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

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

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

***

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres traveled on April 28 to the Russian Federation holding high-level talks with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

The topic of the discussions centered on the two-months long Russian military intervention in Ukraine which has been fueled by the imposition of unprecedented sanctions by the United States and the European Union (EU) alongside the massive transferal of weapons to the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky by key member-states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Two distinct positions were articulated during one-on-one talks between Putin and Guterres which were broadcast internationally. Later there was a press conference held featuring Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary General Guterres where differences over the Ukraine situation were aired publicly.

After leaving Moscow, Guterres travelled to the capital of Ukraine where he reviewed damage from the war which has killed untold numbers of people and dislocated millions. The U.S. has already announced the transfer of over $3 Billion to Ukraine in military and other assistance. A recent proposal by President Joe Biden has called for the Congress to approve another $33 Billion in direct aid. House of Representative Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said immediately after the Biden gesture was reported that the money should be agreed upon by the legislative branch as soon as possible.

NATO Countries Still Rely on Russia for Energy Resources

Obviously, the U.S. and NATO actions indicate that the Biden administration and its European allies are not interested in a speedy conclusion to the war in Ukraine. The sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the EU have created a crisis in Western Europe where several leading states such as Germany are continuing, out of necessity, to purchase oil and natural gas from the Russian Federation.

With Germany being the largest economy in Western Europe it cannot immediately place an embargo on Russian energy shipments because doing so would prompt a recession that would have a negative impact on other neighboring states. The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project has already been halted between Germany and Russia in the aftermath of the military operation in Ukraine. This deal had been long in the making and was supported by successive German governments.

Germany is reliant upon Russia for approximately 50% of its natural gas supply while France receives 25% of this energy resource from Moscow as well. Some other smaller countries are totally dependent upon Russia for natural gas including North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Moldova. Finland, Latvia and Serbia imports 90% of their natural gas supplies from Russia. (See this)

Infographic: Which European Countries Depend on Russian Gas? | Statista

President Putin in the face of intensified sanctions and direct military aid to Ukraine, has demanded the payment in rubles (Russian currency) for energy exports. The Russian government during late April announced the suspension of natural gas exports to Poland and Bulgaria due to their refusal to purchase energy in rubles.

The BBC wrote recently on the European energy crisis sparked by the Ukraine war and the sanctions implemented against Moscow, noting that:

“Germany’s finance minister was keen to sound tough on Russia and appears acutely aware of the criticism levelled at his country for dragging its feet over a full energy embargo on the Kremlin. His basic message was – it is coming, but not quite yet, because it is impossible to enact immediately and would probably lead to shutdowns of large swathes of the German economy. President Zelensky used a BBC interview last week to demand an immediate embargo on Russia’s lucrative oil trade, accusing those sending euros and dollars to Kremlin-controlled oil giants of ‘trading in blood’. He singled out Germany alongside Hungary for blocking EU action. Mr. [Finance Minister Christian] Lindner said Germany would move as fast as possible but did not confirm that would be within a year.”

In regard to oil, Germany imports 34% of this vital resource from Russia while Poland receives 63% of its supply via Moscow. The Druzhba pipeline is an important conduit for Russian oil across Europe. The network was created during the time of the Soviet Union and its socialist allies in Eastern Europe in what was known as the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON).

Druzhba is the world’s longest oil pipeline and one of the largest of such networks internationally. The network carries oil some 4,000 kilometers (2,500 mi) from the eastern part of European Russia to destinations in Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany. This network extends out into various other pipelines to supply its product across Eastern Europe and beyond. (See this)

Consequently, the failure by the UN chief to bring about a ceasefire in the Ukraine war portends much for the future of Europe and indeed the world. The potential for a long-term energy crisis in Western Europe combined with a worsening military situation, has illustrated the potential for catastrophic social and economic consequences throughout the region.

Russia Conducts Successful Test of New Nuclear Weapons System

Although the White House is continuously transporting offensive weapons to Ukraine to launch attacks against Russian military forces and the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in the east of the country, Moscow spokespersons have repeatedly claimed that its strategic objectives are being met on the battlefield. Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov claimed in a press briefing on April 30 that Aerospace Forces had bombed five Ukrainian ammunition depots which destroyed 200 enemy soldiers.

In addition, Konashenkov said that 2,700 Ukrainian tanks and armored vehicles along with 2,503 military motor vehicles have been destroyed since February 24. He went further to say that 143 Ukrainian aircraft, 112 helicopters, 660 unmanned aerial vehicles, 279 surface-to-air missiles systems, 308 multiple launch rocket systems, 1,196 field artillery guns and mortars have been eliminated. (See this)

Nonetheless, the most significant development has been the testing of perhaps the most advanced nuclear weapons system in existence anywhere in the world. Since the Russian special military operation began on February 24, Putin has warned of the need to upgrade its nuclear weapons capability. The Russian president later placed the country on nuclear alert.

The Caspian News said of the current situation:

“On April 20, Russia test-launched Sarmat from Plesetsk cosmodrome on the edge of the Russian Arctic, which Russian President Vladimir Putin said would make Russia’s enemies ‘think twice.’ Moscow’s test launch of the next-generation Sarmat ICBM came amid an extreme geopolitical tension between Russia and the West over the ongoing war in Ukraine….  Earlier last week, [Russian space agency Director General Dmitry] Rogozin claimed that Sarmat would be much more powerful than other strategic weapons, including the U.S.-made Minuteman-III, an ICBM with a maximum range of 13,000 km, and the capability of carrying a payload of three reentry vehicles. ‘This is a missile that is much more powerful than other strategic weapons, including the Minuteman-III missile, which is in service with the United States. Both in terms of global reach and the power of warheads that can be delivered to the territory of an aggressor,’ Rogozin said in an interview with Rossiya 24 TV channel. Russia owns the world’s largest nuclear weapons stockpile, with an estimated 6,257 warheads. Moscow reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in two cases: in response to a nuclear attack or the use of weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies or if the existence of the Russian state is threatened.”

Therefore, there are strong indications that the Russian Federation is preparing for a protracted struggle over the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe. The Biden administration is risking the economic and military stability of the capitalist states in this attempt to secure Washington’s hegemony over the European continent both East and West.

In fact, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stated during a surprise visit to Poland on April 25 that the U.S. objective in the war was to weaken Russia’s military capability by incapacitating its ability to engage in operations outside of its borders. Such utterances can only enhance the degree of tensions and hostility in Ukraine.

People inside the U.S. and Western Europe must objectively assess the impact of the White House’s war policy towards the Russian Federation. Both the Democratic and Republican parties appear to be in favor of the current strategy which has led to the destruction of Ukraine and the threat of large-scale conventional and nuclear warfare. Only a mass-based and well- organized antiwar movement in North America and Western Europe can pose the much- needed domestic challenges to the dangerous course taken by the imperialist states.

*

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: Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov holds press conference with UN Secretary General Guterres (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Selected Articles: COVID-19 Boosters — Where from Here?

May 2nd, 2022 by Global Research News

COVID-19 Boosters — Where from Here?

By Dr. Paul A. Offit, May 02, 2022

People are now confused about what it means to be fully vaccinated. It is easy to understand how this could happen. Arguably, the most disappointing error surrounding the use of Covid-19 vaccines was the labeling of mild illnesses or asymptomatic infections after vaccination as “breakthroughs.”

By Restricting Moscow’s Moves, Erdogan Is Playing Russian Roulette

By Abdel Bari Atwan, May 02, 2022

Turkey’s decision to close its airspace to Russian military and civilian aircraft bound for northern Syria surprised many observers. Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu’s announcement of this decision to Turkish journalists during his Latin America tour raised many questions about its future implications for Russian-Turkish relations.

Energy Geopolitics

By Konrad Rękas, May 01, 2022

Scholars disagree whenever there are 45 or even 83 definitions of energy security. Its understanding varies depending on the country in which is defined, its geographical, cultural and consciousness conditions.

The COVID Pandemic and the mRNA Vaccine: What Is the Truth? Dr. Russell L. Blaylock

By Russell L. Blaylock, May 01, 2022

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.

Enormous U.S. Military Spending, EU Dragged into Abyss of War against Russia. Italy Out of the War!

By Manlio Dinucci, May 01, 2022

President Biden has asked Congress for another 33 billion dollars to arm and train the Ukrainian forces, in addition to the 20 billion dollars already allocated and provided to Kiev: a total of over 50 billion dollars from 2014 for the war against Russia.

Video: “These are Massive Crimes”. Congenital Malformations, Covid Vaccine Impacts on Pregnant Women. Naomi Wolf

By Naomi Wolf, May 01, 2022

“In this [DOD] database… the rise in congenital malformations increased dramatically, from a baseline rate of 10,906 cases per year in 2021… to 18,951 congenital malformations for [just] part of the year of 2021. For part of the year of 2021, [congenital malformations] nearly doubled in the fetuses of our brave women… who submitted to what our President said they had to do. As the Commander-in-Chief [forced] this experimental vaccine, their babies suffered! Their babies suffered!”

Elon Musk Buys Twitter

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 01, 2022

By now you’ve probably heard the big news: Twitter accepted Elon Musk’s buyout offer. Musk, a self-described “free speech absolutist” with an “obsession with the truth,” has been open about his opinion that Twitter needs to be taken private in order to become a true free-speech platform.

‘Enough is enough’: California Subpoenas ExxonMobil Over Plastic Pollution

By Elizabeth Claire Alberts, May 01, 2022

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has announced that his department will be undertaking a first-of-its-kind investigation to determine the role that the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries have played in the escalating global plastics crisis.

Children’s Risk of Death Increases by 5100% Following COVID-19 Vaccination Compared to Unvaccinated Children According to Official ONS Data

By The Daily Expose, May 01, 2022

The Office for National Statistics has revealed without realising it that children are up to 52 times more likely to die following Covid-19 vaccination than children who have not had the Covid-19 vaccine.

1.2 Million Reports of Injuries After COVID Vaccines, VAERS Data Show

By Megan Redshaw, May 01, 2022

VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,247,131 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 27,532 deaths and 224,766 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and April 22, 2022.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: COVID-19 Boosters — Where from Here?

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

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

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

***

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in an hour-long interview with Al Arabiya amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

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

***

In an April 13 2022 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) “Covid-19 Boosters — Where from Here?” Dr. Paul Offit MD starts with the obligatory praise for mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, but then abruptly switches to a very serious note of alarm about the continued use of boosters. 

NEJM has been at the nexus of positive Covid-19 publishing. Its editorial board has the advantage of reviewing a broad sweep of Covid studies. The fact that they decided to publish a blunt warning is highly significant. The message for governments, medical professionals, and medical media commentators and explainers cannot be ignored or underestimated.

Screenshot from NEJM

The editorial raises a number of questions:

“Unfortunately, studies did not stratify patients according to whether they had coexisting conditions. Therefore, it was unclear who among the younger age groups most benefited from an additional dose.”

In summary, boosters are not very useful for younger people who are healthy. This doesn’t sound very serious, but the NEJM went on to discuss the implications.

The continued universal use of boosters, in a misguided attempt to eliminate Covid, ‘will limit the ability of booster dosing to lessen transmission.’

The consequence, NEJM warned, are problems whose full extent and eventual outcomes are unknown:

“Boosters are not risk-free, we need to clarify which groups most benefit. For example, boys and men between 16 and 29 years of age are at increased risk for myocarditis caused by mRNA vaccines.”

“And all age groups are at risk for the theoretical problem of an “original antigenic sin” — a decreased ability to respond to a new immunogen because the immune system has locked onto the original immunogen….This potential problem could limit our ability to respond to a new variant.”

Original antigenic sin refers to the known possibility of ADE—antibody dependent enhancement of an illness. In essence, the immune system antibodies produced as a result of vaccination can in combination with new variants enhance the capacity of Covid to cause serious illness. This possibility arises because of the innate capacity of the Covid virus to adapt when faced with a highly vaccinated population—a known viral evolutionary pathway.

The editorial concluded with a message for governments:

“…educate the public about the limits of mucosal [mRNA Covid] vaccines. Otherwise, a zero-tolerance strategy for mild or asymptomatic infection, which can be implemented only with frequent booster doses, will continue to mislead the public about what Covid-19 vaccines can and cannot do.”

Facing reality is proving hard for our government

Is an editorial in a foreign medical journal cause for alarm? Yes, when it is the NEJM, the most conservative of medical journals, known for its unflinching support of modern medical orthodoxy.

Our worst enemy is complaisance and inaction. This was exemplified for me by a reply from an MP this week who says:

“I do get some comfort from the fact that smallpox and polio vaccines, do appear long term to benefit humans, and from my general reading there is hope and belief that the COVID vaccine will do the same….the vast majority of scientists involved provide me reassurance that the vaccine is safe and that the alternative of not vaccinating is simply not an option.”

In other words, he says there is no alternative except to carry on boosting, precisely the problem that the NEJM was warning against, which is leading down a road to a very uncertain and possibly very dangerous future.

As I travelled south towards Wellington yesterday, I passed kilometres of stationary cars going north stalled by a couple of traffic lights in Otaki. The $3.5 billion spent on the transmission gully motorway has delivered no improved travel time because the planners were perhaps not thinking far enough ahead and carried on regardless (and btw for the motorway enthusiasts after Otaki comes Levin, so should bypasses be the first priority?).

Do we carry on vaccinating against polio and smallpox every few months?—NO we do not. This one fact should have been sufficient to alert our MP that something is different about mRNA technology. Who are the medical experts advising our MPs, watering down the published Covid medical research results to the point of banality? Is our $64 billion spent on Covid so far well spent?

Calling a medical emergency in New Zealand

We know that both mRNA vaccination and Covid infection carry as yet unquantified long term risks of heart disease. Are we ramping up our capacity to treat heart disease? Apparently not. A correspondent in Palmerston North writes that she has been referred to a heart specialist by her GP, but the specialist replies he is too overwhelmed with cases to see her and refers her back to her GP. When is this Covid buck passing going to stop?

Heart disease is the number one killer in New Zealand. The apologia being trotted out by the media that myopericarditis following vaccination will turn out to be mild in the longer term without actual supporting research, does not amount to a credible medical policy.

We keep hearing anecdotal reports of our hospitals overwhelmed with cardiac cases. Are the reports real? The government is not publishing data, so we are left in the dark. Is the government failing to look or are they deliberately concealing information?

The situation is similar in the UK, information about alarming rises in cardiac cases is too hot to handle, so is it being covered up? Some data is coming out from individual hospitals. The NHS trust in the small UK seaside resort of Blackpool responded to a freedom of information request last week. Their cases of heart failure are up 400% on historical averages. Yes, 400%.

Who can turn the ship around?

We all have relatives or friends still insisting that our hospitals are full of the unvaccinated, that no one who is vaccinated has ever died, that the unvaccinated are endangering everyone, that international studies prove the vaccine works perfectly, and so on… All of which are remote from reality, yet without honest government and media messaging, polite rebuttals with references to actual data are met with outright denial and condemnation.

Only the government and mainstream media are in a position to convey the sober NEJM assessment of boosters to the public. Otherwise the public will remain stuck with boosters or bust misinformation. Continuing to publish misleading information about hospital statistics or myths that only mRNA vaccination of 100% of the population will stop the pandemic (as Stuff did this week) will only make it harder to institute reliable policies.

Mark Steyn of GB news called out the UK government Thursday this week with official UK statistics showing that boosted individuals are twice as likely to suffer infection, hospitalisation, and death compared to the unvaccinated, partially vaccinated and doubly vaccinated lumped together. This raises the possibility that Antibody Dependent Enhancement is already taking hold.

We are heading in that direction too, possibly just a few weeks behind, New Zealand statistics highlight increasing vulnerability of the boosted as each week goes by. This point is reinforced by increasing reports of multiple reinfections among vaccinated populations.

Time to call a medical emergency

This is a call for an energetic, robust and focused response to an evolving medical situation. A preparedness to consider and entertain views that were dismissed as unthinkable a few weeks ago.

Don’t trust my word, trust the New England Journal of Medicine which has sounded the alarm because our situation may be about to get much worse if the government continues to do and say as it has been so far.

Please forward this message to those in need of this officially sanctioned warning.

*

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

COVID-19 Boosters — Where from Here?

May 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Paul A. Offit

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

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

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

***

On December 10, 2020, Pfizer presented results from a 36,000-person, two-dose, prospective, placebo-controlled trial of its Covid-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine, BNT162b2, to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).1 The vaccine was 95% effective at preventing severe illness in all age groups, independent of coexisting conditions or racial or ethnic background. A remarkable result. Six months later, studies showed that protection against severe disease was holding up.2 The results of these epidemiologic studies were consistent with those of immunologic studies showing long-lived, high frequencies of Covid-19–specific memory B and T cells, which mediate protection against severe disease.3

In September 2021, 10 months after the BNT162b2 vaccine had become available, Israeli researchers found that protection against severe illness in people 60 years of age or older was enhanced by a third dose.4 In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that people 65 years of age or older should receive three doses of an mRNA vaccine.

In a study now reported in the Journal,5 Israeli researchers found that in a study population with a median age of 72 years, protection against severe disease was further enhanced by a fourth dose of mRNA vaccine during the wave of infections caused by the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2. These findings were considered by the FDA and CDC in their decision-making process regarding the use of an additional booster dose of mRNA vaccine for people 50 years of age or older.

What about booster dosing for persons who are younger? One year after the BNT162b2 vaccine became available, studies in the United States showed that a third dose of vaccine also enhanced protection against severe disease for people as young as 18 years of age.6,7 Unfortunately, these studies did not stratify patients according to whether they had coexisting conditions. Therefore, it was unclear who among these younger age groups most benefited from an additional dose. Nonetheless, the CDC later recommended that everyone 12 years of age or older should receive three doses of BNT162b2, regardless of whether risk factors were present. This universal booster recommendation led some summer camps, high schools, universities, hospitals, and businesses to require three doses of mRNA vaccine. In February 2022, in a study that did not support the booster recommendation for children, CDC researchers found that two doses of BNT162b2 induced long-lived protection against serious illness in children 12 to 18 years of age.8

In addition to protection against severe disease, the initial phase 3 trial of BNT162b2 — which was performed over a period of several months — also showed 95% protection against mild illness.1Unlike protection against severe illness, however, protection against mild illness, which is mediated by high titers of virus-specific neutralizing antibodies at the time of exposure, declined after 6 months, as would have been expected.2 In response, studies by Pfizer were published in which a booster dose was shown to restore protection against mild illness9; unfortunately, this protection did not persist for more than a few months.6 Short-lived protection against mild illness will limit the ability of booster dosing to lessen transmission.

People are now confused about what it means to be fully vaccinated. It is easy to understand how this could happen. Arguably, the most disappointing error surrounding the use of Covid-19 vaccines was the labeling of mild illnesses or asymptomatic infections after vaccination as “breakthroughs.” As is true for all mucosal vaccines, the goal is to protect against serious illness — to keep people out of the hospital, intensive care unit, and morgue. The term “breakthrough,” which implies failure, created unrealistic expectations and led to the adoption of a zero-tolerance strategy for this virus. If we are to move from pandemic to endemic, at some point we are going to have to accept that vaccination or natural infection or a combination of the two will not offer long-term protection against mild illness.

In addition, because boosters are not risk-free, we need to clarify which groups most benefit. For example, boys and men between 16 and 29 years of age are at increased risk for myocarditis caused by mRNA vaccines.10 And all age groups are at risk for the theoretical problem of an “original antigenic sin” — a decreased ability to respond to a new immunogen because the immune system has locked onto the original immunogen. An example of this phenomenon can be found in a study of nonhuman primates showing that boosting with an omicron-specific variant did not result in higher titers of omicron-specific neutralizing antibodies than did boosting with the ancestral strain.11 This potential problem could limit our ability to respond to a new variant.

It is now incumbent on the CDC to determine who most benefits from booster dosing and to educate the public about the limits of mucosal vaccines. Otherwise, a zero-tolerance strategy for mild or asymptomatic infection, which can be implemented only with frequent booster doses, will continue to mislead the public about what Covid-19 vaccines can and cannot do.

*

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 A. Offit, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia.

Notes

1. Food and Drug Administration. Vaccines and related biological products advisory committee meeting. December 10, 2020 (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download. opens in new tab). Google Scholar

2. Tartof SY, Slezak JM, Fischer H, et al. Effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine up to 6 months in a large integrated health system in the USA: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2021;398:14071416.

Crossref. opens in new tabWeb of Science. opens in new tabMedline. opens in new tabGoogle Scholar

3. Goel RR, Painter MM, Apostolidis SA, et al. mRNA vaccines induce durable immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern. Science 2021;374:abm0829abm0829.

Crossref. opens in new tabWeb of Science. opens in new tabMedline. opens in new tabGoogle Scholar

4. Bar-On YM, Goldberg Y, Mandel M, et al. Protection of BNT162b2 vaccine booster against Covid-19 in Israel. N Engl J Med 2021;385:13931400.

Free Full TextWeb of Science. opens in new tabMedline. opens in new tabGoogle Scholar

5. Magen O, Waxman JG, Makov-Assif M, et al. Fourth dose of BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine in a nationwide setting. N Engl J Med 2022;386:16031614.

Full TextGoogle Scholar

6. Ferdinands JM, Rao S, Dixon BE, et al. Waning of 2-dose and 3-dose effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated emergency department and urgent care encounters and hospitalizations among adults during periods of delta and omicron variant predominance — VISION Network, 10 states, August 2021–January 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:255263.

Web of Science. opens in new tabMedline. opens in new tabGoogle Scholar

7. Johnson AG, Amin AB, Ali AR, et al. COVID-19 incidence and death rates among unvaccinated and fully vaccinated adults with and without booster doses during periods of Delta and Omicron variant emergence — 25 U.S. jurisdictions, April 4–December 25, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:132138.

Crossref. opens in new tabMedline. opens in new tabGoogle Scholar

8. Olson SM, Newhams MM, Halasa NB, et al. Effectiveness of BNT162b2 vaccine against critical Covid-19 in adolescents. N Engl J Med 2022;386:713723.

Free Full TextWeb of Science. opens in new tabMedline. opens in new tabGoogle Scholar

9. Accorsi EK, Britton A, Fleming-Dutra KE, et al. Association between 3 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and symptomatic infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta variants. JAMA 2022;327:639651.

Crossref. opens in new tabWeb of Science. opens in new tabMedline. opens in new tabGoogle Scholar

10. Witberg G, Barda N, Hoss S, et al. Myocarditis after Covid-19 vaccination in a large health care organization. N Engl J Med 2021;385:21322139.

Free Full TextWeb of Science. opens in new tabMedline. opens in new tabGoogle Scholar

11. Gagne M, Moliva JI, Foulds KE, et al. mRNA-1273 or mRNA-Omicron boost in vaccinated macaques elicits comparable B cell expansion, neutralizing antibodies, and protection against Omicron. February 42022 (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.03.479037v1. opens in new tab). preprint. Google Scholar

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Turkey’s decision to close its airspace to Russian military and civilian aircraft bound for northern Syria surprised many observers. Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu’s announcement of this decision to Turkish journalists during his Latin America tour raised many questions about its future implications for Russian-Turkish relations.

It is unlikely that this decision may have been one of the outcomes of a Turkish-American deal following discreet contacts between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his US counterpart Joe Biden to clamp down on Russia. Unlike his predecessor Donald Trump, Biden believes that it is difficult to achieve regional security without Turkey, which is an original member of NATO. And so the deal between the two countries included expanding economic cooperation and meeting Turkey’s defense needs, particularly in the advanced F-35s, Patriot and THAAD missile systems.

There are several explanations for Ankara’s decision. The first is that the US exerted pressure on Turkey after it became evident that the Russians commanded the battle of Mariupol and other southeastern Ukrainian areas from the Russian airbase of Hemeimim in northern Syria – from which strategic strikes were carried out against Ukrainian forces.

A second possible explanation is that Erdogan succeeded in improving his country’s relations with Washington, taking full advantage of the desperate US need for regional allies in NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine.

But where one loses, another gains. On the back of the surprise Turkish decision, Tehran cleverly offered to allow Russian aircraft to use Iranian airspace to reach naval and air bases in northern Syria. While these flight times may be longer, there are instant benefits for the two countries, especially Iran, which has now further enhanced its strategic relations with the Russia-China axis. Iran has not been ambiguous: since the outbreak of the Ukrainian military crisis, it has failed to condemn Moscow’s actions and has stood quietly in the Russian trench.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been generous with his Turkish counterpart. He forgave Erdogan for his 2015 mistake when Turkish air defenses shot down a Russian Sukhoi plane that allegedly penetrated Turkey’s airspace near the Syrian-Turkish border for a few seconds. It took a series of expansive Russian punishments for the Turkish president to apologize in all languages, including Russian, for the mishap.

Putin has showed understanding, and even patience, over the Turkish occupation of areas in northern Syria, contrary to the wishes of his staunch allies in Damascus. However, Ankara’s latest decision to establish a ‘Russian no-fly zone’ will not be so easy to forgive, especially if followed by further measures such as banning the passage of Russian military vessels through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits to the Mediterranean, in accordance with the Montreux Agreement.

This remains an option in light of the rapid – if stealthy – improvement in Turkish-US relations. But choosing to align with Washington on Ukraine also risks racking up Russian-engineered military, political, and economic costs for Turkey, one year out from the country’s pivotal elections.

Further aligning with the US also means Erdogan will not be able to continue playing his carefully crafted role as a “neutral” mediator in this crisis, and host the upcoming summit meeting between the Turkish and Ukrainian presidents.

Turkish aspirations to expand trade cooperation with Russia to $100 billion dollars per annum will also be impacted, and the sale of further Russian S-400 missile defense systems to Turkey will be unlikely. More seriously, Russia may respond by developing or expanding relations with the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and supporting its operations in Turkey.

Politically speaking, the Russian military operation in Ukraine is a matter of life and death for Putin. Therefore his response to Ankara’s belligerent moves are likely to be decisive and could possibly play out on several fronts:

  • The Syrian front: To keep the balance in Russian relations with Turkey, Putin strongly opposed the Syrian leadership’s desire to invade Idlib to eliminate the jihadist terror groups based there and restore territorial control back to Damascus. While Moscow’s position may not yet change, renewed, intensive Russian military operations in Idlib will lead to an increase in Syrians fleeing to Turkish territory, which already hosts over 3 million Syrian refugees.
  • Strengthening Russian-Iranian relations: This will have a negative impact on Erdogan’s regional ambitions – especially in West and Central Asia – taking into account that China, which forms the third and strongest arm of this budding alliance is a full-fledged member of this troika.
  • The Arab Front: Turkey’s desire to improve its relations with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Persian Gulf and Arab states may be hindered in light of the rapprochement of these countries with Russia and China, which coincides with the breakdown of their relations with their traditional American ally. There is much the Russia-Iran-China (RIC) alliance can do in West Asia to unsettle Ankara’s relations within the region. It is worth noting that Riyadh has not yet responded to Turkish diplomatic outreach, significantly on the closure of the file of the state-sanctioned murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Erdogan’s leadership in recent months has been characterized by confusion and volatility. Recent political developments include Ankara’s unpopular improvement in ties with Israel, its gradual involvement in the Ukraine crisis, and its warming relations with Washington. These come at a critical time, not only amid a nation-wide economic crisis but also a year before presidential and legislative elections that pose a serious threat to Erdogan’s reign.

President Putin may have decided initially to overlook Turkey’s sale of the Bayraktar drones that have arguably contributed in the deaths of some 2,000 Russian soldiers in Ukraine, and reluctantly accepted its role as an intermediary in the crisis. At the strategic level, though, it will be difficult for him to tolerate Turkey’s accelerated bias toward the west.

It is true that Turkey is a regional power, and militarily strong, but it is also true that the US-led camp toward which it is tilting is in decline, torn apart by divisions, and failing dramatically in its economic sanctions regime against Russia. Furthermore, this camp is facing an alliance of two super-powers, a nuclear third (India), and a fourth on the way (Iran), together comprising more than half of the world’s population.

President Erdogan’s gamble with Russia is risky and may backfire, at just the wrong time.

*

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.

Abdel Bari Atwan was born in Gaza, Palestine and has lived in London since 1979. The founder and editor in chief of Raialyoum since 2013, Abdel Bari was previously the editor of London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi, an independent, pan-Arab daily newspaper since 1989. He is the author of several books, including the bestselling ‘The Secret History of al-Qa’ida,’ a prolific contributor to international media outlets – TV and print – and lectures worldwide.

Featured image is from The Cradle

Energy Geopolitics

May 1st, 2022 by Konrad Rękas

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

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

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

***

Scholars disagree whenever there are 45 or even 83 definitions of energy security. Its understanding varies depending on the country in which is defined, its geographical, cultural and consciousness conditions.  

There are also different priorities within societies, depending on the position in the supply chain.  The widest accepted Yegrin’s definition focuses on “adequacy, reliability of and reasonability of prices”.

But this may confusingly indicate the priority of consumer interests (which even the naivest people probably stopped believing in by Autumn 2021 at the latest), and the “rationality of the markets” what is the oxymoron. 

No, completely different factors are decisive and it is clearly visible in the clash of seemingly separate strategies, such as the shift towards renewable energy (RE), currently presented as a response to climate change and the Western actions related to the war in Ukraine.

(Un)natural shift

The introduction of the geopolitical dimension to the analysis of energy security in the context of RE only seemingly looks like a paradox, as this aspect is often ignored in discussions on the energy transition.  But is obvious that the shift to RE would not arouse such interest from some governments, especially European ones, without geopolitical advantages for the continent having only 1% of global oil and 2% of natural gas reserves.  27 present EU member states and the UK rely on external energy supply.

Even if they possess fossils’ reserves themselves (like gas or oil), then rarely all at once, and never in the quantities used to cover all demand (Dutch gas, Scottish oil, Swedish uranium).  That is why we should distinguish these issues as a separate ‘energy geopolitics’.

Such a discipline may be considered young, but some researchers dare to draw parallels between hegemonic cycles and the dominant fossil fuel: coal for British hegemony in the 19th Century and oil for American domination.  In this context, it is crucial for further considerations on energy security to determine whether the assumed shift to RE may also have a geopolitical dimension, eliminating or at least weakening the possibility of the emergence of another hegemon of the unipolar World.

Who pays the bills?

Instead, the immanent features of RE would favour a multipolar network, with particular participation of non-state actors, especially NGOs and global civil society.  It would also be a significant paradigm change within IR theories, shifting the burden from a realistic geopolitical approach, seeing energy security as a strictly competitive game – towards the ‘global energy governance‘ assumption, based on cooperation and interdependence, and therefore naturally peaceful.  Such understood energy transition would also mean social change, with RE modifying the shape of social hierarchy, increasing the importance of the prosumers (i.e. producers and consumers at the same time), thus leading to a renewed type of society.

However, it is the social factor that often rejects changes, the most famous examples are known from the French Isle of Sein and Greek Crete.  The common acronym for such an attitude is NIMBY: ‘Not In My Back Yard’, that means ‘Even if I do not question the rightness of the change itself – I refuse to bear any costs related’.  And this resistance is fully justified, since the current costs are always on the side of the consumers and workers, and the profits on of the bank accounts of the Global Capital.  The very vision of a happy global society of minimal needs, generating energy on the side to satisfy small independent communities seems to be attractive for anti-system movements from left and right – but is clearly utopian and anachronistic considering involvement of both state global corporate actors.  This is no longer the initiative of a nice, only a bit grown up hippies, and at the real decision-making level, it probably never was.

The New Hegemony

Concept of the unequivocally positive influence of RE on the reduction of geopolitical risk is also questioned.  It is obvious that the increasing share of RE in the energy mix reduces the geopolitical influence of gas and oil exporters.  Critics argue that this may only mean changes in the leading positions within energy competition, without violating the rules of that challenge.  Just instead of fossils, the exporters of rare earth elements (REE) used in the production of RE infrastructure would gain importance.  Examples are the embargo imposed by China on REE export to Japan in 2010, the Sino-American conflicts caused by subsidising solar panels production in 2012/2013, dispute about subsidies for the wind turbines producers, and controversy about customs tariffs for REE within China-USA and China-EU trade relations.  So far, these controversies have been resolved at the WHO forum, but they prove that the tensions in IR will not disappear as a result of the technological change in energy production only.

Scholars emphasise the threat of supply shocks of REE used in the production of hybrid electric vehicles and some types of wind turbines, caused by assumed increase in demand on neodymium (forecasted 7% increase) and dysprosium (even 2600% increase!) in the next 25 years.  Demand for lithium used in battery cells is expected to grow at 674% by 2030.  Although critics admit that not all components of advanced RE technologies are actually that rare and can be explored in much more countries than hydrocarbons.  However, REE exploitation is associated with high environmental costs, difficult to be accepted in developed part of the World and production in peripheral countries is frequently disrupted, as in the case of cobalt used for battery cells, extracted in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  Therefore, there is a potential risk of both a lock-in on REE-based technologies and the threat of new hegemonic conflicts over resources, which could occur e.g. in the Atacama Desert rich in lithium reserves.

Totalitarian Global Energy Market

The scarcity of space may also be conflicting, when onshore and PV-farms could require area up to 100-fold more than non-RE electric generation infrastructures.  It also opens up scope for potential conflicts over new divisions of the sea shelf for offshore installations.

Even basing international energy cooperation on the cross-border transfer of electricity seems to be controversial.  Supporters of such a transition argue that it promotes peaceful interdependence related to mutually beneficial exchange.  According to critics, there will be just new opportunities for ‘geopolitical leverage’between electricity exporters and importers.  The technological development of transmission networks, such as the popularization of UHV, may create new challenges as the need for a unified management of the global grid, which in turn is in contradiction with the assumption of more local nature of the new system.  And opposite, the dispersion of energy generation can be seen as an incentive for separatisms and centrifugal movements.  Especially in extreme conditions, such as war or escalating terrorism and cyberterrorism, this may not only prevent the planned global integration, but even disintegrate the current structures into unrelated geopolitical ‘energy islands’ what we can observe in Libya as effect of Western aggression.  The rest has to be managed and governed, in a standardised and uniform manner.  The question is by whom, since the energy transformation continues in the name of strengthening the neoliberal paradigm, deregulation and marketisation.  The logical consequence is the World Government, of course as a tool steered by the Totalitarian Global Market.

*

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

Konrad Rękas is a renowned geopolitical analyst and a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: The White Mesa uranium mill, the only conventional uranium mill in the United States that is still operating, is owned by Energy Fuels, a Toronto-based company. Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

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

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

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

***

On April 6, 2022, Burkina Faso’s ex-President Blaise Compaoré was tried, convicted and sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment for murder.

It took 35 years for justice to catch up with him for murdering his revolutionary socialist predecessor, Thomas Sankara (the “Che Guevara of Africa”), in a 1987 right-wing military coup.

How long will justice take to catch up with the CIA and its French intelligence counterpart, the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (DGSE), for what appears to have been their part in masterminding or enabling the plot that overthrew and killed Sankara?

*

As young military officers in Burkina Faso during the 1970s and 1980s, Thomas Sankara and Blaise Compaoré were the best of friends. The two traveled the country playing in a musical band together and Sankara’s parents adopted Compaoré as his parents had died when he was young.

In 1983, Sankara and Compaoré launched a coup against Burkina Faso’s military regime by Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo. Sankara became president, and Compaoré his deputy, their bond remaining unshakeable.

But four years later, in an act of treachery fit for a Shakespearian tragedy, Compaoré and a group of commandos stormed a government building where Sankara was in a meeting and shot him at point-blank range.

According to a witness who claimed to be in the room at the time, Compaoré—possibly at the urging of his wife Chantal, the daughter of Ivory Coast leader Houphouët Boigny—was the one to pull the trigger.

The witness, Momo Jiba, an aide to Liberian warlord Charles Taylor, stated,

“I was right there when Thomas Sankara said ‘because you are my best friend, I call you my brother, and yet you assassinate me.’”

Upon hearing these words, Compaoré allegedly made an irritated gesture, said something to Sankara in French and then fired the first shot. If he had not done so, a man named Guengère, who later became Defense Minister, would have shot Sankara and become Burkina Faso’s next president.

Amis inséparables, Sankara et Compaoré verront leur amitié finir de manière tragique

Blaise Compaoré, right, and Thomas Sankara, left. [Source: bbc.com]

Belated Conviction

On April 6, 2022, time and the law finally caught up with Compaoré, who was convicted in absentia in Ouagadougou for killing Sankara and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Hyacinthe Kafundo, Compaoré’s former head of security, and General Gilbert Diendéré, a former senior army commander with close ties to the U.S., were also convicted and given life sentences.

Five other people were found guilty of a range of offenses, including giving false evidence, bribing potential witnesses and complicity in undermining state security. Three were found not guilty, including the doctor accused of saying on Sankara’s death certificate that he died of natural causes.

The verdict was greeted with jubilation by Sankara’s supporters in the courtroom. Seated near the front, Sankara’s widow Mariam Sankara, who now lives in the south of France, said justice had finally been delivered.

“The judges have done their jobs and I am satisfied. Of course, I wished the main suspects would be here before the judges,” she told the Associated Press. “It is not good that people kill other people and stop the process of development of a country without being punished.”

Throughout his 27-year rule from 1987 to 2014, Compaoré thwarted attempts to investigate the circumstances of Sankara’s death, including repeated calls for his remains to be exhumed (Sankara had been buried in a commoner’s grave), adding to speculation about Compaoré’s part in the murder.

Africa’s Che Guevara

Considered the “African Che Guevara,” Sankara was the rare revolutionary who was able to implement his ideals in power and to affect positive change.

Burkina Faso |  Prozess Thomas Sankara | 

Statue of Sankara in Ouagadougou. [Source: dw.com]

He oversaw huge increases in health and education spending during his presidency, promoting reforestation, land redistribution, vaccinations and women’s rights.

Only 37 at the time of his death, he broke the power of Mossi chiefs who embodied the feudal and colonial past, and attempted to create a Burkina-Ghana economic union with a new currency that would end dependence on the French franc.[1]

Sankara additionally a) forged close relations with Cuba and other revolutionary states, b) repudiated an IMF structural adjustment program that would have forced cutbacks to social services, c) called for African debt refusal, and d) sought to resurrect the UN’s New International Economic Order (NIEO), a transnational governance initiative that sought to reform the global economy in order to redirect more benefits to the developing world.[2]

Burkina Faso was valued by outside powers because of its possession of rare earth minerals, including copper, zinc, limestone, manganese and phosphate and gold mining, which Sankara sought to keep under national control.

Compaoré, by contrast, privatized large sections of the Burkinabé mining industry, continuing the cycle of foreign economic domination and underdevelopment from which Sankara sought to free his country.

Burkina Faso | Coup, Map, Capital, Flag, Government, & History | Britannica

Source: Britannica.com

A December 1988 World Bank report tellingly praised the remarkably high standards of financial management in Burkina Faso during Sankara’s leadership but noted the growing prevalence of corruption since Compaoré had taken over.[3]

Described as “cold and calculating” with a “taste for luxury” that he shared with his wife, Compaoré was so close to the French that, when he was ousted from power in 2014, French troops evacuated him by helicopter to Ivory Coast, where he still lives.

Image

Source: twitter.com

Headquarters of U.S. Military and Surveillance Empire

A generation after Sankara’s death, Burkina Faso has been transformed into a U.S. military outpost and headquarters of the U.S. surveillance empire in Western Africa.

In September 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle posed with Compaoré and his wife Chantal at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. At the time, several dozen U.S. military personnel and contractors were working in Burkina Faso.

A group of people posing for a photo Description automatically generated

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama pose for a photo during a reception at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York with Burkina Faso President Blaise Compaoré and his wife, First Lady Chantal Compaoré, in September 2009. [Source: commons.wikimedia.org]

The Obama administration provided more than $35 million in security assistance to Compaoré—even though Burkina Faso’s security forces had an atrocious human rights record.

AFRICOM during Compaoré’s rule was permitted to open a new surveillance base at Ouagadougou International Airport in a classified program known as Operation Creek Sand and a classified regional intelligence fusion center known as Aztec Archer was also established.

A group of people posing for a photo Description automatically generated

The Obamas with the Compaorés in the White House’s Blue Room in August 2014. Blaise was participating in an African leaders’ summit. [Source: commons.wikimedia.org]

American Special Forces worked with the chief of Compaoré’s presidential guard, Gilbert Diendéré, his accomplice in Sankara’s assassination, and went into the field on patrols against Islamic insurgents embedded with local troops.[4]

In 2018 and 2019, the Trump administration pumped in $100 million in “security cooperation” funding—equal to about two-thirds of Burkina Faso’s 2016 defense budget—making it one of the largest recipients of U.S. security aid in West Africa.

A person standing next to a group of people in clothing Description automatically generated with medium confidence

AFRICOM Commander Stephen J. Townsend, who covered up war crimes in Syria, reviews Burkinabé troops during a visit to Burkina Faso in September 2019. [Source: Africom.mil]

This aid fueled greater instability with Lieutenant Colonel Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba, who took part in at least half a dozen U.S. training exercises, seizing power in a coup in January 2022.

Burkina Faso today ranks only 144th out of 157 nations in quality of life indicators established by the World Bank, with 40% of the population living in poverty. Only about one-third of adults in Burkina Faso are literate, and fewer than 20% of residents have access to electricity.

