford42, January 27, 2022.https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2022/01/27/in-30-degree-weather-the-canadian-truckers-convey-is-overwhelmed-with-people-wanting-freedom/
89. #TrudeauIsDestroyingCanada https://twitter.com/search?q=%23TrudeauIsDestroyingCanada&src=recent_search_click
90. #TrudeauTheTyrant https://twitter.com/hashtag/TrudeauTheTyrant?src=hashtag_click
91. McGinnis, Ray “The Freedom Convoy & The Collapse of Canadian Liberalism,” Off-Guardian, May 23, 2022. https://off-guardian.org/2022/05/23/the-freedom-convoy-the-collapse-of-canadian-liberalism/
92. Levant, Ezra, “Top epidemiologist for Public Health Agency of Canada NEVER recommended vaccination for air travel,” Rebel News, June 15, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFW0F8GFheE See also Boynton, Sean, “Cross-border trucker vaccine mandate among COVID-19 rules still in place,” Global News, June 14, 2022. https://globalnews.ca/news/8920039/canada-covid-rules-remaining-2022/
93. Armin, Rosen, “The Freedom Convoy’s Renegade Jew,” Tablet Magazine, June 21, 2022. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-freedom-convoy-renegade-jew-benjamin-dichter
94. Nardi, Christopher, “Do the Liberals really have a ‘National Apology Advisory Committee’?,” National Post, June 28, 2022.

Featured image: “SAM_9248” by collision.conf is licensed under CC BY 2.0

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

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

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

***

Pfizer is already swimming in record profits, but that hasn’t stopped the drug company from gouging the American taxpayer for every last dollar.

On Wednesday, the Biden Administration signed off on a new vaccine supply deal with Pfizer for $3.2 billion for 105 million COVID injections, but that’s only for the first batch of mRNA shots. The contract will generate well over $9 billion for Pfizer, as this latest purchase agreement tops off at 300 million doses. Compared to previous settlements with Pfizer, this public-private no-bid arrangement will come at a much higher cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

The Biden Administration has justified the deal by claiming that it needs to restock supply to prepare for seasonal spikes. The data does not support such a claim. According to the CDC, almost 100 million taxpayer-funded Pfizer shots (and 169 million total shots) have gone unused, resulting in billions of dollars in waste.

According to CDC data there are currently over 168 million unused doses of the vaccines.
– 59M unused Moderna shots
– 98M unused Pfizer shots
– 12M unused Janssen shots

762 million shots distributed and 594 shots administered. That 50,751 unused shots for every 100K US citizens pic.twitter.com/LFdN2RimoH

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) June 30, 2022

The new arrangement allows for the Biden Administration to buy Pfizer’s authorization-pending COVID injections, which the company claims is reformulated for newer variants.

However, even the new formulation is already outdated. It was designed and trialed for an Omicron subvariant (BA.1) that was popular last Winter, but no longer exists in circulation, potentially rendering it just as useless as the Wuhan strain shot. The deal includes the infant and toddler formulations, which are based on the non-existent Wuhan strain.

None of the shots for this deal will be supplied under an FDA approved label. Instead, they will be distributed under emergency use authorization (EUA). Pfizer has never deployed its FDA-approved vaccine in the United States. The company recently acknowledged that it never intends on producing its original FDA approved vaccines.

The original deal with Pfizer was negotiated by the Trump Administration during the days of Operation Warpspeed. It paid the pharma giant $19.50 a dose. The new pact gives Pfizer $30.48 per dose, resulting in an astronomical 56% hike from the deal negotiated by the last administration.

The price hike conflicts with the probability that Pfizer’s costs are likely much lower than they were with the original purchase order. The infant and child shots have a fraction of the active agreement as the adult supply, and each vial stores more doses . Moreover, Pfizer has added an ingredient to the formula that allows for a significant shelf life extension, making the logistics much more cost effective.

Pfizer’s margins were already through the roof prior to the Wednesday announcement.

Pfizer’s May earnings report showed that the company logged a record breaking $26 billion in Q1 sales, marking a quarterly profit of $7.86 billion. Revenue was up 77% from 2021, while profit was up 61%. Now absorb these 2022 numbers in the context of Pfizer’s 2021 revenue outperforming its 2020 revenue by 95%.