“It’s Me They Are Looking For”

On the day of the killing, Sankara had just begun a meeting with members of his Cabinet when soldiers stormed in. According to the lone survivor, Halouna Traoré, Sankara declared, “It’s me they are looking for” and went outside to face his assassins, who killed him along with twelve of his associates.[5]

The findings of the autopsy—only made public in October 2015—corroborated that Sankara had been assassinated while holding up his arms—contrary to Compaoré’s claim that Sankara had shot first.

The subsequent radio broadcast announcing Sankara’s execution referred to him as a “traitor to the revolution” and “autocratic mystic” whose “high treason” was epitomized by his “personalization of power” and “use of mysticism to try to solve the problems of the masses.”[6]

The commandos that executed Sankara included Gilbert Diendéré, who would later be promoted to the rank of Knight of the Legion of Honor during a visit to France in May 2008 and briefly became head of state after mounting a coup in 2015.

Françafrique and the Removal of a “Troublesome Man”

During the 1960s, French President Charles de Gaulle (1959-1969) entrusted Jacques Foccart with the mission of holding West Africa under French influence even in an era of decolonization.

Nicknamed “Monsieur Afrique,” Foccart set up a network of contacts under de Gaulle and Georges Pompidou (1969-1974), which organized surveillance across the francophone African region and adopted covert actions and other “dirty tricks.”

This shadow network was termed “la Françafrique,” and was still operational when Sankara was killed. Though its records remain classified, we know that French agents were present at the time of Sankara’s assassination and had spoken about “destabilization efforts” with U.S. diplomats.[7]

France had withdrawn its financial aid prior to the coup in an effort to bankrupt Burkina Faso’s economy and provoke fissures in the revolutionary leadership,[8] and then destroyed wiretaps targeting Compaoré the day after the assassination.

On the day of the coup, Chantal Compaoré was in Paris under the company of Ambassador Barry Djibrina, her husband’s link to Foccart who obviously knew something was afoot.[9]

A picture containing text Description automatically generated

Chantal Compaoré on the day of her marriage to Blaise. She apparently had a taste for luxury and drove a wedge between Thomas and Blaise. [Source: facebook.com]

The French had wanted Sankara removed from the earliest days of his rule because he opposed the neo-colonial model that favored French interests in West Africa. At a reception during President François Mitterrand’s visit to Ouagadougou in 1986, Sankara lashed out at French policy in Africa, stating:

We cannot understand why bandits like Jonas Savimbi [Angolan warlord backed by the CIA], killers like Pieter Botha [Apartheid South Africa leader], have been authorized to travel to France, so beautiful and decent a country. They stained her with their hands and feet covered with blood. Those who allowed them to commit such actions will bear responsibility here and elsewhere in the world, now and forever!

These comments made Sankara a marked man. Mitterrand afterwards said,

“I admire [Sankara’s] great qualities, but he is too forthright; in my opinion he goes too far,” adding “this is a somewhat troublesome man, President Sankara.”

This was exactly the view the Belgians had of another Pan-Africanist leader, Patrice Lumumba of Congo, who was assassinated soon after he publicly criticized the colonial system and suggested that the Belgians had not been benign overlords.

revolutionary socialism in the 21st century - Patrice Lumumba's legacy

Patrice Lumumba, center, before he was killed by Belgian proxies. [Source: revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com]

U.S. Seeks Regime Change Too

U.S. diplomats had a view of Sankara similar to Mitterand’s. One diplomat, John C. Baxter, was expelled from Burkina Faso for “subversive activities” that included “consorting with anti-government conspirators,” possibly while working under official cover for the CIA.[10]

Prior to the assassination, the military attaché at the U.S. embassy worked closely with his French counterpart in Ouagadougou. U.S. military training programs had provided access to “the very center of power,” with the U.S. embassy holding a seminar for senior military officers, including Compaoré. International Military Education and Training (IMET) program graduates were mostly pro-Compaoré, including Gilbert Diendéré’s brother Dominique.[11]

U.S. Ambassador Leonardo Neher (1984-1987), who had worked in Congo after Lumumba’s assassination, characterized Burkina Faso under Sankara as a “very radical, very troublesome country in West Africa,” whose leaders [led by Sankara] “had a Marxist vocabulary and were good friends with Qhaddafi’s [Libyan leader] and they were up on the stage everyplace in the world denouncing the U.S. and imperialism, and siding with Cuba, the Soviets, and with Nicaragua.”

Herman Cohen, the former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, recounted in a 1995 book that,

“as a member of the American Executive, I accused Sankara of trying to destabilize the entire region of West Africa. Houphouët [Boigny] dismissed my concerns with the flippant remark, ‘Don’t worry, Sankara is just a boy. He will mature quickly.’ Since we were alone, I insisted that Sankara was hurting the image of the entire French community in West Africa and would eventually hurt Houphouët himself.”[12]

The latter was unacceptable as Boigny was long regarded as a bulwark against the spread of pan-African and socialist movements in Western Africa, a loyal friend to foreign capital and an ally in the Cold War.

After Compaoré seized power, the Reagan administration trained and funded the Burkinabé army in an attempt to stabilize his rule. This in spite of a reign of terror carried out by Compaoré, which included the arrest, imprisonment, torture and execution of Sankara family members and supporters.[13]

“Sankara Was a Socialist, So He Had to Go”

In 2009, Italian filmmaker Silvestro Montanaro produced a documentary, African Shadows, which implicated U.S. and French intelligence agencies in Sankara’s killing along with Compaoré.

The film includes interviews with two close aides to Liberian warlord Charles Taylor, who had been recruited by the CIA to overthrow Liberian dictator Samuel K. Doe in the late 1980s.[14]

One of these aides, Momo Jiba, stated that his boss [Taylor] had told him to approach Sankara for help in taking power in Liberia in exchange for lucrative business opportunities.

When Sankara rejected the idea, Taylor met in Mauritania with a general named Guengère, later Burkina Faso’s Defense Minister, Blaise Compaoré, and Chad President Idriss Déby along with a white Frenchman who was probably part of Foccart’s network.

At the meeting it was decided that, for Taylor to be able to use Burkina Faso as a launching pad to wage war in Liberia, Sankara had to be eliminated and Compaoré would become president. All of this was part of America’s interest in controlling Burkina Faso, according to Jibo.

According to Cyril Allen, another of Taylor’s top aides, “the Americans and French sanctioned the plan to remove Sankara.”

Allen stated that

“there was a CIA operative and the U.S. embassy in Burkina Faso worked closely with the Secret Service at the French embassy and they made the crucial decisions. The French secret service decided to eliminate Sankara. Those are the facts.”

Prince Yormie Johnson, another one-time Taylor associate, stated that the CIA had infiltrated the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) and convinced the NPFL leadership and Compaoré that Sankara had to be assassinated.

The United States wanted this, Allen affirmed, because “they were not happy with Sankara. He was talking of nationalizing his country’s resources to benefit his people. He was a socialist so he had to go.”[15]

*

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. Brian J. Peterson Thomas Sankara: A Revolutionary in Cold War Africa (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2021), 257. Sankara also promoted close ties between Burkino Faso and China, accepting a $20 million interest free loan from China for agricultural development. 

  2. See Ernest Harsch, Thomas Sankara: An African Revolutionary (Miami, OH: Ohio University Press, 2014.); Peterson, Thomas Sankara, 219. Sankara suggested that Africans did not have the means to pay back their debt, and that the loans had been issued with steep interest rates on the advice of Western financial experts who ultimately bore responsibility for the mushrooming of the debt. 
  3. Unlike many African leaders of the time, Sankara himself lived austerely. At his death Sankara is reported to have left his $450 salary, a modest sedan car, four bikes, 3 guitars, a fridge and a broken freezer. 
  4. Jeremy Kuzmarov, Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2019), 104; Craig Whitlock, “U.S. Expands Secret Intelligence Operations in Africa,” The Washington Post, June 13, 2012, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-expands-secret-intelligence-operations-in-africa/2012/06/13/gJQAHyvAbV_story.html. 
  5. Only Halouna Traoré survived to tell the story of the killing. Peterson, Thomas Sankara, 291. 
  6. Elliott Skinner, “Sankara and the Burkinabe Revolution: Charisma and Power, Local and External Dimensions,” The Journal of Modern African Studies, 26, 3 (1988), 437. 
  7. Though intent on minimizing foreign involvement in the assassination, Peterson points to the presence in Burkina Faso of a French military officer tied to the Foccart network—thought to be General Jeannou Lacaze (aka “The Sphinx”), Francois Mitterand’s Chef d’Etat-Major for the armed forces—in the months before the assassination. Peterson, Thomas Sankara, 230. 
  8. Peterson, Thomas Sankara, 271. 
  9. Peterson, Thomas Sankara, 285. 
  10. Peterson, Thomas Sankara, 153. The CIA at the time was also involved in regime-change efforts in Ghana directed against Jerry Rawlings who was close to Sankara. President Ronald Reagan refused to meet with Sankara at the White House because a speech he gave before the UN General Assembly was considered to be too radical. Instead, Sankara visited Harlem where he was revered. Harsch, Thomas Sankara, 113, 114. 
  11. Peterson, Thomas Sankara, 276. Some of the pro-Compaoré officers “expressed longing for the old days of corruption because they utilized this as a means of supplementing their low salaries.” 
  12. See Herman J. Cohen, The Mind of the African Strongman: Conversations with Dictators, Statesmen, and Father Figures (Washington, DC: New Academia Publishing, 2015); Peterson, Thomas Sankara, 273. 
  13. See Peterson, Thomas Sankara, 294, 296. A resident of Ougadougou recounted in 2013 that, under the new post-Sankara order, “anyone who opposed Blaise was killed. Blaise’s men massacred people and traumatized the people, and we were afraid to speak out.” 
  14. See Jeremy Kuzmarov, “How the CIA Helped Ruin Liberia,” CovertAction Magazine, July 30, 2021, https://covertactionmagazine.com/2021/07/30/how-the-cia-helped-ruin-liberia/. The CIA had helped Taylor—who had been accused of embezzlement by Doe when he was a finance minister—escape from a county jail in Massachusetts in 1985. 
  15. Niels Hahn, Two Centuries of US Military Operations in Liberia: Challenges of Resistance and Compliance (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press, 2020), 121. 

Featured image: Blaise Compaoré [Source: independent.co.ug]

History: What You Need to Know About May Day

May 1st, 2022 by Leo Panitch

First published in 2010.

The legacy of the late Leo Panitch lives.

For more than 100 years, May Day has symbolized the common struggles of workers around the globe. Why is it largely ignored in North America? The answer lies in part in American labour’s long repression of its own radical past, out of which international May Day was actually born a century ago.

The seeds were sown in the campaign for the eight-hour work day. On May 1, 1886, hundreds of thousands of North American workers mobilized to strike. In Chicago, the demonstration spilled over into support for workers at a major farm-implements factory who’d been locked out for union activities. On May 3, during a pitched battle between picketers and scabs, police shot two workers. At a protest rally in Haymarket Square the next day, a bomb was tossed into the police ranks and police directed their fire indiscriminately at the crowd. Eight anarchist leaders were arrested, tried and sentenced to death (three were later pardoned).

These events triggered international protests, and in 1889, the first congress of the new socialist parties associated with the Second International (the successor to the First International organized by Karl Marx in the 1860s) called on workers everywhere to join in an annual one-day strike on May 1 – not so much to demand specific reforms as an annual demonstration of labour solidarity and working-class power. May Day was both a product of, and an element in, the rapid growth of new mass working-class parties of Europe – which soon forced official recognition by employers and governments of this “workers’ holiday.”

But the American Federation of Labor (AFL), chastened by the “red scare” that followed the Haymarket events, went along with those who opposed May Day observances. Instead, in 1894, the AFL embraced president Grover Cleveland’s decree that the first Monday of September would be the annual Labor Day. The Canadian government of Sir Robert Thompson enacted identical Labour Day legislation a month later.

Ever since, May Day and Labour Day have represented in North America the two faces of working-class political tradition, one symbolizing its revolutionary potential, the other its long search for reform and respectability. With the support of the state and business, the latter has predominated – but the more radical tradition has never been entirely suppressed.

This radical May Day tradition is nowhere better captured than in Bryan Palmer’s monumental book, Cultures of Darkness: Night Travels in the Histories of Transgression [From Medieval to Modern] (Monthly Review Press, 2000). Palmer, one of Canada’s foremost Marxist labour historians, has done more than anyone to recover and analyze the cultures of resistancethat working people developed in practising class struggle from below. He’s strongly critical of labour-movement leaders who’ve appealed to those elements of working-class culture that crave ersatz bourgeois respectability.

Set amid chapters on peasants and witches in late feudalism, on pirates and slaves during the rise of mercantile imperialism, on fraternal lodge members and anarchists in the new cities of industrial capitalism, on lesbians, homosexuals and communists under fascism, and on the mafia, youth gangs and race riots, jazz, beats and bohemians in modern U.S. capitalism, are two chapters that brilliantly tell the story of May Day. One locates Haymarket in the context of the Victorian bourgeoisie’s fears of what they called the “dangerous classes.” This account confirms the central role of the “anarcho-communist movement in Chicago [which] was blessed with talented leaders, dedicated ranks and the most active left-wing press in the country. The dangerous classes were becoming truly dangerous.”

The other chapter, a survey of “Festivals of Revolution,” locates “the celebratory May Day, a festive seizure of working-class initiative that encompassed demands for shorter hours, improvement in conditions, and socialist agitation and organization” against the backdrop of the traditional spring calendar of class confrontation.

Over the past century communist revolutions were made in the name of the working class, and social democratic parties were often elected into government. In their different ways, both turned May Day to the purposes of the state. Before the 20th century was out the communist regimes imploded in internal contradictions between authoritarianism and the democratic purpose of socialism, while most social democratic ones, trapped in the internal contradictions between the welfare state and increasingly powerful capital markets, accommodated to neoliberalism and become openly disdainful of “old labour.”

As for the United States, the tragic legacy of the repression of its radical labour past is an increasingly de-unionized working class mobilized by fundamentalist Christian churches. Canada, with its NDP and 30-per-cent unionized labour force, looks good by comparison.

Working classes have suffered defeat after defeat in this era of capitalist globalization. But they’re also in the process of being transformed: The decimated industrial proletariat of the global North is being replaced by a bigger industrial proletariat in the global South. In both regions, a new working class is still being formed in the new service and communication sectors spawned by global capitalism (where the eight-hour day is often unknown). Union movements and workers’ parties from Poland to Korea to South Africa to Brazil have been spawned in the past 20 years. Two more books out of Monthly Review Press – Ursula Huws’ The Making of a Cybertariat (2003) and the late Daniel Singer’s Whose Millennium? Theirs or Ours?(1999) – don’t deal with May Day per se, but capture particularly well this global economic and political transformation. They tell much that is sober yet inspiring about why May Day still symbolizes the struggle for a future beyond capitalism rather than just a homage to the struggles of the past.

The late Leo Panitch taught political economy at York University, He was co-editor of The Socialist Register and author of Renewing Socialist Democracy, Strategy and Imagination. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History: What You Need to Know About May Day

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

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

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

***

First published on Labor Day, 2021.

War, repression, and imperialism characterize the objective plight of billions of humans still gripped by the vicious colonial-capitalist world system. May 1 is the day laboring classes claim for themselves as International Workers’ Day to reaffirm the struggle against the dehumanization and degradation of the global capitalist order kept in place by state violence and war. May 1 also is the deadline the United States agreed to last year to pull out of Afghanistan to end the suffering of that nation of workers and peasants. It also is the day the workers and poor of Haiti have chosen to revolt against the puppet government imposed on them by the Biden-Harris administration, a duo that has proven in its first 100 days its commitment to Black life does not extend beyond domestic public-relations stunts.

Over a million Black working-class and poor people rot in the gulags of the United States as a surplus population, unneeded by capital except as an income generator for prison custodians and slave labor. And for the rest of the Black and Brown working class and poor, the domestic army referred to as the police are tasked with the responsibility to protect and serve the capitalist extraction of surplus value from labor through coercion and, when needed, terror.

This is the domestic expression of a global system that produces billions of people living in abject poverty in nations ruled by a contemptible neocolonial ruling class, usually supported by the United States or one of the other European colonial powers. These neocolonial puppets have no hesitation in using unimaginable violence to keep the people in line.

But the people are in resistance.

In Haiti, the people have fought for their collective dignity against a U.S. stooge for over a year. Having taken to the streets in the thousands, they have sustained the resistance to the point that the state has turned to increasingly desperate, escalating violence in its goal to contain the people.

In the United States, hundreds of wildcat strikes have occurred, demonstrating that even in the midst of a pandemic, the spirit of working-class resistance finds expression.

And in Venezuela, the Bolivarian process is still holding firm against all measures of U.S. provocations and cruel sanctions meant to punish the people, who refuse the indignity of surrender to Yankee imperialism.

The inability of capitalist states to protect the fundamental human rights of its citizens, revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic, has resulted in a new consciousness among workers and laboring classes globally. It now is clear the interests of the global capitalists are different from the interests of the rest of collective humanity. And because of that understanding, the warmongers are finding it a little more difficult to mobilize the public to protect imperialist interests.

On May 1, the Black Alliance for Peace stands in solidarity with the workers of the world and pledges our commitment to do our part to confront the capitalist dictatorship.

We say without hesitation or concern for retaliation on this International Workers’ Day that we will intensify the opposition to imperialism. From the streets of Atlanta, Detroit and Baltimore, to Cuba, Haiti, Libya, and Venezuela, we will “turn imperialist wars into wars against imperialism.”

*

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.

Featured image is from The Intentional Workplace 

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

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

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

***

President Biden has asked Congress for another 33 billion dollars to arm and train the Ukrainian forces, in addition to the 20 billion dollars already allocated and provided to Kiev: a total of over 50 billion dollars from 2014 for the war against Russia. At the same time, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin met in Germany with representatives of more than 40 countries, including Italy, to plan additional arms shipments.

This results in enormous military spending of public money diverted from social spending. For example, the M777 howitzer supplied to Ukrainian forces can fire 7 Excalibur bullets per minute at 40 km. Each bullet costs $112,000. Therefore in one minute the howitzer shoots bullets costing the equivalent of 25 gross annual salaries (according to the Italian average).

The US and NATO are thus conducting a proxy war against Russia in Europe, which began with the 2014 coup d’état and the attack on the Russian populations of Ukraine. Dramatic evidence of this is the massacre in Odessa on May 2, 2014, carried out by the neo-Nazi forces – Pravi Sektor, Azov Battalion and others – that have since assumed power in Kiev.

The regime established in Ukraine, represented publicly by President Zelensky, has imposed a single party and a single television channel, shutting down 11 political parties and all other television channels; it has drawn up a proscription list of thousands of independent journalists and implemented a systematic campaign of torture and assassinations to eliminate all opposition.

Europe, through the European Union itself, is thus dragged into the abyss of the war against Russia, which the US and NATO want to make permanent. The price paid by European citizens is enormous: the boycott of Russian gas imports is causing a disastrous economic crisis. Hence the vital need to bring Italy and Europe out of the war.

*

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

This article was originally published in Italian 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).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Enormous U.S. Military Spending, EU Dragged into Abyss of War against Russia. Italy Out of the War!
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

“In this [DOD] database… the rise in congenital malformations increased dramatically, from a baseline rate of 10,906 cases per year in 2021… to 18,951 congenital malformations for [just] part of the year of 2021. For part of the year of 2021, [congenital malformations] nearly doubled in the fetuses of our brave women… who submitted to what our President said they had to do.

As the Commander-in-Chief [forced] this experimental vaccine, their babies suffered! Their babies suffered!”

*

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

Elon Musk Buys Twitter

May 1st, 2022 by Dr. Joseph 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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

April 25, 2022, Twitter accepted Elon Musk’s buyout offer of $44 billion. At the completion of the transaction, Twitter will become a privately held company under Musk’s leadership

Musk, a self-described “free speech absolutist” with an “obsession with the truth,” has been open about his opinion that Twitter needs to be taken private in order to become a true free-speech platform

In a best-case scenario, Musk will use his newfound power to expose (and hopefully help end) government and legacy media-directed censorship

In 2020, Twitter falsely labeled Mercola links as unsafe and malicious. Shortly thereafter, they banned Mercola links from being posted altogether. Eventually, our account was removed for breach of “Twitter rules”

Social media platforms of all kinds, including Twitter, have been seemingly working together, censoring the same information — a fact that suggests some sort of centralized decision maker

*

By now you’ve probably heard the big news: Twitter accepted Elon Musk’s buyout offer.1 Musk, a self-described “free speech absolutist” with an “obsession with the truth,”2 has been open about his opinion that Twitter needs to be taken private in order to become a true free-speech platform.

With this buyout, Musk could potentially make that happen. His plans for the platform reportedly include “an edit feature, an open-source algorithm, less moderation, and a higher bar for removing offending tweets,” The Verge reports.3

$44 Billion Buyout Approved

As reported by Reuters,4 the deal was made after Musk met with a number of shareholders, outlining the specifics of his $54.20 share bid. This outreach to the shareholders appears to have force the board of directors’ hand.

Not only do they have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of shareholders, but they also realized that declining the offer would mean Musk could dump his stock (he already owned 9.1%5), causing the stock price to plummet. According to Reuters:6

“Many Twitter shareholders reached out to the company after Musk outlined a detailed financing plan for his bid … and urged it not to let the opportunity for a deal slip away …”

April 25, 2022, Musk and Twitter struck a deal for roughly $44 billion. It was unanimously approved by the 11-member board. At the completion of the transaction, Twitter will become a privately held company under Musk’s leadership.7 It’s reportedly the largest deal to make a company private in the last two decades.8 In a statement announcing the buyout, Musk said:9

“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.

I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential — I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”

Will Musk Reinstate Previously Banned Accounts?

Of course, everyone is now wondering how Twitter might change under Musk’s leadership.

“The billionaire, who has more than 83 million followers on Twitter and has romped across the service hurling gibes and memes, has repeatedly said he wants to ‘transform’ the platform by promoting more free speech and giving users more control over what they see on it. By taking the company private, Mr. Musk could work on the service out of sight of the prying eyes of investors, regulators and others,” The New York Times noted.10

On the other hand, Musk may in fact use his newfound power to reveal rather than hide. He will have the ability to investigate and expose government and legacy media-directed censorship, for example.

Over the past two years, we’ve seen social media companies working in lockstep to censor certain views, and we’ve already seen evidence that government officials have backdoor channels through which they’ve been instructing companies to censor information on their behalf. It’s not legal, but they’ve been doing it anyway — and getting away with it.

Many are now hoping Musk will unban those who were previously kicked off the platform, although the most famously banned individual, former President Donald Trump, has stated he will not be going back on Twitter, as he has since launched his own social media platform.

But of interest to everyone on this site is that in the summer of 2020, Twitter started falsely labeling Mercola.com links as unsafe and malicious, telling potential readers that my site might steal passwords and other personal data, or install malware on your computer — a tactic that decreased views by about 95%.

This was and is completely false. On the contrary, my site was by then set up to protect all readers from Google’s intrusive data mining. Shortly after that, Twitter banned Mercola links altogether. If you included a link to one of my articles, your post would simply be rejected and not posted.

Time will tell whether Musk will allow all previously banned accounts to be reinstated. Of course, among those accounts are also many other doctors and scientists who have been trying to share information about SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID shots.

If Musk acts with integrity, his takeover of Twitter could end up being a true watershed moment in the fight for personal freedom and the freedom of speech. Big Tech reporter Dan Patterson, interviewed by CBS News in the video above, doesn’t believe Musk is being completely honest about his intentions for Twitter.

Patterson suspects the free-speech talking point is “a red herring,” and that Musk is more interested in gaining influence than protecting free speech. The Washington Post11 appears to second that motion, pointing out that even though Twitter isn’t the most influential platform out there, “politicians, companies and activists often rely on the platform to set the news agenda.”

Twitter Has Censored Science

Perhaps more egregious than censoring and banning any particular individual is the fact that Twitter (and other social media platforms) have censored science itself, which is an incredibly dangerous move.

For example, at the end of April 2021, Twitter censored a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Medical Hypotheses,12 which concluded that masks are ineffective for blocking the viral transmission and can cause substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects.

Prashant Bhushan, an advocate-on-record for the Supreme Court of India, a respected human rights attorney with 2.1 million Twitter followers, posted a tweet that recommended reading the study. Twitter promptly removed the post, citing violation of Twitter rules.

As noted by The COVID Blog13 at the time, “Twenty-something Twitter employees with Starbucks lattes are now the authorities in law and science versus respected, long-time attorneys who have fought corruption their entire lives.”

Lockstep Censorship Has Become Norm

As crazy as that is, mainstream media have been all-onboard with the censorship of science, and as noted by investigative journalist Paul Thacker,14 one of the main reasons why media have been so unwilling to call out Big Tech censorship is because the media rely on fake fact checks to support their own lies.

Social media platforms of all kinds have also been seemingly working together, censoring the same information — a fact that suggests some sort of centralized decision-maker. As reported by Thacker:15

“In other examples, Facebook has censored an investigation I wrote for The BMJ that found troubling data integrity problems with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial.

Editors with The BMJ sent Mark Zuckerberg an Open Letter calling his company’s fact check ‘inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.’ Two weeks ago, Johns Hopkins professor Marty Makary tweeted that LinkedIn censored a post he wrote about a study published in JAMA.

That JAMA study found that natural immunity, caused by getting sick with the COVID-19 virus, seems just as effective as a vaccine. In this light, social media companies act as propaganda arms of pharma and denigrate any complex thinking that questions the value of the vaccines that they sell.

Reporters should be opposed to censoring scientific information, but most media — especially that odd species called the science writer — has aligned with the interests of scientists and the fact-checking industry …

Disinformation doesn’t have to be sophisticated when people believe what they read. Once this belief is established, censors ensure that disinformation remains strong, followed by denial that there is censoring. That way inconvenient facts do not mar the chosen story.”

An Evolving Story

It’s still too early to say whether Musk’s takeover of Twitter will mark a U-turn toward freedom of speech. I for one hope that’s the case. In the featured CBS News clip, Patterson muddies the waters by claiming that free speech is a nebulous thing that can be interpreted in any number of ways.

This isn’t the case, but we can’t be too surprised. By and large, we’ve seen Republicans and free speech supporters support Musk’s takeover of Twitter, while Democrats have been crying that taking Twitter private poses a “threat to democracy;” that it will open the doors to all manner of “hate speech” and will need close scrutiny.16

However, Musk is absolutely correct in his view that without freedom of speech — the right to speak your mind, even if others think you’re wrong — democracy is nothing but a fantasy. What censorship mavens are calling hate speech is usually nothing but an opposing opinion.

I still remember the days when social media involved being exposed to opinions of all kinds. While there’s the possibility of being “offended,” if you want to live in a free society, you have no choice but to allow opposing views to exist.

*

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.

Notes

1, 2, 3, 5 The Verge April 25, 2022

4, 6 Reuters April 25, 2022

7, 9 Cision PR April 25, 2022

8, 10 New York Times April 25, 2022 (Archived)

11 Washington Post April 26, 2022 (Archived)

12 Med Hypotheses. 2021 Jan; 146: 110411

13 The Covid Blog April 12, 2021

14, 15 JoSPI February 22, 2022

16 Wall Street Journal April 26, 2022

Featured image is from YugaTech

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

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

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

***

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has announced that his department will be undertaking a first-of-its-kind investigation to determine the role that the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries have played in the escalating global plastics crisis. The California Department of Justice is narrowing down on one company in particular: ExxonMobil, a corporation that’s previously been pegged as being the greatest polluter of single-use plastics in the world.

“In California and across the globe, we are seeing the catastrophic results of the fossil fuel industry’s decades-long campaign of deception,” Bonta said in a statement on April 28. “Plastic pollution is seeping into our waterways, poisoning our environment, and blighting our landscapes. Enough is enough.”

Bonta said the plastics industry has engaged in an “aggressive campaign to deceive the public” that has sustained “a myth that recycling can solve the plastics crisis.” Data compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows that recycling in the U.S. has never surpassed 9%.

The California DOJ issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil to seek information about whether the corporation has deceived the public about the harmful effects of plastic and the difficulties of recycling plastic products, and if it has violated any laws in doing so.

ExxonMobil denied these allegations in a statement.

“We share society’s concerns and are collaborating with governments, including the State of California, communities and other industries to support projects around the world to improve waste management and circularity,” Julie L. King, a spokesperson for the company, said in the statement. “We are the first company to deploy commercial-scale advanced recycling technology at a major petrochemical facility. This technology converts a broad range of used plastic to raw materials that can be utilized to make new plastic.”

ExxonMobil has previously been pegged as being the greatest polluter of single-use plastics in the world.

ExxonMobil has previously been pegged as being the greatest polluter of single-use plastics in the world. Image by Tom Fisk via Pexels.

Internal documents have revealed that leading oil and gas corporations in the U.S. have known about the unfeasibility of recycling plastics since the 1970s, according to a recent report. Yet these same companies have heralded the recycling capacities of plastics for decades, experts say.

An analysis by the Minderoo Foundation in Australia revealed that ExxonMobil contributed 5.9 million metric tons to global plastic waste, making the company the largest producer of single-use plastics. The report also found that about 100 companies, including ExxonMobil, were responsible for 90% of global production of single-use plastics.

Environmental experts have welcomed the California DOJ’s investigation, saying it’s time for the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries to be held accountable for their contributions to the plastics crisis.

“I view this as a very significant investigation which has the potential to finally hold plastic producers accountable for the immense environmental damage caused by plastics,” said Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics who previously served as a regional administrator for the EPA. “It will also address the ongoing deception of claiming that plastics are recyclable when, in fact, less than 10% are actually recycled. I applaud California Attorney General Rob Bonta for taking this bold action.”

In October 2021, Beyond Plastics released a report that said the plastics industry was set to overtake coal by 2030 in terms of carbon emissions in the U.S., and that plastic was not only a waste issue, but that plastic production was exacerbating the climate crisis. The report found that plastics production in the U.S. currently generates about 232 million metric tons of greenhouse gases every year, equivalent to about 116.5 gigawatts of coal plants. As production continues to increase, so will the amount of carbon emissions, the study says.

Now that the world is shifting toward renewable energy sources, fossil fuel and petrochemical companies appear to be refocusing their efforts to plastics production, recently investing $208 billion to expand the global production of plastics.

Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said it was “reasonable and appropriate” to investigate whether ExxonMobil misled the public when considering the “mountains of evidence” that such corporations have long deceived the public about the role their products have played in the climate crisis.

“The harms and costs confronting the State and people of California are significant, but they’re not unique,” Mufett said. “From frontline and fenceline communities harmed by plastic production and incineration, to people facing plastics on their shorelines and croplands, in their food and water supplies, and in their bodies, the impacts of plastic are diverse, widespread, and accelerating. So, while California’s action is the first of its kind, it is unlikely to be the last.”

Research suggests that about 450 million metric tons of plastic are produced every year, and that this is set to double by 2045. Much of this plastic ends up in the environment, polluting both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Plastic has been found in the deepest parts of the ocean to some of the highest mountains. It’s found in drinking water, food, and even the air we breathe. In short, plastic is everywhere.

A report published by WWF suggests that each of us consumes about a credit card’s worth of plastic every single week

A growing number of studies show that plastic can be detrimental to human health, although its impacts are still being fully investigated. One study found microplastic — particles smaller than 5 millimeters, or three-sixteenths of an inch — present in human fetuses. Another piece of research found that microplastics were present in human blood.

Microplastics in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, U.S.

Microplastics in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, U.S. One study found microplastic — particles smaller than 5 millimeters, or three-sixteenths of an inch — present in human fetuses. Another piece of research found that microplastics were present in human blood. Image by Will Parson/Chesapeake Bay Program via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0).

Plastic has become ubiquitous in our world — but it’s only one of about 350,000 different kinds of artificial chemicals, or “novel entities,” circulating in our world. This has led researchers to say in a recent study that we have breached a “planetary boundary” for chemical pollution, pushing humanity down a dangerous, irrevocable path.

In March this year, 175 countries agreed to adopt a global plastics treaty to curb plastic production and disposal, but the details of this agreement have yet to be determined. A group of scientists recently published a letter in Science, arguing that the treaty must place a cap on the production of new plastics in order to properly address the issue.

“For too long, ExxonMobil and other corporate polluters have been allowed to mislead the public and harm people and the planet,” said Graham Forbes, plastics global campaign lead at Greenpeace USA. “The science has become crystal clear that we must move away from fossil fuels and throwaway plastic. It is encouraging to see the state of California stand up to the fossil fuel industry. Hopefully, this is a sign that policymakers are ready to start holding corporations accountable.”

*

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

Elizabeth Claire Alberts is a staff writer for Mongabay. Follow her on Twitter @ECAlberts.

Sources

Allen, S., Allen, D., Baladima, F., Phoenix, V. R., Thomas, J. L., Le Roux, G., & Sonke, J. E. (2021). Evidence of free tropospheric and long-range transport of microplastic at Pic du Midi Observatory. Nature Communications, 12. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27454-7

Bergmann, M., Carney Almroth, B., Brander, S. M., Dey, T., Green, D. S., Gundogdu, S., … Walker, T. R. (2022). A global plastic treaty must cap production. Science.doi:10.1126/science.abq0082

Charles, D., Kimman, L., & Saran, N. (2021). Plastic Waste Makers Index: Revealing the source of the single-use plastics crisis. Retrieved from Minderoo Foundation website: https://cdn.minderoo.org/content/uploads/2021/05/27094234/20211105-Plastic-Waste-Makers-Index.pdf

Leslie, H. A., Van Velzen, M. J., Brandsma, S. H., Vethaak, A. D., Garcia-Vallejo, J. J., & Lamoree, M. H. (2022). Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environment International, 163. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199

Persson, L., Carney Almroth, B. M., Collins, C. D., Cornell, S., De Wit, C. A., Diamond, M. L., … Hauschild, M. Z. (2022). Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel entities. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(3), 1510-1521. doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c04158

Ragusa, A., Svelato, A., Santacroce, C., Catalano, P., Notarstefano, V., Carnevali, O., … Giorgini, E. (2021). Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environment International, 146, 106274. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274

Vallette, J. (2021). The New Coal: Plastics and Climate Change. Retrieved from Beyond Plastic website: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5eda91260bbb7e7a4bf528d8/t/616ef29221985319611a64e0/1634661022294/REPORT_The_New-Coal_Plastics_and_Climate-Change_10-21-2021.pdf

Featured image: People protest against ExxonMobil in Melbourne, Australia. Image by Matt Hrkac via Flickr (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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,247,131 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 27,532 deaths and 224,766 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and April 22, 2022.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,247,131 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and April 22, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 27,532 reports of deaths — an increase of 183 over the previous week — and 224,766 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 1,930 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 810,171 adverse events, including 12,672 deaths and 80,743 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and April 22, 2022.

Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 12,672 U.S. deaths reported as of April 22, 16% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 20% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 59% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 572 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of April 23, including 338 million doses of Pfizer, 215 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.

Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to April 22, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to April 22, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

  • 31,455 adverse events, including 1,803 rated as serious and 44 reported deaths.The most recent reported death involves a 14-year-old girl from Tennessee (VAERS I.D. 2238618) who died after receiving her second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. According to the VAERS report, the girl had a previous history of cancer but was hospitalized 29 days after receiving her second dose of Pfizer with severe COVID-19 and COVID pneumonia. She became “critically ill,” developed respiratory failure and bradycardia and later died.
  • 65 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 649 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis — two fewer than last week — with 637 casesattributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 165 reports of blood clotting disorders — 1 fewer than last week — with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to April 22, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

FDA to meet in June on COVID-19 vaccines for babies, toddlers

The FDA will meet in June — either June 8, 21 or 22 — to discuss COVID-19 vaccines for children under age 6. The agency’s vaccine advisory committee during its June meeting will also discuss Novavax’s request for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of its COVID-19 vaccine for adults.

Moderna on Thursday asked the FDA to authorize its COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use for children ages 6 months to 6 years.

The company conducted separate trials for two versions of the vaccine, one for infants and toddlers 6 months to 2 years, and one for children 2 to 6 years old.

The company claimed data showed “a robust neutralizing antibody response” and “a favorable safety profile.” But experts say Moderna is not providing the data needed to calculate the risk-benefit of its COVID vaccine.

Moderna’s KidCOVE study cited in Thursday’s press release shows the Moderna shot failed to meet the FDA’s minimum efficacy requirements for EUA in the 2- to under-6 age group, and barely surpassed the agency’s 50% efficacy requirement in the 6-month to 2-year age group after the vaccine maker changed its analysis of the study to meet the threshold.

In the younger age group, Moderna said the effectiveness of its vaccine was 51%. In the older age group, vaccine efficacy was only 37% — substantially lower than the FDA’s requirement. These are different efficacy numbers than those the company reported last month.

Pfizer is expected to file its application in May for a three-shot vaccination using smaller individual doses for children under 5.

Lawmakers push FDA on COVID-19 shots for youngest age groups

Moderna’s announcement followed just days after the House Select Subcommittee on Coronavirus Crisis asked the FDA for a status update on COVID-19 vaccines for children under 5 over concerns “millions of young children still remain unprotected because no vaccine has yet been authorized” for this age group.

A top FDA official ​​on Tuesday told The New York Times the agency has not cleared a COVID-19 vaccine for the youngest age group because Pfizer and Moderna have not finished their applications for authorization.

The agency said last week it is considering holding off on reviewing Moderna’s request to authorize its COVID-19 vaccine for children under 5 until it has data from Pfizer and BioNTech on their vaccine for children, pushing the earliest possible authorization of a vaccine from May to June.

The FDA said it would be simpler and less confusing to simultaneously authorize and promote two vaccines to the public, rather than green-lighting one on a faster timetable and the other down the road.

Agency officials were worried about authorizing Moderna’s vaccine only to find out just a few weeks later that Pfizer’s offered better protection.

Pfizer requests EUA for booster dose for 5- to 11-year-olds

Pfizer and BioNTech on Tuesday announced they applied for EUA of a COVID-19 booster dose for children ages 5 to 11. In a press release, Pfizer cited data from its Phase 2/3 trial that claimed a third dose produced a “strong immune response” in the younger age group when administered six months after the second dose.

The data was based on a small study involving only 140 children 5 through 11 years old who received a booster dose six months after the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID vaccine as part of the primary series.

Pfizer said 30 children who participated in the study revealed a 36-fold increase in virus-fighting antibodies — levels high enough to fight the Omicron variant, which is currently not the dominant variant in the U.S.

Experts told The Defender the “clinical trial used to support the notion of a COVID-19 booster for 5- to 11-year-olds is entirely inadequate to make any such recommendation.”

Denmark suspends COVID-19 vaccine campaign

Denmark on Tuesday became the first country to suspend its national COVID-19 vaccine campaign after health officials said the pandemic is under control there.

Bolette Soborg, director of the Danish Health Authority’s department of infectious diseases, said Denmark is “winding down” the mass vaccination program, and invitations for vaccinations would no longer be issued after May 15.

Public health authorities cited several factors contributing to the decision to end the national vaccination campaign. These include a decline in the number of newly reported infections, stabilized hospitalization rates and an overall high level of vaccination.

Denmark plans to reopen the vaccination program in the fall, which will be preceded by a thorough professional assessment of who and when to vaccinate, and with which vaccines.

The decision comes just a few months after Denmark eliminated all COVID-19-related restrictions, becoming the first European Union member state to do so.

*

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.

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

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

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

***

Dogma is a belief, or set of beliefs, that is accepted by members of a specific group that is not questioned or doubted. Dogma does not imply that something is “bad,” “wrong” or untrue. Religion is an excellent example. It’s ok to believe whatever you believe in, and one should be free to do so.

Science, on the other hand, is all about doubting, questioning, examining and testing, but this suddenly changed during the pandemic.

During COVID, doctors, epidemiologists, professors and various other academics in the field were reprimanded in a number of ways for questioning any and all COVID policies that were put in place by several governments. Public and political discourse normalized stigma against not only academics, but people who were vaccine hesitant.

Demeaning language like “anti-vaxxers” was used, while language like “trust the science” and “back to normal” further singled out the unvaccinated, blaming them for the continuation of the pandemic, lockdowns, and the stress on hospital capacity.

On the other hand, science calling into question the efficacy and safety of COVID vaccines was buried. The wealth of data showing that lockdowns were, as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from the Stanford School of Medicine put it “the worst public health catastrophe in human history,” was completely ignored.

Science calling into question the safety and effectiveness of masks was also ignored, and those who have suffered serious vaccine injury have been unacknowledged.

The “powers that be” seemed to have made this type of language and perspective acceptable. The result of this further polarized society, physically and psychologically with almost zero discussion as to to why people refused to comply/disagreed with public health measures. A proper discourse was not had, only ridicule and finger pointing.

Today, we live in an era where a specific view of science has become akin to taking on a kind of religious authority; those who question it are deemed dangerous heretics and punished accordingly.

Even the British Medical Journal was “fact checked” and censored by Facebook third party fact checkers. The BMJ obtained dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails detailing concerning fraud that took place during clinical trials for the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccines. The FDA has still not investigated the case.

Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform, and added warnings to approximately 167 million others. YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

This type of “muzzling” is unprecedented, and infringes upon our right to share and view information. It’s something that continues to gain traction as the years pass, and it started well before COVID.

In many cases, telling the truth has become a crime.

For example, the case of Julian Assange, who exposed various US war crimes, among other things, is an excellent example. The government brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information. This establishes a dangerous precedent that can be used to target all news organizations that hold the government accountable. The US Department of Homeland Security has stated that sharing “misinformation” online may be considered domestic terrorism.

Barack Obama recently made more noise about the fact that disinformation is a big threat to American Democracy. Is it really disinformation that’s a threat, or simply information? Are governments fearful of being exposed?

But who decides what “misinformation” is? The government? Pharmaceutical companies? Funded third party fact checkers? We are constantly told that governments and government affiliated agencies are the gold standard of truth.

I am reminded of a quote from Dr. Julie Ponesse, a philosophy professor from Ontario, Canada who was let go due to her refusal to get vaccinated.

“Don’t underestimate yourself as a reliable source of information. Take notice of the evidence around you. Heed your instincts and experiences. You don’t need to outsource all of your thinking to the government, to the media, to anyone who tells you to do so.”

Scientific dogma is not a new phenomenon, and it comes in many forms. For example, a 2006 report by GlaxoSmithKline in the NEJM concluded that Avandia was a great drug for treating diabetes. At the time, the senior vice president of the company Lawson Macartney stated the following in a news release;

“We now have clear evidence from a large international study that the initial use of (Avandia) is more effective than standard therapies.”

The trial used to approve the drug had been funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and each of the eleven authors had received money from the company. Four were employees and held company stock. The other seven were academics who had received grants or consultant fees from the firm. The drug had been estimated to cause approximately 80,000 heart attacks and deaths, a safety signal that at the time of approval should have been quite clear.

There are countless examples of this, and pharmaceutical companies have knowingly put out “science” that’s been manipulated. This is why Pfizer, for example, has been assessed billions in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. This is the heart of where scientific dogma originates, from fraud.

The type of censorship seen during COVID are signs of tyranny. COVID created an environment where doctors and scientists were at risk of losing their jobs for simply questioning the official narrative.

Tyrannical dictatorships operate in a different form in today’s day in age. Massive amounts of propaganda are used to sway the perception of the collective public mind, and any other opinion or piece of evidence is quickly done away with in various forms, usually by using censorship and ridicule. Any thought or piece of information that does not support the government seems to be a threat to them.

The question then becomes, what can we do about it?

The answer to that is quite simple. Keep talking, keep sharing information, and continue to use whatever means we have to share information. The number of people who became aware of the issues discussed in this article during COVID is quite large, and that’s very encouraging.

It’s become quite clear that crisis’ like COVID are used, and in some cases created by those who wish to profit off of them politically and financially. The world is being pushed in a direction of compliance and self censorship.

I’ll leave you with this quote from Edward Snowden, as I have done before.

“As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world. Do you truly believe that when the first wave, the second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept?”

*

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 123RF

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

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

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

***

Remdesivir/Veklury & mRNA vaccines are harmful to your children, no one, no Fauci, Bourla of Pfizer, Bancel of Moderna, or O’Day Gilead prosecuted case of why this is needed in kids; poor methods/data

They are coming and tag-teaming off each other…be warned!

These three pieces of news shows they have our kids in their cross-hairs, these three pharmaceutical companies, have our healthy children in sight and coming in hard, and I challenge these people, these three CEOs to show us the evidence, show us the data, any data to show that we must be vaccinating healthy children, 6 month year olds etc. or giving them this liver and kidney toxic drug at 28 days, using these ineffective vaccines that are based on the initial Wuhan legacy strain and they know this will not work on the OMICRON or future variants (vaccinal induced mRNA antibodies do not hit the spike protein on omicron, does not neutralize), and are proven harmful now with accumulated deaths in healthy young persons, or why is Remdesivir needed when it is a failed Ebola and Marburg virus drug and is shown to kill people, liver and kidney toxic…are we all insane now? we will give a drug that was waiting for a virus, to our kids? are we as parents and people just going to sit back?

These three pieces of reporting should frighten you and wake you up!

  1. Moderna seeks to vaccinate 6 month olds to 5 years
  2. The US Food and Drug Administration announced Monday that it has expanded approval of the Covid-19 drug remdesivir to treat patients as young as 28 days and weighing about 7 pounds.
  3. Covid-19 vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds is safe and shows ‘robust’ antibody response, Pfizer says

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Three-headed Hydra Attack from 3 Drug Companies, Pfizer, Moderna, & Gilead on Our Children; This Drug and Vaccine Will Kill Your Healthy Child; Not Needed; Have Not Proven Needed; Say No!
  • Tags: , , , ,

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

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

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

***

“Can you imagine that in 10 years, when we are sitting here, we have an implant in our brains, and I can immediately feel [what you are feeling] because you all will have implants. I can remeasure your brainwaves, and I can immediately tell you how some people react [emotionally] to your answers. Is it imaginable?”

*

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

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

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

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

***

As much as the end of corona restrictions in many countries is to be welcomed, one should not be deceived by the fact that in the background, construction continues on a global rebuild along the lines of the “Great Reset.“ And it’s going full speed ahead.

Threatening agreement for “pandemic prevention”

For the now obvious failure of the Covid measures, together with the backpedaling and the backing down of politics and the media, was obviously part of the plan. WHO is now using this general distraction to get member states to sign a new “global pandemic preparedness“ agreement that basically gives WHO power in all medical and climatic emergencies!

“[…] a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. […]“

The new treaty, pledged in December 2021, expands on an original 2005 treaty and, if adopted by member states, means that the WHO Constitution (under Article 9) will take precedence over individual countries‘ constitutions in the event of natural disasters or pandemics. For this, in Europe, the main aim is to get the EU to implement it in the member states.

WHO will in future dictate, not recommend

In other words, the WHO will dictate in the future, not just recommend.

On the WHO side, an intergovernmental negotiating body has now already been constituted, which will hold its first meeting on March 1, 2022 (“to agree on working methods and timelines“) and its second on August 1, 2022 (to discuss “progress on a working draft“). It will then present a progress report to the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023, with the goal of adopting the instrument“ by 2024.

The instrument is intended to:

  • ensure stronger, sustained and long-term political commitment at the level of global leaders
  • define clear processes and tasks
  • improve long-term public and private sector support at all levels
  • ensure promotion of the integration of health issues into all relevant policies

Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, a Swiss scientist who has worked for WHO for 20 years, warns that this is precisely the case. She believes that every country should send a public letter of protest to WHO, stating that it is unacceptable for the signature of a country’s health minister to decide the fate of millions of people without a referendum.

Dr. Stuckelberger informed that so far only Russia has sent such a letter of objection.

Finally, the joint statement on the Covi 19 pandemic by leaders from around the world, together with the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, and the Director General of the World Health Organization, Dr. Tedros Adhanom, was quoted:

“There will be other pandemics and other major public health emergencies. The question is not if, but when. Collectively, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess, and respond effectively to pandemics in a highly coordinated manner. To that end, we believe nations should work together toward a new international treaty on pandemic preparedness and response.“

*

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: WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (left) at a WHO conference. | Image flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will Take Precedence over National Constitutions: WHO Establishes Global Agreement on “Pandemic Preparedness“!
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

Die Bombardierung der wunderschönen deutschen Kunst- und Lazarettstadt Dresden im Februar 1945 ist eines der zahlreichen Traumata in der Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts.

Der deutsche Dramatiker und Literatur-Nobelpreisträger Gerhart Hauptmann (1862-1946) hat das „Höllenfeuer“ des Flammeninfernos in Dresden, verursacht durch drei Bombenangriffe britischer und amerikanischer Luftstreitkräfte, persönlich erlebt. Zehntausende oder gar hunderttausende Menschen wurden erschlagen, erstickten in Kellern, verglühten in den Flammen. Deshalb beginnen seine „Abschiedsworte zum Untergang Dresdens“ mit dem Satz:

„Wer das Weinen verlernt hat, der lernt es wieder beim Untergang Dresdens.“ (1)

Erneut erleben die Menschen eines Landes, der Ukraine, ein unbeschreibliches Trauma und Höllenfeuer: die fortlaufende Bombardierung von immer mehr Gebieten ihres Heimatlandes durch eine Großmacht. Deshalb soll Hauptmanns bewegender Satz zum Untergang Dresdens auf die Zerstörung der Ukraine übertragen werden. Zutreffendere Worte für das, was wir tagtäglich in zunehmendem Maße an menschlichem Leid, an Verzweiflung, Tod und Verderben sowie materieller Zerstörung sehen, hören, lesen und miterleben können, lassen sich nicht finden.

Wenn wir die Untaten des anderen sehen, sodass es uns zum Weinen ist, sehen wir uns richtig

Für den deutschen Philosophen Max Stirner (1806-1856)) ist das Mitgefühl für den Mitmenschen keine moralische Pflicht, sondern sein tief empfundenes Bedürfnis, sein Eigentum, sein Wille (2). Bereits auf der ersten Seite seines 1844 erschienenen Hauptwerks „Der Einzige und sein Eigentum“ schreibt er: „Pfui über den Egoisten, der nur an sich denkt!“ (3)

Im heutigen Kommentar geht es nicht um die Frage, ob das Coronaregime und die Ukrainekrise Instrumente sind, um die Mobilität der Bevölkerung einzuschränken und die Agenda des „Great Reset“ voranzutreiben (4) oder ob Putin nun für oder gegen den „Great Reset“ kämpft, weil der Ukrainekrieg so oder so der „Neuen Weltordnung“ zuspielt (5).

Es geht um die Frage, ob wir Menschen sehen, dass es auch wir Bürger auf dieser Welt sind, die diesen gotteslästerlichen Krieg gegen das ukrainische Volk mit zu verantworten haben. Erst dann, wenn wir das sehen, wenn wir die Untaten des anderen – des gnadenlosen Herrschers oder Kriegsherren – sehen, sodass es uns zum Weinen ist, sehen wir uns richtig. Das ist der Spiegel.

Erst mit dieser Selbsterkenntnis, mit dieser Gesinnung, fängt der Mensch an, wahrer Mensch zu sein: indem er sich identifiziert und Bescheid weiß über die Haltung des anderen Menschen. Solange er noch im Zorn ist auf den Anderen, hat er kein richtiges Bild.

Doch soziale Gefühle sind nicht angeboren oder genetisch gegeben – und deshalb auch nicht automatisch abrufbar –, sondern das menschliche Wesen muss soziale Gefühle im Laufe seiner familiären und schulischen Erziehung erlernen (6).

*

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. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Lehrer (Rektor a. D.), Doktor der Pädagogik (Dr. paed.) und Diplom-Psychologe (Schwerpunkte: Klinische-, Pädagogische- und Medien-Psychologie). Als Pensionär arbeitete er viele Jahre als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und pädagogisch-psychologischen Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung und eine Erziehung zum Gemeinsinn und Frieden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Noten 

1. https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/tranen-fur-dresden; schutz-brett.org/3/de/…de-de/…/689-abschiedsworte-zum-untergang-dresdens.html

2. Stirner, Max (1981). Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. Stuttgart

3. a. O., S. 3

4. https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/die-bewegungslose-gesellschaft

5. https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/katalysator-der-globalen-umgestaltung

6. Plack, Arno (Hrsg.). (1973). Der Mythos vom Aggressionstrieb. München

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Wer das Weinen verlernt hat, der lernt es wieder bei der Bombardierung der Ukraine

On the eve of May Day 2020, in full coronavirus pandemic, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) released some hair raising statistics.

About 1.6 billion workers from the informal sector are in dire straits because of the lockdowns governments have imposed to stop the spread of the virus.

According to the ILO, some 60% of the world’s workers are in the informal economy, working without contracts, safety nets or savings.1 Depending on the country, women represent a higher or lower share of the informal workforce, but either way they are paid less than men.2

Now, because of quarantines and confinement, stoppages and curfews, there is no work.

No work means no income. No income, no food. Without alternative income sources, the ILO warned, “these workers and their families will have no means to survive”.3


That was Two Years Ago: Flash Forward to May 2022:

Today, the social situation is beyond description. People’s live are destroyed. Entire population groups in developing countries are driven into famine.

The covid lockdowns derogate workers’ rights by confining the labor force.

The data is manipulated. The statistics on Covid related poverty and unemployment are not being released.


If workers in the informal sector are not able to feed themselves, they are also unable to continue feeding millions, if not billions more. Informal labour is what keeps food systems functioning in most of the world: it accounts for 94% of on-farm labour globally, and a big part of the workforce in food trade, retail, preparation and delivery in many parts of the world.4

The coronavirus crisis has laid bare our dependence not only on well functioning health and food systems, but the gross injustices inflicted on those working in these essential sectors in the “best” of times: low wages, no access to health care, no child care, no safety protection at work, often no legal status and no representation in negotiating work conditions. This is true in both the informal and the formal sectors of the global food system. Indeed, the contrast between the wealth at the top of the largest food companies and the plight of their frontline workers is extreme. Nestlé, for instance, the world’s number one food company, awarded its shareholders US$8 billion in dividends at the end of April 2020, an amount that surpasses the annual budget of the UN World Food Programme (WFP).5

The only question that matters now is how to ensure everyone has access to food while keeping people safe and healthy at every step from farm to consumer. Unfortunately, this has not been the priority that has shaped food systems over the past decades. But getting there is not as complicated as it may appear.

Shutdown leading to hunger

The shutdown of much of the world economy since March 2020 has meant that many people are confined to their homes or their communities and cannot work. Factories have stopped, construction projects halted, eateries and transportation closed, offices shut. In many countries, migrant workers and students immediately tried to go home, where they have family to lean on, but many got blocked for lack of transport or border closures.

These measures seem to have been implemented without much thought about the actual workings of food systems. Farmers have been mostly able (not always) to continue working on their farms, but they lack labour – precisely when it’s harvest or birthing time in many parts of the world – and the means to move produce and livestock off the farm to cooperatives, collection points, slaughterhouses, traders or markets. Closures of schools, offices and restaurants have choked the system, leading to enormous waste. As a consequence, milk is being dumped, animals are being euthanised and crops are being ploughed into the soil. Similarly, fisherfolk who fish at night in place likes Uganda have been grounded because of curfews.6

In the cities, violence, abuse and corruption have accompanied these shutdowns in incomprehensible ways. In East Africa, as in parts of Asia, street vendors caught out in the streets have been met with whips and rubber bullets.7 Riots have arisen in urban and peri-urban communities when scarce food aid arrived.8 In Lebanon, one person was even killed in such riots.9 And in eSwatini, formerly Swaziland, the government has simply decided that it will not feed the cities, only focus on the rural areas.10

Meanwhile food companies have been granted lockdown exemptions that have greatly exacerbated the health crisis, without necessarily keeping people fed. Some of the world’s worst outbreaks of Covid-19 have been at meat processing plants owned by multinational corporations in Brazil, Canada, Spain, Germany and the US. Although these plants mostly produce meat for export, they were deemed an “essential service” and allowed to operate at full capacity, knowingly putting their workers and the surrounding communities at grave risk of infection.11 In the US, as of 6 May 2020, 12,000 meat plant workers have fallen ill and 48 have died.12 Seafood processing plants are hotspots too, such as in Ghana, where an outbreak at a tuna canning plant owned by Thai Union is responsible for 11% of the Covid-19 cases in the entire country.13 Supermarket workers and ecommerce platform employees have also been facing the huge difficulty of staying safe while keeping open for the purpose of rendering so-called “essential services”, exempt from the lockdowns. Oil palm plantations have mostly kept operational — to serve the production of much-needed soaps to fight the pandemic, their owners claim – but some have defied local ordinances or not provided the necessary protections for workers.14

The cure is at risk of becoming worse than the disease. People who have no work or wages since the pandemic broke – most of the informal sector, but also workers from the formal sector – are now facing the growing reality of hunger. The WFP says that the risk is highest right now in about ten countries, most of them engulfed in armed conflict, such as Somalia or South Sudan. But the lack of access to food due to Covid-19 work closures, and the resulting global recession that we are told will last for months, is now threatening many other countries. In India, 50% of rural people are eating less due to the lockdown.15 Worldwide, the number of people suffering acute hunger could double from 135 million today to 265 million by the end of the year, WFP says.16

Already, those hardest hit have been feeling the pain. The saying “I would rather die of coronavirus than hunger” is commonly heard in Haiti, Angola, Lebanon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mayotte, India and Latin America, according to news reports.17 In Belgium, it’s “Either we die of hunger or of coronavirus. We have to choose.”18 In West Africa, the saying is “Hunger will kill us before corona does”.

What’s clear is that if this spreading hunger does reach the scale of a global crisis, it will not be for lack of production or even because of hoarding. There is plenty of supply. It’s the distribution system that has shown its incapacity to feed us safely – especially the highly concentrated and globalised part that cannot respond to the crisis.

Creative community responses

One of the first measures many authorities took to halt the spread of coronavirus was to shut down restaurants, cafés, food stalls and fresh markets. As a response, communities have devised many other ways to get food to where it is needed, often using social media. On Facebook and Whatsapp, groups have been formed to collectively identify where food stocks are located or to collectively procure produce from farmers. Shuttered restaurants and cantines are using their resources to access and repackage bulk food supplies like flour or grains, repackage them and sell them in small quantities. “Repurposing” has become the word of the day, as communities come together, or take form, to find and move food through creative means.

Farmers have also devised innovative ways to sell and move their produce. In Europe, they have started home sales, deliveries to hospitals and online sales, in addition to connecting with consumers directly through community-supported agriculture schemes and farmers’ markets.19 In Asia, farmers have been going online through social media or ecommerce tools to organise alternative markets.20 For example in Karnataka, India, farmers have started using Twitter to post videos of their produce and connect with buyers. Others are resuscitating traditional systems of bartering, to overcome their lack of cash and match supply with demand.21 In Indonesia, a union of fisherfolk in Indramayu, West Java, has started an initiative to barter with local farmers’ groups through a collective action called “fisherfolks’ food barn”. As restaurants and markets have shut down, the fisherfolk have no buyers. So they exchange fish for rice and vegetables with farmers. This is providing food and livelihood security to the different communities.22

In Latin America, rural communities are the ones least affected by the virus. Many of them are organising to give away food to the poor in the cities. In Cauca, Colombia, the Nasa people – who consider themselves longterm survivors of viruses, wars and the incursion of agribusiness – have collectively organised a “food march” and brought supplies from their harvest to impoverished neighbourhoods in the cities, defying the lockdown.23 In Brazil, without any state support, the Landless Workers Movement has donated 600 tonnes of healthy food to hospitals, homeless people and other vulnerable communities in 24 states across the country.24 Members are also converting urban cafés into soup kitchens and educational facilities into makeshift hospitals, where allied healthcare workers are rendering their services.25

Solidarity food distribution by MST in Brazil

In Zimbabwe, the lockdown has crippled the movement of agriculture produce off of large farms across the country. Small farmers, will limited support, are hustling to fill the gap, finding new ways to get vegetables and other supplies to markets. Peasant movement organisers say this shift in the food matrix shows that the country’s 1.5 million small holders are capable of feeding the nation.26

Local governments, private citizens and companies have also been doing their share. In Vietnam, public dispensers called “rice ATMs” have been invented to allow families to access a free daily ration of rice without physical contact or hoarding.27 In India, the state of Kerala has launched a campaign called “Subhiksha Keralam” aimed at achieving self sufficiency in food production through subsidies, infrastructure and other support mechanisms.28 In Thailand, mobile vegetable shops have been revived under the quarantine with support from Bangkok’s local authorities. The city wholesale market is providing small producers and traders hundreds of trucks to allow them to shift to door-to-door deliveries.29 And in many parts of Africa, motorbike delivery services are adjusting their practices to help get food supplies to people who need them.30

Whether it’s through solidarity, mutual aid, volunteer work or cooperatives, and whether it’s formal or informal, this surge in community-oriented efforts to get food to where it’s needed is crucial and needs resourcing, urgently. While grassroots initiatives are not “the” solution, they certainly point in the right direction.

Shift to community-based food systems

To prevent the disaster that both ILO and WFP are warning us about, we would call for three kinds of measures.

Immediate:

1) Resource community initiatives: As a matter of urgency, we need massive recognition of and support to community efforts to feed those in need. Funds, tools and other resources should be allocated to these efforts. This can mean funding or materials for neighbourhood groups or indigenous communities who need personal protective equipment, rooms or spaces in which to organise and transport food pantries. It can mean resources for regional and local governments to do the work together with community-based organisations, cooperatives and farmers. And it should mean support from local governments themselves, whether through policy measures or infrastructure. Many are already doing this, but it needs scaling up, massively and quickly. While the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and other donors help governments face health crisis funding needs, most of it is going to big business. It would be better to allocate more to local governments so they can support community efforts.

Longer term:

2) Improve conditions for farmers and workers: We need to uplift the position of food system workers, from production or procurement all the way to retail, delivery and food service. This means things like: higher wages or a universal basic income that will pay low-income workers much better or reach people outside the wage economy; a seat at the table to redefine work and renegotiate work processes, as many unions are clamouring for; full rights to health care, hazard pay, safe working conditions and child care; and, perhaps most importantly, a better status in society. Farmers must also be supported with safe systems to get produce to markets and fair prices that provide for their livelihoods. At the same time, farm labourers must receive decent wages and healthy work conditions. The Covid-19 crisis has made it clear how important farm work, transportation, food distribution and delivery are to our well being. People working in the system are frontliners as much as the health care workers. They deserve a better place, better pay and a fairer distribution of benefits – and now is the time to make that structural change.

3) Rebuild public food systems: We need to reinvent and reinforce public, community-controlled markets in the food sphere, from the local level up. And we need to connect these markets to the produce of small scale farmers and fishers. The coronavirus lockdown has shown us, quite starkly, how we cannot rely on global trade as a strategy and how corporate sector control over key segments of our food supply makes survival precarious. We need to put an end to public funds going to large food or agribusiness corporations, except as support for workers. We also need to address concentration in the food industry through measures like anti-trust or anti-factory farm legislation, and direct support towards small scale fisheries, abattoirs, dairies and wholesale markets. We know that more pandemics will come. Now is the chance to move forward and consolidate a public orientation to our food systems, somewhat like in the health sector where we have public medical research, public hospitals and generic medicines outside the grip of patent laws that serve corporate greed. Food is not merely a public good; it’s a social good and needs to be guaranteed, protected and provided to all like healthcare.

If one thing positive comes from this crisis, it could be that we regain and reassert public systems in our countries, after decades of privatisation and encroaching corporate control. These systems should support and build on solutions that local communities are already providing. Food, like health, is a crucial place to start.

*

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.

Notes

1 Domestic workers who are contracted and farmers or vendors who have registered businesses are not part of the informal economy definition.

2 ILO, “Women and men in the informal economy: A statistical picture”, 2018, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_626831.pdf, page 21.

3 ILO, “As job losses escalate, nearly half of global workforce at risk of losing livelihoods”, 29 April 2020, https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_743036/lang–en/index.htm

4 ILO, “Women and men in the informal economy: A statistical picture”, 2018, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_626831.pdf, page 21.

5 Nestlé, “Results of the 153rd Annual General Meeting of Nestlé S.A. held on April 23, 2020”, https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/2020-04/annual-general-meeting-2020-summary-minutes-en.pdf. In 2018, the WFP raised US$7.2 billion, see: https://www.wfp.org/overview

6 International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, “COVID-19 and the crisis in food systems”, April 2020, http://www.ipes-food.org/pages/covid19

7 Alex Esagala et al, “Canes, tears in Kampala over coronavirus”, Daily Monitor, 26 March 2020, https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Photos-that-will-compel-you-cancel-your-journey-Kampala/688334-5505362-g3u0ib/index.html and Boitumelo Metsing, “Food parcel protest turns ugly as cops fire rubber bullets at hungry residents”, The Star, 29 Apr 2020, https://www.iol.co.za/the-star/sport/food-parcel-protest-turns-ugly-as-cops-fire-rubber-bullets-at-hungry-residents-47325962

8 Tom Odula and Idi Ali Juma, “Stampede in Kenya as slum residents surge for food aid”, Associated Press, 10 April 2020 https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/stampede-in-kenya-as-slum-residents-surge-for-food-aid

9 Jean Shaoul, “Protester killed in Lebanon during riots against soaring food prices”, World Socialist Website, 29 April 2020, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/04/29/leba-a29.html

10 ”Swaziland govt. confirms it will not feed the starving in towns and cities during coronavirus lockdown”, Swazi Media Commentary, 29 April 2020, https://allafrica.com/stories/202004290702.html

11 United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, “UFCW calls on USDA and White House to protect meatpacking workers and America’s food supply”, 30 April 2020, http://www.ufcw.org/2020/04/30/covidpacking/. While European meat packers are also experiencing outbreaks, they have not been as deep and widespread as in the US where corporate concentration is higher, says IPES (op cit).

12 Leah Douglas, “Mapping Covid-19 in meat and food processing plants”, Food and Environment Reporting Network, 22 April 2020, https://thefern.org/2020/04/mapping-covid-19-in-meat-and-food-processing-plants/

13 Rachel Sapin and Drew Cherry, “Thai Union plant is source of coronavirus outbreak that sickened over 500, officials say”, IntraFish, 12 May 2020, https://www.intrafish.com/processing/thai-union-plant-is-source-of-coronavirus-outbreak-that-sickened-over-500-officials-say/2-1-807547

14 ARD, Green Advocates, JUSTICITIZ, MALOA, NMJD, RADD, Synaparcam and YVE, “We demand justice and safety for workers on Socfin’s rubber/oil palm plantations during the Covid-19 pandemic”, Open letter to Socfin, 29 April 2020, https://farmlandgrab.org/29602

15 “Coronavirus impact | Half of rural India is eating less due to COVID-19 lockdown: Survey”, Monetcontrol, 13 May 2020, https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/covid-19-impact-half-of-rural-population-eating-less-amid-coronavirus-crisis-5259491.html

16 Paul Anthem, “Risk of hunger pandemic as COVID-19 set to almost double acute hunger by end of 2020”, WFP, 16 April 2020, https://insight.wfp.org/covid-19-will-almost-double-people-in-acute-hunger-by-end-of-2020-59df0c4a8072

17 Bello, “Choosing between livelihoods and lives in Latin America”, The Economist, 2 May 2020, https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2020/05/02/choosing-between-livelihoods-and-lives-in-latin-america; “Lebanon: A New Surge in the Popular Struggle”, International Socialist League, May 4, 2020, http://lis-isl.org/en/2020/05/04/libano-un-nuevo-salto-en-la-rebelion-popular/; La Rédaction, « Ici, on a plus peur de mourir de faim que du coronavirus ! », Charlie Hebdo, 6 avril 2020, https://charliehebdo.fr/2020/04/courrier/courrier-des-lecteurs-mayotte-on-a-plus-peur-de-mourir-de-faim-que-du-coronavirus/; AFP, “Dans l’Inde confinée, les pauvres luttent pour survivre”, 9 avril 2020, https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/04/09/dans-linde-confinee-les-pauvres-luttent-pour-survivre; AFP, “Haïti: mourir de faim aujourd’hui ou du coronavirus demain”, 3 May 2020, https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Haiti-mourir-faim-aujourd-hui-coronavirus-demain-2020-05-03-1301092306; AFP, “«Mieux vaut mourir de cette maladie que mourir de faim»: les Angolais bravent le verrouillage du virus”, 6 Avril 2020, https://www.fr24news.com/fr/a/2020/04/mieux-vaut-mourir-de-cette-maladie-que-mourir-de-faim-les-angolais-bravent-le-verrouillage-du-virus.html.

18 Annick Ovine, “’Nous, on doit choisir: mourir de faim ou crever du coronavirus’”, La Libre, 16 March 2020, https://www.lalibre.be/belgique/societe/nous-on-doit-choisir-mourir-de-faim-ou-crever-du-coronavirus-5e6f91fc9978e201d8bcf20c

19 European Coordination Via Campesina, “ECVC survey on the impact of Covid-19 on peasant farming”, April 2020, https://www.eurovia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ECVC-SURVEY-ON-THE-IMPACT-OF-COVID-19-ON-PEASANT-FARMING.pdf

20 Zhenzhong Si, “Commentary: How China ensured no one went hungry during coronavirus lockdown”, Channel News Asia, 19 April 2020, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/coronavirus-covid-19-china-grocery-food-security-price-delivery-12640426

21 Shahroz Afridi, “Madhya Pradesh: Left without cash, lockdown forces villagers to adopt barter system”, Free Press Journal, 22 April 2020, https://www.freepressjournal.in/bhopal/madhya-pradesh-left-without-cash-lockdown-forces-villagers-to-adopt-barter-system

22 Pandangan Jogja, “Barter Ikan Nelayan dengan Beras Petani, Cara Nelayan Bertahan di Tengah Pandemi”, Kumparan, 11 Mei 2020, https://kumparan.com/pandangan-jogja/barter-ikan-nelayan-dengan-beras-petani-cara-nelayan-bertahan-di-tengah-pandemi-1tOVhGXPMQr

23 Rita Valencia, “Los nasa de Colombia dicen: Porque no seremos los mismos, hay que liberar”, Ojarasca, 9 May 2020, https://ojarasca.jornada.com.mx/2020/05/09/nasa-de-colombia-porque-no-seremos-los-mismos-hay-que-liberar-1000.html

24 MST, “Produzir alimentos saudáveis e plantar árvores: a Reforma Agrária Popular no combate ao Coronavírus”, 29 de março de 2020, https://mst.org.br/2020/03/29/produzir-alimentos-saudaveis-e-plantar-arvores-a-reforma-agraria-popular-no-combate-ao-coronavirus/

25 Rebecca Tarlau, “Activist farmers in Brazil feed the hungry and aid the sick as president downplays coronavirus crisis”, The Conversation, 5 May 2020, https://theconversation.com/activist-farmers-in-brazil-feed-the-hungry-and-aid-the-sick-as-president-downplays-coronavirus-crisis-136914

26 Ignatius Banda, “COVID-19: Zimbabwe’s smallholder farmers step into the food supply gap”, IPS, 12 May 2020, http://www.ipsnews.net/2020/05/covid-19-zimbabwes-smallholder-farmers-step-food-supply-gap/

27 ”Vietnam entrepreneur sets up free ‘rice ATM’ to feed the poor amid coronavirus lockdown”, 16 April 2020, https://youtu.be/lWLuIO1DGAA

28 Samuel Philip Matthew, “COVID-19 in Kerala: Staying ahead of the curve”, Newsclick, 9 May 2020, https://www.newsclick.in/COVID-19-Kerala-Highest-Recovery-Rate-Pandemic

29 Juarawee Kittisilpa, “Thai grocery trucks get new life from coronavirus shutdown”, Reuters, 14 April 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-thailand-grocery-t/thai-grocery-trucks-get-new-life-from-coronavirus-shutdown-idUSKCN21W0O4?il=0

30 AFP, “African e-commerce firms get coronavirus boost”, 15 May 2020, https://news.yahoo.com/african-e-commerce-firms-coronavirus-boost-033743948.html

Featured image: Solidarity food distribution by MST in Brazil; all images in this article are from GRAIN

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

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

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

Updated on April 27, 2022 now includes the transcript of the interview.

***

This special episode of Grandangolo (Wide Angle) includes an interview with Bruce Gagnon, a member of the No War Movement in the United States.

The news preceding our interview and Gagnon’s analysis confirm the gravity of the situation. 

“And Russians have said they’ve identified English, French, Swedish, German and probably Italian as well. So, I think there’s no doubt about it that the US and NATO are in this war. It’s not just a Ukraine versus Russia war, this is a US NATO war using Ukraine as tool in order to fight against Russia”. (Bruce Gagnon, Interview below)

After starting the sequence of events that led to the Russian military operation in Ukraine with the 2014 coup in Kyiv, the United States and NATO are doing everything to fuel this war in Europe making it permanent. 

The political-media campaign has intensified to make Russia appear a ferocious enemy killing civilians in Ukraine and threatening the whole of Europe.

At the same time, the Azov regiment and the other neo-Nazi formations, spearhead of the 2014 coup and the attack on the Russians of Ukraine, are presented as brave partisan brigades that resist the invader to defend their people.

In this situation, the news, that neo-Nazi armed groups are preparing a new massacre of civilians to attribute the responsibility to Russian forces, such as that of Kramatorsk caused by a Ukrainian missile, is particularly worrying. There are serious indications that attacks on churches are being prepared during Orthodox Easter on April 24.

In this incandescent situation, the United States and its European allies continue to send increasing quantities of weapons to Ukraine. The US has supplied Kyiv with weapons worth over 3 billion dollars: among these weapons, there are over 50 million bullets, 20,000 missiles, 700 kamikaze drones, and thousands of anti-personnel mines. 30 US-allied and partner countries, including Italy, also supply arms to Ukraine. At the same time, Kyiv’s forces, especially neo-Nazis, are being trained by the United States, which effectively commands them.  According to his direct experience, former Paris Match deputy director Régis Le Sommier confirms it.


Pangaea GRANDANGOLO, INTERNATIONAL PRESS REVIEW, on BYOBLU

channel 262 digital terrestrial

channel 462 Tivùsat, channel 816 Sky

Every Friday at 20:30

After the first transmission, the episode of Grandangolo is visible, together with the previous ones, on the site.


Interview with Bruce Gagnon

JTMV: Welcome. Bruce Gagnon to Pangea. It’s very nice of you to be here with us.

Bruce GAGNON : I appreciate it. Thank you.

JTMV: In your opinion, for what reason Russia decided like to carry out the military intervention in Ukraine. In what broader context does the war in Ukraine fit?

Bruce GAGNON: Well, I think we have to go back to at least 2014 when the United States orchestrated a coup d’etat in Kyiv, installing a new government that was really backed by the muscle of Nazis who predominate in Western Ukraine. And immediately, the people in Eastern Ukraine along the Russian border in what’s called the Donbas region, they became very fearful because one of the first things this new government did was to say that the speaking of Russian in Ukraine would be illegal. So, people began holding peaceful protest marches in Eastern Ukraine.

And they also were gathering signatures for a referendum saying, let’s have a Federated Ukraine, where we have local autonomy. We can speak what language we wish to speak, and we can also elect our own local officials rather than have them appointed by the new government. And so immediately, under the direction of the US and NATO, Nazis were sent eastward into the Donbas. One of the first videos I saw, in fact, was in Mariupol in 2014. I was watching all of this on YouTube, basically in real time, right before my eyes. And the people of Mariupol were protesting and Nazis were sent in, and I saw them gunning people down, shooting them in the streets.

JTMV: The Pentagon published on April 14 a fact sheet on US assistance to Ukraine’s security, with an impressive list of armaments provided to Kyiv’s forces. The official rationale is that in this way the U.S. is helping Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression.  Is this the case or is the reason different?

Bruce GAGNON: So very quickly, the people tried to defend their families. It was literally at that point, most of the people that came into this, what I called self-defense forces to protect themselves against these Nazis came out of the coal mines, and they were school teachers and electricians and musicians, a real people’s militia. And so, this is really how the civil war began. Russia did not invade, as is often said in mainstream media, they did, over time, begin to supply weapons to these self-defense forces so they could protect themselves and their families.

At the same time, the United States and NATO set up a military training base. This was during the Obama administration. They set up a military training base in the Western side of the country in the region where the Nazis predominate. And it was there that they were training these Nazis, brought them into a new special force’s unit that was created by the United States. And I even watched a video in 2016 of Obama’s ambassador to Ukraine going to this base, meeting with soldiers that were coming from the United States to train these Nazis.

So, this is really the mess that was created intentionally, I believe, because the United States fears the growing power of Russia and China, this unity of those two economies, signing up other countries to be part of a multipolar world where this idea of the US being the unipolar power, the single power of the world as it has been so much since the end of World War II.

The US fears that dramatically and knows that it only has a small window left, a small amount of time to try to break this multipolar movement apart. And so,  this is what I believe is behind this whole thing. The US is trying to create a festering sore along the border of Russia. And in the Rand Corporation, one of the Pentagon think-tanks that is based in California, they did a study in 2019 that says we’ve got to overextend and unbalance Russia and we must use Ukraine as a tool in order to do that.

So,  they knew that if they could create an Afghanistan or a Syria type situation along the Russian border, it would force Russia to militarily intervene. It would force Russia to spend a lot of money on the military. It would not be going for human needs. And it would also allow the West to further demonize Moscow, calling for regime change in Russia and ultimately to break Russia up into smaller countries like the US and NATO did in 1999 with the Balkanization of Yugoslavia.

The reason I believe that they want to break Russia into smaller countries is because of climate change, in part with the melting excuse me, with the melting of the Arctic ice, there’s the ability to drill, baby drill in that Arctic region.

And in fact, just as this war started in February, the US and NATO were holding war games up in Northern Norway, along the Russian Arctic Coast. It’s called Cold Response. And increasingly, we see the developments of US war games, military exercises up in the Arctic region. So clearly, the West wants the resources that Russia has, vast resource base. They  want to break Russia into smaller pieces. And I think that’s what is really driving all of this.

So, Russia knew they had to intervene at some point. 14,000 people have died in the Donbas since 2014, since the constant shelling of the Russian ethnic citizens along the Russian border. And so, Russia knew they had to intervene to save lives because the Ukraine government had positioned 150,000 troops right along the contact line with the Donbas and were poised to invade in a full scale of salt.

JTMV: Thank you. Now, the Pentagon published on April 14 a fact sheet on US assistance to Ukraine security with an impressive list of armaments provided to Kyiv’s forces. The official rationale is that in this way, the US is helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia aggression. Is +this the case, or is there a reason different?

Bruce GAGNON: Well, I think there’s several things that work here. Number one is this war is going to benefit the weapons industry, the military-industrial complex, in a dramatic way. Not only is the United States supplying Ukraine with military hardware must be eventually replaced, obviously, but then also the NATO countries, particularly Eastern European NATO members, are supplying Ukraine with this military hardware.

It’s outdated technology. A lot of its Soviet era military technology and as a result, being NATO members, they’re going to have to purchase new stocks of weapons. And as it turns out any time a new NATO country comes into NATO, they are forced to buy weapons that are interoperable meaning that they fit inside of the US space directed warfare system. They have to be interoperable with US technology. So that means that they largely have to buy their weapons from American corporations. So, this is the other thing that’s happening.

By forcing Eastern European NATO members to deplete their weapons stocks, they’re going to have to replace them with interoperable technology. The US, of course will be in charge of the tip of the spear as they create this expanded NATO military mechanism and NATO is now going international as they’re signing up NATO partners throughout the Asia Pacific region including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and other countries as well.

So really, NATO is saying that we’re not just protecting Europe anymore. We’re now going global. And I think one of the reasons for this is because at the United Nations, when NATO goes to the UN Security Council and ask for a resolution in support of another war, Russia and China are able to block that. But when NATO can create an international alliance, it believes it will be able to go to the world and say, look, we have an international, global support for these military actions, as they’re trying to do now with this operation in Ukraine. So, all of this then benefits the military industrial.

But then beyond that, going back to my earlier comment, you create this festering sore, this endless war situation. And we’ve heard from, I think his name is Mr. Burrell with the EU saying that the only way to solve this problem in Ukraine is through a war. Negotiations will not work. So, it’s quite clear that the US and NATO and I’m sure they’re instructing Zelensky, but we shouldn’t call him Zelensky because we’re not allowed to use the word, the letter Z anymore.

So really, NATO is saying that we’re not just protecting Europe anymore. We’re now going global. And I think one of the reasons for this is because at the United Nations, when NATO goes to the UN Security Council and ask for a resolution in support of another war, Russia and China are able to block that.

But when NATO can create an international alliance, it believes it will be able to go to the world and say, look, we have an international we have global support for these military actions, as they’re trying to do now with this operation in Ukraine. So, all of this then benefits the military industrial

So, we have to call him Elensky.  But anyway, I believe Elensky is taking his marching orders from the CIA. They’re handing him a script written by Madison Avenue public relations firms in New York City and Hollywood. And him being an actor, I’m sure he’s quite adept at being able to read that script. So, no negotiations. Zelensky or Elensky is saying we’re going to fight for the next ten years. And so, they’re trying to put in the public’s mind that this war is going to be a long one another Afghanistan all over again.

JTMV: There are reports about the presence of U.S. Military personnel in Ukraine. Have you any information about this? What is the role of such personnel?

Bruce GAGNON: Well, I said earlier that soon after the coup d’etat in 2014, orchestrated by the United States, the US and NATO set up a training base, military training base in Western Ukraine. And to this base were brought US Special Forces units from Fort Carson, Colorado. And their job was to train these Nazis and then take off their uniforms that had Nazi insignias and everything else and put on uniforms issued by the United States to make it look like they were real army.

So, I knew about this because one of my dear friends, his son is in US Army Special Forces and was stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado. And on two occasions, my friend’s son was sent to this training base in Ukraine.  So, I knew about it directly. And then I noted earlier that I watched a video where Obama’s ambassador in 2016, a guy named Jeffrey Piat.

He was part of that famous phone call with Victoria Newland in 2014, just after the coup happened in Maidan, where they were on the phone talking about the UN, the EU. We’re going to pick who we want to pick as the new lead of Ukraine. So anyway, since that time we know that Ukraine has been flooded with American and other NATO. And at this very moment that we’re speaking together in the city of Mariupol in Eastern Ukraine, the Nazis have mostly been routed. Several thousand have now surrendered to the Russians. But inside that huge steel works factory, they say underneath it there’s a Soviet era underground system of six to eight floors deep. And inside of this place, they say there are several thousand Nazis and most importantly, I think US and NATO military advisors.

So, it’s clear to me, having repeatedly heard about these US NATO military advisors throughout Ukraine at this current time, it’s clear that the US and NATO are still directing this operation. They’re leading it. And it’s obvious to me that the Ukrainian military made up of number one Nazis but also conscripts people that were forced into the military. Young people come off the farms, come out of the cities looking for jobs or actually forced into being there.

They were probably not highly motivated to fight the Russians knowing that they were up against one of the world’s most powerful militaries. And so we hear repeatedly that the Nazis are saying anybody that surrenders will be shot. And I’m certain that the US and NATO advisors are forcing this kind of dynamic into this battle that’s going on today.

But just in the last two or three weeks there have been several attempts by the Ukrainian government to send in helicopters into this area of this steelworks in Mariupol to try to take someone out. And on every occasion the Russians shot down the helicopters, but on one of the occasions they shot down a helicopter, but two people lived. They were not killed when the helicopters crashed.

And it is rumored, I don’t know this for a fact, but it’s been rumored repeatedly that one of the people caught apprehended was a us Major General. So, it’s obvious to me that the US and NATO were so desperate to risk the lives of these helicopter pilots, risk lives of anybody that they could put on the helicopters to help them escape. There were some important people in there and Russia is also incidentally saying that they’re picking up communications, phone communications from the bottom of that steelworks in six different languages.

And Russians have said they’ve identified English, French, Swedish, German and probably Italian as well. So, I think there’s no doubt about it that the US and NATO are in this war. It’s not just a Ukraine versus Russia war, this is a US NATO war using Ukraine as tool in order to fight againstRussia.

JTMV: Thank you, Bruce Gagnon. Now, a last quick question for a quick answer. According to your knowledge of US politics, when and how do you foresee the end of the war in Ukraine?

Bruce GAGNON: Well, just in the last two days, a message came out from CBS Television News where they interviewed a Senator, a US Senator by the name of Chris Coons from the State of Delaware. He’s from the same state that Joe Biden is, Chris Coons is said to be the leading Senator who is most close to Joe Biden.

He declared on CBS News that the United States should now send troops to Ukraine to help the Ukrainian government. Obviously, they see that Ukraine is losing this thing badly. And so, I think there is going to be a move to send US troops and NATO troops, particularly maybe to a country like Poland, for example, right on the border, send their troops in as well. So, we’re in a very dangerous moment. And again, I think that this desire to send US NATO troops in there immediately underscores this desire to keep this war going.

So, I don’t see an immediate end to it. Even if Russia was to completely finish things up in the next weeks, couple of weeks, I think the US and NATO will continue every effort they can to destabilize, to continue to arm right now in the United States. The US is training Ukrainian artillery people, going to give them new artillery equipment and send them back to Ukraine, and they’ll be able to fire into the Donbass region from far away. So that means that Russia will continually have to try to take those artillery positions out. So, this thing is going to drag on for some time.

JTMV: That’s not good news, actually. Well, thank you so much, Bruce Gagnon, for your participation. It was extremely interesting. Well, it doesn’t leave us much hope in the future, but let’s hope for the best.

Bruce GAGNON: Well, I think in all of our countries, we all have to work harder and harder to mobilize to try to stop this because it could lead to World War II, which could go nuclear in a red hot flash.

JTMV: Thank you so much. You’ve been very kind to participate in our program, and I hope to meet you again soon.

Bruce GAGNON: Thank you. Bye.

*

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 in Italian 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).

The Western narrative of the two-month old war in Ukraine imbued with the rhetoric of “democracy versus autocracy,” has dramatically changed with the assertion by the US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin at a news conference in Poland Monday following his and Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s trip to Kiev, that Washington  wants to “to see Russia weakened.” 

David Sanger at the New York Times noted that Austin was “acknowledging a transformation of the conflict, from a battle over control of Ukraine to one that pits Washington more directly against Moscow.” But this is not really a transformation. Sanger’s colleague at the Washington Post, David Ignatius, had written over three months ago that the Biden Administration was working on a road map to get Russia blogged down in Ukraine and attrition it in a way that it becomes a much diminished power on the world stage. 

US Def. Secy. Lloyd Austin (3rd from right) chairing Ukraine Security Consultative Group meeting, Germany, April 26, 2022

For the Kremlin, most certainly, Austin’s remark would not have come as surprise. As recently as on Monday, President Vladimir Putin repeated at a meeting in the Kremlin that the US and its allies have sought to “split Russian society and destroy Russia from within.” Putin revisited the topic again on Wednesday pointing out that “the forces that have been historically pursuing a policy aimed at containing Russia just don’t need such an independent and large country, even enormously large, in their view. They believe that its very existence poses a threat to them.”

In fact, several perceptive Western observers had estimated that the Kremlin has effectively fallen into a trap laid by the US that is intended to bring down Putin’s regime. Come to think of it, that famous gaffe on 26 March wasn’t a gaffe after all, when President Biden, speaking in Warsaw, had blurted out the impromptu, unscripted remark: “For God’s sake, this man (Putin) cannot remain in power.”

All the same, Austin’s remark signifies that a dramatic change is taking place in the geopolitical situation, which could have positive or negative results. On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned the West that staying involved in the Russia-Ukraine war posed “serious” and “real” risks of a World War III and “we must not underestimate it.” 

To be sure, the conflict is slowly but steadily turning into a new phase. Foreign fighters and soldiers from NATO regular units are increasingly beefing up the depleted Ukrainian army’s front lines.

That said, the optics also need to be understood. Austin’s war cry comes soon after Mariupol fell to the Russian forces. A couple of thousands Ukrainian nationalists and a few hundred military personnel from NATO countries are trapped in an underground labyrinth at the Azovstal complex in the city, which Russian forces have sealed off. It has been a severe blow to the US’ prestige. 

The Russian special operation is on track — “grinding” the Ukrainian forces to the ground, to borrow the graphic expression from UK prime minister Boris Johnson. On Monday, Russian high-precision missiles hit at least six railway substations in Western Ukraine destroying railway facilities in Krasnoe, Zdolbunov, Zhmerinka, Berdichev, Kovel, Korosten, which were meant to be key transshipment points for the supply of Western weaponry to the Ukrainian forces in the Donbas region. Rail communication in several western regions of Ukraine is effectively blocked. 

Reports from the east show that Ukrainian forces are suffering heavy losses. Russian forces have taken the city of Kremennaya and are approaching the town of Lyman, which would give them control of a direct road to Slavyansk from the east. 

Austin’s hyped up rhetoric notwithstanding, Ukraine is not only not showing any signs of winning but keeps bleeding, and the territory under the actual control of the Ukrainian government is steadily shrinking. The US officials admit that Pentagon lacks the ability to track the weapons that are going in. Yet, the Biden administration has so far spent around $4 billion on Ukraine. Therein hangs a tale. Who are the real beneficiaries of the US supplies? The level of corruption in Ukraine is a legion.  

The plain truth is that it will be many weeks or months before meaningful volumes of heavy weapons could be delivered to Ukrainian combat units but in the meanwhile, the Battle of Donbass will be fought almost entirely on the basis of the current strength on the ground. In a detailed analysis this week, a former colonel in the US Army and prolific media commentator Daniel Davis concluded: “It will take too long for Western governments to come up with a coherent equipping plan and then prepare, ship, and deliver the kit to its destination in a timeframe that could provide Kyiv’s troops the ability to tip the balance against Russia.”  

The bottom line is this: The Biden Administration’s geopolitical agenda is to prolong the military conflict, which apart from weakening Russia militarily and diplomatically, turns Europe into a battlefield and makes the continent heavily dependent on the US leadership for a very long time to come. For Biden, the war provides a useful distraction in US politics in an election year. 

Austin hosted a conference of the US’ allies on Monday at the American base in Germany to form a monthly contact group on Ukraine’s self defence to coordinate the “efforts to strengthen Ukraine’s military for the long haul.” It has the ominous look of a “coalition of the willing.” Even Israel was recruited. But the US is underestimating the steely Russian resolve to fully realise the objectives behind the special operation in Ukraine. Moscow will not brook any roadblocks, no matter what it takes. 

Putin issued a stern warning today:

“If someone from outside moves to interfere in the current developments, they should know that they will indeed create strategic threats to Russia, which are unacceptable to us, and they should know that our response to encounter assaults will be instant, it will be quick.”

He was explicit that Russia has military capabilities that the US cannot match.

“We have all the tools to do it, the tools that others can’t boast of at the moment, but as for us, we won’t be boasting. We will use them if the need arises and I would like everyone to be aware of it. We have made all the necessary decisions in this regard,” Putin warned. 

The Shanghai Covid Lockdown. Who Was Behind It?

April 30th, 2022 by Emanuel Pastreich

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

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

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

First published on April 19, 2022

GR Editor’s Note

It is worth noting that the Director of China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),  Dr. George Fu Gao was among the participants of Scenario 201 in October 2019. (Table Top Simulation of a Corona Virus Pandemic)

China’s CDC under Dr. George Fu Gao played a central and key role in overseeing the Covid-19 outbreak in Wuhan in December 2019, acting in close liaison with the US CDC, the Gates Foundation, the WHO, John Hopkins et al.

George Fu Gao is an Oxford graduate with links to Big Pharma. He was also for several years a fellow of the Wellcome Trust.

China’s CDC is a lead agency of the Chinese government in disease control and prevention.

The Public Health Emergency Center (PHEC) of the China CDC takes charge of national public health emergency preparedness and response activities.”

Under its mandate, one would expect that China’s CDC Director George Gao Fu played a key role in the Shanghai March-April Lockdown emergency.

China’s Health authorities have confirmed that “Nucleic acid [namely PCR] tests are central to its strategy”. That test is totally unreliable. The figures quoted below do not under any circumstances justify the drastic measures put forth by the CDC and China’s National Health Commission.

Incisive analysis by Emmanuel Pastreich below

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research,  April 19, 2022

 

***

Corporate newspapers and social media have been flooded with horrific images of the Shanghai lockdown for the last week, a massive enterprise that has confined millions of Chinese to their homes for weeks and has resulted in the implementation of severe restrictions on access to basic supplies.

Images of citizens yelling from their apartments in frustration, or screaming heartfelt protests in moving soliloquies, videos of drones and robots patrolling the empty streets of Shanghai, present us with a terrifying vision of the totalitarian rule by technology that so many have predicted.

The underlying message is that China is the source of this nightmare.

 

 


The official story put out by the city of Shanghai, and not denied by the Chinese Communist Party, is so extreme as to invite ridicule.

A new “zero tolerance” policy for COVID-19, which is a bogus non-existent disease in the first place, was imposed on all Shanghai citizens, first on the East side of the Huangpu River from March 28, and then for the entire city from April 1st.

Supposedly all citizens will be tested for COVID-19. According to media reports, only 26,087 new cases of COVID-19 have been found, and of those, only 914 were symptomatic (and there were no pictures of bodies on the ground, as was in the case in Wuhan at the end of 2019).

That is to say that the justifications for the lockdown are so absurd as to make the entire process farcical, perhaps an action intended to show citizens that they must do exactly what they are told to do, no matter how ridiculous and groundless the premises are.

The Western corporate media had a ready answer for what was going on: The Chinese Communist Party, following its “undemocratic socialist ideas”, is violating the fundamental rights of citizens that we Westerners respect.

The American Jack Posobiec, who refers to himself as a “veteran Navy intel officer,” posted extensively on Twitter about the lockdown, blaming Communism and making statements like “This is what the CCP is doing to the 26 million people of Shanghai.”

Human Rights Watch was quick to condemn China for its human rights violations in Shanghai, stating on April 6 that “The Chinese government should respect the right to health and other basic rights in its response to the Covid-19 surge in the country,” but did so without any reference to similar, or worse, policies being carried out around the world.

The problem is that although this lockdown is blamed on Communism, there is no precedent for the shutdown of a major city to be found in the Chinese communist tradition; no part of the imposition of technofascism can be traced back to the calls of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai for class struggle and for resistance to imperialism.

The model for the Shanghai lockdown, it turns out, is the lockdown of Boston after the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15, 2013, exactly nine years ago. On that occasion, the United States Federal government, specifically the FBI, used a murky charge of a terrorist attack (about which serious doubts remain) as an excuse to lock down vast sections of the city of Boston and to confine citizens to their homes while armed police patrolled the streets.

The question we should ask is whether what is taking place in Shanghai is being organized by the same people who organized the Boston lockdown, and similar lockdowns around the world over the last two year, and not by the Chinese Communist Party—or not primarily by the Chinese Communist Party.

Horrific videos of Chinese committing suicide by jumping from their windows were also widely circulated, and they may have been real, but there is no reason to assume anything is true just because it was broadly circulated.

Another popular video featured a dog-shaped robot (that resembles a Boston Dynamics SpotMini) patrolling the streets with a microphone on its back telling the people of Shanghai to stay inside. Anyone who looked at the video with critical eyes had to be doubtful. The speaker was carelessly strapped to the back of the robot with barricade tape in what appears to be a careless stunt, and it was most certainly not representative of government policy.

But the giveaway that this lockdown has silent partners who had nothing to do with the CCP bureaucracy was the constant harping in the Western media on the suffering of animals in Shanghai. Images of live cats rounded up and put in bags for disposal were pasted all over the internet, along with a video of a Chinese man cruelly holding a dog in pain with a device and then dropping it into a container with other injured dogs. Although the video certainly was disturbing, I dare horrified Americans to watch a video of a factory-scale slaughterhouse in the United States for even few minutes.

The focus on cruelty to animals is a standard in the operation to demonize Russia in the Ukraine. For example, a call by “Soi Dog co-founder John Dalley” for help to rescue the dogs and cats of Ukraine has been broadly circulated in the United States.

There are numerous indications that the Shanghai lockdown is being marketed for the Western audience as the equivalent of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The narrative presented is of a cruel totalitarian Communist government in China that oppresses the poor citizens of Shanghai who yearn to be free from these unreasonable “zero covid” restrictions (but no suggestion is offered that covid restrictions themselves are wrong).

MSN reported,

“There are videos of locked-up residents chanting ‘we want food’ and ‘we want freedom.’ In a video, citizens are seen going to their balconies and protesting against the lack of supplies.”

But the videos, the reports, are just too perfect, too carefully staged.

Shanghai Shutdown as war by other means

The details of the actions by American operatives in collaboration with corrupt Chinese officials to plan, and to carry out, this Shanghai lockdown are not available to me. Granted the completely speculative, and often blatantly wrong, reporting that passes for journalism these days, however, I hope that I can be forgiven if I infer, based on the ample evidence I have read in English and Chinese, as to what may be going on behind the scenes.

The Shanghai lockdown must be seen first in proper geopolitical perspective.

China has been subject to high level pressure from Washington D.C. over the last two months in an effort to thwart any possible cooperation with the Russian Federation since Russian troops entered the Ukraine.

Let us consider the critical events leading up to the lockdown.

US President Joe Biden warned the People’s Republic of China on March 18, in a conversation with President Xi Jinping, that there would serious consequences for China if it offered any support for Russia, economic, or, especially, military. White House press secretary Jen Psaki explained,

“He made clear what the implications and consequences would be if China provides material support to Russia as it conducts brutal attacks against Ukrainian cities and civilians.”

We do not know what Biden said, but just three days later, on March 21, China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 was heading for a smooth landing at the Guangzhou International Airport when it suddenly plunged inexplicably into a nosedive. The cause of the crash has yet to be explained—even three weeks later.

Many Chinese believe the arguments made in videos posted on Weibo (and elsewhere) soon after that incident that the crash was the result of a remote hijacking (similar to the 9/11 crashes) probably conducted by United States. The story was confirmed by the American intelligence investigative blog State of the Nation. Moreover, the egregious decision to include a seven-member team from the United States in the formal investigation of this domestic crash suggests something a bit unusual.

Then, on March 28, the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government, not the central government in Beijing that had been easing restrictions, suddenly launched a radical COVID-19 “zero tolerance” policy.

If intelligence operatives for the United States were looking to give China its own “Ukraine,” and to find a new field for the trouble making that they funded in Hong Kong previously, Shanghai was the logical choice.

Shanghai is riddled with global financial interests, with the head offices (or certainly the major branch) for all major multinational investment banks and multinational corporations located there. Their impact on the Chinese economy remains immense.

Shanghai has a history of over a hundred years as a center for global capital with a parasitic relationship to the rest of the nation. It was Shanghai, after all, that offered extraterritoriality to citizens from imperial powers until the 1940s.

Following that tradition, Shanghai today has the most extreme special economic zone policies of any city in China, policies that allow foreign corporations to engage in a broad range of activities without the authorization of the government.

As part of its drive to meet the demands of multinational corporations, the Shanghai government has privatized services and promoted technological solutions to just about everything. Shanghai has been so enthusiastic in adopting smart grids, 5G, online governance, and automation that it won the top rank globally as smart city from Juniper Research this year.

Shanghai has rolled out the red carpet for global finance, giving special privileges to select institutional investors, opening up to just about any investment from offshore, expanding the derivatives markets, and permitting investment banks to create their own “wealth management joint ventures.”

Who might be involved on the Chinese side in this Shanghai shutdown?

There are plenty of billionaires active in Shanghai with close ties to global finance who might be tempted to play the role of an Igor Kolomoisky, the billionaire who created current president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky in response to American encouragement.

For example, we know that the billionaire Ma Yun (Jack Ma), who took enormous amounts of funding from Goldman Sachs and other American investment banks when he created Alibaba as a global marketing and distribution giant that rivaled Amazon, was very unhappy with Chinese policies.

Ma is popular figure among the globalists, and he is a member of the board of trustees of the World Economic Forum.

Although the details are obscure, Ma’s push for the globalist agenda in China ran afoul of state planners in Beijing, Xi Jinping included, two years ago.

Ma established the Ant Group, a financial institution intended to revolutionize finance by creating an unregulated banking system.

The story is that he delivered a speech on October 24, 2020 in which he called for sweeping changes in the banking system. As a result, the central government cracked down on his activities and he has rarely been seen in public since.

Alibaba is headquartered in Hangzhou, near Shanghai, and has its largest presence in Shanghai.

There are also American billionaires interested in using Shanghai as a way to muscle in and open up China to foreign capital. For example, Stephen Schwarzman, CEO of the private equity firm Blackstone, has bought off many intellectuals and government officials in the Chinese Communist Party with his money, especially the more than 100 million USD he gave to establish, among other things, the prestigious “Schwarzman Scholars” Program at Tsinghua University.

Another American billionaire heavily invested in China is John Thornton, founder of the John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings Institution. Thornton is a member of the International Advisory Council of the China Investment Corporation (China’s sovereign wealth fund) and he is constantly pushing to increase foreign influence over China’s financial policy.

Shanghai Lockdown and Global Economic Disruption

The economic disruption caused by the Shanghai lockdown is already being promoted in the corporate media as the reason for delays in the production and delivery of electronics, automobiles, and other household goods that are produced in, shipped through, or dependent on parts manufactured in Shanghai. Although this disruption is true, there is every reason to believe that this situation will be exploited and exaggerated to justify efforts by the super-rich to destroy the global economy further and to impoverish the Earth’s citizens.

Combining a Ukraine crisis that justifies a sudden scarcity of agricultural goods, raw materials, natural gas, and manufactured goods with a Shanghai crisis that shuts down global trade offers globalists an opportunity to explain just about any disruption.

Already plans are in place to adopt a similar zero tolerance policies in the city of Guangzhou, another major manufacturing and finance center. The resulting economic slowdowns, disruptions in supply chains, increasing inflation and shortages will be just what the doctor ordered.

The economic crisis of the Shanghai lockdown has also been employed as an argument for increasing vaccinations in China, predictably, and for introducing the first Chinese-made mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to China’s National Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Differences between Russia and China

There are clear differences in the nature of the attack on Russia through Ukraine and on China through Shanghai. The United States and China, although talk of war has become a constant theme over the last decade, are also highly integrated economies that involve deep cooperation even in the midst of radical political theatre. Moreover, China has refused to respond to the efforts to goad it into military action in Taiwan, Hong Kong or the South China Sea. The attack, therefore, had to be launched in a covert and obscure manner so as to make it appear as if the Chinese Communist Party that the source of the problem because it is abusing the people of Shanghai. As of this moment, there is not a trace of the American hand anywhere in the public discourse.

Russia, by contrast never had the rapprochement with the United States that China had after President Richard Nixon’s meeting with Chairman Mao Zedong in 1972, nor are the economies of the United States and Russia that integrated. There were Russians who studied in the United States, but study in America did not have the same appeal for Russians that it had for Chinese over the last thirty years.

Thus, although there is American investment in Russia, and American interference in Russia, Russia is not so deeply integrated into the American logistics and supply chain, and American investment banks have fewer ties and fewer financial interests.

What needs to be done

The Chinese have been subject to their part of the Great Reset, serving as guinea pigs for social credit systems that allow for constant surveillance and for the evaluation of citizens via AI, and for the required use of digital payment systems. The globalists most likely targeted China for these experiments, before broader application in the world, because the emphasis on technological development in Chinese society, and Chinese naivety about the negative impact of technological innovation on human society, made the Chinese ready victims.

These technofascist policies are promoted by many bureaucrats in the Chinese Communist Party, but they did not originate in China. They are but a part of a global strategy for control of the world’s economy by the financial elites, cunning men who flatter the Chinese about the effectiveness of their response to COVID-19, and their potential to be innovation leaders through AI.

What is desperately needed in response to the current effort of globalists to induce needless conflicts between nation states, and within nations, through operations like the Shanghai lockdown, is an alliance of citizens in China, Russia, the United States, and other countries against the predations of multinational investment banks and corporations, an alliance that resembles the internationalist anti-fascist movements of the 1930s.

The Shanghai lockdown was designed to increase the isolation of the individual in a technological prison while also creating greater distance between Americans (Westerners) and Chinese who ought to be cooperating to respond to the threat of techno-fascism. It is time for us all to come together in response.

*

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 Circles and Squares.

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.

Featured image: Boston Lockdown of 2013 (Source: C and S)

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

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

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

***

Latest on the Ukraine Russian war with Phil Giraldi, former CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer

 

 

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Video: America’s Intelligence Community and the Ukraine War. Philip Giraldi and Judge Napolitano

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.

An understanding of history is important.

It is absolutely essential that Freedom of Speech prevail as a means to resolving this crisis which potentially threatens the future of humanity.

Global Research,  March 4, 2022


LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

a
In Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s speech introducing the new Federal Budget, she employed strong and cutting language of Vladimir Putin and the Russian government as she introduced an increase of $8 billion in spending on defence spending, including $500 million set aside to arm Ukrainians defending against Russian aggression over the past two months.

“Putin and his henchmen are war criminals. The world’s democracies — including our own — can be safe only once the Russian tyrant and his armies are entirely vanquished,” she said. [1]

On April 27, every single member of the House of Commons voted in favor of the resolution that the Russian attacks on Ukraine constitute a “genocide.”[2]

In the lead up to the war, Canada together with the United Kingdom had taken a more hawkish stance toward Russia than any nation within the European Union. [3]

As the Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom commented back in a January article, Canada has the reputation of being moderate when it comes to international crises. When it comes to Ukraine, they are out and out cowboys, even making President Biden look like a classic peacenik! [4]

The mainstream media has likewise been totally unfair and biased when it comes to Ukraine. The outspoken peace activist Tamara Lorincz spelled out all the concerns she had in a letter to the CBC Ombudsman about the station’s coverage:

“The CBC has hosted many more Ukrainian, pro-NATO and anti-Russian guests who have advocated for more weapons to Ukraine and have portrayed Russia as the aggressor. The CBC has not given equal air time to Russian officials or to alternative peace perspectives who are critical of NATO expansion and the Canadian military in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. The poor, biased reporting is misinforming Canadians. Worse, it is fanning the flames of war and increasing insecurity in the region and risking the lives of Ukrainians.” [5]

Canadians are naturally guided to stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. But this instinct to help is cluttered with propaganda distorting the actual picture on the ground, and the actual long term plans of the U.S. toward Russia.

So, for Canadians, what is the alternative for Ukraine beyond this endless drumbeat for more and more war? This is a question that the Global Research News Hour intends to answer this week.

In our first half hour, we hear from two panelists from the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute’s video presentation Cutting Through the Spin: Russia’s invasion, NATO’s provocation and Canada’s complicity .

The first, Yuri Sheliazhenko is based in Kiev, Ukraine and is demanding conscientious resistance to his fellow Ukrainians participating in the war-fighting. Then peace activist Glenn Michalchuk explains the opportunity to de-escalate tensions through peaceful and diplomatic initiatives, not accelerate by more warfare.

Our final guest, anti-war activist Ken Stone talks about a current campaign to stop someone from recruiting Canadians as volunteer fighters against the Russians in Ukraine, and how the Canadian government appears to turn a “blind eye” to the illegality of the affair.

Yuri Sheliazhenko is a member of the board of directors of World Beyond War. He is Ukrainian, and based in Kiev. He is the executive secretary for the Ukrainian Pacifist movement, and a board member for the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection. He is also a journalist, blogger, human rights defender, legal scholar, as well as an author and academic.

Glenn Michalchuk is chair of Peace Alliance Winnipeg and the president of the Winnipeg branch of the Association of United Ukrainian Canadians.

Ken Stone is a veteran antiwar activist, a former Steering Committee Member of the Canadian Peace Alliance, an executive member of the Syria Support Network International, and treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War [hcsw.ca]. 

(Global Research News Hour Episode 353)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

Other stations airing the show:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

  1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-budget-defence-freeland-ukraine-russia-1.6412424?msclkid=021dab86c7cb11ec9b73f81e059bcd78
  2. Kanishka Singh (April 27, 2022) “Canada lawmakers vote unanimously to label Russia’s acts in Ukraine as ‘genocide’ “, Reuters; https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-budget-defence-freeland-ukraine-russia-1.6412424?msclkid=021dab86c7cb11ec9b73f81e059bcd78
  3. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/25/britain-canada-ukraine-russia-military/?msclkid=955edbecc7c011ec9aba8cc35e62a7a1
  4. Thomas Walkom (Jan. 20, 2022) “Canada, usually the voice of moderation, is playing the cowboy on Ukraine crisis”, The Toronto Star; https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2022/01/20/canada-usually-the-voice-of-moderation-is-playing-the-cowboy-on-ukraine-crisis.html?msclkid=955d5f30c7c011ecaae1a1b9bdaef6ff
  5. https://www.peacequest.ca/reader-faults-cbcs-pro-war-coverage-of-ukraine-crisis/?msclkid=59fe4cefc7ed11eca2d5c77c5c3db947

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

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

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

***

The US Constitution with the Bill of Rights dates from 1789.  All of the safeguards against central government growth and ability to indebt the country have been eroded.  Today the Federal national debt is $30 trillion, about two times the gross domestic product of the 28 countries that  comprise the European Union, whose combined populations of 447,007,596 is approximately 120,000,000 larger than the US population.

Except for the 2nd Amendment, all of the civil liberty protections against tyrannical central government in the US Constitution have been eroded. 

Always, the excuse for setting aside the civil liberties protected by the US Constitution is some perceived threat.  During the 1930s, the “depression threat” gave executive branch agencies control over law by giving newly created regulatory authorities the authority to devise the rules that implemented the law. 

In the 1930s Congress, both House and Senate, became essentially authorizers for executive branch agencies to write the law as it applied. With the New Deal, the power of Congress was compromised. Congress lost its constraint on the Executive Branch.

Skipping over other times and instances of constitutional rights erosion, the fabricated “war on terror” during the 21st century permitted the US government during the George W. Bush and Obama regimes to override both habeas corpus and the prohibition on execution of US citizens without trial and conviction of a capital crime. The US Federal Government claimed and exercised the rights to detain suspects indefinitely and to execute them on suspicion alone. Widespread spying on the population violates the privacy provision and became routine. In almost every respect the George W. Bush and Obama regimes destroyed the US Constitution.

During 2019-2021 the orchestrated “Covid Threat” was used by Western governments to impose coercive vaccination with an untested substance put into use by “emergency use authorization” based on the false claim that there were no known treatments or cures. Coerced vaccination is a direct violation of the Nuremberg Laws established by the United States that were used to hang members of the German government for coercive medical experimentation.

The system of law and accountable government set up by the 18th century’s best and brightest was destroyed by the passage of 232 years.  Today nothing is left of the United States of the creation.  A false history, sponsored by the New York Times and its “1619 Project,” and decades of the demonization of our country’s Founding Fathers in universities and public schools have left the United States portrayed as a criminal and racist enterprise from its founding.

One would think that a country this denounced by its own intellectuals would quietly fade away.  Instead, we have the  neoconservatives who control American foreign policy and the American foreign policy narrative who declare our totally discredited country to be history’s choice of the exceptional and indispensable country with the right to rule the world.

Our founding fathers were opposed to foreign interventions. But Washington used WW II to become an Empire. Empires have their own rules. The European, Canadian, Japanese, Taiwanese, Australian puppet states follow Washington’s rules.  An empire conducts interventions everywhere, even in the affairs of its puppet states and among its own population.

The American Empire finds its hegemony constrained by two powers, Russia and China.  Neither is willing to accept US hegemony.   Both have declared adherence to a multi-polar world. The two countries are, in effect, new countries born anew from abandoned ideological dictatorships. Being new they have not acquired the dysfunctional elements that characterize the United States and make the claim of hegemony unrealistic.

At what point does it occur to the foreign policy community that a country rife with critical race theory, identity politics, cancel culture, and wokeism that cultivates self-hate and endless apologies is destined for the trash bin of history, not for hegemony?

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Governmental Dysfunction Rises with Time. “US Hegemony is Constrained by Two Powers, Russia and China”
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

Updated on April 29, 2020.

See video interview with Robert J. Burrowes

***

In a televised address on 24 February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his decision to order Russian military forces to invade Ukraine in what he labeled a ‘special military operation’ to defend the recently declared self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk and ‘to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine’. Watch President Putin’s speech here or read a transcript here.

Since the invasion started, there has been a huge amount of commentary on it from a vast range of authors with a remarkably diverse range of perspectives. Beyond this, the cascading impacts of the war along with the changes that have been precipitated at various levels, have already been far-reaching and will be increasingly devastating for humanity as a whole.

In this article I will focus on some of the more obscure aspects of the deeper agenda that is driving this conflict to manifest in the way that it is occurring. This reflects my own long-standing interest in understanding how elite power manifests in the world.

As I have explained previously, since the dawn of human civilization 5,000 years ago, ‘ordinary’ people have been engaged in an ongoing struggle against elites, whether local, imperial, religious, economic, national or, now, global. See Why Activists Fail’. But whatever the context, the elite intention is always the same: to kill undesired populations and/or control the lives of everyone else by depriving them of their fair share of political, economic, social and ecological resources.

Since about 1500CE, the intensity of this conflict has deepened considerably with elites intent on killing off a substantial proportion of the human population and enslaving those left alive. This has been done through imperial conquest precipitating genocidal campaigns against indigenous peoples, wars, control of food supplies and other resources to generate mass starvation, medical technologies, the deployment of lethal technologies notably now including 5G and, most recently, an injectables program, ostensibly to protect against a ‘virus’.

See ‘Killing Off Humanity: How the Global Elite Is Using Eugenics and Transhumanism to Shape Our Future’.

In essence, elite intention has never really wavered. To reiterate: Whatever ideology supposedly guided any elite in a particular context, the elite has usually wanted a substantial proportion of any local human population killed off and the bulk of those left alive reduced to slavery, in one form or another, while endlessly commandeering planetary resources for elite use.

The only differences between earlier eras and the present is that the assault on humanity is now genuinely global and it is in its final stage.

Unfortunately, too, this assault is happening in plain sight with the bulk of the population completely unaware of what is taking place and those who are at least concerned and resisting in some way focused on the ‘smoke and mirrors’ distraction presented by the ‘virus’/‘vaccine’ narrative and the antics of politicians.

Which means that the Elite’s kill and control agenda, being implemented through the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’, proceeds with minimal resistance. And those not killed by the various measures being used to depopulate humanity will be enslaved in a technological prison from which there will be no escape. After all, the absolutely minimum requirements for effective resistance are life, a mind with free will and food to eat, none of which can be taken for granted any longer.

So where does the war in Ukraine fit into all this?

Well, at immediate and great personal cost to those soldiers and civilians killed or otherwise adversely impacted by the fighting, the war is being used as a smokescreen to obscure a highly orchestrated sequence of events that accelerate the Global Elite’s kill and control agenda, in just the same way that the Covid-19 narrative has done.

Using two wealthy members of the World Economic Forum – President Vladimir Putin of Russia (see ‘All Putin’s Men: Secret Records Reveal Money Network Tied to Russian Leader’) and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine (see ‘What Pandora Papers revealed about Zelensky offshore accounts and funding from Ukranian kleptocracy’) – backed by a supporting cast of key elite agents and unwitting accomplices throughout institutions such as NATO, the European Union, the US and other governments, the corporate media and elsewhere, the military conflict rages on in clear public view, with much debate about various measures being implemented as part of this conflict – such as sanctions by many countries on Russia – while several vitally important outcomes are obscured from general view or accepted as ‘unfortunate’ consequences of the war rather than planned measures of the elite to kill or control us all.

‘What outcomes are these?’ you might ask.

Well, while this war rages on, generating enormous emotion among those siding with either Russia or Ukraine – and thus, in extremely simplified terms, outraged by either NATO’s precipitating encroachment and military buildup over recent decades or Putin’s ‘unjustified’ aggression – here is a short, partial list of rapidly accelerated key outcomes, all compliments of this war, that bring you closer to death or technological slavery in the near term, wherever in the world that you live.

  1. The war, by accident (given that other key elite agents are well aware of what is happening and probably won’t precipitate it deliberately), could ‘go nuclear’, and kill off a huge proportion of humanity and, depending on its severity, starve most or even all of those left alive. But, assuming this outcome is avoided, there are plenty of other unpalatable options to contemplate.
  2. Russia and Ukraine supply 30% of the world’s wheat and significant percentages of other grains, sunflower oil, fertilizers, oil and gas, and strategic minerals (such as palladium and platinum), among other products. The war, as well as the sanctions imposed on Russia by many countries, has exacerbated the already seriously interrupted supply chains of these products, which either cannot be alternatively sourced or not as cheaply. And the previously generated supply chain collapses in all sectors, causing food (and other) shortages, price hikes and energy crises around the world, cannot be restored in any timeframe that is short. Millions will starve to death because of these supply chain collapses.

According to one recent report: ‘We believe we are at the onset of a global famine of historic proportions.’ See ‘Farmers on the Brink’.

To repeat: ‘we are at the onset of a global famine of historic proportions.’

And the thoughtful account by Riley Waggaman includes this comment from Anatoly Nesmiyan: ‘That is why the “special [military] operation” is a minor episode of little importance against the background of impending cataclysms…. The fact that Ukraine and Russia have been used as a tool speaks not so much about the mind of the West, but about the impenetrable stupidity of the direct participants in the current competition.’ See ‘Up next: Global food crisis?’

If you want to keep close track of the destruction of your food supply, now being dramatically accelerated by the war in Ukraine, check out the daily updates shared by the Ice Age Farmer (Christian Westbrook) on various channels.

  1. Intended deaths from the injectable continue to climb rapidly, despite concerted efforts by elite agents such as the World Health Organization, politicians, official medical systems, the pharmaceutical industry and the corporate and government media to conceal these deaths from public view. For just two recent attempts to compile a list of reports, see UPDATED: How Many People Are the Vaccines Killing?’ and COVID-19 Vaccine Massacre: 68,000% Increase in Strokes, 44,000% Increase in Heart Disease, 6,800% Increase in Deaths Over Non-COVID Vaccines.

Of course, many eminent experts, heavily suppressed by the corporate media, have long ago warned that these ‘death shots’ will ‘decimate humanity’. For a small sample, see ‘The Truth about the Covid-19 Vaccine’, A Final Warning to Humanity, ‘J’Accuse! The Gene-based “Vaccines” Are Killing People. Governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the Populations They Purportedly Serve’, COVID Shots to “Decimate World Population,” Warns Dr. Bhakdiand BREAKING – Over 150,000 people including 600 children have died due to the Covid-19 Vaccines in the USA’.

But a quick check reveals that the Russian and Ukrainian governments have both enthusiastically participated in the entire Covid-19 ‘virus’/‘vaccine’ scam imposing the familiar range of measures – mandatory vaccinations, QR codes… – implemented elsewhere to fulfil the elite’s kill and control agenda.

This includes elite Russian participation in the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) which, as noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his recent book The Real Anthony Fauci is

‘the real-life authoritative collective for imposing rules during the… pandemic. This so-called “independent” monitoring and accountability body’s purpose was to validate the imposition of police state controls by global and local political leaders and technocrats…: subduing resistance, ruthlessly censoring dissent, isolating the healthy, collapsing economies, and compelling vaccination during a projected worldwide health crisis.’

See ‘I Believe We Are Facing an Evil That Has No Equal in Human History’ and Sputnik V is a scam: “A socioeconomic experiment on the Russian population”’.

The government of Ukraine is no different, using coercive measures to force vaccination on its citizens despite an unusually high level awareness of the dangers of vaccines – leading to substantial resistance – among the general population. See ‘As COVID Surges, Protesters Hit Streets of Ukraine to Decry Vaccine Mandates’.

Are you keeping track of the ever-lengthening list of those who are injured or killed by the injection, which is taking place in the background of this war?

  1. The rollout of 5G, essential to elite creation of their surveillance and control grid, gathers pace under cover of the ‘virus’/‘vaccine’ narrative and now the Russia/Ukraine war. Of course, the electromagnetic radiation will also kill vast numbers of people, both outright and via decimation of the insect population (thus further reducing global food supplies), and the surveillance and control grid it will make possible will trap you in your home and immediate neighborhood, with any semblance of human freedom and human rights consigned to memory. See ‘Sleepwalking into Hell: The Global Elite’s Technological Coup d’état Against Humanity’ and ‘Deadly Rainbow: Will 5G Precipitate The Extinction Of All Life On Earth?’
  2. And, unless you have been ignoring the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’, you are well aware that the Global Elite plans to transform 200 areas of human life using technologies associated with the fourth industrial revolution and transhumanism (including 5G and 6G, military weapons, artificial intelligence [AI], big data, nanotechnology and biotechnology, robotics, the Internet of Things [IoT], and quantum computing). These technologies will subvert human identity, human freedom, human dignity, human volition and human privacy reducing those left alive to transhuman slavery in which you will have a digitized personal identity. This digitized identity will be connected to your banking, health, legal and other records to establish your personal ‘social credit score’, like that used in China, to determine what you can, and cannot, do while living in your ‘smart city’ eating food-like substances synthesized from trash and insects. See ‘The Great Reset’.

In Ukraine, the government is simply using the war to rapidly expand what was already ‘one of the most expansive government-run digital ID systems in the world’, making the country the ‘world leader’ in some aspects of digitization via their Diia app, with all that this portends for the human future.

See ‘How Ukraine Government Is Converting Digital ID System Into Wartime Tool’.

Of course, there will be no backtracking from this at war’s end.

Russia is equally committed to its digitization program, although it is also playing a key role in developing the elite-controlled banking system, complete with digitized currencies, that will supersede the current model. It is hosting the annual Cyber Polygon simulations.

See ‘Taking Control by Destroying Cash: Beware Cyber Polygon as Part of the Elite Coup’.

If all of this sounds preposterous, here are two other geopolitical analysts who offer a similar conclusion based on their own analyses: The Ukraine Crisis: What You Need to Know’ and ‘Ukraine-Russia: A Proxy-War, Advancing the Agenda of the Great Reset?’

What About the War in Ukraine?

Like many people, I am concerned about the war too. In drawing attention to the deeper elite program that is rapidly trapping humanity in a nightmarish future, I am not suggesting that the war does not matter.

But I also know from long experience that the anti-war movement remains devoid of the capacity to act to prevent or halt wars because it lacks the analysis, strategic orientation, tenacity and courage to do so. I wish it was otherwise.

Still, if you want to participate in a strategy to end this war, particularly given the possibility of it morphing into a longer term insurgency – see ‘Ukraine And The New Al Qaeda’ – you can read how to do so here: Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

And if you want to participate in a strategy to end all war, you can read how to do so here: Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.

Having noted this, let me highlight that key aspects of these strategies are the need to recognize that violence is built deeply into human society by a parenting model that, in essence, is based on demanding obedience from a child, rather than nurturing the child’s Self-will. See Why Violence? and Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice.

And this generates a society in which many people are so adversely impacted that they are rendered effectively insane. Unfortunately, some of these people end up in situations where they exercise extraordinarily levels of control. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

Hence, if you want to reduce violence and war in the future, consider making ‘My Promise to Children’.