Before the new vaccine purchase order, Pfizer was already on track to bring in over $100 billion in revenue and $32 billion in net income this year. In financial statements, the company has acknowledged that it has transformed itself into a COVID-19-driven business. All of its new income is coming from the American taxpayer and other government “customers” via their taxpayers, who have virtually no say in the matter.

*

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

Featured image is from The Dossier

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

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

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

***

In Austria the massive harm done to human life and health done by the Covid “vaccines” has resulted in the Austrian Minister of Health shifting responsibility to doctors who betrayed their medical responsibility to inform patients of the risks of the vaccine.

Of course, had doctors done so, they would have been punished for “spreading misinformation.” It was the Austrian government that tried to mandate coercive vaccination of every Austrian.

In truth, the “Covid pandemic” was an exercise in massive disinformation by “health authorities,” aka marketing agents for Big Pharma, incompetent, mindless politicians, and a whore media that lied through its teeth and continues to do so.

Now that the Austrian Health Minister has shifted responsibility to medical doctors, how much longer can the utterly corrupt US “public health system” deny that there are massive “vaccine” injuries?

Here is the source. You can use Google to get a translation.

The US death rate in the Covid year of 2020 was the same as in 2019. The death rate shot up after the vaccination campaign. US insurance companies have reported stunning rises following Covid vaccination. The CEO of health insurer OneAmerica said, “We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”

Big Pharma and its agents at NIH, CDC, and FDA, and the responsible politicians and presstitutes will try to control the narrative and conclude that the deaths are Covid deaths due to the waning effectiveness of the “vaccine.” Independent and honest scientists will point out that the deaths were vaccine-induced deaths. Every effort will be made to cover up the mass murder by accusing honest doctors of “spreading misinformation” and taking away their medical licensers for telling the truth.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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

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

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

***

Statistician Mathew Crawford has shared important information related to the potential massive DoD medical data fraud

He looked at MSMR, an obscure industry publication by the DoD, and found that in 2021, they retroactively updated historical data to make the 2021 data look comparable

Mathew believes that the historical data was intentionally corrupted to hide the elevated signal of illness in the military in 2021

Additionally, at a later point in 2021, a server migration took place that might have compromised the medical data even more

The whistleblowers whose information was presented by attorney Tom Renz in January 2022 are undoubtedly heroes; but it is likely that by that time, the data had been already doubly corrupted

Getting to the bottom of this issue might be a good way to expose the true rates of vaccine injury

*

This story is about what could turn out to be one of the biggest cases of medical data fraud. It is based on my conversation with Mathew Crawford, whom I had the pleasure of interviewing for my podcast.

Mathew’s background is in statistics, actuarial sciences and math. In the past, he has worked on Wall Street, then focused on the field of education, writing textbooks and helping build educational companies.

Mathew started looking out for a large-scale dramatic event before the pandemic was announced. He became alarmed when right on the tail of the repo market crisis that happened in the fall of 2019, the Federal Reserve loaned $4.5 trillion to just three banks. (The Fed “quietly released the names of the three banks” who received the loans on December 31, 2021.)

Therefore, as soon as the unusually irrational and economically peculiar “COVID response” was thrown at us, Mathew became suspicious of the “pandemic clownery.”

The Convoluted DoD Data Saga

This particular DoD data saga started unveiling in January 2022, when attorney Thomas Renzpresented his whistleblower data at the five-hour hearing held by Senator Ron Johnson.

In his Substack post from February 2022, Mathew described being “shocked listening to Renz in real time” and learning about “the DoD whistleblowers (Drs. Samuel Sigoloff, Peter Chambers, and Theresa Long) or the startling findings from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED):

• Miscarriages up ~300%
• Cancer rates up ~300%
• Neurological conditions up ~1000%

Renz makes the database publicly downloadable here.” From there, the things got complicated. And before we dig in, let us first identify the elephant in the room.

The Elephant in the Room: A Summary

After Tom Renz made his earth-shaking announcement, the DoD came out and said that they had experienced a server glitch, and therefore, the whistleblower data was no good.

And as the DoD was hiding behind the unsigned statement about a “server glitch,” Mathew Crawford went ahead and analyzed a set of publicly available but obscure industry reports sourced from that same DoD database (DMED).

Having looked at the reports, he found that by the time the brave whistle blowers queried the DMED data, the data might have been already corrupted twice, using two different methods — potentially covering up vaccine injury in a very tricky way. (We’d need to look at the original data in order to know for sure what happened.)