Video Interview with Robert J. Burrowes

So what does all of this mean?

Whatever your concerns about the war in Ukraine however, I encourage you to not let it distract you from acting powerfully to defeat the deeper elite agenda. If you get caught up in the war hysteria and fail to defend yourself and those you love, you will soon find that everything about the life you have known has been taken away, irrespective of the outcome of this war.

So what can you do?

Ideally, if you wish to strategically resist the elite agenda, your most powerful option is to participate in the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ campaign.

The simplest version of this strategy is explained on the one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 15 languages (Czech, Danish, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Spanish & Slovak) with more in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here: ‘The 7 Days Campaign to Resist the Great Reset’.

Conclusion

The war in Ukraine is a tragedy for those immediately impacted but for all of us as well. Particularly if we do not recognise the threat it conceals and act powerfully in response to this deeper threat.

For 5,000 years elites have been pitting us against each other – at work, on the battlefield, in life generally – by drawing attention to, and magnifying, superficial differences (based on gender, race, religion, class, nationality….), exacerbating conflicts and convincing us that they are acting in our own best interests when we do what they tell us via their agents in government, the corporate media and elsewhere, and that human solidarity is worth nothing.

Well, one day very soon now, we would do well to realize that in the end only three things matter: Human solidarity is essential if we are to survive this existential crisis, our true enemy is not each other but the insane Global Elite, and we must act powerfully and nonviolently if we are to defeat it.

A human future worth living will be short otherwise.

*

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

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of Why Violence? His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a frequent 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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

While the Western world continues to claim that Russia is interested in “annexing” or “fragmenting” Ukraine, current reality shows that the geopolitical players interested in attacking Kiev’s sovereign territory are others. Recent investigations reported by Russian intelligence point out that the Polish government, supported by the US and other Western powers, plans to invade and seize territorial portions in eastern Ukraine. As expected, Polish officials deny involvement in this type of maneuver and the Western media remains absolutely silent.

In a new episode of the military conflict in Ukraine, the head of Russia’s foreign intelligence service stated that the US and Poland are currently planning to take “military-political control” over western Ukraine through a future armed intervention. In a press release, Sergey Naryshkin, head of the SVR (Russian acronym for Foreign Intelligence Service), said that, according to information received by his agency, Washington and Warsaw are planning to gain control over Polish historic possessions in western Ukraine.

“According to the intelligence acquired by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, Washington and Warsaw are engaged on plans to establish Poland’s tight military and political control over its historic possessions in Ukraine”, he said during a public statement on April 28.

Naryshkin also pointed out some strategic details about how the occupation of the western Ukrainian region would take place. The process is related to the already admitted Polish intention to start a “peace operation” in Ukraine, which is already supported by the West to some extent. The Poles would use as an argument that their operation would aim to protect the Polish population and heritage against “Russian aggression” and then initiate an absolute political and military control in that region.

Obviously, the only stance taken by the Polish government has been absolute denial. Stanislaw Zaryn, spokesman for Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Kaminski, denied on the same day all information alleged by the Russians. Unlike the Moscow’s official, however, the spokesman did not offer more in-depth information about what the real Polish strategic objectives with a possible “peace operation” would be, only continuing the already known Western speech about the “information warfare and the spread of fake news” supposedly practiced by Russia.

These were some of his words about the case:

“Sergey Naryshkin continues Russian information operation against Poland and the US. Russia’s intelligence chief is spreading insinuations against Poland and the US, convincing falsely that both countries are preparing a Polish annexation of western Ukraine”.

In fact, the claim does not seem unsubstantiated. Warsaw has historic territorial claims in western Ukraine. Many Polish cities after the Second World War became part of the then Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, including Lviv, which is today a major point of military and geostrategic importance. In these regions, it is possible to speak Polish or Ukrainian with “Polishisms”, the Roman Catholic faith is practiced and there is a strong ethnic presence of Poles.

In recent years, due to the stability of relations between NATO (of which Poland is a member) and Kiev, the matter concerning historically Polish territories has practically been “forgotten” by geopolitical experts. But, in the same sense, it is absolutely reasonable to think that, in the midst of conflicts and tensions, Poland with the support of NATO wants to retake these territories, which would have great geostrategic value for the western alliance.

It is also necessary to mention that, interestingly, the western media has avoided commenting on the case, even though it is a serious issue and with a strong possibility of escalation in the Ukrainian conflict. Apparently, for the mainstream media, it is forbidden to talk about “attempts to balkanize Ukraine” when the player involved is a NATO member.

On one side of the war of narratives, there is an intelligence agency claiming to have reliable sources and providing details on how its predictions will come to completion, while on the other there is only a formal denial and baseless accusation about alleged “Russian lies”. In fact, there is no way to predict what will happen, but it is reasonable that there should be at least concern on the part of international society and an effort to prevent Warsaw from starting another escalation of the conflict by annexing Ukrainian territories.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a  researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Poland Reportedly Interested in Annexing Part of Ukrainian Territories
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

Read Part I, II and III:

Destination Ukraine: The Ignorance of War

By Brett Redmayne-Titley, April 07, 2022

Destination Ukraine: Will Poland Go Rogue? Warsaw’s Ulterior Motive? The Lviv Connection

By Brett Redmayne-Titley, April 21, 2022

The Lies…and the Eyes…of Ukraine. Reporting from Lviv

By Brett Redmayne-Titley, April 19, 2022


Palanca: (The Moldova/Ukraine Border)   

The tiny and peaceful nation of Moldova will soon be dragged into the Ukraine/ Russia war. Historical and current geopolitical reasons are in play and being applied against Russia’s widening eastern front moving westwards. However, it is the southern Ukrainian region from Odessa to the Moldovan Transnistria that may trigger an escalation towards World War.

The Ukrainian Army (AFU) currently fighting the combined militaries of the Russian Armed Forces (RAF), the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples Republic armies (DPR and LPR) and the Donbas militias are for the moment quite busy in the northern east. However, with Mariupol now firmly under Russian control and the southern front at Mykolayiv and Kherson certainly in contention, the eyes of this war will soon migrate south a mere one hundred miles towards Moldova.

Other than peace, Russia and Ukraine/NATO have no choice about this unfolding strategic tragedy.

But, there are more than these three obvious players in this war. Also important is the additional triumvirate of Moldova, its disputed region of Transnistria and also Romania that will soon combine within this regional cauldron.

Driving randomly north from Moldova’s capital, Chisinau, along the narrow farm roads, it is finally springtime. The roaming fields have just been tilled and planted and slope down very gradually and continually towards Transnistria.

This is a long thin strip of land that follows the Dniestria River along the Ukrainian border before petering out into a shallow and miles wide river valley that runs all the way into the huge 40 KM long bay that has its entrance at the Zatoka railway bridge on the Black Sea coast. This Transnistria region is peculiar since Moldova claims title to it, but the 400,000 people there are culturally and ethnically more aligned with Russia and fought a war against Moldova in 1992 to prove their point.

Russia has carried out military drills in this region as recently as February 2 this year. The pretence is that a Russian presence is essential to protect their citizens in the area and keep the peace between Moldovans and Transnistrians.

As of this week, that pretence is over.

Transnistria: The Romanian Connection

Image on the right: Map of Transnistria (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

File:Transnistria-map.svg

To understand the new breadth of this war it is important to review the history of the territorial claims and seizures regarding tiny Moldova and its surrounds. Moldova is a territory historically claimed by Romania until Russian Imperial and Soviet control began from 1812 to 1991. Transnistria means “beyond the Dniester,” the natural river border dividing Moldova and part of north-eastern Romania from Ukraine.

Transnistria remained under Soviet control in between both World Wars. Just before Gorbachev divested the Soviet Union Transnistria as a region tried to secede from Moldova due to Romanian nationalists suddenly coming to power in the capital of Chisinau.

This rightly concerned the region’s many Slavic people who feared for their ongoing rights, identity, and safety. The animosity of the Moldovan south against the Russian ethnicity north is similar here to the east-west halves of Ukraine currently. The brief war of 1992 that resulted has never officially concluded. Instead, a Russian inspired truce resulted combined with the introduction of 500 Russian peacekeepers.

The term “Transnistria” was first coined in 1989 by Leonida Lari as part of an election slogan for the political party Popular Front of Moldova. Transnistria’s origin, however, can be traced further back to the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic which was formed in 1924 as part of the Ukrainian SSR. However, during World War II, the Soviet Union took parts of the Moldavian ASSR and also a piece of the Kingdom of Romania‘s Bessarabia. Beginning in 1940 this combination became known as the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Moldavian ASSR (orange) and Romania, 1924–1940 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

Romania was not pleased.

In 1941, after Axis forces that included Romania invaded the Soviet Union and the German army defeated the Soviet troops there and occupied it. Suddenly, Romania controlled the entire area between the Dniester and Southern Bug rivers, including the coastal city of Odessa which was declared the capital. This enlarged version of Transnistria became home to nearly 200,000 Romanian-speaking residents as the Romanian administration of Transnistria attempted to stabilise the situation in the area under a process of Romanianization.

During this Romanian occupation of 1941–44, an estimated 150,000 to 250,000 Ukrainian and Romanian Jews were deported to Transnistria. Reportedly, the majority were either executed or died from other causes in the ghettos and concentration camps of this Romanian nation-state.

As WW II wound down the Red Army advanced into the area again in 1944. Soviet authorities executed, exiled or imprisoned hundreds of the Romanian inhabitants of the Moldavian SSR for their crimes against the ethnic Russians or their collaboration with the Romanian occupiers.

As a precursor to formally establishing Transnistria, the Yedinstvo (Unity) Movement, was established by the Slavic population of Moldova to attempt equal status for both Russians and Moldovans. Transnistria’s ethnic and linguistic composition differs significantly from most of the rest of Moldova. The share of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians is especially high and a majority of the population. Many Moldovans beyond Transnistria still speak Russian as a mother tongue.

Violence suddenly escalated in October 1990 when the Moldovan Popular Front called for volunteers to form armed militias to stop an autonomy referendum in Gagauzia. This other sub-region of Moldova had and has an even higher share of ethnic Russian and Ukrainian minorities.

In response to Moldova, volunteer militias were formed in Transnistria. Already, in April 1990, Moldovan nationalist mobs had attacked ethnic Russian members of parliament, while the Moldovan police refused to intervene or restore order.

Isolated skirmishes escalated to war beginning on 2 March 1992 as a concerted military action began between Moldova and Transnistria. The fighting intensified throughout that spring until the former Soviet 14th Guards Army entered the conflict. Reportedly these troops opened fire against Moldovan forces killing more than 700.

Since then, the resulting pervasive truce with Moldova has prevailed. Chisinau exercises little effective control or influence on the Transnistrian authorities. The ceasefire agreement, signed on 21 July 1992, has been held to the present day.

The ceasefire agreement called for a three-party (Russia, Moldova, Transnistria) Joint Control Commission to oversee the security arrangements in the Transnistrian demilitarised zone.

As a result, Transnistria is an unrecognised independent presidential republic with its own government, parliament, military, police, postal system, currency, and vehicle registration. It has created its constitution, flag, national anthem, and coat of arms. Most Transnistrians have Moldovan citizenship, but many also have Russian, Romanian, or Ukrainian citizenship.

This status quo, although beneficial to peace left out the Romanians who had other opinions of the Commission after being sent backwards in history once again.

A New War Priority Begins

Moldova, with a standing army of barely 5000 has so far acquiesced to this Transnistrian reality over the past thirty years; a reality which is re-enforced by the 500 Russian peacekeepers stationed here in the village of Cobasna.

Also helping keep the peace are an additional 1000 Russian troops guarding the largest weapons dump in eastern Europe and its 22,000 tons of munitions.

Russian peace-keeping soldiers at the border between Transnistria and Moldova at Dubăsari (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

The Russian military has the men and materiel to fend off the opening stages of any coming conflict here. However, when war does begin near Odessa the base located in Cobansa, Transnistria will certainly need additional support quickly. Here lies the first important conflict.

Moldova is landlocked. For Russia to provide support to Cobansa it would have to either fly across restricted and likely defended air space or provide a ground attack that can open a military corridor from a beachhead of the black sea to Transnistria. This is some thirty miles inland.

Russia will have no other choices, however, since the base is far too important and, further, allowing those munitions into western hands would be a game-changer within this region.

So far, to the north, Russia has, since abandoning Kyiv, stayed true to its declared goals of freeing the Donbas, Luhansk and Donetsk from the indiscriminate AFU terror and Nazi influence of the past seven years.

By creating a buffer zone which Russia continues to expand due west each day more territorial freedom is growing for eastern Ukraine citizens.

Many small and relatively unaffected towns are opening and shops and businesses are preparing to return to normal within this buffer zone. It seems likely that once this buffer zone is adequate to prevent artillery shelling of the major cities and towns Russia will no longer continue to advance into additional territory. The eventual north/south line of demarcation across Ukraine remains open to speculation but must consider the Dniester, Dnieper and Bug rivers boundaries.

It is vitally important to understand that Russia’s expanding eastern buffer zone is only part of Russia’s military obligation for a complete coastal Ukrainian blockade. This cannot be completed without two other goals being achieved first. One, Russia’s bringing the remaining southern coastal of the Odessa region under its control at least up to the Zatoka bridge. Two: maintaining military control of the southern east-west front lines along the border of Transnistria all the way to Romania.

Chisinau, which is 120 KM further south must stay neutral since it will be of little consequence, nor opposition. But, so far it has not. This bodes horribly for this wonderful and little known country.

If successful, these final Russian bricks in the wall here will effectively and strategically land lock Ukraine completely from access to all of the Black Sea and any point eastwards. With Odessa under control and Transnistria as the new southern Russian front, Ukraine will be without a seaport and utterly beholden to Russia for all pre or post-war eastbound exports or westbound imports via road, air or sea. Particularly those of the military kind.

Reciprocally, for the same reasons, Ukraine will have no choice but to fight tooth and nail for its control of the same territory. This, of course, assumes that the AFU still has by then sufficient forces remaining to fight or enough spare uniforms to clothe the many incoming NATO forces.

Reports of NATO mercenaries already working within Ukraine show that US/NATO is already in Transnistria and preparing for this certain advent. Canada has reportedly sent mercenaries via Moldova who enter Ukraine via the two border crossings. The border crossing at Palanca is on the same road to Odessa, just 30 miles away, but first crossing Transnistria is essential. It is likely I have met four of these mercenaries. I have seen and talked to them. They are very bad liars.

In the lobby of my hotel in Chisinau, I meet “aid worker,” David. He has attracted my attention due to wearing his large unmarked all-black day pack indoors, no other luggage, military issue boots, cargo pants, hair high and razor tight and a rental car at his disposal.

This is far from the image of any of the aid workers I have been around lately. And rental cars, as I would find out, cannot normally cross the border into Ukraine.

David, a Canadian, tells me his story about working for a UNHRC group “Relief Canada,” based out of the Canadian embassy here in Chisinau. I make a call to the Canadian Embassy. I am Canadian. Feigning that I am also with this aid group and in need of assistance to get to the Embassy, a phone operator puts me on hold only to come back on several minutes later, confused and asking me to qualify what Aid agency I am referring to. Several more minutes later, she informs me that despite asking her colleagues Relief Canada is not represented by the Canadian Embassy.

I make a habit of doing some work each day as near to the hotel lobby as possible in each hotel I am stuck in. It has often bared much fruit as was shown in Part Two and Part Three of this series. The following day I speak with two more suspects while they check-in together and then once more before I leave for Transnistria. Interestingly, all three are sporting the same kit and offered MO as David. I asked them. Just one day at the hotel and then off to Odessa to help, they all said.

So, it was time to take a look at the border at Palanca by way of Transnistria.

Moldova: Westward to Destruction

Moldova is mostly rich farmland and I have quickly learned to love this country, its friendly rural people and the lovely architecture of Chisinau. Travel guides provide warnings of poverty and crime, yet this seems nothing more than propaganda intended to restrict tourism reveue and to help drive Moldova into the arms of the west. Unlike Warsaw, Budapest and Bucharest, I see no signs of abject poverty, drug addicts lounging in their own filth, trash on the streets or an ageing infrastructure of trains, roads, or bridges. Quite the opposite. The people of Chisinau and their children all dress nicely, and with style. There is a neatness to Moldova that I do not see normally in EU capitals. When engaged the people I meet speak knowledgeably about their recently elected President and why she has increased the possibility of war.

In the Transnistria farmlands, the small centuries-old hamlets are modest, but spotlessly clean and life moves at a slow farmer’s pace. The people dress traditionally and are amiable about my lack of Russian as they go about their day.

There is no defined border for Transnistria.  As I follow the roads more or less north through the unofficial capital of Tiraspol I notice a strange blood-red flag with a single Kelly green horizontal stripe flying in the wind up ahead. Interestingly, it incorporates a Hammer and Sickle in the upper corner. This symbol was previously relegated to the Soviet Union of long ago and today Transnistria is the only remaining country in the world to fly the Hammer and Sickle. I have arrived.

Along the way, at virtually every vista it is easy to look far out to the north over the green miles wide Dniestria River valley and into the light haze on the far bank that equally rises slowly towards Ukraine and Odessa; the river now a trickle of its former self and seemingly inconsequential in the foreground.

The Moldovans I speak with do not want war. Unlike Viktor Orban of Hungary who defeated his collective western-backed presidential opposition three weeks ago while benefiting in part from his announcement not to allow NATO movement via Hungary, when examining the first fifteen months of the newly elected Moldovan president Maia Sandu it seems that NATO terror will soon cross north over the Dniestria from Moldova.

The 2020 election saw Moldova shift politically to the west. Sandu, a trendy young female candidate provided all the usual EU talking points of increased exports, economic growth, and promised rapid prosperity.

Igor Dodon launched his campaign on 2 October 2020 but ran a lacklustre campaign for president as the incumbent. Although he visited over two hundred townships and spoke to some 45,000 Moldovans, he strangely announced that he was not going to make use of billboards and that he would not take part in any debates. Dodon was regarded as the most pro-Russian candidate on the ballot and advocated for legislation to maintain the Russian language, make studying Russian compulsory in schools, strengthen the strategic partnership with Russia, preserve Moldova’s territorial sovereignty, strengthen the social security system and promote Christian and family values.

On the same day, Sandu officially launched her campaign but during that time made only two speeches; one in Romanian and one in Russian. She promised to fight corruption and poverty, reform the criminal justice system, reduce unemployment, raise the minimum pension and build closer ties with the European Union. Sandu’s campaign accused Dodon, of deliberately hindering criminal justice system reform and poor management of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Much like the French election, with Dodon and Sandu the finalists on November 1,  on Nov. 15 Maia Sandu won the second round of the presidential elections in Moldova with 57% of the vote. The 55% election participation was the highest election turnout since 2010. However, voting patterns illustrated internal political fractures. Sandu enjoyed the support of young people and inhabitants of big cities, as well as the diaspora abroad (of which 93% voted for her), tipping the scales in her favour. Dodon, as expected, obtained votes from the rural areas and the pro-Russian regions Transnistria and Gagauzia.

Regardless, Sandu recently launched an opening western political salvo in the exact direction of Transnistria.

On April 7, Moldova adopted the Code on Audiovisual Media Services that provides for a ban on the broadcast of programs and films that are produced in countries that have not ratified the European Convention on Transfrontier Television,

That means Russia.

Next, on April 14, additions were approved to the Code of Offences, which introduced fines or forced labour for the use of attributes or symbols of “military aggression.” These include “coloured flags and ribbons, symbols, badges and other similar signs.” This is a sly reference to the “black and orange two-colour ribbon”, called theGeorgievskaya, or St. George Ribbon.

That means Transnistria.

These prohibitions as expected caused a wide division between both Moldova, Transnistria and Russia. This would amount to revisionist history regarding Soviet films about the Great Patriotic War and the award and display of the much-prized St. George ribbon. Both are historical and important symbols for all who honour that memory every Victory Day, May 9 and the Great Victory over those other Nazis of a supposedly bygone era.

Moldova and Russia have good reason to remember well the pre-election lie of Sandu promising to preserve the right to celebrate May 9.  During the Great Patriotic War, 650 thousand inhabitants of Moldova died. 400,000 fought in the red army. 250,000 Moldovan soldiers, officers and partisans were awarded for their courage Soviet medals like the black and orange, St. George.

Under Dodon officially promoting the Russian language in Moldovan schools was gaining ground in parliament, but to date, Sandu has closed many Russian speaking schools citing a lack of students. This is a self-serving rationale since in the rural widespread farmlands of Transnistria the very small villages have very small populations and few school children and have for so many generations.

All this, of course, affects the parliamentary atmosphere of Russian-Moldovan relations.

In economic relations, Sandu has also moved quickly in a scripted EU fashion. Moldova’s GDP is the equivalent of just USD11.91 Billion with an annual budget of just north of USD 3 billion. Last week, the EC announced that the EU would provide a macro-financial assistance operation of €150 million in the form of loans and grants. Said the EC in a statement,

“The assistance shall contribute to strengthening Moldova’s resilience in the current geopolitical context, and covering Moldova’s balance of payments needs as identified in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme.”

Of course, this statement is a declaration of war on Moldova by a different means. It is also an acknowledgement that the EC is satisfied with Sandu’s progress to date.

I fear for Moldova. This is a country that could easily divorce itself from the madness of NATO’s continuation of war and help bring it to a stop. But as is routine for the faux-nationalist leaders of western nations, Moldova in Sandu’s hands is now, like Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania, available to NATO and the EU for the plundering.  Moldova’s president will be singularly to blame if this passive region and quiet way of agrarian life sees war once again. A war it cannot defend nor prosecute and for which neutrality is the only peaceful option.

With Moldova politics equally split within the parliament, Russia v. the West, it may be a new Moldovan civil war that Sandu will first have to contend with while the realities of a much greater war to the north ever creep daily towards Moldova.

What a Difference a Week Makes

As I stand on the Moldova / Ukraine border in Palanca I am surprised to learn that I can still cross over the border. So I drive through the first border check. Due to my lack of Russian, I next discover that rental cars lack Ukrainian insurance and I am turned back without too much of an incident. Being portable, I park the car, grab my backpack and walk toward the same security guards who now know me well. I’m determined to get to Odessa. It’s that close.

Three checkpoints of ID and passport and additional questions instead of being frisked and I am in, walking again into Ukraine. As I sit with my gear on the road just beyond the checkpoint hoping for a ride at this point in the afternoon, I consider carefully my days in Chisinau. The wines, magnificent, the inexpensive restaurants equal to the task. The clean streets encircling huge buildings of subtlety in architecture that all pay homage to the Christian, the Russian, the Slavic and the Ottoman in their many obvious influences. The beautiful women. The panoramic springtime colours and the view from the hills of Chisinau looking out to the Black Sea and the north.

I came here to Moldova due to my darkest fears, those realized over forty years roaming the countries of the world and always witnessing the incremental horrors of, as Chalmers Johnson coined it perfectly, “The Sorrows of Empire.” My indictment of these many sorrows is long and attested to by much of my work. But, to envisage Chisinau going the way of Kyiv into ruin is an image that brings shivers and anger to my soul and my fists.

No. No. Not this time!

As I began this update from Chisinau I had hoped not to hear the banging of the war drums to the north. But, my fears are coming true as I write.

Russia recognizes the military realities examined here in the South. This is evidenced by its direct action in taking down a NATO munitions plane on, April 16 near Odessa, then on April 23 targeting AFU supply and support depots in Odessa, and next destroying a portion of the very important Zatoka bridge just south of Odessa that goes directly at Romania. These proactive moves strongly indicate that Russia understands the difficult task just days ahead and is already preparing. The AFU’s biggest problem is that of re-supply and, if Russia continues at the current pace the AFU may literally run out of gas before hand.

Regarding the Ukrainian railway system that was just days ago available to NATO: Russia has taken out virtually all the Ukrainian track switching stations rendering them useless, and, with 1200/1500 locomotives being electric, the power lines as well. As reported by South Front, only 300 diesel locomotives are left but that fuel is under constant attack and the tracks as well. The same article noted that, should NATO try to supply new diesels, they would be of the wrong width for Ukrainian gauge tracks.

If it were only that simple Moldova would be safe. It is not that simple.

Similar to Poland’s ulterior motives shown in Part Two, as South Front reports in an excellent analysis Romania’s historic desire to regain Transnistria is now being shown as it prepares to enter the war at NATO’s behest after housing and training some 8,000 Polish troops.

Attempting to draw Transnistria into the conflict, two explosions rocked a broadcasting centre in the village of Mayak on April 26, the region’s Interior Ministry claimed. It was reported that no one was hurt, but the two largest antennas, which were transmitting Russian radio stations, were disabled to the ground.

On April 25, the building of the State Security Ministry in the region’s capital, Tiraspol, was shelled with rocket-propelled grenades. No casualties were reported.

The third attack hit a military unit near the village of Parkany. No details on the incident were revealed. Regardless, all these attacks are uncomfortably close to that 22,000 tons of Russian munitions.

As a result, on April 26 President Sandu called an emergency meeting of the Security Council. The decision was been made to introduce the “red” level of terrorist danger in the country for 15 days, which provides the adoption of additional security measures. Although this was all likely an inside job designed to provide Sandu reasons for shifting further west, the immediate decision has called for speculation.

As analysis by South Front evaluated:

“On the one hand, the Russian assault operation in Odessa has not begun yet. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are also yet to gain any significant successes in the Nikolaev region. On the other hand, the Sandu government in Moldova, with the active influence of Romania and Poland, demonstrates that it is ready to consider a military scenario for resolving the Transnistrian issue.”

Many sources have reported the redeployment of large units of the Polish army to Romania for subsequent joint activities and possible military exercises on the territory of Moldova. Russian claims that the Polish Armed Forces started to establish a strike group on the territory of Romania to cross the Ukraine border. The total troops in this manouver is estimated at up to 8,000 servicemen. The article asserts that a combined Polish, Romanian force is planing to enter Moldovan territory under a plausible pretext, such as a humanitarian operation or an official government request.

This week’s attacks have too conveniently given western puppet Sandu reasons for this request to her NATO backers.

If Romanian or Polish troops access Ukraine via Romania, or worse Moldova this will be the first undeniable entry of NATO member into this war made worse by crossing the territory of a non-NATO nation, or as detailed herein, a pro- Russia soviet holdout with a massive 22,000 ton cache of weapons.

More importantly, when considering the destruction of railway supply lines in the past seventy-two hours, NATO will have to bring new deployments by using Romania’s borders. This has the advantage of bringing these troops hundreds of miles closer to the eastern front and keeping them on NATO soil until they cross into Ukraine.

Or Transnistria.

If Polish and Romanian troops cross into Transnistria these NATO factions will suffer certain and massive casualties and their national points of origin will be undeniable. At that juncture two NATO member will have been attacked..by Russia… and…and…

The media will do the rest.

*

At the side of the road, Patrice from MSF sits with me and chats while waiting for a ride coming up from Odessa. As expected she tells me that the AFU already owns the streets of Odessa. She confirms checkpoints across the city centre. I don’t fear the Russians. I do fear certain factions of the AFU and I am the bad luck of a google search away from very close scrutiny.

For other good reasons that amount to no more than excuses, I very reluctantly turn my ship around, heading back to Chisinau.

As I wrap up Part Four away from the Transnistria of just days ago I regret this decision to my core. It could not be helped. I must go back, but the door is ever closing at the border, for me, for Russia, for Ukraine and oh, so tragically for Moldova. And peace.

If this war crosses Transnistria, the gorgeous city of Chisinau will be razed like Mariupol. If there exists a hell on this earth it is that image of horror coming too often to my mind as a plausible reality… a nightmare.

Pray for Moldova. Pray for Transnistria. Pray hardest with all you might for Chisinau.

But praying against the disciples of war is a futile exercise. It is time to write…or…?

That image of Chisinau engulfed in the flames of western war again burns in the horrors of my mind as, my heart pulls me by my soul back towards Transnistria.

The choice is simple.

*

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.

Dedication:  To Dr Patricia A. Mahaffey. “Behind every good man….” 

Author’s Note: This concludes Part Four of my series, “Destination Ukraine.” For further insight, please see Part One, “The Ignorance of War,” and Part Two, “Will Poland Go Rogue?” or Part Three, “The lies….and the eyes… of Ukraine.”

Brett Redmayne-Titley has spent the last decade travelling and documenting the “Sorrows of Empire.” He has authored over 200 articles all of which have been published and often republished and translated by news agencies worldwide. An archive of his many articles can be found at watchingromeburn.uk. He can be contacted at live-on-scene ((@))gmx.com.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Soviet symbols are still used in Transnistria. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute  

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

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

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

***

Mike Billington of the Schiller Institute interviewed  (former) Senator and Col. (ret) Richard Black, who served 31 years in the US Marines and Army.

Sen. Black talked about his military service in Syria, how and why Russia got involved in the war militarily, and how such involvement contrasts with the US’ and NATO’s justification for military intervention in the said war. 

Sen. Black also addresses the recent Russian military invasion of Ukraine and the failure to dissolve NATO.

40.12: Colonel Black focusses on the risk of World War III. 

“The decision of Peace or War is made in Washington DC,

As long as we [US government] want the war to continue, we will fight using the Ukrainians as proxies, and we will fight it to last Urainian death”

*

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

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

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

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

***

Russia’s invasion had damaged or destroyed up to 30% of Ukraine’s infrastructure at a cost of $100 billion, a Ukrainian minister alleged on April 18, adding reconstruction could be achieved in two years using “frozen Russian assets to help finance it.”

Oblivious to the concerns of Ukraine’s politicians regarding rebuilding damaged infrastructure of the embattled country during the war, the New York Times reported Wednesday the infrastructure sustained damage due to the myopic policy of scorched-earth tactics deployed by Ukrainians in order to hamper Russia’s blitz north of the capital in the early days of the war.

“The scorched-earth policy played an important role in Ukraine’s success in holding off Russian forces in the north and preventing them from capturing Kyiv, the capital,” military experts confided to NY Times. During the war, “over 300 bridges had been destroyed across Ukraine” by Ukrainians themselves, the country’s minister of infrastructure, Oleksandr Kubrakov, bragged. Elsewhere in Ukraine, the military had, without hesitation, blown up bridges, bombed roads and disabled railway lines and airports.

Demydiv, a town on the outskirts of Kyiv, was flooded when troops blew up a nearby dam and sent water surging into the countryside. Ukrainian forces flooded the area on Feb. 25, the second day of the war. The move was particularly effective, Ukrainian officials and soldiers say, creating a sprawling, shallow lake in front of the Russian armored columns.

Source: Access TV Pro

The flooding that blocked the northern rim of Kyiv on the west bank of the Dnipro River played a pivotal role in the fighting in early March, as Ukrainian forces repelled Russian attempts to surround Kyiv. The waters created an effective barrier to tanks and funneled the assault force into ambushes and cramped, urban settings in a string of outlying towns — Hostomel, Bucha and Irpin.

Even two months later, despite the withdrawal of Russian forces north of the capital in late March, residents of Demydiv still paddled about in a rubber boat. Despite unequivocally acknowledging the dam was blown up by Ukrainians themselves but attempting in vain to implicate Russians, too, in the wanton act of vandalism, the NY Times report risibly claims “later, Russian shelling further damaged the dam, complicating efforts now to drain the area.”

Dubious Ukrainian claims of having repelled Russia’s assault on the capital by mounting guerrilla warfare and deploying scorched-earth tactics to the contrary, it’s an incontestable fact that the “40-mile-long” military convoy of battle tanks, armored vehicles and heavy artillery that descended from Belarus in the north and reached the outskirts of Kyiv in the early days of the war without encountering much resistance en route the capital was simply a decoy astutely designed as a diversionary tactic by Russia’s military strategists in order to deter Ukraine from sending reinforcements to Donbas in east Ukraine where real battles for territory were actually fought and scramble to defend the embattled country’s capital instead.

In the early days of Russia’s military campaign in north Ukraine, the Washington Post reported on March 5 the main threat to Kyiv appeared to be a massive Russian convoy, about 40 miles long, approaching Kyiv from the northwest and believed to be about 20 miles from the capital and stuck near a cargo airport.

Despite the wanton destruction of “over 300 bridges, blowing up dams to flood the countryside and disabling roads, railway lines and airports” in the state of panic by Ukraine’s security forces as contended by NY Times, the virtually nonexistent “resistance” and subversive scorched-earth tactics had no effect, whatsoever, on the lightning quick blitz of Russian forces north of the capital.

All the towns from the Belarus border to the northern approaches of the capital fell in quick succession. Russian forces continued advancing from the northwest of Kyiv, capturing Bucha, Hostomel and Vorzel on the outskirts of the capital by March 5, and Irpin by March 9.

Quite astonishingly, however, instead of mounting a long-awaited assault on the capital, it was reported on March 11 that the convoy had largely dispersed, taking up positions in forests around the capital, before withdrawing back to Belarus after the announcement of scaling back Russia’s military campaign in north Ukraine at Istanbul peace initiative on March 29.

Clearly, commanders of the military convoy had explicit instructions to spare the city of four million people. The indiscriminate bombardment of the densely populated Ukrainian capital and the ensuing urban warfare against heavily armed Ukrainian militant groups nurtured by NATO patrons would inevitably have caused thousands of needless civilian casualties. Therefore, the Russian military’s top brass decided to spare the rest of the embattled country and restricted Russian military offensive on liberating Russian-majority Donbas region in east Ukraine.

While the Russian military convoy was knocking on Kyiv’s doors, Ukrainian politicians were so alarmed that a senior Ukrainian government official announced in the state of panic that Ukraine must hold off Russia’s attack for the next seven to ten days to deny Moscow claiming any sort of victory.

Vadym Denysenko, adviser to Ukraine’s interior minister, said on March 9:

“They need at least some victory before they are forced into the final negotiations,” Denysenko wrote on Facebook. “Therefore our task is to stand for the next 7-10 days.”

Forget about repelling the assault on the capital, it was considered a “stellar victory” by Ukraine’s “valiant political and military leadership” to delay Russia’s inevitable takeover of Kyiv by a week.

Publicly acknowledging the impending fall of Kyiv in the face of Russian blitz and contending that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky would soon form a government-in-exile, which would lead a guerrilla warfare campaign from safe havens in Poland, the Washington Post reported on March 5:

“The possible Russian takeover of Kyiv has prompted a flurry of planning at the State Department, Pentagon and other U.S. agencies in the event that the Zelensky government has to flee the capital or the country itself. ‘We’re doing contingency planning now for every possibility,’ including a scenario in which Zelensky establishes a government-in-exile in Poland, said a U.S. administration official.

“Zelensky, who has called himself Russia’s target No. 1, remains in Kyiv and has assured his citizens he’s not leaving. He has had discussions with U.S. officials about whether he should move west to a safer position in the city of Lviv, closer to the Polish border. Zelensky’s security detail has plans ready to swiftly relocate him and members of his cabinet, a senior Ukrainian official said. ‘So far, he has refused to go.’”

“This is a special military operation. If Russia were fighting a full-scale war, it would have been over long ago. This would have happened if we used the United States customary carpet bombings and scorched land tactics, repeatedly employed by ‘the world’s most democratic Air Force’ in Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and Syria,” Russia’s State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin wrote on his Telegram channel Monday.

On his first foreign visit to Belarus since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, Russian President Vladimir Putin explained during a joint press conference with his Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko on April 12 that the time frame of the military offensive in Ukraine was determined by the intensity of hostilities and Russia would act according to its plan.

“I often get these questions, can’t we hurry it up?’ We can. But it depends on the intensity of hostilities and, any way you put it, the intensity of hostilities is directly related to casualties,” said the Russian president. “Our task is to achieve the set goals while minimizing these losses. We will act rhythmically, calmly, and according to the plan that was initially proposed by the General Staff.”

Putin reiterated that Russia’s actions in several regions of Ukraine, implying diversionary tactics deployed by Russian forces in Kyiv and Chernihiv in the north, were intended only “to tie down enemy forces” and carry out missile strikes with the purpose of “destroying the Ukrainian military’s infrastructure,” so as to “create conditions for more active operations on the territory of Donbas.”

In a bombshell NBC scoop published April 7, the authors of the report alleged that US spy agencies used deliberate and selective intelligence leaks to mainstream news outlets to mount a disinformation campaign against Russia during the latter’s month-long military offensive in Ukraine lasting from late February to late March, despite being aware the intelligence wasn’t credible, and sometimes even publicizing downright fabrications.

The US intelligence assessment that Russia was preparing to use chemical weapons in the Ukraine War, that was widely reported in the corporate media and confirmed by President Biden himself, was an unsubstantiated claim leaked to the press as a tit-for-tat response to the damning Russian allegation that Ukraine was pursuing an active biological weapons program, in collaboration with Washington, in scores of bio-labs discovered by Russian forces in Ukraine in early days of the military campaign.

The NBC report noted:

“It was an attention-grabbing assertion that made headlines around the world: US officials said they had indications suggesting Russia might be preparing to use chemical agents in Ukraine. President Joe Biden later said it publicly. But three US officials told NBC News this week there was no evidence Russia had brought any chemical weapons near Ukraine. They said the US released the information to deter Russia from using the banned munitions.

“Multiple US officials acknowledged that the US had used information as a weapon even when confidence in the accuracy of the information wasn’t high. Sometimes it had used low-confidence intelligence for deterrent effect, as with chemical agents, and other times, as an official put it, the US was just ‘trying to get inside Putin’s head.’”

The crux of the NBC report, however, isn’t what’s being disclosed but rather what’s still being withheld by the US intelligence community that the mainstream news outlets are not at liberty to report on, as is obvious from the misleading NY Times report that mounting fierce guerrilla warfare campaign and deploying scorched-earth tactics by Ukraine’s largely conscript military and allied neo-Nazi militant groups repelled Russia’s assault on the capital and the Russian withdrawal wasn’t a consequence of a calculated military strategy.

Despite being aware of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s major unilateral concession to Kyiv, halting Russian offensive north of the capital and focusing on liberating Russian-majority Donbas in east Ukraine, practically spelling an end to Russia’s month-long offensive in Ukraine, US security officials, as quoted by the corporate media, are still deceptively asserting that Russia’s pullout from areas around Kyiv “wasn’t a retreat but a strategic redeployment” that signals a “significant assault on eastern and southern Ukraine,” one that US officials believe could be a “protracted and bloody fight.”

Regarding the nefarious disinformation campaign mounted by the mainstream media on behalf of NATO powers, the report notes:

“The idea is to pre-empt and disrupt the Kremlin’s tactics, complicate its military campaign, undermine Moscow’s propaganda and prevent Russia from defining how the war is perceived in the world, said a Western government official familiar with the strategy.”

By mid-March, after the “40-mile-long” military convoy of armored vehicles that created panic in the rank and file of Ukraine’s security forces and their international backers and that didn’t move an inch further after reaching the outskirts of Kyiv in the early days of the war, it became obvious even to lay observers of the Ukraine War that it was evidently a diversionary tactic. But US security agencies insidiously kept feeding false information of impending fall of the Ukrainian capital to the mainstream media throughout Russia’s month-long military campaign in Ukraine.

Only two conclusions could be drawn from this scaremongering tactic: either it was a massive intelligence failure and Western security agencies weren’t aware the “40-mile-long” convoy approaching the capital was a ruse; or the NATO’s spy agencies had credible intelligence since the beginning of Russia’s military campaign that real battles for territory would be fought in Donbas in east Ukraine and the feigned assault on the capital was simply a diversionary tactic but they exaggerated the threat in order to vilify Russia’s calculated military offensive in Ukraine, and win the war of narratives that “how the war is perceived across the world.”

Even in the weeks after the unilateral Russian peace initiative announced on March 29, offering scaling back its blitz north of the capital and focusing instead on liberating Russian-majority Donbas region in east Ukraine, a task that has already been accomplished in large measure, Western intelligence community and the mainstream media kept warning the gullible audience Russia’s pullout from areas around Kyiv “wasn’t a retreat but a strategic redeployment” and that Russian forces had withdrawn back into Belarus and Russia simply to “regroup, refit and resupply.”

Compared to 150-190,000 Russian troops deployed in Ukraine before the withdrawal process began in late March, the total number of battalion tactical groups in the country currently stands at 78, all of them in the south and the east in the Donbas region. That would translate to about 55,000 to 62,000 troops, based on what the Pentagon said at the start of the war was the typical unit strength of 700 to 800 soldiers. In other words, two-third of Russian troops deployed in Ukraine have withdrawn back to Russia and Belarus while only one-third remain in east Ukraine battling neo-Nazi militant groups trained and equipped by the CIA.

*

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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Middle East and Eurasia regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.

Featured image is from South Front

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

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

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

***

 

I think we are now seeing the outlines of how the Fourth Branch of Government are planning to keep control over information, specifically public discussion on Big Tech platforms, even as Elon Musk moves to open the valves of information from the social media platform Twitter.

Previously the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced a new Dept of Homeland Security priority to combat disinformation {LINK} on technology platforms including social media.

Many eyebrows were raised as the announcement appeared to be an open admission that the U.S. government was going to control information by applying labels, that would align with allies in social media, who need a legal justification for censorship and content removal.

This CISA announcement was quickly followed by various government officials and agencies saying it was critical to combat Russian disinformation, as the events in Ukraine unfolded.  In essence, Ukraine was the justification for search engines like Google, DuckDuckGo, and social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube to begin targeting information and content that did not align with the official U.S. government narrative.

Previously those same methods were deployed by the U.S. government, specifically the CDC and FDA, toward COVID-19 and the vaccination program. All of this background aligns with the previous visibility of a public-private partnership between the bureaucracy of government, the U.S. intelligence agencies and U.S. social media.  That partnership now forms the very cornerstone of the DHS/CISA effort to control what information exists in the public space.  It is highly important that people understand what is happening.

In July of 2021 the first admission of the official agenda behind the public-private partnership was made public {Reuters Article}.

What we are seeing now is an extension of the government control mechanisms, combined with a severe reaction by all stakeholders to the latest development in the Twitter takeover.

For two years the control mechanisms around information have been cemented by govt and Big Tech.  Even the deployment of the linguistics around disinformation, misinformation and malinformation is all part of that collective effort.  The collaboration between the government and Big Tech is not a matter for debate, it is all easily referenced by their own admissions.   The current issue is how they are deploying the information controls.

We have COVID-19, the vaccination effort and now Ukraine as examples of the collaboration to control information, to control what people are permitted to question and discuss on the internet.  Now things are getting much more detailed, and more alarming.

Shortly after Elon Musk made a bid to purchase a single information platform, Twitter, and then expressed his intent to open the speech valves, former Obama administration intelligence officials wrote a letter {SEE HERE} warning about efforts to break up the information control by Big Tech and Social Media.

That letter was shortly followed by a speech delivered by Obama himself where he specifically demanded that government take a larger role in the control of information {LINK}, essentially promoting an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’ to control information in the public sphere.

The internet search engine operators have already agreed to align with the interests of the government.  That’s not debatable as in the examples of Google {LINK) and DuckDuckGo {LINK} to name just two.  Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube have famously also expressed their intent to align with the control of information, based on the instructions and edicts of the same U.S. government agencies.   Again, this is not a conspiratorial claim, it is self admitted and we have all witnessed it.

Today, however, we are seeing the architecture of how they plan to organize the tools.

(POLITICO) – “DHS is standing up a new Disinformation Governance Board to coordinate countering misinformation related to homeland security, focused specifically on irregular migration and Russia. Nina Jankowicz will head the board as executive director. She previously was a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, advised the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry as part of the Fulbright Public Policy Fellowship and oversaw Russia and Belarus programs at the National Democratic Institute.” (link)

You can read more about Nina Jankowicz and her ideological alignment with the control mechanisms hereand here.  The bigger picture issue is that DHS will now work around any independence of social media, vis-a-vis Twitter as a free speech platform, by defining the parameters of allowed conversation.   A bureaucratic board within DHS will now serve as the group who defines what can and cannot be discussed.

Here’s Ms. Jankowicz in September of 2020. The head of the DHS governance board, Nina Jankowicz, claiming that color revolutions are an appropriate response to rigged elections, but they will never rise in the U.S.  WATCH:

It doesn’t take a deep thinker to see exactly where this is going.  Various U.S. government agencies will now define their interests.  The definitions will then be transmitted to the officers within big tech and social media, and any entity who dares to challenge that govt definition or govt narrative will be targeted for content removal.

Permitted speech will be defined by government agencies, and the mechanisms for controlling, targeting or removing speech that challenges that narrative will now lead to content removal.  The shift here, the part that must be emphasized, is the official justification in the terms and conditions of the social media platform operators will come from U.S. government agencies, not the platform itself.

Against this backdrop it is not a surprise why Elon Musk’s entry into the information space is now considered a risk.

…”The 2016 U.S. presidential election and the Brexit vote that same year gave Silicon Valley executives, U.S. elected officials and the public a peek into what can go wrong when social media companies opt not to wade too deeply into what people say on their sites.”… (link)

*

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

According to recent Western media, Russian forces have buried up to 9,000 Mariupol civilians in “mass graves” in a town just west of the Ukrainian city. These reports use satellite imagery as supposed evidence and repeat the claims of officials loyal to Kiev that “the bodies may have been buried in layers” and “the Russians dug trenches and filled them with corpses every day throughout April.”

I went to the site in question and found no mass graves.

On April 23, I joined RT journalist Roman Kosarev on a visit to the location, in the town of Mangush. What I saw were new, orderly grave plots including some still empty ones – an extension of a cemetery that already exists at the spot. No mass pit. Many of the graves have placards with the names and dates of birth of the deceased when available, and the remaining plots were numbered according to burial.

Since the media is essentially copy-pasting from the same source – the former mayor of Mariupol, Vadym Boichenko (who seems to be far from the city now) – I’ll cite from the Washington Post’s article.

Boichenko, the article notes, “called the site the ‘new Babyn Yar,’ referring to one the largest mass graves in Europe located in the outskirts of Kyiv, where 33,000 Jews where killed by Nazis in 1941 during World War II.”

This is ironic on several levels. A mayor who is whitewashing the neo-Nazis who have run amuck in his city – notably those from the Azov Battalion, who have used civilians as human shields, occupied and militarized civilian infrastructure, point-blank executed civilians – is comparing an alleged (non-existent) mass grave to a Nazi massacre of WW2.

Meanwhile, the Kiev regime has re-written history, making WW2 Nazis and their collaborators heroes of the nation. The most notorious example being the World War Two figure Stepan Bandera.

Boichenko’s other alarming claim was that the alleged “mass grave” was “the biggest war crime of the 21st century.” We are only 22 years into it, but we’ve already seen the US-led invasion and destruction of Iraq, the levelling of Syria’s Raqqa, Saudi Arabia’s ongoing war in Yemen – all of which are much stronger contenders than the nowhere-to-be-found “mass graves” of Mangush.

In reality, the site has around 400 individual plots, including nearly 100 empty ones. The 9,000 bodies and “biggest war crime of the 21st century” were unverified claims made by a mayor who fled his city, promoted by media which down the page admitted they could independently verify the claims – but by then, the damage had been done.

Gravediggers disprove mass grave claims

While walking around the site, two men responsible for burials arrived, and when presented with the former mayor’s accusations of mass graves they vehemently rejected the claims.

“This is not a mass grave and no one is throwing bodies into a pit,” one told me.

According to them, they bury each person in a coffin and separate grave, details are logged in the morgue, and when any documents regarding name and age are given, the plot is marked with a placard containing those details. Otherwise a number is used.

Interestingly, they also noted that a section of the new graves included buried Ukrainian soldiers. “They’re human, too” one of the men said.

For those in doubt as to the location, see Roman’s report: his drone footage shows that it’s precisely the same location as shown in the satellite images used by Western media.

Meanwhile, as Roman noted while walking, mass graves is something Ukraine has previously been accused of. He cited DPR leader Denis Pushilin as having stated that at least 300 such sites have been discovered since 2014.

He also spoke of what he witnessed.

“In 2014 or 2015, mass graves were discovered as Azov or Aidar fighters retreated from the Donetsk region. I even saw a woman, she was dug up, she had her arms tied behind her back, she was in the late stages of pregnancy and she had a hole in her head, so that means she was executed.”

American journalist George Eliason, who has lived in Lugansk for many years, has written about these alleged atrocities. In a documentary on the issue, he said:

“I’m here for five minutes and then I’m told the first five people they found, it was five decapitated heads. They were all civilians. Who does this to people?”

This story of a mass grave in Mangush is another fake from the Western corporate media, which previously pushed incubator babies being thrown on the floor by Iraqi soldiers, pushed lies about WMDs in Iraq, and carried reports of a chemical attack in Douma that never happened, to name but a few of their litany of hoaxes.

Meanwhile, when I was in Mariupol on April 21 and 22, yes there was destruction – thanks to those Neo-Nazi & regular Ukrainian forces occupying upper floors of residential buildings and using them as military positions, thus drawing return fire on the buildings – but I also saw people in the streets, and the beginning of the cleaning up process before rebuilding can occur.

I’ll repeat what I’ve said on Western media reporting on Syria (which in my experience, from on the ground in that country, is largely dishonest): those who promote these hoaxes and war propaganda have blood on their hands.

After the countless lies emanating from Western corporate media, I would hope people would exercise critical thinking whenever a new claim is pushed, particularly when it is repeated in chorus by the usual suspects.

*

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.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years).

She is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image: A first-hand look at the location where Kiev claims trenches hold thousands of bodies. (Source: Eva Bartlett)

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

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

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

***

Argentina’s deputy foreign minister Carlos Foradori negotiated a widely-criticised deal with Britain in 2016, which agreed to “remove all obstacles” to developing oil deposits around the Falkland Islands—and to add “further air links” from third countries.

The recently published diaries of Sir Alan Duncan, UK foreign minister for the Americas from 2016-19, make new claims about a “landmark” agreement between Britain and Argentina which has been fiercely criticised by the incumbent left-wing government in Buenos Aires.

Tensions between the UK and Argentina increased recently after Declassified revealed Britain deployed 31 nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic during the 1982 war. The two countries are currently marking the 40-year anniversary of the conflict which ran from April to June of that year.

Relations between the UK and Argentina had been “improving” after the right-wing administration of Mauricio Macri swept to power in Buenos Aires in late 2015.

Image on the right: Alan Duncan, UK foreign minister for the Americas from 2016-2019, negotiated the 2016 agreement with Argentina. (Photo: UK government)

Alan Duncan, UK foreign minister for the Americas from 2016-2019, negotiated the 2016 agreement with Argentina. (Photo: UK government)

Veteran Conservative MP Alan Duncan started as foreign minister soon after, in July 2016, and within two months was in Argentina’s capital Buenos Aires.

In his diaries, In the Thick of It, Duncan notes that on September 12, his first day in the city, he met with the “excellent” new UK ambassador to Argentina, Mark Kent.

“Beneath the [British] embassy residence is a fabulous wine cellar, nicely lit, the walls lined with bottles of Merlot,” Duncan continued. “The setting is nice enough for a meeting and we gather there with Carlos Foradori, the Deputy Foreign Minister.”

“It was a good diplomatic backdrop to some delicate negotiations about securing extra flights into the Falklands – for millions of reasons it requires the cooperation of Argentina for any connections that go via the mainland,” Duncan added. “As one bottle after another somehow moved from the cellar wall to the table, the negotiations improved. At about 2 in the morning we shook hands on an outline deal.”

‘So pissed’ 

The next day, September 13, Duncan wrote:

“Mark Kent says Foradori had just phoned to say he was so pissed last night he couldn’t remember all the details. Like a proper Brit, Mark reminded him what he had agreed, faithfully and without embellishment. So I think we’re still on track.”

Carlos Foradori disputed Duncan’s recollection of events in the wine cellar, telling Declassified “what was described was completely unrealistic”.

Foradori, a 40-year diplomat who is currently awaiting assignment, said the resulting joint communiqué was “far too long to have been formulated in one evening”.

He added that various levels of sign off from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs “prevent any official or diplomat deciding arbitrarily alone about any of the issues, particularly about such a sensitive one as the Malvinas [Falklands].” He added:

“Each issue analysed in the statement still needed to be validated later on in formal agreements.”

Mark Kent, who is now chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, did not respond to Declassified’s questions about the September 2016 night in his embassy’s wine cellar.

‘Landmark deal’

Later on during his second day in Buenos Aires, Duncan added,

“At the Argentina Investment Forum I have a brief encounter with President Macri, who gave his blessing to our efforts.”

He concluded:

“We move up a notch from last night to conduct further (sober) negotiations with Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra which go right down to the wire. At times it looked like we wouldn’t be able to agree, but we emerge with the first positive joint statement since 1999, on trade, security and opening new airlines to the Falklands. A real landmark deal.”

The UK government soon reported that

“a UK-Argentine joint statement has been agreed following a series of high-level meetings in Buenos Aires. It identifies new areas of collaboration and reactivates high-level bilateral consultations”.

It added:

“Deputy Foreign Minister Foradori and Minister Duncan held bilateral talks where the main themes of the bilateral agenda…were reviewed.”

Ten areas of increased cooperation were stipulated. Duncan and Foradori had “resolved to identify investment opportunities in each country with a particular focus on areas such as infrastructure, energy and mining.”

The communiqué also noted that the ministers had “both agreed to strengthen relations between the two armed forces.”

‘Appropriate measures’

The final area of increased cooperation was the most controversial and titled, “South Atlantic”. The statement noted

“it was agreed to take the appropriate measures to remove all obstacles limiting the economic growth and sustainable development of the Falkland Islands, including in trade, fishing, shipping and hydrocarbons.”

These obstacles had included firm Argentinian opposition to the UK prospecting for resources in the South Atlantic.

In 2010, UK company Rockhopper Petroleum made the first significant discovery of oil deposits – estimated to be 242m barrels – off the Falkland Islands. At the time, this “raised hopes among other explorers in the South Atlantic region”. More discoveries came in 2015 and 2016.

Upon becoming President in 2015, Macri appointed the former chief executive of UK oil company Shell in Argentina, Juan José Aranguren, to be the country’s energy minister.

Alan Duncan was himself an oil trader before entering politics, and returned to the industry after stepping down as an MP in 2019.

When applying for approval to take up a job with an oil company after service, Duncan told the UK government that while a foreign minister he had “made no decisions affecting the oil sector except for being informed of the licensing regime which might apply to oil exploration in respect to the Falklands Island [sic].”

‘Serious consequences’

The South Atlantic section of the 2016 joint communiqué also noted that “both sides agreed that further air links between the Falkland Islands and third countries would be established.”

This was again controversial. Argentine policy before the Macri government, and again now, has been to strongly oppose any new flights from third countries to the Falkland Islands.

Currently, there is only one third-country flight, which goes from Chile to the Falklands and stops every two weeks in Río Gallegos in Argentina. Argentine carriers are barred from flying to the islands.

Guillermo Carmona, Argentina’s minister for the Malvinas (Falklands) and the South Atlantic, told Declassified:

“The Macri administration policy, after Foradori’s intervention, could have brought serious consequences for Argentina’s position on las Malvinas.”

He added:

“At the time, we asked for Foradori’s resignation because we believed he did things that were out of line, and had it not been for the parliament’s opposition the consequences could have been very serious.”

Of the revelations related to the wine cellar, Carmona added:

“I’m not at all surprised,” adding “Foradori will have to be accountable for whatever he has said and done.”

Despite some pressure, however, the current left-wing government of Alberto Fernández has so far refused to revoke the 2016 UK-Argentina joint communiqué.

Image below: Mark Kent, British ambassador to Argentina 2016-21, hosted negotiations in the UK embassy wine cellar in 2016. (Photo: UK government)

Mark Kent, British ambassador to Argentina 2016-21, hosted negotiations in the UK embassy wine cellar in 2016. (Photo: UK government)

‘Political consequences’

On the three-year anniversary of what is known in Argentina as the ‘Foradori-Duncan agreement’, Daniel Filmus, now the country’s minister for science, technology and innovation, called the deal “one of the most harmful events to have taken place for our national interest in general and for our historic claim for the exercise of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands in particular”.

He added that it

“proposed to make concessions to British interests regarding the exploitation of Argentine natural resources in the region and to lower the intensity of the claim for sovereignty.”

It appears the Macri government was aware at the time that it was offering the British more than the Argentinian population were willing to give.

The year after his trip to Buenos Aires, in March 2017, Duncan reported a call he had with then Argentine foreign minister Susana Malcorra. He wrote:

“She speaks very frankly and explains that they just cannot take any further steps to help the Falklands until after the October mid-term elections, because they cannot risk the political consequences.”

Malcorra did not respond to Declassified’s request for comment.

Alicia Castro, Argentina’s ambassador to Britain from 2012-15, told Declassified:

“These new revelations mean the Argentine government should rip up the Foradori-Duncan agreement immediately.”

She added:

“The deal was a massive give away by Foradori to the British, which rightly caused outrage in Argentina. Now we have a better idea of how this present was given, it looks even worse. As a former ambassador, I can say this is absolutely no way to conduct serious diplomacy. It’s time to cancel the agreement in full.”

The UK Foreign Office did not respond to a request 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.

Matt Kennard is chief investigator at Declassified UK. He was a fellow and then director at the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London. Follow him on Twitter @kennardmatt

Featured image: Carlos Foradori, who as Argentina’s deputy foreign minister negotiated a landmark agreement with the UK in 2016. (Photo: Violaine Martin/WIPO)

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

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

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

***

If we were to believe the mainstream media’s spin on the past two years of COVID-19, then the pharma industry saved the world, our governments told us the truth about the virus and the experimental vaccines developed to fight it, and journalists were a reliable source of news and information about the pandemic. A new survey paints a rather different picture, however. Polling 10,000 people from 10 different countries, it found that pharma company CEOs, government leaders, and journalists are now the least trusted sources in relation to health.

Conducted by communications firm Edelman, the survey illustrates how the public are increasingly turning away from traditional authorities when it comes to who they trust on the subject of health. Revealingly, only 46 percent of those questioned said they trusted pharma CEOs and government leaders to tell the truth. Journalists fared worst of all, with just 41 percent of people saying they could be trusted about health.

The most trusted sources in the survey turned out to be the patients’ own doctors, with 76 percent of respondents saying they could rely upon them to tell the truth. Even friends and family were seen as more trustworthy than pharma CEOs, government leaders, and journalists, with 63 percent of people citing them as a reliable source of health information.

Similar findings emerged when people were asked who could be trusted to do what is right. Doctors fared best, with 76 percent saying they could be trusted on this. The groups seen as being least trustworthy in this respect were government leaders, trusted by just 43 percent, and journalists, trusted by 44 percent.

Interestingly, there was widespread agreement among the survey respondents that good quality healthcare is a basic human right and that it should be available to everyone. A majority of people in all 10 of the countries taking part in the survey agreed with this statement. The numbers agreeing ranged from 84 percent in Mexico down to 69 percent in the United States and 64 percent in Japan. The average across all 10 countries was 76 percent.

A majority of people also said the COVID-19 pandemic had actually decreased their confidence that their national healthcare systems were equipped to handle major health crises. The highest numbers of respondents agreeing with this statement were found in Japan (71 percent) and Mexico (64 percent). Globally, the average was 52 percent.

Large numbers of people questioned in the survey said they now see governments and the media as dividing forces in society, rather than unifying forces. Many were also worried that medical science is becoming politicized or is being used to support a specific political agenda. Taken together these findings go a long way towards explaining the overall tone of the responses received by the survey. With trust in the provision of accurate health information having clearly been lost in many countries, it will not be easily won back. In this situation, a continuation of the existing healthcare status quo is clearly not the answer.

Worldwide there is now increasing recognition that the drug industry has corrupted the practice of medicine. Peer-reviewed research published in 2019 demonstrated the effects of this when it identified almost 400 commonly used medical practices that are ineffective. Accounting for over one-third of such practices, pharmaceutical drugs were the most commonly administered ineffective interventions. Evidence suggests these medications are simply the tip of the iceberg.

The growing worldwide interest in non-patentable natural health therapies such as vitamins demonstrates that patients are now well aware of the existence of alternative approaches to healthcare. As a result, doctors increasingly get requests for non-drug forms of treatment. Despite this, it would appear that governments see the existence of non-drug approaches as an economic threat to the trillion dollar a year pharmaceutical industry. This stance has clearly not been taken in the best interests of patients.

Trust is hard to win. Once lost, it is difficult to win back. If pharma CEOs, government leaders, and journalists want to improve their reputations as untrustworthy sources of information on health, they would probably do well to reflect on this.

*

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

This article was originally published on Dr. Rath Health Foundation.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Freedom of Speech Is Threatened: Global Research Needs Your Support

April 29th, 2022 by The Global Research Team

Global Research extends our thanks to our readers for your continued support over the last few years.

We have intimated the issue of online censorship and how it affects our readership. Unfortunately, this diabolical act of curtailing free speech is in the heat. 

For almost two weeks, we have been the object of coordinated cyberattacks emanating simultaneously from 5 countries consisting in targeting Global Research with several hundred million “malicious DoS requests” (“A Denial of Service”). While our readership has been affected, thanks to our security specialists, the cyberattacks have failed. 

In this context, with a view to sustaining our endeavours, we ask our readers to help us reach as many people as possible (forwarding, referral of  GR articles to friends and colleagues, crossposts, social media, etc). 

We send two newsletters during a weekday and one on the weekend. We are active on social media. We are doing our best to circumvent all forms of censorship but only an army of readers and supporters can get us through it.

  • Promote your favorite Global Research article/s on email and social media
  • Subscribe to our newsletter, if you haven’t yet

If you have the means, you can also help us continue with our mission through donation and membership.

Click to view our membership plans

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Thank you for supporting independent media. Thank you for supporting Global Research.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Freedom of Speech Is Threatened: Global Research Needs Your Support

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

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

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

***

Healthy teenagers, athletes and doctors are among the tens of thousands of people who died within hours or days after getting their Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine doses. And an increasing number felt the need to speak out about the ways the COVID-19 injections have altered their lives.

Long-term effects of COVID-19 shots are not yet clear, although spike proteins are said to circulate in the body after injections, causing damage to cells, tissues and organs. Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist and trained epidemiologist known for voicing out against the vaccines said spike proteins are deadly.

Experimental and observational evidence showed that the human immune response to the shots is very different compared to the response induced by exposure to the virus. Some believe that the COVID-19 shots may actually damage the innate immune systems of humans, leading to a form of vaccine-induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or VAIDS.

Moreover, due to the monocyte activation by the spike protein from the vaccine, there are those who experienced a range of debilitating symptoms after receiving a dose of the vaccine, similar to those found in long-haul COVID-19 syndrome, including headaches, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction and joint and chest pain.

Others believe the adverse effects occur quickly, resulting in life-changing debilitation.

COVID-19 vaccines affect healthy people

Among the most surprising effects of the vaccines is how they have been affecting otherwise healthy people. Athletes around the world have died of heart attacks and strokes following their shots.

Marathon champion Alexaida Guedez of Venezuela died of a heart attack during a 5,000-meter race on August 22, 2021. Abou Ali, a 22-year-old soccer player suffered from cardiac arrest in Denmark on September 11, 2021. Andrea Astolfi, a 45-year-old sports director of Calcio Orsago in Italy, died of a heart attack on the same day as Ali, after returning from training. Caddy Alberto Olguin collapsed and died from a heart attack on the golf course nearly a month later. Another soccer player, 14-year-old Ava Azzopardi, collapsed on a soccer field in the U.S. on October 15, 2021, following a cardiac arrest. She had to be put in a medically induced coma to survive.

Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla, an ophthalmologist, died from a heart attack four days after he got his COVID-19 booster shot. His autopsy also showed myocarditis – an inflammation of the heart muscle that is considered to be an adverse effect of the mRNA COVID-19 shots.

An unnamed vaccine advocate who took a Pfizer shot said he started having blurry vision in his left eye after his shot, and lost 60 percent of his vision within three days. After a slew of medical examinations, he was diagnosed with central serous retinopathy, where a small vein rupture led to fluid accumulation under the retina and caused partial blindness.

Long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccines

More than the already apparent short-term adverse effects of the vaccines that have been reported through clinical trial reports and personal experiences, there’s little that is known about the possible long-term effects of the COVID-19 shots. Scientists have studied available evidence and the rules of science have not allowed scientists to say that long-term effects can never happen.

The history of vaccines shows that there are severe effects that can follow vaccination, and they tend to happen within two months of vaccinations.

For COVID-19 vaccines, there had been some severe side effects that occurred shortly after vaccination, including thrombosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis and pericarditis. These usually happen within a few days after receiving the vaccine, leading many to wonder what might happen months or years down the line.

Watch the video below to know how the COVID-19 vaccines are killing athletes with fatal heart attacks.

*

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 Chemical Violence

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Deadly Shots: Even Healthy Teenagers, Athletes and Doctors Are Not Safe with COVID-19 Vaccines
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

Reports are circling that the Biden Administration has begged Germany to hold off on banning Russian oil until after the midterm elections. The Democrats are so desperate to win amid their record-low popularity that they are openly asking other nations to alter major policies at the expense of the people. Biden has banned Russian energy imports, but the EU, which is more reliant on Russian energy, must wait.

Banning Russian energy will backfire on Europe and send aftershocks throughout the market. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock initially announced that Germany would cease purchases from Russia but quickly changed her stance. Finance Minister Christian Lindner said that Germany would support Ukraine but not at the expense of the German people.

“It was a mistake that Germany became so heavily dependent on energy imports from Russia,” she admitted after avoiding warnings years ago.

Germany is the #1 importer of Russian energy, with 34% of its total petroleum coming from Russia. Nearly half of Germany’s coal is tied to Russia, and one-third of homes are heated with Russian imported oil. Germany purchased 27 billion tons of crude from Russia in 2021 alone.

Zelensky has cried that the EU is spending “blood money” on Russian energy without understanding there is no immediate alternative. Zelensky accused nations who purchase Russian oil of being guilty of genocide and war crimes. “If Russians are committing war crimes, even genocide, whoever is supplying Russia with this bloody money is guilty of the same war crime.” If he had his way, he would punish each nation accordingly.

Germany recently stated they will ban Russian oil by the end of the year, regardless of the repercussions, and will ban gas imports by next year. While it is unconfirmed whether Biden begged Scholz to hold off on additional sanctions, the prospect is highly likely. In the end, Biden, Scholz, and Zelensky are subservient to the Build Back Better agenda, and policies will be aimed at that socialistic goal rather than what is best for the people.

*

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.

The AXIS Act, a Step toward World War III

April 29th, 2022 by Adam Dick

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

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

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

***

The Axis powers, including Germany and Japan, were the foes of the United States and other Allied powers in World War II. Decades later, President George W. Bush chose to term some other nations — Iraq, Iran, and North Korea — as a new “axis of evil.” That was followed by a US invasion and overthrow in Iraq. Decades later, US troops remain in Iraq, and US sanctions and hostility directed at the other two nations continue.

This week, the United States House of Representatives is set to bring the Axis designation back to the big time — seeking to lump China in with Russia as the new Axis powers the US should be devoted to opposing. The movement toward a new world war — the first one with nuclear powers on both sides — grows stronger.

The House is scheduled to consider the AXIS Act (HR 7314) this week. “AXIS” in the title is the kind of ridiculous acronym that has become common in US legislation. It stands for “Assessing Xi’s Interference and Subversion.” “Xi” is Xi Jinping, the leader of China’s government.

The AXIS Act is being considered under suspension of the rules. Legislation deemed noncontroversial by House leadership can be considered under suspension of the rules in which there is usually a relatively brief House floor debate. Suspension legislation is also often passed by voice vote on a nearly empty house floor. Pressing forward toward World War III is not controversial? For many oblivious House members that probably is the case.

The AXIS Act starts off with a series of findings attempting to paint China as an aider of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The accusations included are underwhelming: China and Russia made a strategic partnership announcement a few weeks before the invasion; China abstained from voting on resolutions condemning the invasion in the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly; China has not publicly condemned the invasion.

That’s it. The resolution implicitly admits its backers cannot really tie China to supporting the invasion of Ukraine. Still the resolution proceeds, in what it states is the “sense of Congress,” to bluster that “the People’s Republic of China’s disinformation efforts relating to the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine make it culpable in whitewashing Russia’s war crimes, which include the indiscriminate killing of countless Ukrainian men, women, and children.”

It is the second and final listed “sense of Congress” that is the heart of the resolution and that holds the threat of increased animosity toward China and the potential eruption of World War III. It states that it is the sense of Congress that, “if China is found to be materially supporting Russia in its war against Ukraine, there should be swift and stringent consequences for China.”

Swift and stringent consequences have already been imposed against Russia. They amount to nearly everything short of US troops fighting against the Russian military, though, with US history as a guide, it should be suspected that US troops are engaged covertly in some military actions against Russians. The US has established expansive sanctions on Russia, extensively blocked investment in and commerce with Russia, and excluded Russia from financial systems including SWIFT that facilitate participation in international trade. The US has also been funding, supplying, and training Ukraine military forces that are fighting against Russians.

In an apparent effort to justify the US treating China similarly, the AXIS Act requires the real experts at depicting other nations as enemies — the Department of State — to “submit to the appropriate congressional committees” within 30 days and then every 90 days thereafter “a report on whether and how the People’s Republic of China, including the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party, any Chinese state-owned enterprise, and any other Chinese entity, has provided support to the Russian Federation with respect to its unprovoked invasion of and full-scale war against Ukraine.”

These reports will provide House members keen on ramping up hostilities against China with the steady stream of pro-war propaganda they desire. And have no doubt that the executive branch will be happy to provide such. The Biden administration’s interests are in the same direction as the House members raging at China. President Joe Biden has already been out using the Ukraine War as a reason for threatening China. Indeed, the AXIS Act notes one example of this:

“In his call with Xi Jinping on March 18, 25 2022, President Joe Biden communicated that there would be ‘implications and consequences if China provides material support to Russia as it conducts brutal attacks against Ukrainian cities and civilians’.”

The AXIS Act is a significant step in the effort by Congress members and the Biden administration, using the Ukraine War as an excuse, to direct against China hostilities already directed against Russia, and maybe more. Most of the backers of this effort probably expect that such actions will not lead to World War III. Hopefully, they are correct in that assessment. Even if they are correct that the most dire consequences will be avoided, the toll of expanding hostilities against China will still be harsh for people across the world. For what gain? None is clear. What is clear is that there is much potential danger ahead and that US politicians are propelling Americans and the world toward 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.

Featured image is from TRIPP

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

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

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

***

Earlier this month, the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union listed Russia’s Alrosa, the world’s largest producer of diamonds, on the sanctions list. Alrosa accounts for 27% of the world market share and 95% of Russia’s diamond mining. Last year, sales of rough and manufactured diamonds by the Russian group reached $4.1 billion. Due to Alrosa’s status, sanctions on Russia’s diamond industry will negatively impact the industry around the world, something that the US, UK and EU had not considered.

According to Edahn Golan, an Israeli diamond industry analyst, if the US government decides to extend sanctions on all diamonds mined in Russia, no matter where they are made, then there will be a significant disruption in the industry across the world. Excluding Alrosa from the global market would cause serious damage to the company itself and the entire market, because in Golan’s view, the contribution of Alrosa to the world market is irreplaceable.

The expert said that the effect of the sanctions would be significantly reduced if only the ban on rough diamonds were included, because in this case, when diamonds are made outside of Russia, they will be imported normally into the US without violating the regulations. This is something that the US must consider quickly because if the sanctions against Alrosa remain in place until the end of the year, consumers will likely suffer an increase in the cost of diamond jewellery during important shopping periods, such as Christmas and New Year.

Regardless of the sanctions, the price of rough diamonds has not increased much for now, but if there is a shortage, prices will certainly soar. The price is set depending on how much the consumer is willing to pay, and if it is found to be too expensive, naturally the buyer will move to another type of product.

Ben Davis, an analyst at London-based investment firm Liberum Capital Limited, also spoke about the indispensable position of the Russian market share in the volume of diamonds mined on the world market. Although Davis stressed that no crude diamond supplier can replace Russia, he did note the rapid development of synthetic and recycled diamonds, as well as other gemstones.

He also claimed, in opposition to Golan, that the stagnation of the global economy could lead to lower prices for rough diamonds and as a result, lower prices for manufactured diamonds. In his view, even if Russia completely leaves the market, it will not see a sudden price increase. While it is believed that the price level in the market will maintain relative stability, the expert also said that it is unlikely that the West will soon lift sanctions against the Russian diamond industry, specifically the Alrosa Group.

Despite Davis’ positive outlook that prices will not increase, according to sources cited by Bloomberg, diamond buyers across the big trading centres in Antwerp and Dubai and manufacturing hubs in India have spent considerable time “consulting lawyers to determine what the US sanctions on Alrosa PJSC mean and how they can continue to buy.” This once again demonstrates the unwillingness of non-Western countries to end their trade with Russia. At the same time though, Russia is not just accepting the sanctions without response.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on April 27 that it would impose “personal restrictions” on 287 members of the UK’s House of Commons, arguing these politicians “took the most active part” in London’s decision on March 11 to sanction 386 members of the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament. Among the latest sanctions imposed by the UK was a 35% tariff on the importation of diamonds, both rough and polished, from Russia and Belarus.

However, just as the West is forcing Russia to establish new sanction-busting financial methods, thus accelerating the de-Dollarization of the global economy, Russia may pursue a wholesale purchase of the diamonds via the State Fund of Precious Metals and Precious Stones – Gokhran. Gokhran, a state institution which operates under the Russian Ministry of Finance, acts as a repository for the handling of purchases, storage and sale of precious items, such as diamonds, on behalf of the Russian government.

Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov told Reuters that the government remained open to purchasing its own rough product if the sanctions continue.

“We do not rule out the possibility of Gokhran purchasing diamonds produced by Alrosa. The amount will be determined later,” he said.

It is recalled that Gokhran previously purchased diamonds valued at more than $1 billion during a period of weakened demand caused by the 2009 Global Financial Crisis. In this way, Russia is formulating new methods so that the diamond industry does not only develop steadily in the country, but is also able to continue working with traders and manufacturers outside of the West that have not imposed sanctions.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Did the U.S. government play a role in creating Pakistan’s current political crisis?

From the reports available so far, it seems likely that the U.S. government colluded with Pakistani politicians opposed to Prime Minister Imran Khan to have him removed from power.

According to Khan, members of the U.S. consular staff met several times with the opposition leaders and with only the dissident members of Khan’s party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

Even more significant is what U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu said to Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States. The ambassador communicated Lu’s words to Imran Khan by a cable.

According to Khan, Lu told Pakistan’s ambassador that if the opposition’s no-confidence vote against Imran Khan succeeded and he was removed from power, the U.S. government would “forgive Pakistan.” But if the vote failed and Khan staid in power, there would be dire consequences for Pakistan. Such threats are never communicated in writing.

The aforementioned cable is the best evidence so far of the U.S. meddling in Pakistan’s internal affairs. U.S. consular staff’s choice of meeting only with anti-Khan politicians and Lu’s warning point an accusing finger at Washington.

There are many other details that support the likelihood of possible U.S. interference in Pakistan’s internal matters.

Assistant Secretary of State Lu confirmed in a Senate hearing on March 2 that Washington was pressuring Khan’s government over its refusal to condemn Russia for its war in Ukraine.

*

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.

Abdul Jabbar is a scholar originally from Pakistan. He has taught interdisciplinary studies (including political science) in the United States for nearly half a century, so he has been following the developments in Pakistan with great interest and concern, both from professional and personal points of view.

Featured image is from Multipolarista

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

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

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

***

The bombing of the beautiful German art and hospital city of Dresden in February 1945 is one of the many traumas in the history of the 20th century.

The German dramatist and Nobel Prize winner for literature Gerhart Hauptmann (1862-1946) personally experienced the “hellfire” of the flaming inferno in Dresden caused by three bombing raids by British and American air forces. Tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people were slain, suffocated in cellars, burned up in the flames. That is why his “Farewell Words on the Downfall of Dresden” begin with the sentence:

“Those who have forgotten how to cry will learn it again at the downfall of Dresden.” (1)

Once again, the people of a country, Ukraine, are experiencing an indescribable trauma and hellfire: the continuous bombing of more and more areas of their homeland by a great power. That is why Hauptmann’s moving sentence on the downfall of Dresden should be applied to the destruction of Ukraine. More appropriate words cannot be found for what we see, hear, read and witness every day in increasing human suffering, despair, death and ruin as well as material destruction.

When we see the misdeeds of the other so that it makes us weep, we see ourselves rightly.

For the German philosopher Max Stirner (1806-1856), compassion for one’s fellow man is not a moral duty, but his deeply felt need, his property, his will (2). Already on the first page of his major work “Der Einzige und sein Eigentum” (The Only One and His Property), published in 1844, he writes: “Fie on the egoist who thinks only of himself!” (3)

Today’s commentary is not about whether the Corona regime and the Ukraine crisis are instruments to limit the mobility of the population and to advance the agenda of the “Great Reset” (4) or whether Putin is now fighting for or against the “Great Reset” because the Ukraine war plays to the “New World Order” either way (5).

The question is whether we humans see that it is also we citizens in this world who are partly responsible for this blasphemous war against the Ukrainian people. Only when we see that, when we see the misdeeds of the other – the merciless ruler or warlord – so that it makes us weep, do we see ourselves properly. That is the mirror.

Only with this self-knowledge, with this attitude, does a person begin to be a true human being: by identifying himself and knowing about the attitude of the other person. As long as he is still angry with the other person, he has no true image.

But social feelings are not innate or genetically given – and therefore not automatically recallable – but the human being must learn social feelings in the course of his family and school upbringing (6).

*

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. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a teacher (retired headmaster), doctor of education (Dr. paed.) and graduate psychologist (specialising in clinical, educational and media psychology). As a retiree, he worked for many years as a psychotherapist in his own practice. In his books and educational-psychological articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral values education and an education for public spirit and peace.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/tranen-fur-dresden; schutz-brett.org/3/en/…de-en/…/689-abschiedsworte-zum-untergang-dresdens.html

(2) Stirner, Max (1981). The only one and his property. Stuttgart

(3) op. cit., p. 3

(4) https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/die-bewegungslose-gesellschaft

(5) https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/katalysator-der-globalen-umgestaltung

(6) Plack, Arno (ed.). (1973). The myth of the aggression instinct. Munich

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bombing of Ukraine: Those Who Have Forgotten How to Cry Are Learning It Again…
  • Tags:

Peace Movement Needs to Demand the Dismantling of NATO

April 29th, 2022 by Prof. Harry Targ

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

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

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

***

It looks a lot like a return to the past. Founded in 1949 to defend against the “Soviet threat,” the NATO alliance is facing a return to mechanized warfare, a huge increase in defense spending, and potentially a new Iron Curtain falling across Europe. After struggling to find a new post-Cold War role, countering terrorism following the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001 and a humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, NATO is back encroaching on its original nemesis.[1]

U.S. Plans for the Establishment of Global Hegemony: 1945-47

During World War II an “unnatural alliance” was created between the United States, Great Britain, and the former Soviet Union. What brought the three countries together—the emerging imperial giant (the United States), the declining capitalist power (Great Britain), and the first socialist state (the Soviet Union)—was the shared need to defeat fascism in Europe. Rhetorically, the high point of collaboration was reflected in the agreements made at the Yalta Conference, in February 1945, three months before the German armies were defeated.

At Yalta, the great powers made decisions to facilitate democratization of former Nazi regimes in Eastern Europe, a “temporary” division of Germany for occupation purposes, and a schedule of future Soviet participation in the ongoing war against Japan. Leaders of the three states returned to their respective countries celebrating the “spirit of Yalta,” what would be a post-war world order in which they would work through the new United Nations system to modulate conflict in the world.

Yalta Conference - Definition, Date & WW2 - HISTORY

Big Three leaders pose for photo outside historic Yalta conference. [Source: history.com]

Within two years, after conflicts over Iran with the Soviet Union, the Greek Civil War, the replacement of wartime President Franklin Roosevelt with Harry Truman, and growing challenges to corporate rule in the United States by militant labor, Truman declared in March 1947 that the United States and its allies were going to be engaged in a long-term struggle against the forces of “International Communism.” The post-war vision of cooperation was reframed as a struggle of the “free world” against “tyranny.” It was really a struggle between two kinds of political/economic orders: one socialist, another capitalist.

The Truman Doctrine for APUSH | Simple, Easy, Direct

Source: apprend.io

The Economic Foundations of a New World Order

In addition to Truman’s ideological crusade, his administration launched an economic program to rebuild parts of Europe, particularly what would become West Germany, as capitalist bastions against the ongoing popularity of Communist parties throughout the region. Along with the significant program of reconstructing capitalism in Europe and linking it by trade, investment, finance and debt to the United States, the U.S. with its new allies constructed a military alliance that would be ready to fight the Cold War against International Communism.

For Joyce and Gabriel Kolko (The Limits of Power, 1972) and other revisionists, the expansion of socialism constituted a global threat to capital accumulation. With the end of the Second World War, there were widespread fears that the decline in wartime demand for U.S. products would bring economic stagnation and a return to the depression of the 1930s.

The Marshall Plan, lauded as a humanitarian program for the rebuilding of war-torn Europe, was at its base a program to increase demand and secure markets for U.S. products. With the specter of an international communist threat, military spending, another source of demand, would likewise help retain customers, including the U.S. government itself. The idea of empire, which William Appleman Williams so stressed (The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, 1959), was underscored by the materiality of capitalist dynamics.

The Marshall Plan inspired European integration of states that were major recipients of Marshall Plan funds. The first significant economic organization, The European Coal and Steel Community, became operational in 1952. Its membership included France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. It encouraged the production and trade of core resources such as coal, steel and iron. In 1957, the purview of the ECSC was expanded with the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).

Other, overlapping European institutions were created during the 1950s and beyond involving the original six and additional countries. In May 1960 seven European nations, not in the EEC, formed the European Free Trade Association to foster trade and economic integration. (In 1973, three countries including Great Britain joined the EEC).

Finally in 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Maastricht Treaty established the European Union (EU) which, by 2019, had 27 member countries (nine from the former Soviet bloc) with a GDP of 16.4 trillion euros (the EU currency), constituting 15% of world trade. In addition, European nations are embedded in a network of regional and international organizations that deal with trade, finance, indebtedness, security and human rights. (See the diagram below.)