Mathew believes that most likely, somebody at the DoD noticed elevated levels of illness in the 2021 data — after all, that’s what the whistleblower doctors have been seeing on the ground — and decided cover it up.

He thinks that the main coverup was done by retroactively changing the data in DMED for the previous years (2016 through 2020, which was done mid-2021, somewhere between May and July 2021, before Tom Renz’s announcement), thus making earlier years look worse than they were, in a number of categories.

But then in addition to that, the already altered database was migrated to a new server, possibly to make it more difficult to investigate. Per Mathew, it is theoretically possible that the in the process of migration, there was a genuine glitch — or maybe there was an intentional glitch to create more confusion and discredit any future whistle blowers.

Mather’s main point is that even if there was a glitch, that glitch likely came on top of the already faked data — and that is what he is trying to scream from the rooftops about.

And amazingly, if there really was a glitch during the sever migration (around August 2021), it went unnoticed for five months — in the military — despite the fact that the data was used by the DoD for troop preparedness evaluation, and also internally used by the CDC. No big deal, I guess.

No one looked, and no one noticed for at least five months that the data for previous years had undergone dramatic changes! I say, believe the DoD. They are trustworthy and would never lie to us. Here is the early timeline, as a direct quote from Mathew:

Below is the general timeline, according to what Mathew told me in the interview (I have published a version of this timeline here):

The Timeline and the General Plot

What Now?

Mathew hopes that a number of attorneys file FOIA requests and try to get a hold of the original data. This is not an easy task by any stretch of imagination. The data could be classified — and per Mathew, opening it up to the public could even require an Act of Congress.

But on the other hand, if the DoD bureaucrats are honest — which of course they are because they would never lie to us — and if they are already publishing their data in an industry journal, and if the injections are safe and effective, what do they have to hide?

Importantly, Mathew is encouraging interested parties to independently look at the MSMR data and draw their own conclusions. The data is publicly available.

On my end, I feel like we should try every avenue to establish the truth. At this point, our legal system is a little bit shaky but it’s still functioning — and I hope that more and more people start thinking from the inside and asking questions. I also hope that qualified attorneys file those FOIA requests, and we start getting somewhere. And yes, we might need a miracle but miracles follow love and courage. Time for love and courage is now.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

The British home secretary has formally approved the extradition of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the United States, in the latest development in a dangerous and misguided criminal prosecution that has the potential to criminalize national security journalism in the United States.

Previously, a major coalition of civil liberties organizations, including Freedom of the Press Foundation, implored U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to drop the case against Assange in the name of protecting the rights of journalists everywhere. So, too, have the editors of major news outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post.

By continuing to extradite Assange, the Biden DOJ is ignoring the dire warnings of virtually every major civil liberties and human rights organization in the country that the case will do irreparable damage to basic press freedom rights of U.S. reporters.

The prosecution, which includes 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, covers events that took place more than a decade ago, but was brought only under the Trump administration — after the Obama Department of Justice reportedly considered charges but dismissed them for their dangerous First Amendment implications.

Reports suggest Assange may have at least one more avenue of appeal, so he may not be on a flight to the United States just yet. But this is one more troubling development in a case that could upend journalists’ rights in the 21st century.

You don’t have to like Assange or his political opinions at all to grasp the dangerous nature of this case for journalists everywhere, either. Even if you don’t consider him a “journalist,” much of the activity described in the charges against him is common newsgathering practices. A successful conviction would potentially make receiving classified information, asking for sources for more information, and publishing certain types of classified information a crime. Journalists, of course, engage in all these activities regularly.

There is some historical irony in the fact that this extradition announcement falls during the anniversary of the Pentagon Papers trial, which began with the Times publication of stories based on the legendary leak on June 13, 1971, and continued through the seminal Supreme Court opinion rejecting prior restraint on June 30, 1971.

In the months and years following that debacle, whistleblower (and FPF co-founder) Daniel Ellsberg became the first journalistic source to be charged under the Espionage Act. What many do not know is that the Nixon administration attempted to prosecute Times reporter Neil Sheehan for receiving the Pentagon Papers as well — under a very similar legal theory the Justice Department is using against Assange.

Thankfully, that prosecution failed. And until this one does too, we continue to urge the Biden administration to drop this prosecution. Every day it continues to further undermine the First Amendment.