Chart Description automatically generated

Source: twitter.com

The reigning scholarly study of these efforts in the 1960s and beyond, integration theory, postulated that the greater the cross-national interactions of European countries the lesser the likelihood of war among them. Studies were carried out designed to discover how and why integration seemed to be working in Europe but less so in troubled locations, such as on the African continent.

But from another vantage point “regional integration” inspired by and connected to the United States political economy can be seen as a near complete fruition of the vision of U.S. and capitalist hegemony initiated in those crucial early years after World War ll. The 21st century policy program of the United States and most of Europe has been to establish on a global basis a capitalist economic model.

Ideologically, the presupposition is that this model is historically exceptional and therefore must resist threats to its survival and growth. The so-called communist threat of the 1940s is the “authoritarian” threat of the current century. And to the extent that capitalist hegemony is not achievable by consent, it might need to be instituted by force.

While world history is more complicated than this narrative suggests, there is enough plausibility to it to justify fears, particularly when the military instrument—NATO—expanded eastward. From this point of view, NATO itself may not be the only threat to countries in Europe and Asia. But the use of it as a part of global expansion of economic and political institutions, coupled with the ideological expression of American exceptionalism, could create fear and aggression.

NATO As the Military Arm of a Drive for a Hegemonic Global Political Economy

Representatives of Western European countries met in Brussels in 1948 to establish a program of common defense and one year later with the addition of the United States and Canada, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed. The new NATO charter, inspired largely by a prior Western Hemisphere alliance, the Rio Pact (1947), proclaimed that “an armed attack against one or more of them…shall be considered an attack against them all” which would lead to an appropriate response.

A picture containing indoor Description automatically generated

Image from first NATO summit. [Source: nato.int]

The Charter called for cooperation and military preparedness among the 12 signatories. After the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb and the Korean War started, NATO pushed ahead with the development of a common military command structure with General Eisenhower as the first “Supreme Allied Commander.”

After the founding of NATO and its establishment as a military arm of the West, the Truman administration adopted the policy recommendations in National Security Council Document 68 (NSC 68) in 1950 which declared that military spending for the indefinite future would be the number one priority of every presidential administration.

Cold War #3 - NSC68 - YouTube

Source: youtube.com

As Western European economies reconstructed, Marshall Plan aid programs were shut down and military assistance to Europe was launched. Greece and Turkey joined NATO in 1952 and, fueling the flames of the Cold War, West Germany was admitted to NATO in 1955. (This stimulated the Soviet Union to construct its own alliance system, the Warsaw Pact, with countries from Eastern Europe.)

During the Cold War, NATO continued as the only unified Western military command structure against the “Soviet threat.” While forces and funds only represented a portion of the U.S. global military presence, the alliance constituted a “trip wire” signifying to the Soviets that any attack on targets in Western Europe would set off World War III. Thus, NATO provided the deterrent threat of “massive retaliation” in the face of a first-strike attack.

With the collapse of the former Warsaw Pact regimes between 1989 and 1991, the tearing down of the symbolic Berlin Wall in 1989 and, finally, the collapse of the Soviet Union itself in 1991, the outspoken purpose for maintaining a NATO alliance presumably had passed. However, this was not to be.

In the next 20 years after the Soviet collapse, membership in the alliance doubled. New members included most of the former Warsaw Pact countries. The functions and activities of NATO were redefined. NATO programs included air surveillance during the crises accompanying the Gulf War and the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia.

In 1995, NATO sent 60,000 troops to Bosnia and in 1999 it carried out brutal bombing campaigns in Serbia with 38,000 sorties. NATO forces became part of the U.S.-led military coalition that launched the war on Afghanistan in 2001. In 2011 a massive NATO air war on Libya played a critical role in the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

Milošević trial exposed U.S.-NATO aggression against Yugoslavia – Workers World

Conference in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, March 2019, exposes NATO’s bombing of Yugoslav children. [Source: workers.org]

An official history of NATO described the changes in its mission: “In 1991 as in 1949, NATO was to be the foundation stone for a larger, pan-European security architecture.” The post-Cold War mission of NATO combines “military might, diplomacy, and post-conflict stabilization.”

The NATO history boldly concludes that the alliance was founded on defense in the 1950s and détente with the Soviet Union in the 1960s. With the collapse of Communism in the 1990s, it became a “tool for the stabilization of Eastern Europe and Central Asia through incorporation of new Partners and Allies.” The 21st century vision of NATO has expanded further: “extending peace through the strategic projection of security.” This new mission, the history said, was forced upon NATO because of the failure of nation-states and extremism.

NATO and Ukraine Today

Reviewing this brief history of NATO, observers can reasonably draw different conclusions about NATO’s role in the world than from those who celebrate its world role. First, NATO’s mission to defend Europe from aggression against “International Communism” was completed with the “fall of Communism.” Second, the alliance was regional, that is pertaining to Europe and North America, and now it is global. Third, NATO was about security and defense. Now it is about global transformation.

Fourth, with the U.S. as NATO’s biggest supporter in terms of troops, supplies and budget (22-25%), NATO is an instrument of United States foreign policy. Fifth, as a creation of Europe and North America, it has become an enforcer of the interests of member countries against, what Vijay Prashad calls, the “darker nations” of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Sixth, NATO has become the 21st century military instrumentality of global imperialism. And, finally, there is growing evidence that larger and larger portions of the world’s people have begun to stand up against NATO.

In the context of this complex history, Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, following eight years of war in Eastern Ukraine. After four weeks thousands of Ukrainians have been killed and more than four million have fled their cities and towns. The President of Ukraine, spokespersons from some NATO countries, and some U.S. politicians have called for a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine which would escalate the war to a near-nuclear war situation. In addition, NATO countries, and particularly the United States, have dramatically increased military expenditures. Impactful economic sanctions have been leveled against Russia, and economic instabilities are beginning to affect Europe and the United States. In addition, vital work around combating climate change has been stalled and important pieces of legislation to fulfil social needs have been eliminated from legislative consideration.

What Needs to Be Done?

To quote a tired but true slogan, “war is not the answer.” The Russian invasion of Ukraine threatens the lives and property of Ukrainians, the lives of Russian soldiers and protesters, raises fears of an escalation of war throughout Europe, and raises the danger of nuclear war.

“We” need to support “back-channel negotiations” in process as occurred during the Cuban missile crisis, demands that Russia stop the violence and withdraw its military forces from Ukraine, diplomacy at the United Nations, and summit meetings of diplomats from Russia, Ukraine and Europe. And conversations on the agenda should include forbidding Ukraine from joining NATO, establishing regional autonomy for Ukraine citizens who want it, pulling back NATO bases from Eastern European states, and/or abolishing NATO itself because the reason for its creation in the first place, defending against the Soviet Union, no longer exists.

The “we” at this moment could be a resurgent international peace movement, taking inspiration from peace activists in Russia and around the world. As horrible as this moment is, it is potentially a “teachable moment,” a moment when peace becomes part of the global progressive agenda again and people all around the world can begin to examine existing international institutions such as NATO.

A large group of people marching Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Source: blogger.googleusercontent.com

And while we react with shock and condemnation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, whatever the complicated and understandable motivations, we need to be familiar with the historic context of the very dangerous warfare that we are living through now.

As James Goldgeier wrote more than 20 years ago on a Brookings Institution web page: “The dean of America’s Russia experts, George F. Kennan, had called the expansion of NATO into Central Europe ‘the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.’ Kennan, the architect of America’s post-World War II strategy of containment of the Soviet Union, believed, as did most other Russia experts in the United States, that expanding NATO would damage beyond repair U.S. efforts to transform Russia from enemy to partner.”[2]

*

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.

Harry Targ, Professor of Political Science Emeritus, taught foreign policy, US/Latin American relations, international political economy, and topics on labor studies in the Department of Political Science and the program in Peace Studies at Purdue University. Harry blogs at  Diary of a Heartland Radical. https://heartlandradical.blogspot.com/ and can be reached at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Peace Movement Needs to Demand the Dismantling of NATO
  • Tags: ,

This Month’s Most Popular Articles

April 29th, 2022 by Global Research News

Digital Tyranny: The EU Digital Covid Vaccine Certificate Framework

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 11, 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, April 24, 2022

Video: Nationwide Protest in Pakistan in Support of Imran Khan: Largest Rally in the History of Peshawar City, in the History of the Province of the Pashtun People

Junaid S. Ahmad, April 14, 2022

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

David John Sorensen, April 24, 2022

Bruce Willis Developed Aphasia After Being Vaccinated: “Aphasia is a Language Disorder caused by Damage in a Specific Area of the Brain.”

Steve Kirsch, March 31, 2022

“Russia is Succeeding Wildly in its Objectives!” Scott Ritter on the War in Ukraine

Michael Welch, March 29, 2022

Dutch Journalist: ‘We are here, in Donbass, to awaken Westerners deluded by propaganda’

Ekaterina Blinova, April 14, 2022

Ukraine-Russia: Towards a “Hot War”? Advancing the Agenda of the Great Reset?

Peter Koenig, April 15, 2022

Massacre in Bucha. Was it a False Flag?

Jens Bernert, April 5, 2022

Bhakdi/Burkhardt Pathology Results Show 93% of People Who Died After Being Vaccinated Were Killed by the Vaccine

Steve Kirsch, April 12, 2022

Video: Digital Tyranny and the Rockefeller-Gates WHO “Vaxx-Certificate Passport”: Towards a World War III Scenario

Peter Koenig, April 23, 2022

Scientists Attempting to Design ‘Self-Spreading’ Vaccines that Can Jump from Vaccinated to Unvaccinated Populations

Paul Anthony Taylor, April 1, 2022

US-NATO Sanctions and the Coming Global Diesel Fuel Disaster

F. William Engdahl, April 12, 2022

540 Athletes Die After Receiving COVID Injections, Hundreds More Develop Serious Health Conditions

Kevin Hughes, April 14, 2022

COVID-19 Vaccine Massacre: 68,000% Increase in Strokes, 44,000% Increase in Heart Disease, 6,800% Increase in Deaths Over Non-COVID Vaccines

Brian Shilhavy, March 29, 2022

“We are Human Guinea Pigs”: Alarming Casualty Rates for mRNA Vaccines Warrant Urgent Action

F. William Engdahl, April 4, 2022

The Bucha Massacre. Ukraine Fake News

Rodney Atkinson, April 23, 2022

Renowned Virologist Warns of ‘Collapse of Our Health System’ Due to Complications from COVID Vaccines

Patrick Delaney, April 19, 2022

USA Admits Fake News: Railway Station Bombing by Ukrainian Forces.

Rodney Atkinson, April 12, 2022

Is Peace on the Horizon? Russia Wraps Up Military Operation in Ukraine?

Nauman Sadiq, March 31, 2022

$4 Billion and Counting: The D.C. War Machine Feasts on Ukraine

By Jordan Schachtel, April 28, 2022

After dismissing the prospect of diplomacy between Ukraine and Russia, the Biden Administration continues to flood Ukraine with an endless supply of military hardware, while using extraconstitutional means to perpetually lengthen the size and scope of America’s involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war.

The West Against Russia

By Stephen Sefton, April 28, 2022

Russia’s armed offensive in Ukraine has begun a vertiginous acceleration of the imperial decline of the United States and its network of European and Pacific allies. Seen from the majority world, Russia’s offensive has exposed the insulting cynicism of Western elites in practically every important area of international relations, economic, diplomatic, military and cultural.

How Could the U.S. Help to Bring Peace to Ukraine?

By Nicolas J. S. Davies, April 28, 2022

On April 21st, President Biden announced new shipments of weapons to Ukraine, at a cost of $800 million to U.S. taxpayers. On April 25th, Secretaries Blinken and Austin announced over $300 million more military aid. The United States has now spent $3.7 billion on weapons for Ukraine since the Russian invasion, bringing total U.S. military aid to Ukraine since 2014 to about $6.4 billion.

US Intel Helped Ukraine Shoot Down Russian Plane Carrying “Hundreds” of Paratroopers

By Zero Hedge, April 28, 2022

Pentagon and top State Department officials have insisted this week that the US and NATO are not fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, but then we get bombshell reports like the following out of NBC, with unnamed defense and intelligence officials positively boasting about the damage being done to the invading forces, including shooting “hundreds” of paratroopers out of the sky who were in a Il-76 military transport plane

Young Children, Teenagers, Do Not Just Die in Their Sleep. One Death Is a Serious Enough Matter: “Another Two Boys Died in Their Sleep Days After Receiving Second COVID-19 Vaccine”

By Dr. Paul Elias Alexander, April 28, 2022

When this happens, it is enough of a red flag that something is catastrophically wrong with the Pfizer vaccine, the mRNA platform, it is killing children, must not be used in our children, say NO!

Genetic Research and U.S. Bio-Agents: Harvard Team Collected and Transferred China Blood and DNA Samples Back to the U.S.

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Zhao Yandong, and Zhang Wenxia, April 28, 2022

The 2017 study by scientists Zhao Yandong and Zhang Weixia pertains to a US initiative by an unnamed “renowned University” involved in collecting blood and DNA samples in China’s Anhui province in the 1990s. The unnamed university is Harvard. The name of the the coordinator of the study was not mentioned.

Denmark Suspends COVID Vaccine Campaign, EU Set to End Mass Testing

By Michael Nevradakis, April 28, 2022

Denmark on Tuesday became the first country to suspend its national COVID-19 vaccine campaign after health officials said the pandemic is under control there. Meanwhile, the European Union is planning to announce a “post-emergency” phase.

Ukraine: “The Americans are in Charge” of the War on the Ground

By Nauman Sadiq, April 28, 2022

The veteran French journalist who returned from Ukraine after arriving with volunteer fighters told broadcaster CNews that Americans were directly “in charge” of the war on the ground.

Syria’s Long History of U.S. Interference and Meddling Dating to the Late 1940s

By Shane Quinn, April 28, 2022

The United States, with occasional interruptions, has been interfering in the important Middle East nation of Syria for over 70 years, and today there are hundreds of American soldiers still present on Syrian soil. These realities are not well known.

The Deadly 2030 Master Plan: “You Will Own Nothing – and Be Happy”. Klaus Schwab

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, April 25, 2022

In order to wage war, rulers have to get the people behind them. Therefore, with the help of the mass media, images of the enemy are built up and irrational fears are stirred up. This increases the fear and obedience of the subjects.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: $4 Billion and Counting: The D.C. War Machine Feasts on Ukraine

Nicaragua Formally Withdraws from the OAS

April 29th, 2022 by Brasil de Fato

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

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

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

***

Nicaragua has officially withdrawn from the Organization of American States (OAS), closing the organization’s regional office in its capital, Managua, and announcing its absence from the upcoming deliberative spaces. In November, the Nicaraguan government had already sent a letter to OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro, communicating its intention to leave the regional alliance.

“We ratify our decision of November 19, 2021 to leave the OAS. We also communicate that as of that date we will not be part of this deceitful agency or any of its bodies, such as the Permanent Council, Commissions, meetings or the Summit of the Americas,” Nicaragua said in a statement on Sunday April 24.

In the same text, they characterize the OAS as “one of the political instruments of intervention and domination of the US State Department.”

The OAS which was founded 73 years ago in theory is supposed to bring together all 35 countries of the American continent. Several Latin American countries have denounced the body’s close involvement with coups in the region, as in Bolivia in 2019, and in other destabilizing efforts, such as the recognition of self-proclaimed President Juan Guaidó in Venezuela.

In November last year, the OAS did not recognize the legitimacy of Daniel Ortega’s (FSLN) electoral victory for his 5th term as president with 75.8% of the vote.

Nicaragua is the second country, after Venezuela, to voluntarily withdraw from the OAS. The withdrawal process, foreseen in the organization’s founding charter, establishes a two-year period for a member nation to notify its intention and withdraw from the OAS, but Nicaragua was ahead of schedule and closed the OAS regional office only five months after notifying its withdrawal.

The direct consequences of leaving the organization depend on the Nicaraguan state’s relationship with other multilateral organizations. Nicaragua also loses its representation in the Inter-American Court and Commission on Human Rights, as well as, theoretically, it would not be able to access financing and credit from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).

The Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our America (ALBA-TCP) called the decision of the Nicaraguan government “dignified, coherent, and sovereign”. In a statement, they wrote “we condemn the attacks and repeated attempts at destabilization against the legitimate government of the Republic of Nicaragua.”

*

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 first appeared in Portuguese on Brasil de Fato.

Featured image: Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Denis Moncada accuses OAS of being an “instrument of US imperialism”. Photo: Cepal

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

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

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

***

A Turkish-supplied armed drone is believed to have been used by Ukraine to hit two oil depots well inside Russian territory on Monday, bringing the war behind the frontlines and embarrassing Russia’s air defences. 

A person familiar with the incident told Middle East Eye that a Turkish-made TB2 Bayraktar was used in the attack that took place in Bryansk, a small city 370km south of Moscow.

Though Ukraine is believed to have been behind a similar helicopter attack on 1 April on a fuel depot in Belgorod, this latest raid was more significant because it succeeded in breaching Russia’s air defences and flying at least 150km deep into Russian territory.

Russian state media said a fire broke out at a civilian oil depot in Bryansk holding 10,000 tonnes of fuel. It reported a second fire at a military fuel depot holding 5,000 tonnes. The city is considered a logistics base for the Russian military’s war effort in Ukraine.

Stijn Mitzer, an arms expert who runs popular defence blog Oryx, told MEE that a TB2 Bayraktar’s use in the attack was plausible, despite a lack of footage released by Ukrainians.

“The reason that you don’t see footage is because Russia is still firing missiles at the bases from which the TB2s operate,” he said. “If they would post images, Russia would feel pressured to retaliate even harder.”

Russian reports indicated that Ukraine lost a TB2 the same day in Russia’s Kursk oblast after the fuel bombings in Bryansk, possibly while en route back to base.

“This raid was conducted deep into Russian airspace,” Mitzer said, adding that it was comparable to “the daring raids during World War II, infiltrating deep into enemy territory during the night.”

According to Mitzer, even if Ukraine loses a TB2, as they have now, it’s more than worth the effort in terms of material and morale.

The source familiar with the Ukrainian raid also confirmed that a TB2 Bayraktar played a role in sinking the guided-missile carrier Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, on 14 April.

“Ukraine’s anti-ship missile Neptune has some guiding issues. A TB2 Bayraktar must have resolved it by pinpointing the ship,” the source said.

Ukraine and Turkey have close defence industry cooperation, a relationship that has flourished in recent years. The TB2’s producer Baykar, which has close ties to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s family, was building a plant in Ukraine before the war.

Ukrainian companies also produce the TB2’s engines, and Turkey has sold more than 20 Bayraktars to Kyiv over the course of the past two years.

Frequent flights between Turkey and Poland over the last two months indicate that Turkey has continued to deliver TB2s and its MAM-L ammunition to Kyiv. Some experts believe six or 12 more TB2 have been delivered as agreed before the war.

TB2s have a proven track record of success against several adversaries in conflicts in Libya, Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh, yet they have never faced an army with sophisticated electronic warfare capabilities and state-of-the-art air defence systems until the Russian invasion in Ukraine.

So far they have proved themselves effective in combatting Russian troops deployed deep inside Ukrainian territory, even though Russia’s units have had advanced weaponry and air defence systems.

“Although we don’t have enough input to definitely assess the platform and munitions of choice, Ukraine hitting a critical logistics point in Russian territory is militarily critical,” Can Kasapoglu, director of defence at Istanbul-based think tank EDAM, told MEE.

“We saw that in Belgorod before, but this incident is definitely more serious. If confirmed as a Ukrainian strike, the attack would mark yet another blow to the Russian campaign.”

*

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

Featured image: A screengrab from footage showing the fuel depot fire in Bryansk, Russia on 25 April (social media via MEE)

China: “No one wants a third world war”

April 29th, 2022 by Paul Joseph Watson

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

 

The Chinese Foreign Ministry urged that “no one wants to see a third world war” after Russia raised the prospect of the “real” threat of nuclear war.

Beijing moved to make the statement in response to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who on Monday responded to discussion about current tensions being comparable to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

Lavrov warned that “the risks now are considerable” in the context of the world heading towards another world war.

He also warned the west not to downplay the “serious” and “real” risks of a nuclear conflict if the United States continues to interfere in Ukraine.

“I would not want to elevate those risks artificially. Many would like that. The danger is serious, real. And we must not underestimate it,” Lavrov said.

As we previously highlighted, the US military is already deeply embedded in Ukraine and is playing a substantial role in the country’s response to Russia, despite official denials of boots on the ground.

According to French journalist Georges Malbrunot, who returned from Ukraine after arriving with volunteer fighters, Americans are directly “in charge” of the war on the ground.

Responding to Lavrov’s comments, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin told reporters today,

“No one wants to see the outbreak of a third world war.”

“We hope that relevant parties can keep cool-headed and exercise restraint, prevent escalation of tension, realize peace as soon as possible and avoid inflicting a heavier price on Europe and the world,” he added.

As we highlighted last month, China responded to NATO’s moral exhibitionism on Ukraine by asserting, “We will never forget who bombed our embassy in Yugoslavia.”

*

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: Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin (Licensed under CC BY 3.0)


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute  

Note: All Global Research articles are now accessible in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website Drop Down Menu on the top banner of our home page.

If you want to receive our Newsletter and/or become a member of Global Research, click here.

***

On March 11, 2020: the WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic at a time when the number of confirmed cases outside of China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of  44279 (figures recorded for March 11 by the WHO).

Immediately following the March 11, 2020 lockdown, the fear campaign went into high gear. Stock markets crashed worldwide. Black Thursday, March 12, 2020 was “the Dow’s worst day” since 1987. Financial fraud was the trigger. A massive transfer of financial wealth has taken place in favor of America’s billionaires. 

“Stay at Home” confinement instructions were transmitted to 193 member states of the United Nations. The labor force was confined.

Politicians are the instruments of powerful financial interests. Was this far-reaching decision justified as a means to combating the Virus?

Unprecedented in World history, applied almost simultaneously in a large number countries, entire sectors of the World economy were destabilized. Small and medium sized enterprises were driven into bankruptcy. Unemployment and poverty are rampant.

This crisis is ongoing. It has by no means been resolved. Numerous covid mandates and “lockdowns” have been imposed since March 2020. 

In  this video interview with Caroline Mailloux of Lux Media,  Prof. Michel Chossudovsky focusses on an unfolding Worldwide economic depression with an emphasis on recent developments including the covid lockdown imposed in Shanghai, a port city with a population of 26 million people. 

Video

 

Leave a comment. Access Odysee

Lies and Fake Science

The “science” behind this Worldwide lockdown decision was based on “a mathematical model by Dr. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London, as a means to avoiding a “predicted ” 600,000 deaths in the U.K.

Ferguson’s “model” (which borders on ridicule) was used by the financial establishment as a justification to trigger economic and social chaos Worldwide. Ferguson’s endeavors were generously funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Destabilizing the Economy of Planet Earth

Destabilizing the economy of Planet Earth cannot constitute a “solution” to combating the virus. But that was the imposed “solution” which they want us to believe in. And that is what they are doing.

It’s a payments crisis. Wages and salaries are not paid. Impoverished households are unable to purchase food, pay their rent or monthly mortgage. Personal and household debts (including credit card debts) go fly high. It’s a cumulative process.

This globalization of poverty leads to a decline in consumer demand which then backlashes on the productive system, leading to a further string of bankruptcies. Inevitably, the structure of international commodity trade is also affected.

The Global Money financial institutions are the “creditors” of the real economy which is in crisis. The closure of the global economy has triggered a process of global indebtedness. Unprecedented in World history, a multi-trillion bonanza of dollar denominated debts is hitting simultaneously the national economies of 193 countries.

The creditors will also seek to acquire ownership and/or control of  “public wealth” including the social and economic assets of the State through a massive indebtedness project under the surveillance of creditor institutions including the IMF, the World Bank, the regional development banks, etc.

Under the so-called “New Normal” Great Reset put forth by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the creditors (including the   billionaires) are intent upon buying out important sectors of the real economy as well as taking over bankrupt entities.

See Michel Chossudovsky’s  E-Book (14 Chapters) entitled:

The 2020-22 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Video: The Covid-19 “Global Lockdown”. Destabilizing Planet Earth. Towards Worldwide Economic Collapse?

The West Against Russia

April 28th, 2022 by Stephen Sefton

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

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

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

***

Russia’s armed offensive in Ukraine has begun a vertiginous acceleration of the imperial decline of the United States and its network of European and Pacific allies. Seen from the majority world, Russia’s offensive has exposed the insulting cynicism of Western elites in practically every important area of international relations, economic, diplomatic, military and cultural.

In particular, the response of North American and European information media, academics and NGOs has revealed their extreme neocolonial prejudice as they try to justify the West’s longstanding support for violent, overtly fascist aggression against Donetsk and Lugansk and those states’ largely Russian population.

Practically all Western commentators all too glibly dismiss the Russian Federation’s readily justifiable arguments explaining their military intervention in Ukraine in terms of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

North American and European propagandists and apologists ignore that the Russian military offensive easily satisfies international law’s basic self-defense principles of necessity, proportionality and absence of any alternative.

Western apologists ignore Ukraine’s murderous eight year aggression attacking populations it claims as its own, but who have chosen independence. That aggression very much falls within the definition in the UN’s 1974 Resolution 3314.

Ukraine’s attacks on Donbass – video by French film maker Anne-Laure Bonnel

Their accounts also omit the heavy bombardment beginning towards the end of February this year heralding the first stage of Ukraine’s planned attack on Donbass. Likewise, given President Zelensky’s short term objective of re-taking Crimea stated in 2021, and his explicitly stated medium term objective of obtaining nuclear weapons, the Russian Federation  justifies their military operation based on the traditional principle of self-preservation. They could also do so, as Dan Kovalik has pointed out, on the West’s own self-serving pretext of Responsibility to Protect.

For eight years Presidents Zelensky and, before him, Poroshenko, brazenly attacked and killed their own people in Donbass. Their patrons in the North American and European Union leadership not only let them do so but supplied abundant arms and sophisticated training so Ukraine could attack Donbass more effectively. Across the board, Russia’s military operation in Ukraine highlights the comprehensive bad faith of the US and its EU allies.

Overall, the West’s hysterical response to Russia’s military operation in Ukraine jeopardizes the viability of current international institutions. Illegal Western commercial coercive measures render World Trade Organization rules completely irrelevant. Blatant theft of Russian Central Bank reserves nullifies the trustworthiness of the Western financial system. Sports and cultural boycotts of Russian sports people and artists of all kinds betray the fundamental values of international sport and cultural exchange.

In terms of human rights, as Russia’s foreign affairs representative María Zajarova noted on April 6th this year, “Russia’s non-participation in the Human Rights Council, beyond any doubt undermines its universality and effectiveness”. In fact, her remark self-evidently applies to the whole UN structure and recalls the insistence of former UN General Assembly president Fr. Miguel d’Escoto on the need to reinvent the UN completely. The majority world in general can see very well that ineffectual illegal Western coercive measures against Russia signal the beginning of the end of the West’s dominating power and influence in international affairs.

As others have remarked, the decline in international support for the Western attack on Russia can be gauged from the significant drop in countries approving Western driven moves against Russia in the UN between March 2nd (141 votes) and April 7th (93 votes). In itself, this suggests that the United States and its allies are finding it increasingly more difficult, in the current global context, to sustain the ridiculous illusion of Western moral superiority. Even before the completely shameless Western hypocrisy over Ukraine, Europe’s betrayal of Julian Assange to the US authorities categorically demonstrated the moral and intellectual perfidy of Western political, judicial and media elites.

Majority world countries led by Russia, China and, to some extent, India no longer feel obliged to politely ignore North American and European governments’ sadism and hypocrisy. Western leaders seem unaware that by insisting other countries side with them against Russia and, implicitly, China, they are progressively exhausting their already frail influence and power in global affairs. In its turn this political and diplomatic “with us or against us” intimidation radically undermines the credibility of Western reporting.

False and perverse reports on events in Ukraine by Western NGOs, academics and mainstream and alternative information media compound the majority world perception of those sources’ cumulative faithless untruth. Western media have been unable to conceal the savagery and brutality of the Ukrainian armed forces, of the country’s security forces and government condoned fascist gangs. Once the Russian authorities begin the war crimes trials of those responsible for Ukrainian atrocities, the hypocritical double standards and outright complicity of Western governments, media outlets and human rights NGOs in those crimes will stand out even more starkly than before.

The collapse in Western reporting credibility is already shared by international institutions, especially the United Nations, for example as evinced following last year’s Glasgow climate change summit. The Western dominated institutional framework fails to defend either international peace and equity or to advance global prosperity and development. In that already dismaying context, Western corporate and political elites seem determined to drive the world apart even though they are promoting their own countries’ isolation.

Conversely, the West’s deepening moral, economic and political failure increasingly vindicates those governments and peoples who have resolutely defied and resisted US and allied aggression, subversion and intervention, from Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela to Central African Republic, Eritrea and Mali, to Iran, Palestine, Syria and Yemen, to North Korea, Thailand and even small Pacific island nations like the Solomon Islands.

All these governments and peoples have suffered diverse attacks out of the West’s intervention toolbox, be it financial, trade and diplomatic aggression, endless international media vilification, covert intervention in internal politics, or outright sabotage, subversion and assassination attempts. The West’s developing strategic defeat by the Russian Federation and its allies is a practically complete debacle for the European Union and NATO, which since their inception have been practically inseparable, serving Western elites after World War Two as a bulwark against communism and to sustain the neocolonial status quo.

EU and NATO support for Ukraine’s regime dominated by Nazi sympatizers follows naturally from the fascist union of corporate and political power in North America and Europe, steadily more accentuated and self-evident since the massive upwards transfers of wealth to Western corporate elites of 2008-2009 and 2020-2021. It is as absurdly historically false to paint the European project as a democratic project for peace as are similar claims that the US promotes freedom and democracy. Like those of the United States, the EU’s corporate-dominated institutions are deeply anti-democratic and EU member countries of NATO have always been willing to accept on their territory powerful units of the US armed forces including nuclear weapons.

Over the last twenty years, NATO and the EU have incorporated numerous eastern European countries so as to increase their area of control and threaten Russia. Now it seems likely NATO will include Sweden and Finland. While Ukraine’s aggression is the immediate reason, ultimately NATO’s menace to Russia’s existence is why Russia has acted in self-defense in Ukraine after exhausting every avenue of negotiation.

Russia will never give in to the West. It has a powerful economic and military alliance with China, also threatened by the US and its allies. Their Eurasian economic bloc stretches from the Pacific to Europe. North American and European commentators often compare their own countries to Athens confronting Sparta in the Peloponnesian War. In fact, given Western arrogance and hubris, the legend of Seven against Thebes and their ignominious defeat is far more apposite.

*

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 Tortilla con Sal.

Stephen Sefton, renowned author and political analyst based in northern Nicaragua, is actively involved in community development work focussing on education and health care. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

History Returns Again in Ukraine

April 28th, 2022 by William Hawes

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

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

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

***

After the 2014 coup and eight years of fighting between the Ukrainian military and Russian-backed separatists, history has once again exploded and returned to the stage in Ukraine. As Westerners with governments who act blatantly hostile and belligerent to Russia, we should ask: was Russia provoked, and if so, how?

It is important to question how and why this conflict started. There is a saying about Russia many are familiar with: “Don’t poke the bear.” Well, the US and NATO have been poking the bear for 30 odd years since the downfall of the USSR. The West has adopted an absurd, ahistorical stance towards Russia, continuing to expand NATO, all the while knowing this would enflame tensions and demand a response.

The first Russian response in Ukraine was in 2014, after the US-backed right-wing coup which kicked Viktor Yanukovych out of power. I covered it extensively here. Many in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea obviously are ethnic Russians, speak Russian, have family in Russia, and do business with Russia. While some of these same people still may favor a strong and independent Ukraine, clearly many are sympathetic to the formation of an independent Donetsk and Luhansk; and the vast majority in the Donbas has no interest in fighting their eastern neighbor. Many in Ukraine are rightly worried about schools no longer teaching the Russian language, about the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, and about the Right Sector and Svoboda parties infiltrating Ukrainian politics.  The past eight years have seen thousands killed in the Donbas region. Compared to how the US or another mid-level world power would react, Russia had shown immense restraint.

Let’s not pretend like they weren’t legitimate concerns when looking from Russia’s national security perspective, which the US is well aware of. The US and NATO have been expanding its military and security apparatus eastward for thirty years, threatening Russia’s security, trade and economic relations, and its sphere of influence. By breaking its promise not to expand, NATO encroached right up to Russia’s borders in the Baltic nations. By invading Iraq and Afghanistan, orchestrating the 2014 coup in Ukraine, along with overthrowing governments and meddling in many other nations, the US blatantly and repeatedly broke international law and any semblance of world order. This undoubtedly led the entire world security architecture to disincentivize international cooperation and gave stronger nations the convenient excuse to take matters into their own hands.

The US and Western Europe continued to “poke the bear” even after Russia countered Western hegemony in Georgia in 2008 and by retaking Crimea in 2014. The US, knowing full well that Russia’s economic and geostrategic vulnerabilities could be exploited to enhance the power of NATO and the EU, has long had its eyes on Ukraine becoming integrated into the West. In short, while US pundits today claim Putin sees the conflict as a “zero-sum game”, it is blatant projection, as the US and NATO have been playing the same realpolitik chessboard to enhance their geopolitical control over Eastern Europe.

Even mainstream political scientists understand this: John Mearsheimer, otherwise a respected, establishment liberal professor, has repeatedly blamed the US and NATO as being primarily responsible for the war in Ukraine, taking heat from both sides of the warmongering Washington consensus.

One has to consider a hypothetical converse situation. If Russia or any other great power was financially and militarily supporting Canada to quell pro-US separatists in Alberta, and the Canadian government sided with the Russians, with thousands of innocent US and Canadian citizens killed in the process, would the US hesitate to invade and install a pro-US government? Not for a second. The US would consider this a threat to national security. This is the basis for the Monroe Doctrine, in which the US considers all of North, Central, and South America its own backyard; any other perceived threat will be ruthlessly invaded, destabilized, or destroyed, just as has occurred in Nicaragua, Chile, and Guatemala, just to name a few instances.

Even warmongering, imperial architects like George Keenan and Henry Kissinger understood that there was no way Russia would allow for Ukraine to be allied with the West. Even though both figures were ruthless, cynical war criminals, they at least understood that other great powers have interests which differ from ours and economic and geostrategic imperatives which must be taken into account. That basic level of understanding of realpolitik and analysis of material conditions as well as competition between world powers does not seem to exist in US foreign policy anymore.

It should be obvious that we’ve entered the imperial overreach stage. The US meddled to try and cajole Ukraine into the EU and NATO, and got its shit wrecked. We f**ked around and now we’re finding out.

Before 2014 Russia would probably have accepted a neutral Ukraine, but no longer. The past eight years have shown that Ukraine would rather kill its own people than negotiate. Ukraine used neo-Nazi forces for eight years and still is in the current conflict, allied to their official National Guard. Ukraine was assisted by the CIA in Eastern Ukraine to help kill separatists. British and US special forces are currently in Ukraine assisting its military. Before the war started, Ukraine was verging on becoming a failed state, Zelensky was widely despised, and the standard of living was falling precipitously for the average Ukrainian.

This does not justify Russia’s response. It does, however, reveal that great powers will react to continuing pressure and low-level war on their borders when it suits them. It is basic common sense; stronger authoritarian nations (the US being exhibit A) pursue their interests at the expense of weaker ones when they can get away with it, and also overreact or become irrational when threatened. If Russia and Putin has become increasingly paranoid and isolated, what were the conditions that led to this new state of affairs?

We have to return to the ahistorical framework US power projects. These were exemplified best in the 1990s in two works: Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat. Cresting the wave of the fall of the Soviet Union and unipolar US hegemony, these authors codified imperial hubris of late 20th century America, claiming that only liberal representative democracies guided only by capitalist economic structures would expand worldwide and a new era of peace, globalization and cooperation would begin; a “New World Order”, as it were.

All this would be implicitly supported by a globe-spanning military colossus, an imperial pax Americana. Autocracies and other authoritarian regimes would not be able to maintain influence as the “free market” expanded to every corner of the planet; and democratic, capitalistic nations would not go to war with each other. This was referred to by Friedman as the “Golden Arches” theory of foreign policy: no two countries with a McDonald’s, and hence, a global capitalist political structure, would ever fight each other again.

Looking back today, it’s obvious how facile and myopic this view was. Great powers fight over more than ideology: natural resources, security assurances, and the material needs determine how nations compete and jostle for status and hegemony. In hindsight, and without the hegemonic distorting lens of pro-Western propaganda, it’s easy to see that Russia has felt threatened by Western Europe and the USA for generations.

Ultimately, the US will be content in the near future to “fight to the last Ukrainian.” The domestic US and Western European populations need a new distraction from an economy with skyrocketing inflation and a looming recession. A proxy war against Russia suits Western elites just fine, even though it is clear that Biden, Johnson, Macron, and Scholz have no idea how to proceed. Western nations have little leverage or ability to maneuver in this war; and US diplomats especially have no interest in navigating the foreign policy repercussions precisely because they are so insulated from the consequences.

The establishment needs a scapegoat for the worsening economic situation in Europe and the USA, and the coming recession will be blamed on Russian destabilization of global markets. The mainstream media has conveniently ignored the eight previous years of civil war in Ukraine, a situation that would not be tolerated by any other global power. The narrative shift to Russia as the next boogeyman was very swift, precisely because Washington has no one else to blame for the disastrous collapse of the world economy led by a failing capitalist model.

The West was desperate to find a scapegoat and now it has one. The faltering of international norms and relations due to exploitative and reactionary foreign policy decisions of the West likewise exposed cracks in the foundation of the system with no fix in sight. Only a diplomatic solution can bring an end to this war, and at present, US leadership can at best be described as being out to lunch. With no clear plan or desire to minimize the human suffering in Ukraine, the imperial order continues to stumble along due to its own hubris and overreach, blind to the lessons of history.

*

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.

William Hawes is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

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

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

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

***

 

Millions of people worldwide are aware that their lives, and their children’s lives, are being threatened by lockdowns. vaccine mandates and loss of free speech.

And there is a growing awareness that these immediate and obvious threats are merely parts of a complex overall plan to implement a technocratic system of world governance that can be described as a neo-feudal system that seeks to increase and consolidate the power and wealth of the world’s billionaire individuals and families by destroying any possibility of autonomous individual behaviour. The intention of these psychopathic elitists is that we ‘the people’ become literal extensions of their will, through technological invasion of all aspects of our lives which will lead to the total loss of our capacity to feel, think and act for ourselves.

Their obsession with total control of all nature and life means they have no genuine awareness of what it means to be alive, and they see everything around them as something to be monetised, numbered and controlled to create a ‘perfect’ state of existence. Because they are so fundamentally insecure, and know that individuals do not willingly give up their existence to become slaves, their most powerful weapon to gain control is lying –  they try to con us into believing that giving them control is in our interests, or indeed that we are in fact in control of our own lives when we make superficial, meaningless choices, such as voting for political parties that inevitably end up doing the bidding of the financial power elite.

These elitists have become masters at co-opting all movements of self-respect, self-care and solidaritytheir use of double speak means they claim to be supportive of community, fair wealth distribution, truth in the media, ecological sustainability, diversity, racial equality, women’s equality, freedom and nonviolence (for example) while working to implement an agenda that supports none of these things. And their increasing use over the past 70 years of NGOs that sound ‘friendly’ and ‘independent’, but which in fact pursue corporate, imperialist and other elitist agendas, has led to enormous numbers of ordinary ‘concerned’ people putting their money and energy into organisations and movements that dissipate their capacity to genuinely act in their own interests and the interests of life on the planet as a whole.

To take just a few examples – the environment movement has become dominated by the demand for a massive ‘green’ tech revolution that requires further rape and pillage of the peoples and natural environment of Africa and anywhere else rare minerals are found, union movements around the world have become utterly neutered and no longer act in the interests of their working members, medical ‘science’ is most likely to be a profit-making anti-scientific enterprise rather than one designed to further people’s health through use of genuine scientific methodology, and (particularly close to my heart) campaigns using nonviolent tactics have been used to simply achieve ‘regime change’ in centralised states, furthering the interests of transnational corporations, even though this was never the intention of the majority of activists involved.

While it does feel demoralising at times to realise that it is necessary to question everyone and everything, and not take things at face value, ever (!), there are a number of  (genuinely) independent researchers (including those I have referenced above) who expose the goings on of the Global Elite, historically and currently, through detailed research, logical analysis and referencing, who make the work of deciding who definitely not to trust a little easier for the average person. Although they do not always agree on every angle, and bring different areas of research to the table, they put together a picture of the real world elitist actors, from all countries (Russia and China – here, here and here –  included), that have shaped and continue to shape the world through their particular philosophies (eg. technocracy, eugenics), plans (eg. the New World Order/Great Reset/UN Agenda 30) and organisations.

These researchers’ particular concern is looking beyond the ‘conflict and alliances between nation states’ narrative as an explanation for political and economic behaviour in the world, to expose the transnational and transcultural nature of global finance and elitist philosophies, and the fundamental war being continually waged by the Global Elite on ordinary people (people who are content with a relatively small scale, localised frame of reference for exercising control in their lives, and who value the autonomy of others, and therefore do not feel that they have to be in control in all situations). These researchers expose the megalomaniacs who crave to rule the world, who deem every bit of control exercised by others to be a threat to their security, and whose conflicts with each other pale in comparison to their disregard, disrespect and disgust for those not of their psychopathic, criminal ‘superclass’.

From Analysis to Action

Gaining a thorough analysis is extremely important, and a key part of activism involves research, self-education and information sharing, but if we want to change the situation, it is equally important that we come up with self-empowering actions that take this deeper analysis into account. So, when the historical, real world analysis shows that the Elite (because they are elitist!) do not have any interest in listening to those ‘below’ them, and when we know the extent to which they have corrupted (or even invented) mainstream politics and legal structures, we need to stop pretending 1) that political ‘leaders’ will listen if we complain a bit louder and longer and 2) that we must wait for our corporate oppressors and their political/legal enablers to give us permission to act in defence of our own lives and fundamental existence.

We have mostly been trained to be ‘polite’ or ‘law-abiding’ or ‘respectful of authority’ as children and unfortunately this psychological structuring makes us vulnerable to abusers who falsely claim to be authorities with our interests at heart. And our childhood fear of punishment for ‘disobedience’, including social abandonment when we think or feel differently to others,  gets in the way of us trusting our own capacity to feel, think, make decisions and act for ourselves. Often it helps to pay conscious attention to this fear, so that it can cease to rule us unconsciously. It is unfortunately the case that many freedom activists are still putting their faith in some leader, political party or system to save them, because they feel powerless as individuals, as they were trained to feel by the many forces for domination in the world.

We become powerful when we trust that we, ourselves, will do a pretty good job of getting things right, and even if we make mistakes, we can keep learning and successfully negotiating a path forward in life without being mindlessly obedient to someone who ‘knows better’. We become powerful when we take the initiative to act. We become powerful when we act on our own conscience, and face our fear of unjust punishment. We become powerful when we know that even an experience of pain is our experience to feel, and that we exist, fundamentally, no matter how hard someone tries to con us into believing that we are ‘nothing’. And when we experience solidarity and kindness from other activists as part of a resistance campaign it feels real and powerful, and worth so much more than any friendship that relies on pretending ‘everything is okay’ as we sleepwalk into slavery.

The We Are Human, We Are Free worldwide nonviolent campaign to resist ‘The Great Reset’ is based on both an analysis of the many different components of the Reset, and an analysis of the elitist power structures that further the Reset agenda by disempowering individuals so that they cease to believe they have the responsibility or capacity to take effective action for themselves.

There are so many things that people can do to practically defend themselves, and while it takes a bit of time and commitment to identify and change elements of our lives that contribute to Elite control, it is these ‘small’ things that add up to genuine change in one’s own life and in society as a whole.  Change and standing up for the truth as you see it sometimes takes courage, and there will be times when your resistance may be ‘dramatic’, but it is vital to remember that everyday sensible, practical actions are what grounds an effective resistance movement in reality.

Following is a poster available in 15 languages that presents grassroots noncooperation and constructive actions for people to take in 7 different areas: Pharma, Tech, Media, Banks, Business, Human Social Interactions and Non Payment of Fines (+ Surveillance is thrown in as an added bonus!). The campaign is explained more fully on the We Are Human, We Are Free website.

So, as an example, I’m increasing the amount of organic food I grow, I pay in cash whenever possible, I boycott Youtube, Facebook, Google and all mainstream media (ie. I don’t pay directly for any of these media or engage in ‘free’ use that encourages advertisers or data mining), I shop at small businesses and boycott Amazon,  I stay healthy via natural health modalities rather than using pharmaceuticals, I don’t use 5G technology or ‘smart’ home gadgets, and I am willing to accept imprisonment if necessary rather than act against my conscience, trusting that the universe will take me where it wills for a productive purpose.

I do these things not to be ‘virtuous’ but because I reckon they are the most effective way that I can be myself, undermine the power of the Elite to dysfunctionally control us, and live a life worth living. I don’t judge others according to whether or not they are participating in all aspects of the campaign, particularly when I know that it takes time to reorient from ‘standard’ life to deliberate existence, and that the pressure of fear is always present and it sometimes forces us in directions we would rather not go.

I encourage everyone interested in freedom to begin freeing themselves to take the actions that directly transform their lives, and give them greater functional control without asking permission from a ‘leader’, a ‘representative’ or even ‘the majority’. It’s okay to just get on with it yourself! I believe in YOU.

*

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.

Anita McKone is a nonviolent activist, researcher and philosopher and one of the founders of We Are Human, We Are Free.

Featured image is from Dreamstime

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

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

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

***

Pakistan has been rocked by demonstrations throughout the country since the ouster of former Prime Minister Imran Khan from power. This development has been a surprise not only to Khan’s detractors, but to Khan’s supporters as well. The size of these rallies has been astonishing. What they have also demonstrated is that the Pakistanis who have been outraged by recent political developments in the country cut across class lines as well as provincial ones. Khan’s party, PTI, has proven itself to be a real national political party that – to its credit – is fairly representative of all regions of the country. This is no small feat.

In the middle of these displays of support for Khan (or just revulsion of the political lot that got rid of him), there have been some among the Pakistani Left at pains to demonstrate that Khan is no “anti-imperialist hero.” This would not be such a major issue if this canard were not repeated almost like clockwork on a weekly basis, with some Pakistani leftist rehashing the same tired arguments. The neurotic obsession to prove to a ‘Western Left’ that Khan is not an anti-imperialist is beginning to seem utterly bizarre.

To my knowledge, Khan nor any prominent member of his party has ever even used the word ‘imperialism.’ It’s possible that he doesn’t even know the meaning, and certainly not the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the word.

What Khan can legitimately take credit for is being virtually alone within the political class to have consistently opposed the ‘War on Terror’ in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the invasions, occupations, drone attacks, military operations in the tribal areas, etc. He can take credit for speaking about Palestine in a context where the Gulf countries – egged on by Washington and Tel Aviv of course – put immense pressure on Islamabad to ‘normalize’ relations with Israel. As even the well-known progressive intellectual Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa noted, the dominant view in the military top brass was to go along with ‘normalization,’ assuming the perks for Pakistani elites would be lucrative. To his credit, Khan resisted this.

Khan can be credited with speaking about the plight of Kashmiris in an incredibly powerful way. Kashmir solidarity activists throughout the world will readily admit how much Khan’s speech at the UN in 2019 assisted the work of getting this issue onto the global radar screen. He can also be credited with being the first Pakistani leader who in no uncertain terms stated that the future of Kashmir will be determined according to Kashmiri wishes, not according to “Pakistani sentiments.” If Kashmiris want to opt for independence (an option not included in the UN resolution which only gives them the option of joining India or Pakistan), it is their right to do so, according to Khan.

Khan has also spoken about collusion between elites of the Global North and the Global South, enabling the latter to pillage their countries and launder the money to the banks of the former.

Beyond that, Khan’s diplomatic maneuvering with regards to Iran, China, and Russia – is straightforward geopolitics. Pakistan is in Asia. These are significant countries in the region, two of which (Iran and Russia) have been historical adversaries. Improving relations with them is common sense, especially if something was to be gained, particularly in the area of energy, to help ameliorate the poor economic conditions of Pakistan.

In the latest crisis, Khan has insisted that Washington has been meddling into Pakistani affairs to achieve its desired political outcomes, i.e. the removal of Khan. This would not really be so shocking if it were true. The American national security state has not really forgiven Khan for effectively being proven right about both the immorality and counter-productiveness of a military solution in Afghanistan. More than any other factor, it has been the American military-intelligence apparatus which ensured that President Biden not develop any meaningful relationship with Khan. This general antagonism towards Khan had soured even more when Khan, as opposed to some generals who thought they could make some easy money, made it absolutely clear that no American base would be on Pakistani soil. And then, of course, came the visit to Russia.

Much of Khan’s rhetoric and actions have simply to do with what Khan perceived as sensible geopolitics from his vantage point. Of course, he could be wrong in some of these domains. But these have been his positions.

Regardless whether there was American interference in Pakistan this time around, a strong message against Western hegemonic designs in the Global South is constantly needed. Whether that makes you an anti-imperialist is another question.

And if anti-imperialism is seen as something which only anti-capitalist forces can engage in, then of course Khan is no anti-imperialist.

However, by holding this criterion for being an anti-imperialist, the Pakistani Left should then realize that it is dismissing the anti-imperialist credentials of many individuals and movements which were not necessarily anti-capitalist, yet still considered – in their own modest ways – as anti-imperialist.

Individuals like Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran or Juan Peron of Argentina were not anti-capitalists, yet certainly have been assumed to be anti-imperialists. Leftist forces in both the Palestinian occupied territories as well in Lebanon open ally with Islamist resistance forces (such as Hezbullah) because, despite not being anti-capitalist, they do deem the latter as anti-imperialist forces.

Indeed, there is nothing complicated about Khan’s positions on these matters. They are the same ones he’s held for the past twenty years. It boils down to asserting Pakistani sovereignty against a dominant world power which has adversely interfered in Pakistan since the days of the Cold War.

The far more important problem is not that of semantics, i.e. is anti-imperialism the proper word or not to describe Khan’s political posturing towards the US? It is the curious and obsessive endeavor of the Pakistani Left to ensure no one in the Global Left dare think anything potentially positive about Khan. This is why the otherwise incredibly intelligent and gifted Pakistani Left is engaged in very childish straw man arguments against this ostensible “anti-imperialist hero” – a term I’ve only seen for the first time in the latest musings of the Pakistani Left.

The real question is: with massive numbers of Pakistanis out on the street, would it not be more useful at this point for the Pakistani Left to engage with these people who have real grievances, to assist in the development of a more radical understanding of the politics of resistance? Would that not be a far more useful exercise than the Pakistani Left outdoing each other on twitter in generating hip one-liners about the stupidity of these Pakistanis?

In addition, the fanatical focus on what the Western Left thinks is particularly odd. The Western Left, with no disrespect intended, can barely make a dent in their own societies. Does the Pakistani Left seriously believe that the Western Left is that important to what is going in our country? Or is this sadly a case of a bruised ego of the former because the latter is hearing about vast mobilizations in which the Pakistani Left is conspicuously absent?

Is the fact that a few Western leftists tweeted something positive about Khan really such an important issue for the Pakistani Left, considering what’s going on in the country? And shouldn’t the message to the Western Left be the simple, old-fashioned one: their task is to oppose any meddling by their powerful countries into the affairs of the Global South. Period.

The Pakistani Left, strangely enough, is behaving like an imperial Godfather itself. It is policing what any self-proclaimed leftist in any attic in Kansas is saying about Khan, throwing tantrums when someone exercises their free speech in the wrong way. And sadly, the Pakistani diaspora Left, especially in the US, behaves like a regiment of the Pakistani Left, taking their marching orders and adhering strictly to them. They recycle the same tweets of no more than 5-10 Pakistani leftists in the ‘Green Zone.’

Tragically, it seems like we’re dealing with multiple cults and narratives with Stalinist discipline these days. Khan seems to have good company in this regard.

And then we are supposed to believe that these diaspora Pakistani leftists actually care about people’s voices of resistance, of mass movements in Pakistan and the Global South. These diaspora leftists have failed miserably this time around. The demonstrations did not obtain the stamp of approval from the Pakistani Left, so our comrades in the US could then shut their eyes to some of the biggest mobilizations in the history of Pakistan.

Pakistanis seem to have demonstrated the ‘wrong agency’ and would only be heard by the Pakistani (diaspora) Left if their ‘agency’ happened under the banner of the Communist International and its gazillion local sectarian variants.

Hence, everything works out conveniently for everyone. Diaspora leftists remain in a comfort zone of speaking to leftists in Pakistan, the two communicating in their own privileged specialized lingo, and none of them having to get their hands dirty by actually engaging and understanding (with, God forbid, empathy!) the massive mobilizations taking place.

So far, the extent of the ‘engagement’ (if we can call it that) of the Pakistani Left in the country and in the diaspora has been the following: all of these protestors are all hyper-nationalist, urban, middle class, buffoonish youth, etc. Can you imagine if this was the way any Left worth its salt engaged and behaved in any other country?

How fascinating it is that the Pakistani Left is obsessed with what a few irrelevant Western leftists think of Khan, but is completely indifferent and oblivious to what Kashmiris or Palestinians – some of the most oppressed peoples on the planet – think of him? Or how about all of those Pashtuns that the Pakistani Left told us despised Khan? It turns out that if there is one province where Khan has overwhelming support, it is that of the Pashtuns. Go figure.

It seems like Pakistanis, Kashmiris, Palestinians, Pashtuns, etc. only matter if they are willing to submit to the Party Line of the Pakistani Left. If not, to hell with them. They are seen as hopelessly brainwashed with a ‘false consciousness’ from which only the Pakistani Left can liberate them, sometimes with the assistance of NATO or the Pakistani military.

*

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 Imran is a Lahore-based lawyer and visiting faculty at Punjab University and Forman Christian College, Pakistan.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

How Could the U.S. Help to Bring Peace to Ukraine?

April 28th, 2022 by Nicolas J. S. Davies

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

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

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

***

On April 21st, President Biden announced new shipments of weapons to Ukraine, at a cost of $800 million to U.S. taxpayers. On April 25th, Secretaries Blinken and Austin announced over $300 million more military aid. The United States has now spent $3.7 billion on weapons for Ukraine since the Russian invasion, bringing total U.S. military aid to Ukraine since 2014 to about $6.4 billion.

The top priority of Russian airstrikes in Ukraine has been to destroy as many of these weapons as possible before they reach the front lines of the war, so it is not clear how militarily effective these massive arms shipments really are. The other leg of U.S. “support” for Ukraine is its economic and financial sanctions against Russia, whose effectiveness is also highly uncertain.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres is visiting Moscow and Kyiv to try to kick start negotiations for a ceasefire and a peace agreement. Since hopes for earlier peace negotiations in Belarus and Turkey have been washed away in a tide of military escalation, hostile rhetoric and politicized war crimes accusations, Secretary General Guterres’ mission may now be the best hope for peace in Ukraine.

This pattern of early hopes for a diplomatic resolution that are quickly dashed by a war psychosis is not unusual. Data on how wars end from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) make it clear that the first month of a war offers the best chance for a negotiated peace agreement. That window has now passed for Ukraine.

An analysis of the UCDP data by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found that 44% of wars that end within a month end in a ceasefire and peace agreement rather than the decisive defeat of either side, while that decreases to 24% in wars that last between a month and a year. Once wars rage on into a second year, they become even more intractable and usually last more than ten years.

CSIS fellow Benjamin Jensen, who analyzed the UCDP data, concluded,

“The time for diplomacy is now. The longer a war lasts absent concessions by both parties, the more likely it is to escalate into a protracted conflict… In addition to punishment, Russian officials need a viable diplomatic off-ramp that addresses the concerns of all parties.”

To be successful, diplomacy leading to a peace agreement must meet five basic conditions:

First, all sides must gain benefits from the peace agreement that outweigh what they think they can gain by war.

U.S. and allied officials are waging an information war to promote the idea that Russia is losing the war and that Ukraine can militarily defeat Russia, even as some officials admit that that could take several years.

In reality, neither side will benefit from a protracted war that lasts for many months or years. The lives of millions of Ukrainians will be lost and ruined, while Russia will be mired in the kind of military quagmire that both the U.S.S.R. and the United States already experienced in Afghanistan, and that most recent U.S. wars have turned into.

In Ukraine, the basic outlines of a peace agreement already exist. They are: withdrawal of Russian forces; Ukrainian neutrality between NATO and Russia; self-determination for all Ukrainians (including in Crimea and Donbas); and a regional security agreement that protects everyone and prevents new wars.

Both sides are essentially fighting to strengthen their hand in an eventual agreement along those lines. So how many people must die before the details can be worked out across a negotiating table instead of over the rubble of Ukrainian towns and cities?

Second, mediators must be impartial and trusted by both sides.

The United States has monopolized the role of mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis for decades, even as it openly backs and arms one side and abuses its UN veto to prevent international action. This has been a transparent model for endless war.

Turkey has so far acted as the principal mediator between Russia and Ukraine, but it is a NATO member that has supplied drones, weapons and military training to Ukraine. Both sides have accepted Turkey’s mediation, but can Turkey really be an honest broker?

The UN could play a legitimate role, as it is doing in Yemen, where the two sides are finally observing a two-month ceasefire. But even with the UN’s best efforts, it has taken years to negotiate this fragile pause in the war.

Third, the agreement must address the main concerns of all parties to the war.

In 2014, the U.S.-backed coup and the massacre of anti-coup protesters in Odessa led to declarations of independence by the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. The first Minsk Protocol agreement in September 2014 failed to end the ensuing civil war in Eastern Ukraine. A critical difference in the Minsk II agreement in February 2015 was that DPR and LPR representatives were included in the negotiations, and it succeeded in ending the worst fighting and preventing a major new outbreak of war for 7 years.

There is another party that was largely absent from the negotiations in Belarus and Turkey, people who make up half the population of Russia and Ukraine: the women of both countries. While some of them are fighting, many more can speak as victims, civilian casualties and refugees from a war unleashed mainly by men. The voices of women at the table would be a constant reminder of the human costs of war and the lives of women and children that are at stake.

Even when one side militarily wins a war, the grievances of the losers and unresolved political and strategic issues often sow the seeds of new outbreaks of war in the future. As Benjamin Jensen of CSIS suggested, the desires of U.S. and Western politicians to punish and gain strategic advantage over Russia must not be allowed to prevent a comprehensive resolution that addresses the concerns of all sides and ensures a lasting peace.

Fourth, there must be a step-by-step roadmap to a stable and lasting peace that all sides are committed to.

The Minsk II agreement led to a fragile ceasefire and established a roadmap to a political solution. But the Ukrainian government and parliament, under Presidents Poroshenko and then Zelensky, failed to take the next steps that Poroshenko agreed to in Minsk in 2015: to pass laws and constitutional changes to permit independent, internationally-supervised elections in the DPR and LPR, and to grant them autonomy within a federalized Ukrainian state.

Now that these failures have led to Russian recognition of the DPR and LPR’s independence, a new peace agreement must revisit and resolve their status, and that of Crimea, in ways that all sides will be committed to, whether that is through the autonomy promised in Minsk II or formal, recognized independence from Ukraine.

A sticking point in the peace negotiations in Turkey was Ukraine’s need for solid security guarantees to ensure that Russia won’t invade it again. The UN Charter formally protects all countries from international aggression, but it has repeatedly failed to do so when the aggressor, usually the United States, wields a Security Council veto. So how can a neutral Ukraine be reassured that it will be safe from attack in the future? And how can all parties be sure that the others will stick to the agreement this time?

Fifth, outside powers must not undermine the negotiation or implementation of a peace agreement.

Although the United States and its NATO allies are not active warring parties in Ukraine, their role in provoking this crisis through NATO expansion and the 2014 coup, then supporting Kyiv’s abandonment of the Minsk II agreement and flooding Ukraine with weapons, make them an “elephant in the room” that will cast a long shadow over the negotiating table, wherever that is.

In April 2012, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan drew up a six-point plan for a UN-monitored ceasefire and political transition in Syria. But at the very moment that the Annan plan took effect and UN ceasefire monitors were in place, the United States, NATO and their Arab monarchist allies held three “Friends of Syria” conferences, where they pledged virtually unlimited financial and military aid to the Al Qaeda-linked rebels they were backing to overthrow the Syrian government. This encouraged the rebels to ignore the ceasefire, and led to another decade of war for the people of Syria.

The fragile nature of peace negotiations over Ukraine make success highly vulnerable to such powerful external influences. The United States backed Ukraine in a confrontational approach to the civil war in Donbas instead of supporting the terms of the Minsk II agreement, and this has led to war with Russia. Now Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavosoglu, has told CNN Turk that unnamed NATO members “want the war to continue,” in order to keep weakening Russia.

Conclusion

How the United States and its NATO allies act now and in the coming months will be crucial in determining whether Ukraine is destroyed by years of war, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, or whether this war ends quickly through a diplomatic process that brings peace, security and stability to the people of Russia, Ukraine and their neighbors.

If the United States wants to help restore peace in Ukraine, it must diplomatically support peace negotiations, and make it clear to its ally, Ukraine, that it will support any concessions that Ukrainian negotiators believe are necessary to clinch a peace agreement with Russia.

Whatever mediator Russia and Ukraine agree to work with to try to resolve this crisis, the United States must give the diplomatic process its full, unreserved support, both in public and behind closed doors. It must also ensure that its own actions do not undermine the peace process in Ukraine as they did the Annan plan in Syria in 2012.

One of the most critical steps that U.S. and NATO leaders can take to provide an incentive for Russia to agree to a negotiated peace is to commit to lifting their sanctions if and when Russia complies with a withdrawal agreement. Without such a commitment, the sanctions will quickly lose any moral or practical value as leverage over Russia and will be only an arbitrary form of collective punishment against its people, and against poor people everywhere who can no longer afford food to feed their families. As the de facto leader of the NATO military alliance, the U.S. position on this question will be crucial.

So policy decisions by the United States will have a critical impact on whether there will soon be peace in Ukraine, or only a much longer and bloodier war. The test for U.S. policymakers, and for Americans who care about the people of Ukraine, must be to ask which of these outcomes U.S. policy choices are likely to lead to.

*

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.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from cdn.zeebiz.com

Sweden and Finland Hastily Preparing to Join NATO

April 28th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

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

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

***

It seems that, in fact, despite all the warnings issued by geopolitical experts, Sweden and Finland are planning to go ahead with an application for membership in NATO. This would be a serious strategic mistake, as it would make both countries hostile to Russia, severely damaging the stability of local international relations on the European continent. There is still time for Swedish and Finnish decision-makers to reverse this scenario, but it remains to be seen whether defending the national interests of their own countries is really a priority for them.

Finland and Sweden will jointly express their desire to join NATO in May, reported  on April 25, the newspapers “Iltalehti” in Finland and “Expressen” in Sweden, citing sources allegedly close to the officials who decide on the matter. According to Iltalehti, the leaders of Finland and Sweden plan to meet in the week of May 16 and then publicly announce their plans to apply to join the Western military alliance.

Furthermore, the Swedish Aftonbladet claimed, citing sources possibly inside the Swedish government offices, that

“The Government has received information from the US and the UK, in particular, on what protection and support might look like during a possible application process… This includes strong political support from NATO countries, in-depth exercises, the expansion of NATO’s presence in the Baltic Sea region, in-depth intelligence cooperation and expert support to identify and counter hybrid, cyber and conventional threats”.

The Swedish and Finnish politicians refused to respond to the news, maintaining provisional confidentiality on the case, given the strategic and delicate content of the matter. However, in previous situations, interest in the application had already been shown. Finland’s Prime Minister Sanna Marin said a few days ago, while visiting her Swedish counterpart Magdalena Andersson, that she expected Finland to make its decision to apply for NATO membership within weeks, for example.

Furthermore, on the part of the Swedes, it is important to remember that a broad reform of Stockholm’s defense policy is currently underway in order to reverse the country’s historic pacifism and formulate the bases for a new national military ideology, in which NATO will possibly have some degree of participation.

While the possible adhesion is discussed internally and the media speculates the most likely outcome, some steps further in cooperation are already being taken. The Finnish Navy has announced the start of a series of joint military exercises with NATO, to be held between 28 and 29 April. Fleets from six countries are participating in the drills, which are taking place on the Archipelago Sea, which is part of the Baltic Sea surrounded by the Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Finland, and the Sea of Aland, within Finnish territorial waters. The step is important and truly symptomatic, indicating that regardless of the outcome of the membership discussion, relations between NATO and the Scandinavian countries will inevitably increase.

In fact, it seems quite evident that for any country with historical neutrality, faced with a conflict in its neighborhood, the best thing to do is precisely to remain neutral. If the disputed interests in the international conflicts around Sweden and Finland do not concern the Scandinavian world, but the delimitation of the Russian and Western strategic environments, the only rational solution seems to be simply to preserve historical pacifism and abdicate from joining either side.

The problem, however, is that the Scandinavian countries seem to be heavily affected by Western anti-Russian paranoia and now fear that the conflict in Ukraine is the start of some sort of “indiscriminate war” by Russia against all European countries. The Swedish and Finnish governments themselves, which should have a rational and strategic stance in the face of geopolitical events, seem to act irrationally, adhering to unsubstantiated accusations and meaningless fears implemented by Western media agencies.

This argument is also supported by Erkki Tuomioja himself – a major name in Finnish political scenario, who has served as a foreign minister under several governments and remains a political influencer in Finland. He believes his country is in a state of “war psychosis”: “Public opinion plays a big role in this, but there is also this ingrained fear, which is actually fueled by our media, which is in a state of war psychosis (…)”. He is also against NATO membership: “[Joning NATO will damage the] very pragmatic relationship in terms of logistics, environment and regional cooperation between Russian and Finland (…)”. However, he fears the impact of the war psychosis on public debate: “I’m also concerned about the level of the public debate. Anybody who questions membership is being vilified as a Putin agent”.

Faced with this scenario, the issue seems simple for Scandinavian countries: defend strategic interests and cooperate for stability in Europe or join paranoias, assuming a hostile posture towards Russia and harming continental peace. It is a choice to be made.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

 

With each passing day, it is becoming more evident that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, and words that would have been considered the height of self-destructive folly just a few years ago, are becoming normalized in today’s political discourse.

The most radical elements, including certain members of congress, are calling for sending U.S. troops to Ukraine where they would join U.K. troops who are already on the ground “training” combatants. This of course means NATO forces are being put directly into harm’s way despite the risk of activating the “Collective Security Pact” at a moment’s notice pulling the entire 29 nation alliance into an active conflict with nuclear Russia.

Instead of using diplomacy in search of a way out, NATO and even some non-NATO countries are sending huge amounts of weapons to Ukraine which only amplifies the needless killing. Actually, the flow of Western weapons and military advisers to Ukraine started many years before the current crisis.

As each day edges us closer to the unthinkable, meaning WWIII with the use of nuclear weapons, it is important, at least for the benefit of survivors and future historians, to correctly describe why our civilization has decided to commit suicide.

If only the famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion pledged by the U.S. Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev on Feb. 9, 1990, was honored, this entire catastrophe would have easily been avoided. Mr. Baker’s pledge was followed by an avalanche of other security assurances given by western leaders to Mr. Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification between 1990 and 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted by the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Under this paradigm, it was celebrated across Washington and Europe that “a new security architecture from Vancouver to Vladivostok” was upon us.

Sadly, that promise was short-lived, and within a short time, the process of NATO expansion was set into motion with the alliance gobbling up 13 more Eastern European states with targets on the Ukraine and Georgia. A younger and more lucid Joe Biden was then a senator who took an active part in this new conquest. He had a chance to fix this problem during the Obama years when Mr. Biden, as his VP, had a Ukrainian portfolio. Had this administration honestly proceeded with the announced reset there is no doubt that friendship and harmony of common interests could easily have been maintained. Instead, it facilitated a Maidan coup in February 2014 when Victoria “F—- the EU” Nuland found herself working alongside VP Biden overseeing a color revolution that ousted a democratically elected Ukrainian president, putting Ukraine back onto the fast track for NATO membership. Those who followed these events remember well how Ms. Nuland was discussing the composition of the new Ukrainian cabinet with the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt almost three weeks before the coup had actually taken place.

*

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.


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute  

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

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

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

***

After going a full administration without a new war to fill their coffers, the D.C. defense industry has finally found their next big prize. After dismissing the prospect of diplomacy between Ukraine and Russia, the Biden Administration continues to flood Ukraine with an endless supply of military hardware, while using extraconstitutional means to perpetually lengthen the size and scope of America’s involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war.

Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson had their time to shine, but now it’s the defense contractors’ time to hoover up all it can from the taxpayer-funded Beltway regime. Welcome back to your place in the spotlight, and hop on back aboard the U.S. taxpayer gravy train, Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed, and friends. There’s an ongoing inter slavic conflict 5,000 miles away from our shores, and the war machine is ready to eat.

On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin (who served on the board of Raytheon prior to his appointment) kicked off what he deemed a “historic meeting” of more than 40 allied countries, with the purported goal to “help Ukraine win the fight against Russia’s unjust invasion.”

And how exactly will Lloyd Austin accomplish such a task?

That will be pursued, according to the Pentagon’s brightest minds, through arming up Ukraine with an endless supply of military supplies, such as heavy weapons, vehicles, fighter jets and the like.

There will be plenty of near future opportunities to facilitate the flow of weapons to Ukraine, Sec Austin said during his comments. “The coming weeks will be so crucial for Ukraine, so we’ve got to move at the speed of war,” Austin added, explaining that this newly formed “Ukraine Security Consultive Group” will be meeting monthly. Yes, monthly. This “consultive group” will bring together the defense industries of 40 allied countries in order to inundate Ukraine — which is the most corrupt country in Europe — with Western arms and aid.

The Biden Pentagon and its friends have ambitious plans for Ukraine, acknowledging that Kiev will be leveraged as the tip of the spear in this apparent fight against Russia. On Tuesday, the U.S. defense chief pledged that Russia will be “weakened to the degree that it cannot do the kinds of things it has done.”

In respect for America’s 21st century foreign policy tradition, the White House is operating with complete disregard for the U.S. Constitution. Congress did not declare war on Russia, yet the Biden Administration has announced a blank check policy to actively participate in a war occurring in the Russia-Ukraine border region. Over $4 billion dollars worth of weapons have already flooded into Ukraine over the course of 2 months. Artillery, unmanned drones, Raytheon-made javelins, you name it. It’s all going to Kiev.

There seems to be no transparency or tracking mechanism in place for the warp speed weapons deliveries. The Biden Administration has already acknowledged that they have no idea where the weapons are ending up once they enter Ukraine.

*

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: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, left, shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin during their meeting in Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, October 19, 2021. [Source: cbs17.com]

Former NATO Commander Disguises War Propaganda as Novel

April 28th, 2022 by Patrick MacFarlane

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

 

 

On March 9, 2021, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Admiral James Stavridis, co-authored a fiction novel with Elliott Ackerman, another former U.S. military officer. The book, entitled 2034: A Novel of the Next World War, imagines a kinetic war between the United States and China.

Given the pedigree of its authorship, the novel provides a compelling window into the psychology of NATO’s military leadership and, correspondingly, the foreign policy establishment behind it. To those familiar with said psychology, the events of the novel will not be surprising.

It begins with a Chinese ambush of a U.S. vessel in the South China Sea; an Iranian capture of a U.S. pilot; a full scale naval battle between the U.S. and China (resulting in a total U.S. defeat); and a Russian invasion of Poland. The novel concludes with a limited nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China.

Given the last few decades’ hawkish hand wringing about Chinese and Russian cyber capabilities, the tactics employed in the novel are similarly unsurprising. A Chinese cyberattack disables U.S. hardware, allowing the naval rout. The Iranians, as allies of Russia and China, similarly disable U.S. aircraft. For their part, the Russians slice underwater communications cables leading to a complete internet blackout in the West.

To an uncritical reader, the novel appears to be a “cautionary tale” and a “warning” against global conflict. The novel’s dust jacket states:

Everything in 2034 is an imaginative extrapolation from present-day facts on the ground combined with the authors’ years working at the highest and most classified levels of national security. Sometimes it takes a brilliant work of fiction to illuminate the most dire of warnings: 2034 is all too close at hand, and this cautionary tale presents the reader a dark yet possible future that we must do all we can to avoid.

Mainstream outlets were as successful in their attempts to paint 2034 as a “warning” as their reviews were cringeworthy.

Wired, which ran a series of exclusive pre-print excerpts, had this to say:

WIRED HAS ALWAYS been a publication about the future—about the forces shaping it, and the shape we’d like it to take. Sometimes, for us, that means being wild-eyed optimists, envisioning the scenarios that excite us most. And sometimes that means taking pains to envision futures that we really, really want to avoid.

By giving clarity and definition to those nightmare trajectories, the hope is that we can give people the ability to recognize and divert from them. Almost, say, the way a vaccine teaches an immune system what to ward off. And that’s what this issue of WIRED is trying to do…

Consider this another vaccine against disaster. Fortunately, this dose won’t cause a temporary fever—and it happens to be a rippingly good read. Turns out that even cautionary tales can be exciting, when the future we’re most excited about is the one where they never come true.

The Washington Post’s review was almost worse.

This crisply written and well-paced book reads like an all-caps warning to a world shackled to the machines we carry in our pockets and place in our laps, while only vaguely understanding how the information stored in and shared by those devices can be exploited. We have grown numb to the latest data breach—was it a pollical campaign (Hillary Clinton’s), or one of the country’s biggest credit-rating firms (Equifax), or a hotel behemoth (Marriott), or a casual-sex hookup site (Adult Friend Finder), or government departments updating their networks with the SolarWinds system (U.S. Treasury and Commerce)?

In “2034,” it’s as if Ackerman and Stavridis want to grab us by our lapels, give us a slap or two, and scream: Pay attention! George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece, “Nineteen Eighty-four: A Novel” was published 35 years before 1984. Ackerman’s and Stavridis’s book takes place in the not-so-distant future when today’s high school military recruits will just be turning 30.

Between Wired’s ham-handed COVID-19 vaccine analogy and the CIA Washington Post’s ironic Orwell reference, the mainstream marketing campaign clearly attempts to portray the novel as a cautionary tale.

It is impossible to gaze into the hearts of men, but we do have some clues. Those clues suggest that the co-authors really do seek to warn against war with China. However, in doing so, they advocate for it. Indeed, their warning is not against the folly of empire, but against a rising China.

Ultimately the co-authors’ MacBethian premonition of conflict necessitates escalatory U.S. policy.

On March 18, 2021, the pair were interviewed by NPR. Stavridis had this to say:

…a subtext in all of this [the novel] is to strike a warning bell about the rise of China and the propensity in human history going back 2,500 years almost any time a [sic] established power is challenged by a rising power, it leads to war. It’s a dangerous moment. And 15 years from now, I think, will be a moment of maximum danger because China will have advanced in its military capability and technology. Therefore, our military deterrent will somewhat decline. We’re standing in the danger, as we say in the Navy.

Ackerman embraces this view:

…and we’re not only sounding the alarm bell, but the book is also trying to situate where America is in this moment of 2034.

Further, the pair assert they do not believe in the American decline.

Interviewer (to both): “…do you believe this, that America will be the author of its own destruction?”

Stavridis: “I believe there are many in the world who do believe that. I personally do not…there are many in the world who believe our best days are somehow behind us. They would be miscalculating, in my view, to believe that.”

Ackerman: “I would add I am by no way a believer in the decline of America. And I am very much committed to the idea of the American ideal. That being said, looking back throughout our entire history, the greatest threat is us turning inward and destroying that ideal. Lincoln himself said – I’m paraphrasing, but basically said that if America is going to destroy itself, we will be the author and the finisher. And I think he says, a nation of free men will live forever or die by suicide. And I don’t think that’s Lincoln being a declinist about the United States. But I think it’s him recognizing that our divisiveness can oftentimes be the greatest threat and what leaves us the most unable to respond to challenges from outside the country.”

Indeed, a reader would be hard pressed to find any point where the co-authors suggest any strategy short of increasing military confrontation with China.

Instead, they warn that America must be more united against an outside threat. It must, by implication, build up its military force, and, oddly enough, confront Chinese technological advances with less reliance on our own technology.

Stavridis expanded on his China policy prescriptions in a June 2021 interview:

The South China Sea is a vital entry point for the United States today. It’s a massive body of water full of oil and gas as well as fisheries, and about 40 percent of global trade passes through it.

So, there are strong strategic reasons, as the United States values its alliances in Asia, to push back against Chinese claims.

It is not just the South China Sea but also the East China Sea, where the Senkaku Islands lie, that are vital to American interests as long as our allies operate there and trade flows through there.

And above all we simply as an international community cannot acquiesce to China’s preposterous claims, which have been rejected by international law.

Indeed, a number one red line would be an attack against our allies.

For example, if China attacked and tried to forcibly take the Senkaku Islands, that would be a red line for the United States. Or an attack against the Philippines, another treaty ally of the United States. An attack against any treaty allies would be the number one red line.

A second red line would be trying to attack U.S. military personnel operating in the South China Sea.

We conduct what we call “freedom of navigation patrols.” These are our warships sailing through international waters such as the South China Sea.

If China were to attack a U.S. ship to attempt to demonstrate their view that they own the South China Sea, that would be a red line. In fact, the book “2034” opens with an attack involving U.S. military personnel being killed in the South China Sea.

Stavridis believes that the U.S. must continue to devote itself to entangling alliances, against which the founding fathers warned. The U.S. must also continue to press its presence in the South China Sea.

Despite resolutely warning against a war against China, Stavridis commits the U.S. to myriad tripwires that would ignite it.

These China policy positions parallel Stavridis’ positions on Ukraine. It’s always more, more, more.

More funding, arming, and training Ukrainians, more U.S. commitment to NATO, more U.S. weaponization of Big Tech, more money to the U.S. State Department, more interagency cooperation, and more silencing dissent. These positions are escalatory. At the very least, they flirt with making Washington a direct party to the War in Ukraine. They may give Russia reason to attack U.S. and NATO forces.

Given Russia’s nuclear footing, these policies pose an existential threat to humanity itself.

Indeed, it will always be a mystery how the hawks convinced the American public that the path to peace leads through war. Perhaps those of us who survive the inevitable result of this mantra can ponder the answer while painting on the cave walls.

*

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 TLI

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

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

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

***

Pentagon and top State Department officials have insisted this week that the US and NATO are not fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, but then we get bombshell reports like the following out of NBC, with unnamed defense and intelligence officials positively boasting about the damage being done to the invading forces, including shooting “hundreds” of paratroopers out of the sky who were in a Il-76 military transport plane

“As Russia launched its invasion, the U.S. gave Ukrainian forces detailed intelligence about exactly when and where Russian missiles and bombs were intended to strike, prompting Ukraine to move air defenses and aircraft out of harm’s way, current and former U.S. officials told NBC News.”

And then comes this stunning admission:

“That near real-time intelligence-sharing also paved the way for Ukraine to shoot down a Russian transport plane carrying hundreds of troops in the early days of the war, the officials say, helping repel a Russian assault on a key airport near Kyiv,” NBC writes.

The revelation comes almost two months after in early March Biden administration officials divulged to the press the the United States was sharing real-time intelligence with Ukraine. Apparently these efforts have not only greatly expanded at this point, but are possibly resulting in significant battlefield losses for Russia.

The NBC report continues,

“It was part of what American officials call a massive and unprecedented intelligence-sharing operation with a non-NATO partner that they say has played a crucial role in Ukraine’s success to date against the larger and better-equipped Russian military.”

Within the very opening days of the invasion, Ukrainian forces had claimed a major battlefield victory in shooting down a Russian Il-76 Candid airlifter which was operating outside of Kiev. While it’s unclear whether the US officials quoted in the NBC report are referring to that specific alleged shootdown incident (the Russian Defense Ministry has tended to chalk up such transport plane downings as mechanical failures as its official line) – it may have resulted in the deaths of dozens or even up to a couple hundred Russian paratroopers.

On Feb.26 a second transport plane was reportedly downed, with the AP detailing at the time, “A second Russian Ilyushin Il-76 military transport plane was shot down near Bila Tserkva, 50 miles (85 kilometers) south of Kyiv, according to two American officials with direct knowledge of conditions on the ground in Ukraine.”

As for specifics the NBC report only had this to say:

NBC News is withholding some specific details that the network confirmed about the intelligence sharing at the request of U.S. military and intelligence officials, who say reporting on it could help the Russians shut down important sources of information.

“There has been a lot of real-time intelligence shared in terms of things that could be used for specific targeting of Russian forces,” said a former senior intelligence official familiar with the situation. The information includes commercial satellite images “but also a lot of other intelligence about, for example, where certain types of Russian units are active.”

Another anonymous official divulged that US-provided intelligence has indeed made “a major difference” in the war. And Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said this week the US wants to see a “weakened Russia”.

“It’s been impactful both at a tactical and strategic level. There are examples where you could tell a pretty clear story that this made a major difference,” the official was quoted as saying. But ironically the report came out simultaneous to the Pentagon insisting that no, it’s not a proxy war

“We’re not in a fight with Russia,” Austin told Fox News in an interview that aired on Tuesday. “Ukraine is in a current struggle with Russia.”

Despite the amount of security aide provided to Ukraine, Austin insisted that the conflict is not turning into a proxy war.

“It’s not, this is clearly Ukraine’s fight,” Austin said when asked if the conflict in Ukraine might turn into a proxy war. “Ukraine’s neighbors and allies and partners are stepping up to make sure that they have what they need in order to be successful.”

But obviously there’s a disconnect when this is the official US line, while at the same time anonymous officials are leaking to the press that US intelligence is helping Ukraine shoot down plane-loads of paratroopers. And already Russia is increasingly threatening possible more direct confrontation with the West, warning that any external weapons shipments will be taken out.

*

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 Drive