*

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

Featured image is from Lawyers for Assange

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

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

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

***

Guest: Christine Anderson, member of the European Parliament (AfD) and member of the:

• Committee on Culture and Education
• Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality
• Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the digital age
• Substitute on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection

This session is:

• On the renegotiation of WHO contracts: Can Democracy and the Rule of Law Survive at All, if a supranational and democratically non-legitimated organization like the WHO can be given de facto governmental power in the future?
• On the extension of the Digital COVID Certificate: The “basic rights reference certificate” – a designation it considers much more appropriate has been extended for another year until June 2023.
  “Repeal of the previous Corona coercive measures appears to have been nothing more than a tactical retreat by the Establishment to have been.”

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

FDA Panel Votes to Waive Clinical Trials for New COVID Boosters

By Megan Redshaw, June 30, 2022

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory panel voted 19 to 2 on Tuesday to add an Omicron component to COVID-19 boosters this fall, over objections by panel members and despite a lack of data.

Video: Remembering Reverend Martin Luther King’s Trip to the Mountaintop

By Emanuel Pastreich, June 30, 2022

If Reverend King was told he could talk about only civil rights or Vietnam, we are told today that we can talk only about the climate crisis or about the COVID-19 fraud. To speak about both is to invite the retributions of the devils within the shell that was once a government.

Russia’s Ukraine Miscalculation

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, June 30, 2022

Russia’s Ukraine miscalculation dates to 2014 when the Kremlin refused the request of the Donbass Russians in Eastern Ukraine to be reunited with Russia. Historically part of Russia, the Donbass region was attached to the Ukrainian province of the Soviet Union by Soviet leaders as was Crimea.

NATO Announces Plan for Massive European Land Army

By Andre Damon, June 30, 2022

In what NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called the “biggest overhaul of our collective deterrence and defense since the Cold War,” the US-led NATO alliance has announced plans to build a massive standing land army in Europe, numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

Oil Likely to Soar Above $200 per Barrel if the G7 Manages to “Cap the Price” of Russian Crude Oil

By Julianne Geiger, June 30, 2022

Russia’s crude and condensate production rose in June by 5% to 10.7 million bpd, according to Kommersant sources—a figure that includes between 800,000 and 900,000 bpd of condensate, which is not included in the OPEC+ agreement. But Russia’s oil exports have slipped 3.3% in June with the rise of domestic refining demand.

Forever Prisoners in Guantanamo

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, June 30, 2022

When Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend, neighbor and colleague, James Madison, his view that the basis of government must be to preserve liberty rather than order, the War of Revolution against Great Britain had been won, the Articles of Confederation were in place and Madison was beginning to prepare for his pivotal role in the drafting of the Constitution.

Leo N. Tolstoy: “Speech Against War.” Call to the People: “You Shall Not Kill!”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, June 30, 2022

Tolstoy was not an advocate of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he had other ideas. That is probably why the October Revolution of 1917, which took place after his death, was not to his liking. He believed that the established czarist functionaries should not be replaced by socialist ones, otherwise everything would remain the same.

An Overview of the Fighting One Year into the Nazi-Soviet War, Eight Decades Ago

By Shane Quinn, June 30, 2022

Exactly 80 years ago in the high summer of 1942, Nazi Germany still seemed to be in a dominant position in the Second World War. The Wehrmacht’s divisions controlled most of continental Europe and European Russia, while the Axis’ fortunes in North Africa looked to be improving.

How Much Money Flows From Big Pharma to Medical Journal Authors?

By Susan C. Olmstead, June 30, 2022

In an interview with journalist Paul D. Thacker, former U.S. Air Force investigator and safety officer Alex Rich explains why he developed a software program that links pharmaceutical companies’ payments to doctors and researchers. Alex Rich believes no one in the U.S. has a clear idea of the scope and scale of drug company payments flowing to the authors — usually physicians — of articles published in medical journals.

Canadian Special Forces Don’t Deny New York Times Report that Commandos Are in Ukraine

By David Pugliese, June 29, 2022

The Times reported Saturday that Canadian special forces personnel were in Ukraine as part of a NATO network to provide weapons and training as well as gather intelligence about the Russians.

Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide: Dr. Naomi Wolf on the Pfizer “Confidential Report”

Dr. Naomi Wolf, June 22, 2022

Will the Tragic Fate of World Stars like Celine Dion and Justin Bieber Open the Eyes of their Fans? Impacts of Covid-19 Vaccine

Dr. Nicole Delépine, June 17, 2022

38,983 Deaths and 3,530,362 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European Database as Mass Funeral for Children Who Died After Pfizer Vaccine Held in Switzerland

Brian Shilhavy, June 29, 2022

Video: The Plan. WHO Plans to Have 10 Years of Pandemics (2020-2030). “Proof that the Pandemic was Planned with a Purpose”

Stop World Control, June 1, 2022

Black Sea Geopolitics and Russia’s Control of Strategic Waterways: The Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 8, 2022

Bayer Head Admits COVID-19 Vaccine Is Gene Therapy

Martin Armstrong, June 5, 2022

Global Planned Financial Tsunami Has Just Begun

F. William Engdahl, June 25, 2022

Cases of Brain Damage in Children Skyrocket Following COVID-19 Vaccines

Brian Shilhavy, June 12, 2022

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 8, 2022

We’re Now in the Last Stage of a Tyrannical Takeover

Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 6, 2022

The Devastating Impacts of the COVID-19 Vaccine Confirmed: We Were Lied to: Game Over, We Won. Steve Kirsch

Steve Kirsch, June 8, 2022

Video: Graphene Hydroxide in the mRNA Vaccine Vial: Assassination of Dr. Andreas Noack

Andreas Noack, June 11, 2022

The COVID Pandemic and the mRNA Vaccine: What Is the Truth? Dr. Russell L. Blaylock

Dr. Russell Blaylock, June 19, 2022

Switzerland’s Secretive Banking System and the WEF’s “Great Reset”: First in “You’ll Own Nothing and You’ll be Happy”?

Peter Koenig, June 19, 2022

Video: Reiner Füellmich and 50 Lawyers: “Different Batches” and “Lethal Doses”, ”The Vaccines Are Designed to Kill”

Reiner Fuellmich, June 24, 2022

The Top Ten Creepiest and Most Dystopian Things Pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF)

Vigilant Citizen, June 18, 2022

The War in Ukraine Marks the End of the American Century. “What’s Left is a Steaming Pile of Dollar Denominated Debt”

Mike Whitney, June 9, 2022

Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 21, 2022

US Department of Defense Finally Comes Clean – Admits in Public Document that There Are 46 US Military-Funded Biolabs in Ukraine

Jim Hoft, June 14, 2022

Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The Data Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 25, 2022

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

There are times when it is better to quote those wiser than oneself, those more inspired than oneself, rather than trying to articulate something imperfectly in one’s own words.

That is why, on this important day, when the systems, the habits and the values that redeemed America in the past are collapsing into dust, into nothingness, I want to quote the speech delivered by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., on April third, 1968 before the striking sanitation workers of Memphis, Tennessee—not far from Nashville, Tennessee, where I was born.

That speech of Reverend King came at a critical moment in American history. He was shot dead within 24 hours of his closing remarks.

Remembering Reverend King’s Trip to the Mountaintop from Emanuel Pastreich on Vimeo.

The next day, when he was shot in front of his hotel room, April 4, 1968, happened to be the first anniversary of Reverend King’s speech “Beyond Vietnam,” a speech in which he spoke out against the pursuit of profit, and the growing class warfare, that drove that brutal and pointless war thousands of miles away from home.

He violated the unspoken, but explicit, agreement with the FBI, and with the American establishment hanging out at ritzy clubs and shoo fraternities, that civil rights advocacy could be pursued in America as long as it was kept separate from condemnation of the war in Vietnam.

The FBI had made it clear to Reverend Martin Luther King that if he played by these rules, he could live to a grand old age as the king of the civil rights movement. He could be an eminence grise who spoke at Carnegie Foundation seminars and who shook the greasy hands of presidents. He could have taken the sordid deal with the establishment, one embraced by public intellectuals like Yo Yo Ma (whom I knew personally in a previous lifetime), the deal offered to some “whistle blowers” (whom I also knew) men who have cashed in their chips for specious currency of the system.

If Reverend King was told he could talk about only civil rights or Vietnam, we are told today that we can talk only about the climate crisis or about the COVID 19 fraud. To speak about both is to invite the retributions of the devils within the shell that was once a government.

Let me quote Reverend King, a better writer, and a far better speaker, than I, so as to express the urgency, the danger, and the hope of the current moment in the United States, and around the world.

I do not pretend to be as inspired, as brave, or as challenged as was Reverend King, but I am certain that you, even just listening to my imperfect reading of his words, can find true inspiration:

“Now, it doesn’t matter, now. It really doesn’t matter what happens now. I left Atlanta this morning, and as we got started on the plane, there were six of us.

The pilot said over the public address system, “We are sorry for the delay, but we have Dr. Martin Luther King on the plane. And to be sure that all of the bags were checked, and to be sure that nothing would be wrong with on the plane, we had to check out everything carefully. And we’ve had the plane protected and guarded all night.

And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?

Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind.

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will.

And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

And so I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

*

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

This article was originally published on US Provisional Government.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

 

Russia’s Ukraine miscalculation dates to 2014 when the Kremlin refused the request of the Donbass Russians in Eastern Ukraine to be reunited with Russia.  Historically part of Russia, the Donbass region was attached to the Ukrainian province of the Soviet Union by Soviet leaders as was Crimea.  These Russian populated territories, historically part of Russia, rejected the anti-Russian rule installed in Kiev when Washington overthrew the Ukrainian government and installed a puppet regime in 2014.  Had the Kremlin accepted the request of the Donbass Russians, there would have been no necessity for a Russian intervention in Donbass.

Ukraine sent forces to subdue the two declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.  The Ukrainian military and Nazi militias were unequal to the task of subduing the hastily raised militias of the two republics, but did succeed in occupying some of the Donbass territory from which they shelled the civilian populations of the Donbass for 8 years.

The Kremlin attempted to stop the conflict with the Minsk agreement. Ukraine and the republics signed it, and Europe was supposed to enforce it, but Ukraine did not keep the agreement, and Europe did not enforce it. Indeed, Washington encouraged Ukraine to ignore it as Washington saw the opportunity to initiate a conflict that could be used to demonize and isolate Russia.  

Minsk 2 Meeting

Internally in Russia, Russians objected to the killing of Russians by Ukrainians. Pressure mounted on the Kremlin to cease appeasing the West by accepting Russian civilian casualties. In February of this year, the Kremlin finally gave up on the 8-year old death of the Minsk Agreement and recognized the two republics.  

 

If the West had not intended a conflict, Russian recognition would have stopped the shelling, and ended the conflict.  Instead a 150,000 Ukrainian army and Nazi militias, trained and equipped by Washington and the UK, were sent to invade and reconquer the Donbass Russians.  For the Kremlin, this would have been a political disaster. Washington, of course, knew this and was banking on yet another Russian toleration of an enormous provocation, that having been the Kremlin’s record of response to Washington’s provocations:  accept, forgive, and put faith in negotiations.

However, the Kremlin realized that it could not politically survive the slaughter of the Donbass Russians.

The Kremlin designated its military intervention in Ukraine as a limited operation to prevent Ukraine from invading Donbass and to drive out the Ukrainian forces that occupied part of Donbass and were shelling civilian populations.  Donbass, not Ukraine was the target. 

Western politicians and the mainstream media pretend that Russia invaded Ukraine, not merely intervened in Donbass, and attacked Kiev but was defeated. This is an obvious lie.  The Russians left Kiev alone.  They put troops around the city to prevent reinforcements from being sent to Donbass. Once they had Ukraine’s forces in Donbass surrounded, such that reinforcements could not reach them in any meaningful numbers, they withdrew from the Kiev area.  

The Western politicians and the whore Western media have lied when they say Russia invaded Ukraine.  Russia did not invade Ukraine, and this was their blunder. The Russians intervened in Eastern Ukraine, in Donbass, to prevent a Ukrainian invasion for the reconquest of the two Donbass republics.

What the facts reveal is not Russian aggression, but Western aggression. The Minsk Agreement that Russia sponsored would have ended the conflict by keeping the Donbass as part of Ukraine, but giving Donbass some autonomy, such as its own police force, to minimize Donbass’ oppression under the anti-Russian regime installed by Washington. The agreement was unenforceable because Washington wanted conflict.

The war that is coming upon us is a consequence of Washington’s insistence on hegemony and the Kremlin’s inability to comprehend the situation and to understand how the Kremlin’s endless toleration of insults and provocations encourages the West to push harder and ever harder until Russia is cornered and finally has to fight.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English